That statement proves that you do not know your butt apart from a burnt biscuit. Bush is not a coward, nor is he a pseudo-intellectual. You’re simply playing the liberal slander game: if you yell it loud enough and often enough, then magically it will become true.
Great, just what the country needs. Another asshole lawyer.
Yeah, I s’pose. But the “War on Terror” was actually well under way before that September event. Remember all the hand-wringing postulation, from many quarters, that 9/11 was perpetrated as retribution? If that’s true, and even if it’s not, the U.S. must have been doing something Al Qaeda thought it needed to retaliate against.
I was under the impression that a lot of them joined for free education or come from an area with little or no chances of advancement?
How lucky you are to have an army of selfless heroes solely dedicated to “freedom”.
They do. That and to “Kill a Commie for Mommy.” Higwayman is just blustering nonsense. But you already know that.
Ahh those Mommies and their Commie killing needs. Ya gotta love them.
Maommie?
Nah, I prefer Burger King-at least they are honest about their decadence.
And what happened on 11/9–or is that a very funny typo?
I don’t see how one party can own all the ideals of a country.
The main argument from AQ has been to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia, as a prelude to getting them out of the entire M.E. I don’t see how that is a retribution against previous “War on Terrorism” acts by the US.
No typo. TwistofFate is one a them European-types; Irish specifically. Lives in, or around Dublin, if I’m not mistaken.
But the U.S. troops in the M.E. are there ostensibly to protect U.S. interests from regional instability which is fueled largerly by . . . terrorism. No?
Ostensibly, perhaps. But the US troops went to SA to protect their oilfields (and the Gulf-region oil oligopsony) from Saddam, not from terrorism.
There has been “war on terrorists” pretty much as long as there have been terrorists. UK has tried it in Northern Ireland, Israel in the Gazza strip, US is trying it in Afghanistan. But conventional forces never did have much use against terrorist tactics, and holding ground only gives them a larger area of opporation.
As for politics, it has always been a useful political tactic to define an enemy, it helps coalless otherwise dissperate groups within a party. But neo-cons and terrorists are not similar and so “two sides of the same coin” is a follish analogy. Shame some politician doesn’t declare war on hunger as their aim, it could generate just as much industry as war on terrorism does, and if handelled carefully could be just as effective at reducing the terrorist risk.
No. The US troops in Saudi Arabia were holdovers from the first Gulf War, which was about Saddam, not terrorism.
I’m not actually disputing your assertion about the WoT being older than 9/11/01. Especially as we look back, it’s natural for us to say: Well, the WoT really bagan on such-and-such a date, although it didn’t reach it’s present proportion until after the 9/11 attacks.
But I don’t think it’s correct to assume that the 9/11 attacks prove there must have been a WoT beforehand since those attacks were a retaliation.
***Back down from the euphoria of getting into law school. 
***
Sorry buddy, but shirking your duty to this country is cowardice especially coming from someone who is now so bellicose. Our heroic president was AWOL from his cushy stateside duty during the Vietnam war that his rich daddy got him. Unfortunately, documentary evidence (I.E. a “smoking gun”) is in short supply (which defies explanation given that the military is known for generating paperwork) but the secretary for Bush’s commanding officer states that that officer acknowledged this fact. Contrary to this evidence, Bush and his spin factory have not been able to produce ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE piece of evidence to refute these charges with the exception of ONE slack-jawed crossed-eyed dipshit who himself cannot produce any evidence to corroborate his statements.
I suppose you’re right, going to Yale or having an MBA from Harvard doesn’t make you an intellectual especially if you’re a rich cocksucker not their on merit but I am referring to the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle and the other “intellectuals” driving our foreign policy.
Speaking of which, it is not slander to state that those same Neo-Cons, Wolfowitz and Perle, were taught by Leo Strauss. I find their “ideas” not exactly credible; both Strauss on primary source text explication and his followers ideas on foreign policy. Therefore, I consider these people “pseudo-intellectuals” but that is my opinion and if you don’t like it, refute it with evidence and not pedantic arguments against my particular idiom or outright namecalling both of which are unimaginative and demonstrate your lack of couth.
The fact that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rice never wearing the uniform is particularly telling. Bush and Rumsfeld wore the uniform but neither saw actual combat. I suppose cowardly does not apply technically but given how John Kerry was treated during the last election, I will label them as such.
As far as stating something over and over again making it magically true, Republicans are the best at this. Look how many times Saddam’s procession of WMDs was mentioned. It wasn’t true. So I guess the fact that they are liars is apt as well.
The use of the term “BU$HCO”, as far as I’m concerned, is perfect for a regime that continuously puts the corporation above the American people. Let’s see, the new bankruptcy law, the “Clean Air” laws, letting the likes of Enron dictate our country’s energy policy, and so on and so forth. I believe that people like Bush and many in corporate America don’t really care about our country other than the fact that it is where the wealth in concentrated now. And you should talk about labels. “Liberal” is a dirty word to people like you and the continuous effort to re-brand something that merely means “those that believe in new ideas” shows that you are not above this. But hey you people are brilliant, an example of which is Lemur866’s tirade about Communism including a quote from a socialist.
But I suppose that you have a worldview constructed that makes mine seem idiotic. Well, this shows what an idiot you really are. It would be foolish to assume that one’s position is correct over another’s when these opposing position were formed subjectively and relative to one’s own experience. This is opinion, all of it and to boil it all down to something we can use and from which we can argue from is to ask whether BU$HCO is really effective in “winning” the war on terrorism. Because if this is their aim then they are doing a real shitty job of it. But if their aim is to perpetuate a worldwide conflict in order to perpetuate their own power, then this makes more sense.
Does terrorism stop when we win the hearts and minds (or at least diminish the hatred) of the people of the Middle East or does it stop when we wage unjustified war (Iraq, not Afghanistan) against them? This is what I’m referring to. Bin Laden wants to bring us down because he hates (along with the rest of the M.E.) the effects of globalism and the subsequent lose of their culture. He orchestrates 9/11 which has the effect of causing us to shut down our free society in many ways, costs us in extra security that will have a deleterious effect on our nation that will weaken our economy in the long run, and moves his marginal place in M.E. society to the dead center. So you see, the current foreign policy of this country goes against common sense. And I’m the idiot? You fuckwit. So being that BU$HCO isn’t exactly stupid (some would disagree), why then do you wish to go against the logical objectives? Oh yeah, to spread democracy. That’s great! If you believe that then you’re more of an asshat than I thought. If we were so concerned about “democracy” why are our best friends military strongmen and corrupt aristocracies?
So now that we have examined the rationale of those guiding our foreign policy, what could be the reason for doing what we have done in the M.E. because winning the war of terrorism doesn’t seem to be the objective.
I simply have no reply to your statement, save for the fact that John Mace is clearly projecting tactics of his party onto the big bad liberals Everything else, you said better then I would have.
Very indeed.
Hey thanks Scott Plaid… Some encouragement is a nice change from being insulted all the time by some of the other posters. 
I am? Please show me exactly where that is, and while you’re at it, what is my party?
You are quite welcome, Highwayman, but: :smack: Martin Hyde. I meant to say “Martin Hyde is clearly projecting tactics of his party onto the big bad liberals”, not John Mace. Sorry. I am a :wally
Isn’t that how we got into this war in the first place. Only it wasn’t true.
As long as we’re playing this game:
Of course the adminstration is made up of a pack of cowards. They all found ways to get our of Vietnam, didn’t they? They all had ‘more important things’. Rummy was teaching an oh-so-essential course, and so on… This alone wouldn’t make them cowards, self preservation is a perfectly acceptable motivation. What does make them intellectual cowards and chickenhawks to boot is that they want others to make the sacrifice that they refused to. If that isn’t intellectual cowardice, I don’t know what is.
“It’s important to serve your country and give your life for what your leaders say, but when it was my turn, I wasn’t up for it. But you should be! Yep… please sign on the dotted line and you’ll be shipped off to the quag, er, I mean, war. Yep, the war. On terror. In Iraq… Oh fuck it, just enlist, Haliburton is having trouble making ends meet.”
And no, they’re not pseudo-intellectuals, they don’t even bother to pretend. They’re the biggest bunch of anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-public debate fuckers I’ve ever seen.
I for one welcome our alien overlords …