I’m not reading this whole fucking thread, so forgive me if this is redundant, but who gives a screaming shit if anyone has taken anything back? – “Oh, I was wrong, I can see it now.”
Too fucking little, too fucking late – the war and its consequences are irreversible. You’re all fucking cunts, now fuck off.
You may well be right, Dewey but its not quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
Item: The known repugnance of the Bushiviks for anything with Clinton’s fingerprints on it.
Item: The reluctance on the part of the Bushiviks to release information to the committee investigating 9/11. The even greater reluctance to extend that committees authorization. Had it not been for the public clamoring of the victim’s families, we wouldn’t even know what we know now. Which ain’t much.
Now, preventing access to information does not necessarily prove malign “cover-up”. On the other hand, if the record would show strenuous and vigorous efforts on the part of the Bushiviks, can anyone doubt that the information would find its way into the public record? Considering how easily info that shows thier opponents in a bad light finds its way into Mr. Novak’s or Mr. Drudge’s hands?
Could any policy have prevented 9/11? Thats hard to know, but to this day, I’m utterly astounded that the simple expedient of locking the goddam door to the pilot’s cabin was not adopted until afterwards. After what? thirty years of airplane hijacking? Thats not stupid, that’s flat-line brain-dead.
But still…if they don’t want you to see something, there’s usually a reason. There may be a desperately important national security reason why the White House briefing minutes (more than two years old, at this point) should not be viewed by the general public.
But I find it difficult to swallow that they could not be viewed by someone trusted by both sides. Just because someone won’t let you see something doesn’t prove they’re hiding something. But it does bring a bad odor, don’t you think?
Here’s yer hat, there’s the door. We’ll miss you. Buh-bye!
elucidator: nothing you just pointed has the slightest damned bit of relevance to the validity of the absurd claim that Clinton took actions that somehow protected us from 9-11. If you’re going to put Mr. Clinton on a pedastal as High Lord Protector of the US, you should be able to back that up with a clear description of what Mr. Clinton did, exactly, to make us safe that Mr. Bush did not.
I’ve thought your post, panicked, reported myself to the mods, thought about it some more, and I think you’re wrong.
My paraphrase. My fault. Sorry, man.
Please revise to read:
None-the-less, like Brutus’s analysis that the war is motivated primarily by oil, your view that the war is motivated by the Big Dawg approach to the world, devoid of any hypocrisy about brutality to his own people and the blessings of democracy, is most refreshing.
Indeed, that would be necessary if I were making such a claim. Can you point out where I did? You’re operating under the delusion that all of my ilk (got ilk?) are enraptured and adoring of the Big Dog. Ain’t so.
When he flew back to Arkansas to sign off on the execution of a brain-damaged man in order to bolster his “crime” credentials, he showed his primary colors.
My whore has less obvious running sores and STDs than yours. That’s about it.
Airman, I was pointing out that the Iraq-9/11 terrorism connection is an insinuation. Facts being lacking, and those things presented as fact having been shown to be immaterial or forged, few are presented anymore. But our interlocutor is repeating the same groundless insinuation as Bush and the RW commentariat, not only in the quote given, but elsewhere. He’s previously asserted in GD that he’s glad we’re getting the bastards so they don’t do it again, but has similarly refused to back that up. So there’s a little more history to the Usual Weasel than a single post would suggest. Your apology is accepted.
Dewey, there’s obviously no way to be sure what would or would not have happened; don’t assume everyone is dense enough to buy that argument. But the chances of 9/11 or something similar happening with an aware and alert administration, not one asleep at the switch, are obviously lower.
lokij, coupla points. First, the world’s knowledge that Bush cannot be trusted as much as the usual lying pol has certainly played a role in preventing him from getting even peacekeeping forces from anywhere else into Iraq to relieve the load. More broadly, it has helped end all the nonsense about going into Syria and Iran and North Korea next, hasn’t it? Even if the forces were available, he couldn’t get support for that with all his wolfcrying.
Second, to expand on that, not all lies are equivalent. There’s a spectrum, including everyday buttcovering lies with only personal consequences, and starting wars that kill thousands of people. Pols are expected, and not only by cynics like yourself, to fall somewhere on the line, but not too far. Bush is too far. His lies are on the villain level, not the pol level.
cedric45, there is no cite possible, obviously, so you won’t be asked for one, but still, you’d help yourself quite a bit by clarifying what could plausibly be worse than our present situation. Or you could just be another partisan yammerer.
Mr. Svinlesha: “For example, I condemn Clinton’s completely unprovoked attack on Niger, which was also a violation of the UN Charter. Elvis and I have even bumped heads over that issue.” Can I assume you meant Sudan? If so, we’ve never “bumped heads”; we’ve “had a frank exchange of views”. Otherwise, you’ve done a wonderful job here and I applaud you.
elucidator: “Damn! That is soooo Iowa! You are a really colorful, expressive bunch! We should really stop making fun of your cheerleaders for thier grazing habits.” Come now, you Minnesoot’ns already won Floyd of Rosedale this year - rubbing it in would be unneighborly.
Previous to Dewey. Damn, this thread cooks! 8 pages long, and still blistering! Wow!
Was it Groucho who said about the massive attendance of a Hollywood creeps funeral: “Give the people want they want, and they’ll be there!”?
Elvis Sarcastic? [Miss Piggy]* Moi? *[/MP]
Not at all. Compared to Minnesotans, Iowans are a colorful, bombastic bunch. In the presence of Texans, of course, they faint dead and have to be carried off.
In the case of preventing 9/11 my impression has been that no administration is blameless.
“Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” – Confucius
As one of the reports on 9/11 censored mostly the connections with Saudi-Arabia, I still think we did good in Afghanistan, we failed in Iraq (focus, focus, I am talking about the war on terror not the war on Saddam, two things that are different to me after so much info read before), and we have a Bush to blame.
I always think the supporters of this administration, think that Bush has a motto in his desk that says: “The buck stopped with Clinton”
No they didn’t. The bronze pig emblematic of victory in the Iowa-Minnesota football game is right where it belongs. It’s in Iowa City.
So elucidator, you’ve read my reply to your “buh-bye” post. What’s your fucking problem?
That’s been explained right in this very thread. That you don’t like the answer doesn’t change it: Clinton was on it, in a big way. He passed everything over to the new guy, who promptly dropped the ball so he could focus on the really important stuff, like making sure the Hilton sisters won’t have to pay any “death taxes” when they inherit.
Bush is a dangerous fucking asshole, period. The world is much less stable and far less safe, and his little diversion into Iraq was NEVER EVER about “terrorism”. He had that on his agenda long before election day, and as nauseating as it sounds (and certainly eone will puff up and faint when I say this, but it’s the goddamn truth), as far as getting his fucked up agenda pushed through, 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to Bush. The fact that he saw it and seized upon it as exactly that is stomach turning. That any decent person still can’t see that clearly enough to thank the good lord we’ve got the means to escape this madman next year astonishes me, truly.
Thank you so much. I am up to here with cons saying “Oh, pshaw…we hated Clinton, now you hate Bush, it’s all the same thing…” They wish.
There’s no question I’m partisan, and there’s also no question that Bush is bad fucking news for the whole world, and pretty much anyone would be an improvement.
(I get little bits and pieces every day that give me hope for the future. A friend’s father, a hardcore, no-room-for-doubt Bush-lovin’ Texan called his son about a month ago and said the following: “Son, I don’t want you to say a thing, but I thought I’d let you know: that sonofabitch in the White House is a dangerous man and we need to boot his ass outta there as soon as possible.” The scales are falling from their eyes…)
And now I’d like to step up and say a word for ** Airman Doors ** : lay the hell off him. He’s shown himself to be very fair minded. He’s a good guy and he’s come a very long way across hostile territory. Give him a break.
I read your posts and I only got the impression that ALL people in this thread were cunts. Of course, since I believe in context, why are you posting here? 
Doh! To prevent confusion and offence, that was supossed to be:
The Great Unwashed: I read your posts and I only got the impression that you said that ALL “people in this thread were cunts”.
Really, GIGObuster? Must be a “me” thing – I thought the context perfectly obvious : “You (the hawks) are all fucking cunts.”
Mea culpa. (Maybe.)
It’s so strange to me that brits use 'cunt" for either gender…
Agreed, Chesney Hawks is most certainly a cunt.
This thread is suddenly developing a Bikers vs. Hippies vibe. And I’m having a Peter Fonda moment . . .
Let’s see here. Part of the problem is not locking the pilot’s cabin door for the last 30 years. Clinton was President for 8 of those years, while Bush was President for less than 8 months before 9/11. But it’s still Bush’s fault, got it.
:rolleyes: