Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The US has 12 times the population of Iraq. You think only 1200 Iraqis died in the war last year? I think it was far more than that -- and reliable sources already cited in this thread show far more than 16000, too.

Though Club apparently ignores the numbers he doesn't like, I will repeat that according to the study published in The Lancet, it is 95% likely that the number of deaths in Iraq resulting from the war exceeded 98,000. And that's a few months old now, although it's not just murders.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Hey Neil, you traitor, maybe if your main man Clinton had taken bin laden out when he had the chances instead of bombing aspirin factories or shooting cruise missiles up camel's asses we would have never seen 9-11. Oh, but wait, he was doing more important things in the Oval Office, right?

Wouldn't the more appropriate time to take on Iraq have been in '91, when there was a Republican with a vaguely familiar name in the White House and a distinct tactical advantage?

But you go ahead and keep up with our Clinton obssession. Because it's so productive.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The "fringe" of your party fielded several presidential candidates in 2004.

The fringe of your party elected one. Unfortunately, they dragged far too many of the rational with them.

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What Rove said wasn't true.

Cite, please?

Otherwise, if you substitute the name Dean every place you have the name Rove, your post is an accurate reflection of the chair of the Democratic National Committee. Of course, SAM wiill say he's not really mainstream and Sidd will say he didn't win the majority of the Deomcratic primaries, and Ty, like the New York Times, will simply refuse to acknowledge that Dean has every said anything objectionable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
I will criticize his perjury, in both depositions and in a motion that was placed before a federal judge, for what it was until the end of my life.

Good for you. As I said, I'm no big fan of Bill, but we voters elected him to be President, a job which includes being Commander in Chief of the military, and you and fellow blow-job obsessed Republicans were so intent on talking about blow jobs and semen-stained dresses that you did not exactly support the fellow when he tried to take out Osama bin Laden. So keep talking about blow jobs if you like, but don't complain that he wasn't doing more to fight terrorism, since you guys weren't exactly standing with him as he tried to defend the country. You had other priorities.

He had two obvious chances after the first WTC boimbing to get or take out bin laden. In one, he refused to take custody of him, in the other he shot a camel in the ass. He failed us.

If you believe this, you are misinformed. You should stop posting for a while and read The Age Of Sacred Terror, and then you should come back here and apologize for the ignorant things you are saying. Get your facts straight, man.

Bush had 8 months to make up for what Clinton couldn't do in 8 years. I think your criticism is misplaced.

Demoting Richard Clarke and ignoring counterterrorism policy wasn't exactly making up for anything, except perhaps for the nation's shocking failure to waste enough money on a useless missile defense system. Bush did nothing in those months to stop Al Qaeda.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Cite, please?

Otherwise, if you substitute the name Dean every place you have the name Rove, your post is an accurate reflection of the chair of the Democratic National Committee. Of course, SAM wiill say he's not really mainstream and Sidd will say he didn't win the majority of the Deomcratic primaries, and Ty, like the New York Times, will simply refuse to acknowledge that Dean has every said anything objectionable.

What has Dean said that compares to Rove's recent comments?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mr. Steve, that's just not true. You can explain something without defending it.

Perhaps, but there is implicit defense that can be inferred from the first three statements and you know it. Any one of those first three statements (and you can add to that list my senator's comment a few years back about how bin laden was beloved in the ME because he spent so much time and money building schools and feeding people etc -I dont want to google it) sets a bad tone in the backdrop of an attack on our country that killed 3000 people and is fodder for the enemy to justify that and further attacks.

Rove's comment draws attention to that bad tone. Let the guilty step forward and justify their comments, if they can.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Boy, it's fun to be lectured about moral relativism by a libertarian.

I'm not a strict adherent to any doctrine.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
I will criticize his perjury, in both depositions and in a motion that was placed before a federal judge, for what it was until the end of my life. It's crime. It's also indicative of character. If you will commit a crime (whatever your arguably justifiable personal motives or however inconsequential some may argue it is) I think that speaks to your character and I think for the office of President the American people should debate what type of character that they want in that person. While I don't care about the sex thing as a sex act, for many people for good reason that is also a character issue and again I think its relevant. Some would argue, with merit, that the propensity to commit infidelity is relevant to how one might honor other oaths that one might make. Also, the fact that he was a complete dumbshit about the Lewinsky affair, speaks to his judgment. I would bet Clinton screwed dozens of women while in office, but I would also bet the supermajority of those incidents did not take place with a 20 yo intern in the workplace. Lousy judgment. What does that say about his common sense and how he might engage himself in other areas where his judgment is called for? (such as judging whether or not pushing a mideast peace treaty at the end of his term for his own legacy purposes might be detrimental to the continued existence of Israel).

Going back to the topic, Clinton was the President. He was elected to be a leader, not follow the public opinion polls or base his actions on what the VRWC might say. Lead. He had two obvious chances after the first WTC boimbing to get or take out bin laden. In one, he refused to take custody of him, in the other he shot a camel in the ass. He failed us. Bush had 8 months to make up for what Clinton couldn't do in 8 years. I think your criticism is misplaced.

So then Bush's lies about WMD are okay because he wasn't under oath? Is it only a character issue of there's litigation involved? Or is deliberate mischaracterization by the Nation's leader in order to serve his agenda acceptable to you?

This sounds a lot like moral relativism to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What has Dean said that compares to Rove's recent comments?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What has Dean said that compares to Rove's recent comments?

Wow, here's a nutty one:

"As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to die in a foreign land without telling the truth about why they're going there."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, let's start with the fact that it's not our territory.

If you can get past the imperialism argument (and I can, by the way) then the real issues are only (i) are we committed to spend the money and lose the lives necessary to stay; and (ii) are we prepared for the tax increases necessary to pay for it?

That's fair, on the first. Although I'm not sure whose territory it is. Saddam's? What is his claim of right to it--certainly not democratic elections. It belongs to the people, generally speaking, who inhabit it. And the choice they face is having Saddam run the place or us run the place, at least for a time.

Agree on i and ii, which are both fair questions, but really concern only the cost to americans, not iraqis.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Wow, here's a nutty one:

"As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to die in a foreign land without telling the truth about why they're going there."

Another doozy:


"I supported the war in Afghanistan because 3000 of our people were murdered and I thought we had a right to defend the people of the United States."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Another doozy:


"I supported the war in Afghanistan because 3000 of our people were murdered and I thought we had a right to defend the people of the United States."

And another:



"I supported the first Gulf War because one of our Allies was attacked and I believe we had the right; the responsibility to defend them."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Cite, please?

Otherwise, if you substitute the name Dean every place you have the name Rove, your post is an accurate reflection of the chair of the Democratic National Committee. Of course, SAM wiill say he's not really mainstream and Sidd will say he didn't win the majority of the Deomcratic primaries, and Ty, like the New York Times, will simply refuse to acknowledge that Dean has every said anything objectionable.

Take a look at the Congressional vote on Afghanistan.

And what the fuck does Dean have to do with what Rove is saying? Either Rove is full of shit or he isn't. I say he is.

As for Dean's actions since becoming the head of the Democratic Party, I don't like the job he's doing. He ought to do what Jon Stewart told him to do last night on the Daily: quit the fucking whining about how bad the Republicans are and start announcing every single day what the Dems would do differently.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm sure we could finance part of it with that. Of course, since the American people are the largest consumers of that oil, wouldn't that just be a hidden tax, with a decent profit for Halliburton, Chevron/Texaco and the other majors built in?

User taxes bother me less than income or wealth based taxes. The vast majority of Americans have public transportation options but eschew them to indulge in the benefits of cheap oil. All the liberals here rant and rave about how Bush is killing the environment (along with innocent terrorists) but the public buses, trains, rideshare programs et al are utilized at something less than 30% of capacity. I see more SUVs here than in any other place I have ever lived (although in fairness that is also a prodduct of the fact that SUVs continue to become more popular generally). the green faced treehugging liberals are the worst hypocrats I have ever seen.

Also, going back to the first sentence, to some extent I am for raising gas taxes, especially if the money was earmarked for purposes in furtherance of the public good. Like killing our terrorist enemies and furthering our superpower rule over the world.