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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not all adhere to the Miss Manners view of the "move up" on death.

That, or he's royalty.

Or Pope.

(Never, ever tell BRC that not everyone strictly adheres to the words of Miss Manners. That's peeing on her Koran.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised the Shias have yet to mount a massive response against the Sunnis and/or the foreign insurgents. You would think it would be a natural reaction.

2. I don't know how they would respond against the foreign terrorists, but I'm surprised that there haven't been more reprisal killings.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The bombers deliberately went after a group of children last week, too. Just children.

Yes. That would be the incident where bombers approached hundreds of children who were gathered around accepting toys and candy from an American serviceman and then blew themselves up. As appalling as that is, one major newspaper (in the US) snidely reported the incident as "hundreds of Iraqi children killed as American soldier hands out candy". I forget the exact headline but it had a definite "let them eat cake" suggestion.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

I don't know if this is relevant or if it's accurate, but it's interesting:

Studies: Most foreign fighters didn't wage terror before Iraq war

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3269420

[ltl/fb]

Because having had a week or so to ponder (and get numerous legal opinions, I'm sure), the formulation is:

"if anyone on [Bush's] staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will 'no longer work in my administration.'"

From yahoo.

What's "is" again?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Because having had a week or so to ponder (and get numerous legal opinions, I'm sure), the formulation is:

"if anyone on [Bush's] staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will 'no longer work in my administration.'"

From yahoo.

What's "is" again?

I'd be more interested in the definition of "work."

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(Never, ever tell BRC that not everyone strictly adheres to the words of Miss Manners. That's peeing on her Koran.)

Infidel!

Obviously, he's with the terrorists.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I don't know if this is relevant or if it's accurate, but it's interesting:

Studies: Most foreign fighters didn't wage terror before Iraq war

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3269420

It's definitely relevant and interesting. No idea if it's accurate, though I'm certain I can say who on this Board will say it's not.

On the other hand, I'm sure that they were all considering working on programs of terror before, and we are fighting them over there instead of here. And also, 9/11.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's definitely relevant and interesting. No idea if it's accurate,

Who cares. The paper says most of the Saudis who went to Iraq to fight did so b/c they want to blow themselves up or risk their lives so that American feet are not touching Arab soil, even if Americans are there at the request of the government of the Arab country in question. Whether you call that kind of person an asshat or a terrorist -- who cares? We've been dealing with these wingnuts all over the world, including on our own soil, on the same "infidels out of Allah land" theme.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I don't care to defend every statement Wilson made. As I've said before, I haven't bothered to read his book or anything. But we know now there was no Iraqi nuclear program, and so it's a little odd to hear you guys trying to explain why it was reasonable to think that the Iraqis were trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. The fact is, they weren't.

QUESTION:

"Did the former Niger prime minister meet with any Iraqi officials in June 1999?"

In brief:

1. Wilson says “yes” during his private CIA debrief in March, 2002.

2. Wilson fails to mention the meeting in his NYT op/ed and his first “Meet the Press” in July, 2003.

3. Wilson lies and says “no” during a “Frontline” PBS Interview in August, 2003.

4. Wilson lies and says “no” twice during his second “Meet the Press” interview in October, 2003.

5. Wilson says “yes” during his third “Meet the Press” interview in May, 2004.

6. Wilson says “yes” to SSCI committee staff --report released in July, 2004.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Because having had a week or so to ponder (and get numerous legal opinions, I'm sure), the formulation is:

"if anyone on [Bush's] staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will 'no longer work in my administration.'"

From yahoo.

What's "is" again?

What's a "crime" again?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
QUESTION:

"Did the former Niger prime minister meet with any Iraqi officials in June 1999?"

In brief:

1. Wilson says “yes” during his private CIA debrief in March, 2002.

2. Wilson fails to mention the meeting in his NYT op/ed and his first “Meet the Press” in July, 2003.

3. Wilson lies and says “no” during a “Frontline” PBS Interview in August, 2003.

4. Wilson lies and says “no” twice during his second “Meet the Press” interview in October, 2003.

5. Wilson says “yes” during his third “Meet the Press” interview in May, 2004.

6. Wilson says “yes” to SSCI committee staff --report released in July, 2004.

Who fucking cares? Is Wilson running the country? No.

eta: sgtclub posted the other night about how the board is much more polarized than it used to be, and I agreed that it mirrored the country this way. Your post is a perfect example of how and why Rove et al. push this polarization. You seem to think that there are only two positions in this debate, and that if you can trash Wilson then you win. Who fucking cares about whether Wilson told the truth about this stuff? You can think that Wilson is an opportunist who likes the spotlight a little too much and who can't keep his story straight over time, and still think that he was right to call attention to the Administration's scaremongering about Niger uranium, and that Rove et al. were wrong to defenestrate his wife. The polarization is designed to make sure there are only two sides, so that the attack politics work.

I asked you the other day how Rove could have known when he was talking to Cooper and Novak that Wilson was a partisan hack. You've ducked that question. Wilson's many actions and words since then aren't an answer.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Who fucking cares? Is Wilson running the country? No.

Does your tone infer that this story is over?

[SlaveNoMore]

Here's War of the Worlds screenwriter David Froeep, describing his film:

And now, as we see American adventure abroad,” he continues “in my mind it’s certainly back to it’s original meaning, which is that the Martians in our movie represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext.”

Here is him again, from USA Today:

“You can read our movie several ways,” says screenwriter David Koepp. “It could be straight 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be.”

Do you think HG Wells orignally planned that his book be read as anti-UK propaganda?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That's the problem with conservatives -- they've painted themselves into a corner with their empty, divisive rhetoric, and now they are in a position of hoping -- actually hoping -- that America's sworn enemy had actually acquired nuclear weapons material, and transferred it to another enemy just before the invasion forces arrived.

I suppose you are with the terrorists in this regard.

Wrong. What this administration, and the majority of Americans who supported it in the last election, are willing to do is take an aggressive position on National Defence, in order to avoid sitting on our hands like the Clinton Administration allowing the terrorists and the nations that harbour and otherwise support them to continue to build their strength for use against the US. If Clinton had been a CinC rather than a mouthfucker-who-jerks-himself-off-into-the-oval-office-sink-in-chief then these issues would not even exist. But, like the Demos of today, he was with them.