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

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To state the obvious, none of these quotations -- however inflammatory -- fit Rove's bill. To take the last, Kerry said that he would use the military when necessary, but suggested that the Bush Administration was choosing the wrong tactics. Porter Goss, Arturo Gonzalez and Karen Hughes would strongly resist the idea that what they do is not part of the war on terrorism.

Kucinich sounds like he was channeling Gandhi. I don't happen to agree -- and neither do most Democrats, who voted unanimously to fund the war in Afghanistan -- but in any event, what he said there does not support Rove. Someone surely has done a good job of finding you sentences from Kaptur, Sharpton & Abercrombie to wrench out of context, but none of those fit Rove's bill, either. Kaptur and Abercrombie voted for the war in Afghanistan, too, so perhaps you're not trying very hard to understand where they were coming from.

The point isn't who voted for the War. that was a no-brainer, there were constituents would have skewered them. Read the first 3 quotes again, they are tacit defenses based on the doctrine of moral relativity, of bin laden and al qaeda and a tacit justification of the attacks.

If you don't want to see the obvious that's fine, deflect, but with a majority of Americans have acknowledged the moral vacuity of the doctrine of moral relativism. It ain't justifiable. There is good and evil and they have charged Bush with cleaning up the latter.

Unfortunately, it is hard work, so Frist or Jeb will probably have to finish the job.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You have no idea? Why are you even posting then?

Since when is this a criteria to post here?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At least Clinton tried, over the opposition of Republicans like you who cared more about the hummer he was getting from Monica Lewinski than about the threat to country presented by Al Qaeda. When Clinton tried to take out bin Laden, you and the other armchair warriors complained that he did anything at all to divert attention from the Starr Blowjob Saga, not that he didn't invade Afghanistan.

And maybe if Bush hadn't ignored what his top counter-terrorism official was telling him to do, we would have never seen 9/11.

And Iraq:

"DID CLINTON LIE OR ABUSE POWER IN ORCHESTRATING RATIONALE FOR PRE-IMPEACHMENT WAR?

The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge.

"Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said yesterday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House's urging.

"Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler, executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration's national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night.

"The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq.

"‘I'm telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States,’ Mr. Ritter said. ‘The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance.’..."

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

"The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day."



EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT CLINTON'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A LONG-PLANNED POLITICAL PLOY

Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.

"As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ‘200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.’ They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated.""

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The Rs have for some time used "Democrats" and "liberals" interchangeably. Perhaps if they weren't so liberal (ha!) in their use of the term, the Ds wouldn't be so offended. But this is all beside the point. I'll easily condemn what MM and those other dipshits said. Why are you defending Rove?

I thought about this "liberal" question a lot the last few days. Why is it that in a campaign year, DEMs run from the label, but in off years they embrace it?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To state the obvious, none of these quotations -- however inflammatory -- fit Rove's bill. To take the last, Kerry said that he would use the military when necessary, but suggested that the Bush Administration was choosing the wrong tactics. Porter Goss, Arturo Gonzalez and Karen Hughes would strongly resist the idea that what they do is not part of the war on terrorism.

Kucinich sounds like he was channeling Gandhi. I don't happen to agree -- and neither do most Democrats, who voted unanimously to fund the war in Afghanistan -- but in any event, what he said there does not support Rove. Someone surely has done a good job of finding you sentences from Kaptur, Sharpton & Abercrombie to wrench out of context, but none of those fit Rove's bill, either. Kaptur and Abercrombie voted for the war in Afghanistan, too, so perhaps you're not trying very hard to understand where they were coming from.

How many primaries did Kucinich win?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At least Clinton tried, over the opposition of Republicans like you who cared more about the hummer he was getting from Monica Lewinski than about the threat to country presented by Al Qaeda. When Clinton tried to take out bin Laden, you and the other armchair warriors complained that he did anything at all to divert attention from the Starr Blowjob Saga, not that he didn't invade Afghanistan.

And maybe if Bush hadn't ignored what his top counter-terrorism official was telling him to do, we would have never seen 9/11.

"Senator to Clinton: Don't Wag the Dog
Wes Vernon
Saturday, Oct. 28, 2000
An influential member of the Senate Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees has urged President Clinton to consult with military leaders and congressional committees before any possible military action before the election.
Several lawmakers are worried the president might "wag the dog" and create a "crisis" just in time to help Al Gore’s re-election effort.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., says Clinton should touch military and congressional bases before any possible retaliation for the recent attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors and wounded 39.

Such consultations, says Inhofe, "would help preclude any suspicions that potential military action this close to an election is politically motivated."

The Oklahoma lawmaker recalls the August 1998 cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan, one of which hit an aspirin factory. Though Inhofe doesn’t spell it out, the suspicion then was that the president wanted to change the subject away from a focus on the grand jury investigation into questions of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky matter.

"It was a case where something was done and nobody knew it was going to happen," declares the GOP senator. "As a result, there are a lot of people who believe this military action might have been politically motivated."

The senator did not mention also that Clinton’s claim that he had to take military action on the day the House was considering impeachment in December 1998 failed the laugh test with many lawmakers.

Noting the election is less than two weeks away, Inhofe adds: "I want to go on record urging the president to work closely on any proposed action that could take place as a result of the USS Cole tragedy, in full consultation with all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the top service commanders in chief, as well as with the members of both the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Intelligence Committees.""

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2.../27/184031.txt

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Kerry's statement was made in '04, not '01. As for the rest, you've sort of proven our point. They were made by nutjobs at the obscure fringe of the party, whereas the nutjobs in the Republican party are the ones running it.

The "fringe" of your party fielded several presidential candidates in 2004.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Why should he be required to apologize or resign, as many Democrats are suggesting, when what he said is true? But here's an offer, if you'll state that what Rove said does not warrant an apology, I won't post more quotes from liberals stating the need for terrorists to just be loved. Deal?

What Rove said wasn't true. In fact, it was pure demagogeury and bullshit, designed to further separate people on each end of the political spectrum. And you're buying into it.

Statements that Rove should be required to apologize or resign are ridiculous. It won't happen and such statements will be used to further drive a wedge between the electorate, which is what Rove wants. I'd just as soon keep him in place and let him continue to show his colors. Sooner or later, more voters will begin to recognize him for the toxic presence that he is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
The point isn't who voted for the War. that was a no-brainer, there were constituents would have skewered them. Read the first 3 quotes again, they are tacit defenses based on the doctrine of moral relativity, of bin laden and al qaeda and a tacit justification of the attacks.

If you don't want to see the obvious that's fine, deflect, but with a majority of Americans have acknowledged the moral vacuity of the doctrine of moral relativism. It ain't justifiable. There is good and evil and they have charged Bush with cleaning up the latter.

Mr. Steve, that's just not true. You can explain something without defending it. E.g., follow the link I posted on the FB yesterday about the forensic psychiatrist who got to know to Jeffrey Dahmer.

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

[Shape Shifter]

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

What percentage of the vote did they get? Without looking, I'm willing to bet that it's less that Pat Robertson got on his run.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Can't we finance it with the oil revenue?

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?

[Not Bob]

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

Pat Robertson actually won delegates when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are not looking at the same time periods I am. I am looking at the current state of affairs. I had to post data regarding CA for prior years because that is all that's available. And what's the population of CA? Iraq is roughly 25 million. While not exact, I think CA is in that neighborhood.

How many people have been killed in bombings in the past week?


California has 35.4 million people, but I'm sure that makes no difference to you.

The CA data doesn't contain much of this information either (e.g., missing/unknowns, wounded).

The reason murder stats are cited so heavily in discussing crime rates is that there is very high confidence that nearly all murders are actually reported or discovered in the US. The picutre in a war zone is very different.

Similarly, the rate of wounded in a war is far, far higher than in even the most crime-ridden places. Or, do you think that the 16000 murders in the US translate into 50,000 people getting their limbs blown off?

I don't know how you reach this conclusion. I posted data for CA, you argue US as a whole. I believe there were over 16,000 murders in the US in the last year available.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rove also accused Sen. Durbin of trying help our enemies:

• "Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

WaPp

No. Shame.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At least Clinton tried, over the opposition of Republicans like you who cared more about the hummer he was getting from Monica Lewinski than about the threat to country presented by Al Qaeda. When Clinton tried to take out bin Laden, you and the other armchair warriors complained that he did anything at all to divert attention from the Starr Blowjob Saga, not that he didn't invade Afghanistan.

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.