1
   

Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

 
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 03:43 pm
The logic presented so far is that, without 9/11, there would have been no war in Iraq. "They" started it, and the result is the war.

This logic is flawed.

9/11 SHOULD have resulted in a worldwide hunt for AQ, and AQ alone.
Yemen and Saudi were where the main contingent of AQ were/are located. There would have been a lot more understanding and cooperation with the USA, if they went after Bin Ladens mob, and nobody else. If those Countries refused to cooperate with the USA manhunt, then it would have been an easy task to put massive international pressure onto them, as virtually the whole world would not have argued against America's reaction.

Instead, the USA and Britain (thanks Tony) went for Iraq, because it had a highly visible bad guy, who could be bitch slapped easily to satisfy the bloodlust, and as a by product, could earn everyone a pretty penny.

The neighbouring Moslem Countries have their fair share of young male hotheads (as we all do). The actions in Iraq were quite rightly interpreted in the region, as an act (possibly seen as a Christian act) of unfounded aggresion against its Iraqi Moslem brothers.
These young men are now queuing up to fight the unjust, infidel invader, in an attempt to drive it from their lands.

Bush, by his decision to deflect the whole 9/11 thing onto Iraq, has inspired many EXTRA thousands of young Moslems to consider taking up arms.
However misguided us westerners may think these hotheads to be, the truth is that they are now united in fighting a cause, because Bush chose to invade Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 03:44 pm
Iraq was already an AQ training camp.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 03:59 pm
kickychin wrote:
My god, Tyco, I thought my simple analogy would do. But if I have to explain the goddammed whole thing to you, then obviously one of us (you) is not paying attention.


Your simple analogy was a poor analogy. Perhaps you do need to explain it to me .... I thought I understood what you were trying to do, but clearly you failed in your effort.

kickychin wrote:
In my analogy, the monkey who attacked is not--oh, jesus christ, I'm not going to explain to you the whole analogy. And by the way, just because you have trouble with analogies doesn't mean I or BVT are the ones to blame.


Laughing The fact that I have trouble with your and BVT's analogies has less to do with my ability to comprehend them, and more to do with your relative inability to articulate one effectively.

kickychin wrote:
Let me just ask you the question (for the third time) in plain english.

Are the people that are killing all those people in Iraq the same people who attacked us on 9-11?


The people who attacked us on 9/11 are primarily dead, as they died in the plane crashes. The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that?

kickychin wrote:
I know, in your analogy, it doesn't matter. As long as we're fighting against them, no matter how unjustified our stupid monkey leader's reasons are for going to war, they are all the same to you, right? Just a bunch of monkeys from another part of the jungle, right?


We're talking about who is responsible for the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. You blame Bush, and not the "terrorists" in Iraq actually doing the killing. You have convinced yourself of this because you think the US was not justified in attacking Iraq. We can debate the question of whether the US was justified in invading Iraq or not, but we ought not debate the issue of whether the terrorists in Iraq who are the proximate cause of the deaths are involved. Thus, it seems very clear to me that there is no question regarding the culpability of these terrorists, and the issue of Bush's responsibility is initially left to your ability to enunciate your argument in support of your claim that the US was not justified in its invasion of Iraq, and then to support your claim that that in someway absolves the terrorists of their clear responsibility. I find my position to be the much stronger one to argue.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 04:02 pm
Lash wrote:
Iraq was already an AQ training camp.


Facts and figures please.

Iraq, IF it did have any AQ involvement, was probably a VERY minor player.

It would be like saying that Albania is an American outpost, as three Floridians have a holiday home there.

Yemen was the logical target Country, Saudi a close second.

And you know it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 04:04 pm
Ticomaya wrote:


This particular attack is the last straw. Plus, we now have a new leader who decides to take a different approach. We announce to the entire jungle that our pack is not going to sit idly by and let the AQ gang continue to attack at will, and we ask for assistance from other packs to stop the AQ gang. And we go to the pack where we believe this particular alpha male is at, along with a lot of his gang, and we demand they turn him over to us. They refuse, and we attack them.

While this is going on, there is yet another pack that has been at war with our pack years ago. We put certain conditions on that pack as a condition of the peace treaty, but the pack continues to ignore them. One of the conditions is they are not to possess large sticks to use as weapons. That pack's leader is not allowing us to search his trees very well, and we believe he has weapons he shouldn't have. Also, we believe he is harboring members of the AQ gang. See, it isn't that we just don't like the leader of that pack ... he has violated conditions of the peace treaty and harbored the AQ gang.

Too bad that most of this is monkey dung. No evidence of harboring AQ. A big difference between not being allowed to search the trees very well and refusing to even try to search the trees. The biggest pile of dung is you even brought up AQ since they had nothing to do with this pack. Look over there in those trees, now imagine if they were really in some other trees. Everyone pick your behind and throw some more dung.

Sorry Tico, Kicky's analogy may be too simple but yours makes stuff up to obfuscate what really happened.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 04:07 pm
Tico wrote :- " The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that? "

Are you talking about pre 9/11, or post 9/11?

Pre 9/11, I would like to see the source and figures proving a "large presence" in Iraq.

I have no doubt that POST 9/11, there are now probably hundreds of the buggers......most of whom were recruited POST Iraqi invasion.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 04:07 pm
Quote:

The people who attacked us on 9/11 are primarily dead, as they died in the plane crashes. The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that?


You are still claiming there was a large AQ presence in Iraq in 2003?

Isn't it a little early to be drinking Tico? :wink:
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 04:15 pm
Ticomayonaise wrote:
kickychin wrote:
My god, Tyco, I thought my simple analogy would do. But if I have to explain the goddammed whole thing to you, then obviously one of us (you) is not paying attention.


Your simple analogy was a poor analogy.


Says you.

Ticomayonaise wrote:
kickychin wrote:
In my analogy, the monkey who attacked is not--oh, jesus christ, I'm not going to explain to you the whole analogy. And by the way, just because you have trouble with analogies doesn't mean I or BVT are the ones to blame.


Laughing The fact that I have trouble with your and BVT's analogies has less to do with my ability to comprehend them, and more to do with your relative inability to articulate one effectively.


Since you are the only one I've seen complaining about how you don't understand it, I have to refer you to my previous answer.

Ticomayonaise wrote:
kickychin wrote:
Let me just ask you the question (for the third time) in plain english.

Are the people that are killing all those people in Iraq the same people who attacked us on 9-11?


The people who attacked us on 9/11 are primarily dead, as they died in the plane crashes. The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that?


No...NOW that the George Bush Desert Terrorist Training Camp has been open for business! Whoohoo, come on and get your training, terrorists. Mr. Bush says, "Bring it on!"

Ticomayonaise wrote:
kickychin wrote:
I know, in your analogy, it doesn't matter. As long as we're fighting against them, no matter how unjustified our stupid monkey leader's reasons are for going to war, they are all the same to you, right? Just a bunch of monkeys from another part of the jungle, right?


We're talking about who is responsible for the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. You blame Bush, and not the "terrorists" in Iraq actually doing the killing. You have convinced yourself of this because you think the US was not justified in attacking Iraq. We can debate the question of whether the US was justified in invading Iraq or not, but we ought not debate the issue of whether the terrorists in Iraq who are the proximate cause of the deaths are involved. Thus, it seems very clear to me that there is no question regarding the culpability of these terrorists, and the issue of Bush's responsibility is initially left to your ability to enunciate your argument in support of your claim that the US was not justified in its invasion of Iraq, and then to support your claim that that in someway absolves the terrorists of their clear responsibility. I find my position to be the much stronger one to argue.


I'm not absolving the terrorists, as you so simplistically put it. I can't be blamed for your inability to see that the terrorists are doing the killing, but it's Bush who set the chain of events in motion that led to their ability to do so.

Let me ask you, if Bush decided to drop you in the middle of Baghdad with your hands tied, no weapons and wearing a t-shirt that says "Islam blows", would you blame ONLY those who attack you for your fate? And if you did somehow manage to get out of their alive, do you think you'd be pissed at Bush at all?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 04:33 pm
BBC, dated 2004 "Al-Qaeda's origins and links"........(no mention of Iraq as a major AQ stronghold)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1670089.stm

Snippet:- "Al-Qaeda, meaning "the base", was created in 1989 as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues began looking for new jihads.

The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism.

During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.

The "Arab Afghans", as they became known, were battle-hardened and highly motivated.

In the early 1990s Al-Qaeda operated in Sudan. After 1996 its headquarters and about a dozen training camps moved to Afghanistan, where Bin Laden forged a close relationship with the Taleban.

The US campaign in Afghanistan starting in late 2001 dispersed the organisation and drove it underground as its personnel were attacked and its bases and training camps destroyed.

Cells across the world

The organisation is thought to operate in 40 to 50 countries, not only in the Middle East and Asia but in North America and Europe.

In western Europe there have been known or suspected cells in London, Hamburg, Milan and Madrid. These have been important centres for recruitment, fundraising and planning operations.


For training, the group favours lawless areas where it can operate freely and in secret.

These are believed to have included Somalia, Yemen and Chechnya, as well as mountainous areas of Afghanistan.

There have been reports of a secret training camp on one of the islands of Indonesia. "



The only base that I can remember being mentioned in the past (pre war), was right up in Northern Iraq, in the Iraqi no fly zone. The American airforce patrolled that area, and knew of its existence. Several plans were put forward to take it out, but for some reason, Bush and Co. kept turning this opportunity down.
I shall try to find more............
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:18 pm
parados wrote:
The biggest pile of dung is you even brought up AQ since they had nothing to do with this pack.


I brought up AQ because I believe that's what Kickypoo meant to represent by the alpha male that came and stole the female monkey. If this is wrong, one would have thought Kicky would have corrected me by now, but so far he has declined the opportunity (even though he claims I don't understand his analogy, leaving me to guess in what way) ... thus I think I'm correct. Whether AQ was associated with that pack or not (and for purposes of this analogy, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate to it being a debatable point), there is no doubt that AQ is now associated with that pack. And when AQ kills innocents, Bush is not responsible for it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:19 pm
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Tico wrote :- " The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that? "

Are you talking about pre 9/11, or post 9/11?


I was specifically thinking post 9/11.

parados wrote:
Tico wrote:
The people who attacked us on 9/11 are primarily dead, as they died in the plane crashes. The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that?


You are still claiming there was a large AQ presence in Iraq in 2003?


See above.

Quote:
Isn't it a little early to be drinking Tico? :wink:


No ... it's not.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:30 pm
kickychiquita wrote:
Tico wrote:
he fact that I have trouble with your and BVT's analogies has less to do with my ability to comprehend them, and more to do with your relative inability to articulate one effectively.


Since you are the only one I've seen complaining about how you don't understand it, I have to refer you to my previous answer.


I don't think I've complained about not understanding your analogy. I believe I've complained that it's simplistic, poor, and inaccurate.

kickychiquita wrote:
I'm not absolving the terrorists, as you so simplistically put it. I can't be blamed for your inability to see that the terrorists are doing the killing, but it's Bush who set the chain of events in motion that led to their ability to do so.


As I said before, you claim the US was not justified in invading Iraq ... that must be the cornerstone of your allegation of blame of Bush, because otherwise you would blame every President in the history of the country for deaths that have occurred during war. Who do you blame for all the deaths in Vietnam? Surely you must think that was unjustified.

And since you seem to think there is blame to be shared for terrorists' acts, you certainly must blame Israel for all of the deaths caused by Palestinian suicide bombers over the years. (Or do you blame the individual Israeli Prime Ministers?) After all, it is the policies of Israel that have caused those acts of terrorism ... right? Or is your criticism only reserved for your own country?

So let's go on: Who do you blame for 9/11? I mean, come on ... sure the terrorists did the killing that day, but something or someone else must have "set the chain of events in motion" that lead to their committing that act. You apparently wish to try and point blame at someone besides the terrorists. You are not content to blame the terrorists, and I find that attitude disgusting. Who do you blame for 9/11? The "little Eichmanns"?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:39 pm
OK, it is the terrorist fault and Bush's fault that we have so many dead and dying in Iraq today.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:50 pm
factcheck.org has their assessment of the speech online now

(thanks as always to timberlandko for not allowing me to forget about factcheck.org)

Quote:
Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts
Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.
June 30, 2005


Summary
Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.

Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.

Analysis

Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.


The Bloodshed


Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.


Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?


What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index." The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.

The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.

The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.


Reconstruction Progress


In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:

Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . . Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.


Indeed, the State Department's most recent "Iraq Weekly Status Report" shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.

On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.

Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city- dwellers still report being without water to their homes.


Conclusions or Facts?


The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"

Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war..

In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.

Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.

The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.


Terrorism


Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.


Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists.


Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.

Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:

Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why. Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.

But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.


Osama bin Laden


Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror:"

Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."


However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents - to the extent one existed at all before - grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."

In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.

--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst

Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman


Sources

Paul Richter, "No 'Timetables' for Iraq Pullout, Bush Promises Visiting Premier," Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2005: A1.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Adriana Lins de Albuquerque, "Iraq Index; Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Saddam Iraq," Brookings Institution, 27 June 2005.

US Department of State, " Iraq Weekly Status Report," 22 June 2005.

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, " Overview of the Enemy ," staff statement No. 15 released at Twelfth Public Hearing, Wednesday, June 16, 2004.

BBC News, "US chides Spain for Iraq pull-out," 20 April 2005.

Robin Wright, "European Bitterness Over Iraq Dissipates," Washington Post 5 Feb. 2005: A21.

PAP Polish Press Agency, "Next Rotation of Polish Soldiers In Iraq Smaller," 25 May 2005.

"Ukraine 's Defence Minister Says His Troops Will Be Out Of Iraq By Year End," BBC Monitoring International Reports 17 June 2005.

Nick Childs, "Iraq 's Strained Coalition," BBC News World Edition 16 March 2005.

Sara Toms, "Manila 's Difficult Dilemna," BBC News World Edition 20 July 2004.

"Poll shows dissatisfaction with Iraq War," CNN.com, 21 June 2005. Donna Miles, "Military Tops Public Confidence List in New Gallup Poll," American Forces Press Service, 3 June 2005.

"Few foreigners among rebels captured in Fallujah," Associated Press/USA Today, 15 November 2004.

Susan B. Glasser, "'Martyrs' in Iraq Mostly Saudis," Washington Post, 15 May 2005.

"President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq , War on Terror," Transcript, The White House 28 June 2005.


Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts

0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 06:22 pm
Ticomonkey wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Tico wrote:
he fact that I have trouble with your and BVT's analogies has less to do with my ability to comprehend them, and more to do with your relative inability to articulate one effectively.


Since you are the only one I've seen complaining about how you don't understand it, I have to refer you to my previous answer.


I don't think I've complained about not understanding your analogy. I believe I've complained that it's simplistic, poor, and inaccurate.


And again, you are the only monkey in the bunch who keeps yapping about it, so I'd have to say that, most likely, you are wrong, my furry little friend.

Ticomonkey wrote:
kickycan wrote:
I'm not absolving the terrorists, as you so simplistically put it. I can't be blamed for your inability to see that the terrorists are doing the killing, but it's Bush who set the chain of events in motion that led to their ability to do so.


As I said before, you claim the US was not justified in invading Iraq ... that must be the cornerstone of your allegation of blame of Bush, because otherwise you would blame every President in the history of the country for deaths that have occurred during war. Who do you blame for all the deaths in Vietnam? Surely you must think that was unjustified.

And since you seem to think there is blame to be shared for terrorists' acts, you certainly must blame Israel for all of the deaths caused by Palestinian suicide bombers over the years. (Or do you blame the individual Israeli Prime Ministers?) After all, it is the policies of Israel that have caused those acts of terrorism ... right? Or is your criticism only reserved for your own country?

So let's go on: Who do you blame for 9/11? I mean, come on ... sure the terrorists did the killing that day, but something or someone else must have "set the chain of events in motion" that lead to their committing that act. You apparently wish to try and point blame at someone besides the terrorists. You are not content to blame the terrorists, and I find that attitude disgusting. Who do you blame for 9/11?

The "little Eichmanns"?


It's fun to stretch the opposing argument to the point of absurdity, isn't it? Of course the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 are to blame, and I don't think America is to blame for that at all. And of course you know that. If you didn't I'd be worried about your sanity.

But I am happy to see that you find this imaginary attitude of mine that you have made up in your head disgusting. It reveals a lot about where the thinking part of your brain hits a brick wall and can go no further. I see that now. I wish I could get inside there and knock some of those bricks loose, so you could see beyond your fear of not looking like a patriot, and so that you might possibly see the culpability of that trained monkey WHO IS TO BLAME FOR STARTING AN UNNECESSARY WAR THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11, but I'm pretty sure I can't.

By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question about being dropped in the middle of Baghdad with your little "Islam blows." t-shirt on. Very telling.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 06:51 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Reconstruction Progress


In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:

Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . . Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.


Indeed, the State Department's most recent "Iraq Weekly Status Report" shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.

On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.


if this is correct, then that would be something good to come out of all of this.

i keep wondering though. doesn't it seem that, considering how bad a beating bush and friends are taking, there would be a concerted effort to get a campaign of pictures and video of the good stuff that's going on ?

even if you buy the "liberal media" rhetoric (which i don't..), if anyone was able to get great footage of the new schools and utility facilities, roads, pipelines, hospitals, etc., it would be the military camera units.

in which case, if i were the president, i would be making damn sure that a good portion of the news packages that the whitehouse is delivering to the networks every day was video of the good progress that was being made.

but we don't really seem to be getting that...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:04 pm
kickycrybaby wrote:
And again, you are the only monkey in the bunch who keeps yapping about it, so I'd have to say that, most likely, you are wrong, my furry little friend.


You think that just because nobody else has pointed out your error, that the error doesn't exist and I must be wrong? Does that work for you in real life?

kickycrybaby wrote:
Tico wrote:
...
So let's go on: Who do you blame for 9/11? I mean, come on ... sure the terrorists did the killing that day, but something or someone else must have "set the chain of events in motion" that lead to their committing that act. You apparently wish to try and point blame at someone besides the terrorists. You are not content to blame the terrorists, and I find that attitude disgusting. Who do you blame for 9/11?

The "little Eichmanns"?


It's fun to stretch the opposing argument to the point of absurdity, isn't it? Of course the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 are to blame, and I don't think America is to blame for that at all. And of course you know that. If you didn't I'd be worried about your sanity.


So we're left with your "unjustified war" argument, are we not? You think Bush is to blame because the war is unjustified? Will you at least commit to that?

kickycrybaby wrote:
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question about being dropped in the middle of Baghdad with your little "Islam blows." t-shirt on. Very telling.


What's "telling" about it? Why am I expected to answer silly questions? Yes, if Bush did that, I suppose I would be pissed at him.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:06 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Tico wrote :- " The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that? "

Are you talking about pre 9/11, or post 9/11?


I was specifically thinking post 9/11.

parados wrote:
Tico wrote:
The people who attacked us on 9/11 are primarily dead, as they died in the plane crashes. The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that?


You are still claiming there was a large AQ presence in Iraq in 2003?


See above.

Quote:
Isn't it a little early to be drinking Tico? :wink:


No ... it's not.


You were thinking post invasion on AQ in Iraq but your analogy with the monkeys was preinvasion. Interesting.

(It's always 3:30 somewhere in the world. :wink: )
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:14 pm
Ticomonkey wrote:
kickycan wrote:
And again, you are the only monkey in the bunch who keeps yapping about it, so I'd have to say that, most likely, you are wrong, my furry little friend.


You think that just because nobody else has pointed out your error, that the error doesn't exist and I must be wrong? Does that work for you in real life?


I don't see any error. Just you, not getting it.

By the way, love the little nickname game. How about "Kickycommie" next time?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:27 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Tico wrote:
...
So let's go on: Who do you blame for 9/11? I mean, come on ... sure the terrorists did the killing that day, but something or someone else must have "set the chain of events in motion" that lead to their committing that act. You apparently wish to try and point blame at someone besides the terrorists. You are not content to blame the terrorists, and I find that attitude disgusting. Who do you blame for 9/11?

The "little Eichmanns"?


It's fun to stretch the opposing argument to the point of absurdity, isn't it? Of course the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 are to blame, and I don't think America is to blame for that at all. And of course you know that. If you didn't I'd be worried about your sanity.


So we're left with your "unjustified war" argument, are we not? You think Bush is to blame because the war is unjustified? Will you at least commit to that?


Yes, the main thing is that he started this unjust war. But that's not all. He also lied about the reasons for it, manipulated intelligence to bullshit his own country into going along with it, rushed us into it, didn't have any exit strategy, and completely underestimated the enemy. He's a complete f*ck-up. And that is the reason I blame this stupid, incompetent chimp, along with the terrorists (gotta stick that in there so as not to disgust you), for every single death.

That clear enough for you?

Ticomaya wrote:
kickycan wrote:
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question about being dropped in the middle of Baghdad with your little "Islam blows." t-shirt on. Very telling.


What's "telling" about it? Why am I expected to answer silly questions? Yes, if Bush did that, I suppose I would be pissed at him.


Thank you for admitting that. Don't you see how that applies here? I know you don't see it my way, but if you did believe everything that I just said in response to you, wouldn't you put some blame on Bush?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 12:51:53