That was an amazing object lesson in 100% missing the point, JTT
Lash wrote:JTT wrote:Lash wrote: You're looking in the wrong place for the delusionals.
I'm looking in the wrong place. I'm looking in the wrong place!
Quote:
A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index's experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index's experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts.
The thread was about the election win--which we won.
So, that'd be
Us--correct
Us--realistic
Ipsofacto-- This thread--for happy conservatives
You've hit the nail on the head, Lash; "happy conservatives" equates to folks who are so delusional that they are willing to ignore all the bad that this "win" has wreaked upon both the world and the USA.
That is the sign, the dictionary defintion of delusionary.
And by your own admission, you've embraced this delusion with a missionary fervor. Am I shocked that you have done so? No, I'm only shocked by the depth of the delusion.
"Us--correct
Us--realistic"
Foxfyre wrote:That was an amazing object lesson in 100% missing the point, JTT
Please don't feed the troll, Foxy.
Foxy, your cause and effect items are just too absurd. Of course, they go along with the other slop posted here by rightwingers. I guess you get your stuff from the plagairism-challenged Ann Maggot Coulter.
Foxfyre wrote:That was an amazing object lesson in 100% missing the point, JTT
No, Foxy, that was simply another truism pointed up that you, in your Pollyannaish view of the USA, want desperately to ignore.
Coulter wrote:
So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism
That's only one of the good reasons
More of the aftermath. Drink it in, bushies. Ooooh the slime.
Quote:
Democrats Assail GOP Fundraising Effort
Democrats Cry Foul Over New Republican Fundraising Effort Mentioning War on Terrorism
Democrats assailed the Republicans Friday for e-mailing a fundraising appeal mentioning the war on terror hours after British authorities disclosed they had disrupted a plot to blow up aircraft headed to the United States.
"In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2301861
Why would this be that the US had little to no role in a plot that many experts believe targeted US airlines?
Quote:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/pakistan-connection-pakistani-police.html
British authorities say that they have been investigating the group behind the airplane bombing plot for "about a year." The Scotsman says that the investigation began in 2005.
US authorities were only told about some details two weeks ago, apparently. It may be that the British counter-terrorism community learned its lesson from the loose lips of the Bushies in summer of 2004. I argued then that from what we could tell from open sources, it seemed likely that the Bush administration played politics with information about a double agent in Pakistan who was helping monitor a London al-Qaeda cell. It seems likely that the election-year leak allowed budding terrorists like Mohammad Sadique Khan to escape closer scrutiny, and so permitted the 7/7/05 London subway bombings to go forward.
This time, the MI5 and MI6 and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) may not have told Washington everything.
Note carefully all you delusionary ones;
"... the Bush administration apparently had little to do with foiling the potential "second September 11."
They aren't minding the store but they have no qualms about screaming wolf in order to raise money. Is there really anything lower than this? And yet there's still support offered to these jokers.
JTT-- Don't be such a Sore Loserman. Run along with your playmates, who think Bush orchestrated 911 and Diebold is owned by his uncle.
Lash wrote:JTT-- Don't be such a Sore Loserman. Run along with your playmates, who think Bush orchestrated 911 and Diebold is owned by his uncle.
You keep dithering, Lash. I'll just keep posting the facts. It'll be interesting to see how long you can maintain this level of delusion before you lapse into a catatonic state.
Written in 2004, but lo and behold,
Quote:
August 8, 2006
9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit to Whitewash
Former Governor Tom Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairmen of the 9/11 Commission - the publicity hounds that they are - want to keep the long-retired, but much-celebrated, panel in the public mind. They have written a tell-all book about the trials and tribulations of the panel's work.
...
The book usefully details the administration's willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day,
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=9502
Lash wrote:JTT-- Don't be such a Sore Loserman. Run along with your playmates, who think Bush orchestrated 911 and Diebold is owned by his uncle.
Actually the facts show something even worse. Read it and weep, little one.
You keep dithering, Lash. I'll just keep posting the facts. It'll be interesting to see how long you can maintain this level of delusion before you lapse into a catatonic state.
Written in 2004, but lo and behold,
Quote:
August 8, 2006
9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit to Whitewash
Former Governor Tom Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairmen of the 9/11 Commission - the publicity hounds that they are - want to keep the long-retired, but much-celebrated, panel in the public mind. They have written a tell-all book about the trials and tribulations of the panel's work.
...
The book usefully details the administration's willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day,
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=9502
JTT- I read your link --the column by Ivan Eland. It is just conjecture and gives no proof of any kind of cover up. If you can find proof of any cover up in the article you referenced please print it.
I am sure that you know that proof is not-
It appears that the Administration sided with Israel
or
It was to the advantage of
or
It seems that
PROOF, Please, Mr. JTT!!!
Ticomaya quoted from Gingrich-
In fact an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a mortal threat to American, Israeli and European cities. If a nonnuclear Iran is prepared to finance, arm and train Hezbollah, sustain a war against Israel from southern Lebanon and, in Holbrooke's own words, "support actions against U.S. forces in Iraq," then what would a nuclear Iran be likely to do? Remember, Iranian officials were present at North Korea's missile launches on our Fourth of July, and it is noteworthy that Venezuela's anti-American dictator, Hugo Chávez, has visited Iran five times.
-JTT_ I am afraid that you missed my request. Again----
JTT-
I read your link --the column by Ivan Eland. It is just conjecture and gives no proof of any kind of cover up. If you can find proof of any cover up in the article you referenced please print it.
Glenn Greenwald commenting on John Dean's new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience", explains why some conservatives lack the moral backbone to do what's right. They're like meth addicts.
Quote:
John Dean and Authoritarian Cultism - a Review
With 2 1/2 years still left for this administration, the true radicalism of the administration and its followers has become unavoidably, depressingly clear, and it is equally clear that this movement has not reached anywhere near the peak of its extremism. Dean's central thesis explains why that is so.
Dean contends, and amply documents, that the "conservative" movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers' devotion to authority and the movement's own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.
And there is seemingly no limit -- literally -- on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses -- from constantly expanding spying on American citizens, to a President who claims and aggressively exercises the "right" to break the law, to torturing suspects, imprisoning journalists, and turning the United States into the most feared and hated country on the planet.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/john-dean-and-authoritarian-cultism_23.html
This is what is so unbelievable. It's unfathomable how easily the folks here are willing to throw themselves into such a deep moral abyss defending and extending the incompetence and the depravity of this political cult movement.
JTT wrote:Glenn Greenwald commenting on John Dean's new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience", explains why some conservatives lack the moral backbone to do what's right. They're like meth addicts.
This is what is so unbelievable. It's unfathomable how easily the folks here are willing to throw themselves into such a deep moral abyss defending and extending the incompetence and the depravity of this political cult movement.
JTT, you need to take a good hard long look in the mirror.
okie wrote:
JTT, you need to take a good hard long look in the mirror.
"And there is seemingly no limit -- literally -- on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses -- from constantly expanding spying on American citizens, to a President who claims and aggressively exercises the "right" to break the law, to torturing suspects, imprisoning journalists, and turning the United States into the most feared and hated country on the planet."
John Dean? He is almost always wrong! I think he is senile. He said:
John Dean: "Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted." November 4, 2005.
He said he will be "stunned". He was wrong again!!!!! No one else HAS BEEN INDICTED.
John Dean is a bitter man who is determined to get his name in print anyway possible. But he is almost always WRONG!!!
