Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:00:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
I believe that the Bush administration believed he had them (WoMD) and could
at any time make them available to al-Qaeda. That was the source of the
immediacy, not that some attack was imminent.
|
That would be included in what I said.
|
Fair enough.
| |
However, there are no WoMD
|
Okay. But I reserve the right to have you eat magpie and admit you were wrrrrr
if they turn up in Syria or somewhere:-)
| |
and no Al
Qaeda connections.
|
Check this out.
| |
Bush can believe what he wants, but I am saying he should
be held accountable for his mistakes.
|
And his triumphs, I presume. Fair enough.
| |
| |
| |
| |
He could actually be dead. If he weren’t, why remain so silent? If he
were, why acknowledge that your great leader was killed? Who knows.
|
You accept that lame explanation? You are satisfied with that? A shrug of
the shoulders and the thousands of dead rest easier and you can salve your
conscience about supporting Bush?
|
Do you have a better explanation of the disappearance of OBL because I’m all
eyes.
|
He just released a new claim that America is about to retreat out of Iraq and
Afghanistan. Seems pretty active for a dead guy. He’s released any number
of statements that our intelligence people have pronounced as real, so I’m
not sure why you are taking this stonewall approach.
|
Why no video? Especially since he used that medium previously. The whole thing
is strange, so something is “up” in my view and things aren’t what they appear.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Where
has our international respect and standing gone?
|
What international respect and standing? From the UK? From France?
From Russia? From Germany? From Poland?
|
I’ll take that as you agree with my point.
|
Then you’d be wrong.
|
I was merely provoking a more thorough explanation.
|
Who died and made you puppetmaster? :-)
| |
| |
Respect scale: Have it = Yes, Have not = No, Didn’t have it before, doesn’t
have it now = NO
- UK yes
- France no NO
- Russia yes
- Germany no
- Poland yes
|
I’m not sure you got any of those right.
|
Bring it on:-)
| |
| |
When you say “international standing”, about which countries are you
speaking?
|
The majority of the planet.
|
I see. Could you be less specific? :-)
| |
| |
Er, wouldn’t that make Chelsea the anti-Christ? :-)
|
It would make their son the anti-christ. Since they don’t have one, we are
off the hook.
|
Until Chelsea moves to the Netherlands because she “likes their health care plan
options”;-0
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
I said “may”. That carries with it the implication that it may not. You
have assumed incorrectly. I am not convinced that they are up to
something, but I certainly won’t exonerate them. I can see reason for
people to be suspicious of their motivations.
|
Well then why mention it? It’s idle speculation.
|
Think it through: What you are saying is if anything is not 100% certain,
it shouldn’t be mentioned. I wouldn’t call it “idle” in any case.
|
Okay, but you are only relying on your deep-seated hatred of Bush for your
theory-- not a very rational basis...
|
No, I’m relying on my brain to connect two texas oil men and a country with a
lot of oil, as is the rest of the world.
|
Fine. But I don’t buy it.
| |
As did you below - so actually, I’m
relying on you to shoot your own argument down. :-)
| |
| |
| |
Even though you realize that I may not have realized that you realize that
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are happy SH is gone, you have failed
to realize that, given the choice of us leaving and thereby creating a
power vacuum, or us staying until they can fill the vacuum, the
overwhelming majority of Iraqis would prefer the latter.
|
On what basis do you claim that?
|
HO! Called out on that one, eh? Well, to be honest, I have only heard of
individual Iraqis expressing this sentiment, but I think it would be the
rational attitude to take were I an Iraqi myself. I will poke around for
further justification.
|
Dave cited the opposite, but feel free to poke.
|
I can only find polls in Iraq from May; all of the pollsters seem to be
preoccupied lately (documenting JFK’s eroding numbers:-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
Not “hand in hand”. More like “you scrub my hairy back and I’ll comb your
moustache.” Certainly he didn’t tolerate power grabs from within his
populace. He made unholy alliances with OBL types who furthered his own
pet causes-- terror against Jews (thus gaining him status in the Muslim
world) and attacks against the hated US.
|
9/11 Commision report found no connection between hairy back and combed
moustache. No Al Qaeda connection.
|
No organized connection, but there were associations. These were not
completely disconnected groups.
|
You seem to have a source that the 9/11 Commision did not. They were very
emphatic on this point: No connections.
|
Try this.
| |
| |
| |
| |
I only dodged because I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is this some
reference to MM’s F911? You are assuming of course that he somehow knew
who even perpetrated the attacks initially. My brother-in-law lived 2
blocks from the WTC and watched the second plane fly into tower 2-- his
initial reaction was that something had gone haywire with the transponders
atop the Trade Towers and that planes were being drawn into them. Crazy
maybe, but it illustrates that, at the time, nobody knew what the hell was
going on. Why suppose that the attack was limited to NY and DC alone?
|
Read the 9/11 commision’s report. Bush did squat. Nothing. Nada.
Despite numerous warnings, he took no proactive measures. I keep talking
about proactive measures and you keep talking about reactive things.
Basically, Bush sat around doing nothing, ignoring increasing signs of what
was coming. How can you say Bush is brilliant by any standard of the word
when he was completely unprepared in the face of his own subordinates’
warnings?
|
Sure, when you read that report you think “D’uh”, of course that would
happen. The report even acknowledges the 20/20 hindsight of its findings.
But to say that Bush should have picked up on all of the warning signs and
only 8 months into his presidency-- that is totally unfair.
|
Shoulda stayed out of the kitchen if he couldn’t stand the heat. The
commison, by the way, bent over backwards trying to avoid 20/20 hindsight
judgments.
|
If you are so sold on the report, why don’t you accept that the failures were
not all by Bush, and not by a long shot.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight-- what brilliant action would
suggest he to have done?
|
Read the 9/11 commisions findings.
|
Well, Bruce, it took many men many months and many million $$$ to gather
that information-- how unfair to expect a new administration to be on top of
that. Why wasn’t that information assembled by Clinton? I think it is more
than fair to hold the officeholder for the previous 8 years a little more
accountable than Bush!
|
Not particularly unfair at all. Bush had enough to go on. And Clinton, for
the umpteenth time, is not running for re-election. Quit using him as the
universal excuse.
| |
| |
| |
And you are talking crazy. Do you honestly believe that he could have
done something to prevent 9-11?
|
Read the 9/11 commision’s report. Yes. We could have.
|
Dodge. We are talking about Bush personally, not our country.
|
Dodge back at ya: they were including Bush in that, specifically and by name.
| |
| |
| |
Remember, the whole thing was planned long before
he even came to office.... Seems to me that Clinton should have pursued
the matter more vigorously after the first attack on the WTC!
|
Clinton is not running for re-election. Clinton was not on watch when the
World trade Center was destroyed.
|
How convenient!
|
How the heck is it convenient? Forgive me, but that seems to be one of the
most incredibly stupid comments I have seen.
| |
| |
Clinton is not responsible for allowing
bin Laden to go unpunished for three years.
|
ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? Clinton was offered OBL’s head on a platter and he
refused it!!!! I’d like to hear your spin on that one!
|
Clinton wasn’t in office when the World Trade Center was destroyed
|
If that isn’t dumb luck, I don’t know what is! (considering the first
attempt)
| |
(I mean,
that’s all I have been talking about, and the three year date should have
been a Real Big Clue even if you weren’t paying attention).
|
Actually, I thought you were going from 01-04, not 98-01. But you are correct.
Clinton was a total incompetent WRT the war on terror. But enough about him.
BTW, if JFK gets elected and there is an attack in the summer of ‘05, will you
nod approvingly when I rip him a new one for allowing it “on his watch”? (The
question is rhetorical because I wouldn’t and moot because he won’t:-)
| |
I’d like to hear you spin on that one, but it appears you are going to dodge
it forever so I doubt I will.
| |
| |
Bush ignored all the warning
signs regardless of what Clinton did or did not do. Using Clinton as the
universal excuse is about the lamest defense there is.
|
|
|
All I really want to point out is that even a Democratic Icon can find it
difficult to read tea leaves. All I’m looking for is equal treatment. Unless,
of course, you thought Clinton was a total Fumduck (okaaay, just kidding-- I was
just seeing if Dave! was paying attention;-) in which case we can drop the whole
comparison thing.
| |
| |
I agree that blaming former adminstrations is generally a bogus play, but in
this instance, laying this whole debacle at the feet of Bush is just insane.
If Gore had been elected, he’d being going after Clinton! :-)
|
And I’d be holding Gore accountable just like I’m holding Bush accountable.
|
Fair enough.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
just like he
didn’t have an ounce of forethought about how to handle Iraq once
Saddam was booted.
|
Please cite for me one article where someone predicted the outcome of
SH’s deposition.
|
I take it you don’t realize you just made my point for me?
|
|
|
I wouldn’t know because I have no idea what your point is!
|
Clearly, or you wouldn’t have supported my point by stating that no one made
any predictions when I claimed that they didn’t try.
|
Well, I was speaking about predictions that actually came to pass, not just
carefully thought through actions that were completely useless IRL.
| |
| |
| |
| |
That George W Bush can’t predict the future???? What kind of a silly
indictment is that???
|
Funny, I figured it out.
|
In what way. No stop. Tell me now what will happen next and what should be
done about it:-)
|
What would that have to do with expecting Bush to think out the ramifications
of his actions?
|
What I’m saying is that of course he did, but that the ramifications may not
have ended up being the ones that actually occured.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
I thought I was saying point blank that Bush has wasted resources, time,
and energy into a wild goose chase instead on concentrating on the task
at hand.
|
Why in the world would you think that the 2 would be mutually exclusive?
|
Why in the world would you think that we have unlimited resources?
|
Where in the world did you get that idea?
|
No, where in the world did you get that idea? For the two goals not to
conflict, there must be enough resources to cover both without one taking
from the other. Do they conflict? Do I see the head of Osama bin Laden
before me? Of course they conflict.
|
Well, that is certainly one explanation, but certainly not the only one. It’s a
BIG world out there; there are a LOT of caves in the ME. Look how long it took
us to find SH and he was practically right under our nose! And we needed a narc
to boot!
| |
| |
| |
Haven’t
you noticed they have resorted to refusing enlistment endings? Do we have
an endless pocketbook? Do we endless trained personnel? Do we have
unlimited equipment?
|
No (increase incentives). No. No. No.
|
See what I mean? You are making my point for me.
|
Yes, but Bruce, I am merely acknowledging the obvious. It doesn’t take
unlimited resources to do what we want and need to do.
| |
| |
| |
How many years did you say that the WTC attack took? Disrupting the
attacks and ending the attacks are two different things.
|
So are you implying that OBL is safe somewhere plotting his next attack on
his own terms?
|
I don’t think you understand the word “imply”. Once again, I’m point-blank
telling you that that is the case. If he isn’t, then what in the world are
we fighting about?
|
Another explanation would be that he is on the defensive and unable to go on
the offensive. You can’t score when you are in the field (talkin’ baseball).
| |
| |
| |
| |
Again, we have a big army. I think that they can walk and chew gum at
the same time. I can’t believe that you believe that Bush isn’t doing
every single thing he can to capture OBL. Look at it from a re-election
POV-- finding OBL would virtually ensure victory in November!
|
You do realize that you are agreeing that Bush is an idiot with that
statement? :-)
|
The argument relating the US intelligence failures to locate OBL and
President Bush’s mental acuity is specious.
|
Perhaps if he had used the resources that he diverted to Iraq, he would have
found Osama and have the election in hand. IBduisoht.
|
oBrRaUcClEe.
| |
| |
| |
| |
What he did wasn’t stupid. You may disagree with what he did, but he has
protected US soil from terrorism for 3 years and has acted to insure the
flow of oil to protect our economy and our way of life. I’d say that’s
what a President should do. He defended our country.
|
Ahhhh, oil. Allow me to cut and paste from way up there at the top of this
message:
JOHN: Why are we still meeting resistance in Iraq? All we want to do is
help the Iraqis set up a government that insures freedom for her people and
leave! What is wrong with that????
Green-Eyed Devil’s Advocate: that may not be all Bush and Cheney are
attempting to do.
Thank you for supporting my point.
|
Thank you for providing my daily dosage of innuendo laced with conspiracy
theory:-d
|
No, thank you!
|
Um, you’re welcome! (Minnesoda nice, doncha know)
| |
| |
| |
| |
Taking the war to the terrorists was bold. I’d rather fight them “there”
with our military than here with our civilians.
|
That decision wasn’t exactly rocket science.
|
Ha, Clinton (the Rhode scholar) didn’t figure that one out. Gore wouldn’t
have had the kahonas to do it, either.
|
Clinton didn’t lose the World Trade Center and 3000 civilians in a single go.
Neither did Gore. And at least Gore showed up in Viet Nam,
|
Now that’s an interesting comparison. Is it braver to photograph guys who had
been shot in Nam, or fly supersonic jets at home?
| |
so Bush is only
brave with others’ cajones (or were you trying to say he was the Big Kahuna?
Spanish or Hawaiian?).
|
lol Curse my “Hooked on Ebonics” tapes! Now, were you referring to cojones
cajun style? ;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) I have some comment on the tip of my tongue about what you could be eating in the meantime, but somehow, (hint, it involves the President's last name) I'm not sure I can say that on Lugnet. _ :-0 - Is it still missing, by the way? (Munch's The (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) That would be included in what I said. However, there are no WoMD and no Al Qaeda connections. Bush can believe what he wants, but I am saying he should be held accountable for his mistakes. (...) He just released a new claim that America is (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
