More news you might have missed...

[Fairweather]

The story that Rather got fried for was absolutely true. The document he waived in front of the camera was apparently a forgery, but the story it told was absolutely true.

 

 

 

My God Matt! Listen to yourself:

"Maybe the documents were forged, but, well, the story is still true!! It really, really is! Why? Well....because all the people I know think it is too!...."

[Crux]

Coward? Pretty tough language there, sport. Now, maybe you could explain your claim. I see no such vote in the record - nor is it tucked into the suplemental budget just passed.

 

On the Senate floor, July 14, Senate Republicans Ted Stevens, Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexandar, John Cornyn, and Saxby Chambliss defended a proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops in Iraq.

 

Now, answer the question: How personally might you take it if such an open season were declared upon you?

 

[mattp]

Back at you, Fairweather. Do you even read the newspaper? They spun off swiftvote vets for smear to divert attention, but nobody from BushCo really even tried to deny that your buddy George skipped out on his duties.

[mattp]

Crux, I haven't looked at the details of that story, but I don't think I'd feel warm and fuzzy about the cngresional Republicans if I were in the military. After all, your commander in chief sent troops to Iraq with completely inadequate equipment and troop numbers, and made sure any general who told him so got sacked. And the Republican congress keeps backing this guy and all they can say is "stay the course."

 

Don't get me wrong, howvever: I'm not necessarily much more confident in the Democrats. But we sure have not seen any success with Republican leadership.

[Fairweather]

Coward? Pretty tough language there, sport. Now, maybe you could explain your claim. I see no such vote in the record - nor is it tucked into the suplemental budget just passed.

 

On the Senate floor, July 14, Senate Republicans Ted Stevens, Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexandar, John Cornyn, and Saxby Chambliss defended a proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops in Iraq.

 

Now, answer the question: How personally might you take it if such an open season were declared upon you?

 

First, I might point out that July 14th is next month. Maybe all that pot you smoke has you confused? Second, again, would you please provide an unbiased link to information re this Republican "proposal"? You're either full of shit - or taking some innocuous tidbit out of a broader text, I'm sure. Third, pulling our troops out of Iraq, as you and Matt no doubt would like to do, would provide just such an amnesty to these same killers.

[archenemy]

Third, pulling our troops out of Iraq, as you and Matt no doubt would like to do, would provide just such an amnesty to these same killers.

 

 

 

that's a good point.

[mattp]

Have you ever seen me argue for a pull out? What would give you the idea that I would call for it?

 

I'm not sure pulling out would be a good plan. I know there are those who say that our presence there is actually fomenting violence and that we are not making progress, and perhaps it would be a good idea to pull out if this is true and if there is little or no prospect to turn things around. But we are not getting anything resembling real information upon which I can make such a call.

 

Based on what I know of the situation, I think the only real defensible position would be that we are there as long as the government of Iraq wants us. As long as we're saying that we've installed a democratically elected government to replace the former regime of terror, and sovereign democracies are what we want to see in the region, I believe we ought to respect our rhetoric. My guess is the Iraqi government would like us to stay for a while.

 

If, of course, we are there for some other objectives, such a policy statement won't fly because if they asked us to leave, we would refuse to do so. But I think this position is a lot more sensible than some "pull the troops out by December 31" type of statement.

 

In my view, "we're not going to tell anybody what our objectives are or what are plans are," when we unilatteraly started a completely optional war that has severely undercut stability in an important part of the world and is killing tens of thousands as well as probably increasing the prospects for international terrorism doesn't cut it.

[Peter_Puget]

Matt if you watched the refs at the US v Italy match you would know why we acted unitlaterally.

 

BTW my TR from Safeco Field (three day grade VI) will eb issued shortly!

[chucK]

 

1 - Firing missiles on coalition aircraft patroling the no-fly zone in violation of the cease-fire agreement.

2 - Attempting to assasinate a former president of the United States.

3 - The post-gulf war/cease-fire agreement murder of over 600 Kuwaiti POW's.

 

Any of these acts justify our invasion, IMO.

 

OK. If we accede that these are the justification for the invasion, then IS NOT THE JOB DONE?

 

Why are we still there? Going by the objectives above, we got Saddam. His army is liquidated. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Right?

 

 

 

But I now honestly believe the reason for the invasion of Iraq is similar to the reason we became involved in Vietnam during the cold war - To demonstrate American power and resolve to our enemies post 9/11.

 

Oh, OK. I see, we need to stay there to show our power and resolve, JUST LIKE VIETNAM!!!

 

 

If we wanna show resolve, maybe the people who are for this war oughta start paying for it, instead of sending a bunch of sacrificial lambs over there to die to show our resolve just because they wanted some extra money to pay college tuition. Maybe we oughta start paying for the war now instead of billing our children and grandchildren!

 

You got any GOP talking points that address any of these issues?

[Crux]

To clarify:

 

1. Yes, the listed Senate Republicans did not defend a proposal next month on July 14 (can't fool you); they defended said proposal on the Senate floor this month, on June 14, OK?

 

2. Sorry kid, for whatever its worth, I don't smoke pot.

 

3. There is no such thing as an unbiased link or news story. Perhaps what you really are thinking of is a link to Rush Limbaugh or Bill OReilly. But you already have all that anyway. The fact is, the story is the story -- its history now.

 

4. The "proposal" to grant amnesty to insurgents who are killing Americans was made NOT by Senate Republicans, but by an aide to the Iraqi Prime Minsister. It was Republican Senators who defended the proposal as a good idea.

 

5. While the Senators endorsed the idea of amnesty for insurgents, the Iraq official who made the proposal was summarily compelled to resign by his superiors, who apologized for the transgression.

 

BTW, you still have not answered the question.

[Fairweather]

Of course, such a proposal is an outrage. But you still haven't provided the complete context or conditions under which a small group of Republican senators thought it might be useful. In the name of Peace perhaps?

 

Now, feel free to answer my question in turn.

[mattp]

Feel free to answer my question, Fairweather. Do you even read the newspapers or do you get everything from Fox and Limbaugh? Did you even know what story the Rather thing delt with - that your commander in chief did not fulfull his service oblitations? Is your post above meant to suggest that there is doubt that he failed to do so?

[Fairweather]

Feel free to answer my question, Fairweather. Do you even read the newspapers or do you get everything from Fox and Limbaugh? Did you even know what story the Rather thing delt with - that your commander in chief did not fulfull his service oblitations? Is your post above meant to suggest that there is doubt that he failed to do so?

 

Actually, Matt, if you were capable of even a moderate degree of reading comprehension you would know that in my rants I often provide links to support my claims - and I don't believe I've ever cited FoxNews or Limbaugh. Usually it's BBC, MSNBC, or a straight AP link.

 

I am thoroughly versed of the whole GWB/National Guard/Bill Burkett-phony document scandal. And I believe that the administration has denied the claims. I also believe that the claims made against Kerry by his fellow sailors are much more credible than anything I've ever seen/read about Bush's National Guard service.

 

Try stepping out of that box you're trapped in somtime. Geeezz.

[whidbey]

Everyone... big group hug now... The world is perfect because of the Republicans... Perfect. When I go to the gas pump or look at the def... I'm reminded of how perfect.... Praise be to the Bushies.

[foraker]

Speaking of boxes:

 

Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton

By original author unknown - search ongoing

Apr 16, 2004

 

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:

 

-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

 

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

 

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

 

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

 

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

 

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

 

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

 

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

 

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

 

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

 

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

 

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

 

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

 

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

 

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

 

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

 

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

 

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

 

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

 

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

 

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

 

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

 

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

 

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

 

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

 

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

 

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

 

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

 

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11

[whidbey]

Lets not forget the national excess... that is now going on. It's only 29K or so for every f'n one of us including our children. I'm a Bush believer... think about how that sounds... Do we need the billboards again with the national dept. to remind us of how everything is perfect. Go Bushies.. Doing a great job.

[foraker]

Wouldn't a little fiscal responsibility taste good right about now? A couple of years without any signing statements, anyone? Maybe a little less pandering to big business and polluting industries? Sounds like a Frank Capra movie, doesn't it?

[mattp]

I believe that the administration has denied the claims. I also believe that the claims made against Kerry by his fellow sailors are much more credible than anything I've ever seen/read about Bush's National Guard service.

Where you say "you believe" the Whitehouse denied it, are you referring to statements like this, from Scott McClellan?

Link ? Strong stuff. NOT. "He had 56 out of a required 56 points..." Hmm - the questions remain: did he miss all those drills and refuse or fail to show up for a physical or not? Public documents and virtually all the evidence we've seen make it pretty clear that he enjoyed the privilege that comes with being the son of a powerful man and didn't fulfill because he didn't have to.

 

And the Swifties? Seriously, Fairweather. You are smart enough to know that was crap.

 

Your blind allegience is charming but on any argument over who served our country and who didn't, or who showed bravery and honor and who didn't, you might not want to be so swashbuckling.

Edited June 20, 2006 by mattp

[Dechristo]

Who can claim sufficient objectivity to not fall prey to the adage "there are none so blind as those who will not see"?

[cj001f]

Who can claim sufficient objectivity to not fall prey to the adage "there are none so blind as those who will not see"?

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson?

[Dechristo]

No, I don't think he would have claimed it either.

[cj001f]

No, I don't think he would have claimed it either.

"I become a transparent eyeball - I am nothing; I see all"

[Dechristo]

like that

[ivan]

No, I don't think he would have claimed it either.

"I become a transparent eyeball - I am nothing; I see all"

my fav beach experience ever perhpas was quoting that exact line to A Clutch of The Faithful as the sun rose over the humid Atlantic a june-day after the 10th consectuve 420 we'd hit when the man who'd been passed out in his own vomit for the past 5 hrs rose n' said "shiiiiiit! transparent eyeballs are bullshit!" n' faded once again into sweet sweet oblivion

[mattp]

Here's some news you might not want to miss:

 

FRONTLINE INVESTIGATES VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY'S ROLE AS CHIEF ARCHITECT OF THE WAR ON TERROR AND HIS BATTLE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR CONTROL OF THE "DARK SIDE"

 

FRONTLINE presents THE DARK SIDE

Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 9 to 10:30 P.M. ET on PBS