Democrats were willing dupes...again

[Peter_Puget]

Hmmmm...well GGK only post in this thread is this:

yeah, right. maybe we should also remember a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub!

 

FW response was this:

Because neither of the two things you assert are true.

 

Did FW ask a question?

 

Did Mattp post what you claim he did?

 

 

[Fairweather]

So MattP's semantics are defendable, but GLassgowkiss' statement is allowed to stand? It simply isn't true.

[Fairweather]

Actually, the quote you attribute to me was in response to Kevbone's claim that Bush has 'shredded the constitution, and ground the economy to a halt'.

 

When someone like GGK posts an outrageous claim the onus falls upon he or his defenders to pony up. Matt's suggestion that I "just google it" was dumb and lazy.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Fairweather

[Peter_Puget]

BS FW...you didnt aska question. You simply wrote that GK's fact was wrong. What was the point of Mattp's post if not to suggest it was true?

 

It might be I am relying on Steven here.......

Edited March 28, 2008 by Peter_Puget

[StevenSeagal]

So MattP's semantics are defendable, but GLassgowkiss' statement is allowed to stand? It simply isn't true.

 

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise!

[Peter_Puget]

And in fact Mattp was misleading......very very Bushian.....

[mattp]

Matt's suggestion that I "just

google it" was just plain dumb and lazy.

 

Actually, the dumb and lazy act here was yours, not bothering with the simplest google search (Taliban Texas) before you lashed back at our poor misunderstood Mr. Glasgow here.

[Peter_Puget]

Have a good weekend guys!

[StevenSeagal]

This is turning into "6 Quotes to glassgowkiss"

 

[Fairweather]

So MattP's semantics are defendable, but GLassgowkiss' statement is allowed to stand? It simply isn't true.

 

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise!

 

The fact that is was in 1998--pre 9/11 and pre GWB as prez--is also relevant, don't you think?

[StevenSeagal]

So MattP's semantics are defendable, but GLassgowkiss' statement is allowed to stand? It simply isn't true.

 

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise!

 

 

The fact that is was in 1998--pre 9/11 and pre GWB as prez--is also relevant, don't you think?

 

What, were the Taliban our friends until 9/11?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So MattP's semantics are defendable, but GLassgowkiss' statement is allowed to stand? It simply isn't true.

 

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise!

 

 

The fact that is was in 1998--pre 9/11 and pre GWB as prez--is also relevant, don't you think?

 

What, were the Taliban our friends until 9/11?

 

The mujahedin were

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

And in fact Mattp was misleading......very very Bushian.....

 

How is "go search Google" misleading? Is there a "Google-Libturd version 2.0" that he was sending you to that would give you inaccurate libturd propaganda passing as "news"?

[Serenity]

Sorry, I didn't realize that the entire portion of the article I copied and pasted didn't contain the attribution.

 

Being a student of the whole thing, I've come to realize, understand, and accept the reasons we were led into war in the 1st place.

 

That was the point of my 1st post.

 

Anyway, have a good weekend. Good skiing.

[mattp]

Don't sweat it, Serenity. I didn't get the impression you were claiming that you wrote the article. Anybody wanting the source could obtain it with a click or two.

[StevenSeagal]

Sorry, I didn't realize that the entire portion of the article I copied and pasted didn't contain the attribution.

 

Being a student of the whole thing, I've come to realize, understand, and accept the reasons we were led into war in the 1st place.

 

That was the point of my 1st post.

 

Anyway, have a good weekend. Good skiing.

 

Rip it up!!!

[Fairweather]

No Bush connection other than "Texas". Cheney was a businessman in 1997. The Taliban had only recently taken power. 9/11 was still 5 years away. Sounds to me like we were trying to work with them in a productive manner. Glassgow's statement remains a bald-faced lie, and Matt's suggestion was both lame and lazy.

 

 

 

[mattp]

Fairweather: all I did was point out that you were obviously too lazy to look it up. In that, I believe, it is YOU who was lame and lazy. And here you called our poor defensless Glasgowkiss names over it. Have a nice day.

[Fairweather]

I could make the outrageous claim that "Obama is a Muslim jihadist"...but to then tell readers to "just Google it...you'll see!" would be ridiculous. You, sir, are in a box without holes.

[mattp]

Say what? Your logic eludes me.

[StevenSeagal]

No Bush connection other than "Texas". Cheney was a businessman in 1997. The Taliban had only recently taken power. 9/11 was still 5 years away. Sounds to me like we were trying to work with them in a productive manner. Glassgow's statement remains a bald-faced lie, and Matt's suggestion was both lame and lazy.

 

 

 

Fair enough...although I don't buy the notion that we didn't really understand what the Taliban were all about until 9/11.

On that note, should we still try again to work with the Iranians in a productive manner?

Finally, I'd say Cheney to this day remains a businessman first and foremost.

[Fairweather]

Say what? logic eludes me.

 

That's not surprising.

[Peter_Puget]

Ok Fairweather thanks for helping me straighten it out. Here is your reply to GGK:

 

Explain. I'll bet you can't. Saudis? Sure. Saudi does not equal Taliban. Why are you so xenophobic and hegemonic, Gutter Slop

 

Again no question at all. You clearly indicate that you believe Bush never hosted the Taliban. Turns out you were correct.

 

Your reply never suggests that you were unfamiliar with the Taliban's US visit. Matt's post suggesting you Google it clearly suggests that your reply was factually incorrect and that you are clueless about the visit.

[StevenSeagal]

No Bush connection other than "Texas". Cheney was a businessman in 1997. The Taliban had only recently taken power. 9/11 was still 5 years away. Sounds to me like we were trying to work with them in a productive manner. Glassgow's statement remains a bald-faced lie, and Matt's suggestion was both lame and lazy.

 

 

 

On second thought, even if Bush had no connection, it apparently wouldn't be the first time the Bush family has been involved financially with despots:

 

http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html

 

[olyclimber]

i'm reading a book about about the arise of the taliban right now...we knew very well what the taliban where all about and that they were rabidly anti-american (but then they aren't the only ones). the Taliban and the extremist Islamic movement in Afghanistan served us well in encouraging the Soviet Union to leave that area towards the end of the Cold War. our money was green and they took it as they saw the anti-religious communist as a more immediate threat at the time. then once that ceased to be a problem they turned their love towards the West.