Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYou've heard the President and Vice President say it over and over: There was a connection between the events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq. Let's take this seriously and consider some of the links between the two:
*At least 3,438 Iraqis died by violent means during July, significantly more than the 2,973 people who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001.
*1,536 Iraqis died in Baghdad alone in August, according to figures from the Baghdad morgue -- over half the 9/11 casualties in one city in one increasingly typical month. According to the Washington Post, this figure does not include suicide-bombing victims taken to the city's hospitals or deaths in towns near the capital.
*By the beginning of September, 2,974 U.S. military service members had died in Iraq and in the Bush administration's Global War on Terror, more than died in the attacks of 9/11.
*Five years later, according to the British newspaper, the Independent, the Bush administration's Global War on Terror has resulted in, at a minimum, 20 times the deaths of 9/11; at a maximum, 60 times. According to journalist Paul McGeough, Iraqi officials estimate that that country's death toll since 2003 "stands at 50,000 or more -- the proportional equivalent of about 570,000 Americans."
*Recently, the Senate agreed to appropriate another $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the (taxpayer) cost for Bush's wars to about $469 billion and climbing. That's the equivalent of 469 Ground Zero memorials at full cost-overrun estimates, double that if the memorial comes in at the recently revised budget of $500 million.
While Americans are planning to remember 9/11 with four vast towers and a huge, costly memorial sunk into Manhattan's Ground Zero, Baghdadis have been thinking more practically. They are putting scarce funds into two new branch morgues (with refrigeration units) in the capital for what's now most plentiful in their country: dead bodies. They plan to raise the city's morgue capacity to 250 bodies a day. That would be 7,500 bodies a month. Think of it as a hedge against ever more probable futures.
The link between 9/11 and Iraq is unfortunately all too real. The Bush administration made it so in the heat of the post-9/11 shock.
Think of it this way: In the immediate wake of 9/11, our President and Vice President hijacked our country, using the low-tech rhetorical equivalents of box cutters and mace; then, with most passengers on board and not quite enough of the spirit of United Flight 93 to spare, after a brief Afghan overflight, they crashed the plane of state directly into Iraq, causing the equivalent of a Katrina that never ends and turning that country into the global equivalent of Ground Zero.
For a longer version of this, check out the full essay at my website, Tomdispatch.com (and scroll down).
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
This is an interesting rhetorical concept...but not likely to be used outside of blogs or the rare pundit.
Unlikely any prominent Democrat would ever attempt it, given the easy spin on it would be "So you think Bush is worse than Osama bin Laden"....the Hard Core guys would say "Yes, I do", but outside of the 15-20% of the populace who are consumed with loathing of Dubya and Co., it wouldn't fly.
Maybe the "22 Reps" that Mr Nichols noted would try it...but doubt even THEY would risk that.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 10:06am
that's actually a very relevant question, mask: "is bush worse than bin laden?"
just consider bush's support for the use of torture in secret prisons. and his reason? "to protect the american people."
and just consider bin laden's support for suicide bombs on vital urban infrastructure in western cities: "they have been stealing our oil and bombing our cities for decades."
any different?
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 10:37am
Bush reiterated that Osama is not a high priority.
I thought Bush was a sayy pol.....that statement has just handed 2006 to the Dems on a platter. All they have to do is prioritize OBL (like the electorate does) and the Repubs are toast.
Posted by freedomplease at 09/15/2006 @ 11:03am
Hence my reference to you, DARLA....
"the Hard Core guys would say "Yes, I do"" (nothing sexist, the "editorial" "guys" I assure you)
but nobody in a position of leadership in the Opposition Party (let's say "Democrats") would ever say such a thing, Kucinich, Conyers...maybe. But nobody with even a SHOT at the Presidency, not even Feingold.
It would play PERFECTLY to a Republican strategy to paint Democrats as so loathing of Bush...and so "obliging" to terrorists...as to have been written by Karl Rove himself and given to Tom Engelhardt to say.
Sure, it works GREAT here at "The Nation" (or the Blogosphere) and with folks such as yourself....but Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Barak Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, the aforementioned Feingold, wouldn't touch it with a 20 foot pole.
Even the Left's "media darling" Keith O. would probably find himself on the bad end of a switching from NBC if he said such a thing on the air....and he knows it.
It's blog fodder....fine as a throwaway bit of rhetoric. But it'll never make it to the mainstream of political banter.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 11:03am
because certain thoughts are not embraced by the mainstream does not make them untrue.
conversely, because certain democrats, like pelosi or feingold, don't embrace them either, in order to get elected, does not make them untrue as well.
just think about it: bush condones the use of torture.
let that sink really deep into your head today. hopefully at the end of the day, you will realize how unamerican bush really is.
forget about political strategy, mask, for a minute, and admit your leader is a bigger threat than osama.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 11:10am
bush is unamerican because he is publicly allowing our "enemy" to torture american prisoners!
powell has said this, too.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 11:12am
bush has consistently used the same rhetorical strategy:
"my job is to protect americans. if this program doesn't go through, people will die."
yo bush! we ain't listening anymore!
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 11:14am
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Posted by drhammer at 09/15/2006 @ 12:06pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 11:10am
DARLA, first....get over it, huh? He's YOUR leader too. Despite the fact that you and I likely voted for the same guy in 2004 (I voted for Kerry, I assume you did)....Bush is the President of the whole country and trying to distance yourself by saying "He's not MY President" is a child's game.
Second, "conversely, because certain democrats, like pelosi or feingold, don't embrace them either, in order to get elected, does not make them untrue as well."....No, but it means that those ideas AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE politically.
So you can revel in the fact that "certain thoughts" are not in the mainstream, not supported by a sympathetic political opposition, but are "true"....but it also means they're essentially useless and un-important in the grand scheme of things since they're not going to be promulgated.
Everything that YOU believe and hold dear may be "true"...but if there is no majority will or political support to them, then they're going to remain YOUR sole province and not influence the nation as a whole.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 12:17pm
bush is unamerican because he is publicly allowing our "enemy" to torture american prisoners!
Yes.
admit your leader is a bigger threat than osama.
No.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/15/2006 @ 12:23pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 10:37am | ignore this person
I don't know if you read the NY Times, DARLA, being out there on the West Coast. But an editorial on Tuesday, titled "The Apocalypse Will be Blogged," got me thinking about the rhetorical similarities between GWB and OBL. The article was a collection of snippets of blogs posted on various "jihadi" websites. A short excerpt from one:
That day changed the world, even by the admission of our enemies, and created ... a world divided into two camps, as our sheik and leader Osama bin Laden -- may God protect him -- has stated: "A camp of belief and another camp of hypocrisy and disbelief." Choose for yourself, o Muslim, which camp to belong to: that of belief, Islam and jihad under the banner of the holy warriors or that of hypocrisy and unbelief under the banner of America, the crusading West and those hypocrites who have banded with them.
Sound anything like GWB and Co's "You either agree with everything we do or else you're supporting the enemy" nonsense?
(Full link to the NYD op-ed here [nytimes.com] )
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 12:26pm
Bush is not my President either and I think millions of Americans feel the same way.
I've always been kind of curious; what does this even mean? Does it mean "I don't like Bush"? Does it mean "he can't tell me what to do"? When you say that "Bush is not my President," what are you saying?
First of all he was never elected so he shouldn't have been re-elected. He was appointed.
A couple of problems with this. First of all, last I checked, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. They may get the Constitution wrong, but their decision is still the law of the land. As such, Bush v. Gore stands whether you agree with it or not. Second of all, he was still elected in 2004 regardless of how you feel about 2000, so if it's a question of being chosen by the people, then Bush is still your President.
Secondly, he has lied about policy over and over and over again. It only takes one lie about policy to lose me, not that he ever had me because of the reason previously stated.
OK, so this sounds like "Bush is not my President" means "I don't support Bush." If that's the case, I don't think anyone could question your statement. However, it still has been established that Bush believed Iraq had WMDs, and that they were a threat. This is a particularly compelling explanation given that no serious alternative has been defended.
No before you go saying that Bill Clinton lied as well, remember it was about a personal indiscretion to protect his family.
How?
Posted by Thrawn at 09/15/2006 @ 12:40pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 12:25am
Frank, is "dubious election results" the only qualifier for who we do and do NOT accept as "our President"?
I want to know. Since we're scrapping the CONSTITUTIONAL definition of "the person the Presidential electors cast their ballots for 41 days after the election who wins 270+ votes"....and going with "feelings", I'd really like to know all the other things we can take into account.
For instance, were the Right-wing guys right to say "Clinton's not MY President, he never got a majority of the vote"? If McCain or some other Republican wins the Presidency in 2008, does "He's not MY President, the Diebold machines were tampered with" (even if it's a landslide) count?
This is a kid's ploy....something to make you feel like YOUR Government has been "hijacked" or you're living in some "dictatorship" (Yes, yes....now comes the typical Blogosphere responses of "It WAS hijacked" and slightly less rarer "It IS a dictatorship!!!").
You can say "He's not a 'fairly elected' President" or "He only has the Presidency due to election fraud"...but to claim some "separate" status for yourself (or DARLA) is no accurate.
The only HONEST version of DARLA's "your leader" comment would be to somebody who is a registered Republican, since Bush IS the leader of the GOP (I'm not, as I stated on many occasions).
But this "He's not MY President" stuff is sophomoric emotionalism.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 12:40pm
Posted by LIVEEASY 09/15/2006 @ 12:26am
I would say that this blog is thoroughly infested with jihadis who have sworn allegiance to their sheik and leader Osama bin Boosh except for one thing- I could never see one of them sacrificing their own life for anyone or anything. That doesn't make them any less dangerous, however.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/15/2006 @ 12:47pm
We have very, very stupid, ignorant leaders righ now in the present administration and a very lazy news media. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 12:36am | ignore this person
On the topic of a lazy news media...I meant to post a response to a comment on Berman's Hack the Vote thread yesterday, but I was too lazy and tired (and besides, the thread was being dominated by a pointless argument between MASK and DARLA about which party is "morally superior" and therefore wouldn't steal an election, or some such nonsense).
The typical American has the attention span of a knat and slightly more intelligence. Posted by WP9219FFC 09/14/2006 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person
I'm sick of hearing this kind of shit...especially from liberals and progressives. Look into the past just 100 short years, when virtually NOBODY but the gifted and the priveleged received more than an 8th-grade education. Now, we're well above 50% of the population going to college. Granted, education does not guarantee superior intelligence...but then again, one does not have to be a Harvard scholar in order to make an informed decision. One does, however, need access to decent honest information in order to make an informed decision. The issue with our problems in this country is not the lack of intelligence of the electorate, and to say so is to make a LAZY argument. The biggest issue is a LAZY news media that is beholden to corporate interests that are nowhere near the interests of most Americans, and a political system that is beholden to these same interests.
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 12:55pm
Dear moral equivalency types, Oh sorry. Not "equivalency", because you think President Bush is worse than Osama et al. According to your reasoning, because President Bush opposes evil (e.g. Saddam) he is its author. Never mind that we are in Iraq to stop the killing. At least you say what you mean, fatuous as it is. See you on election day.
Posted by daninkansas at 09/15/2006 @ 12:56pm
But this "He's not MY President" stuff is sophomoric emotionalism.
Posted by MASK 09/15/2006 @ 12:40am | ignore this person
Agreed...that, too, is LAZY response to the problems we face. If you're an American citizen (as I am), he IS your President, and you have the obligation to do your damnedest to get him the hell OUT of there, not to wash your hands of the whole situation ("Not MY President...not MY problem").
Although, I must admit some jealousy at a few of my friends and co-workers (among them 2 Canadian citizens and an Ecuadorian citizen - all here legally, by the way), who can honestly say, "not MY President."
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 1:00pm
Bush vs. Osama aside, I think the illegal war and occupation of Iraq was a far bigger crime than 9/11. 3,000 innocent people killed on 9/11, but 100,000+ innocent people have been killed in Iraq and that country has been basically destroyed.
I think the Iraq trajedy is FAR worse than 9/11, and I would say the same thing even if it was proven that the Bush administration let or made 9/11 happen.
Posted by Flarney at 09/15/2006 @ 1:13pm
"Never mind that we are in Iraq to stop the killing." Posted by DANINKANSAS 09/15/2006 @ 12:56am
I bet we've killed more Iraqi's between our two wars there than Saddam ever did. It would be interesting to see the real numbers.
Posted by Flarney at 09/15/2006 @ 1:17pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person
Point taken. However, the argument of whether or not he was legitimately elected in 2000 has no bearing on our collective complete failure to do something about his dishonest, disastrous policies. Although I never voted for the lunatics, I'm willing to share the responsibility for this failure, along with the ~300 million other Americans (or at least the portion of those 300 million who are 18 and older)
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 1:31pm
It's the only way we'll ever have a hope of digging out of the deep, dark hole in which we find ourselves.
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 1:32pm
liberty, it does not matter that the "enemy" is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions. WE ARE, and that is OUR responsibility. next thing you'll tell us how Jesus supported torture.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:33pm
"The fact that several factions comprising less than 2% of the population are engaged in criminal acts of violence"
hahahahahah. no baby, the baathist gov't is a major force of the violence. as is the Shia "majority" who has not democracy but revenge on their mind. you live in a dream world, get your nose out of the bible and read some newspapers. some books on the mideast might also be of use.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:37pm
LIVEEASY 09/15/2006 @ 12:55am
how do you explain that 43% of americans continue to believe in the lie about Saddam and Osama. how do you explain that 80% of our troops believe this?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:39pm
Posted by LIVEEASY 09/15/2006 @ 1:00pm
And I think that is fair and completely appropriate.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 1:44pm
Posted by FLARNEY 09/15/2006 @ 1:13pm
FLARNEY, like DARLA, hardly matters what your opinion is (policy-wise)...because NO politician in his right mind is going to make that argument to the American people. I doubt if the "safest-of-safe Democratic districts" from Berkeley to the Bronx a guy or gal could get elected saying that.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 1:46pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 1:44pm |
Slightly off-topic, but what isn't on this weird thread...
Hillary or McCain, FRANK, who do you vote for?....how about Feingold vs McCain or even a Southern moderate like Mark Warner v "Maverick John"?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 1:47pm
"Who is/are the leadership of the faction seeking a split from the existing government?"
the existing gov't is a puppet gov't of the US, propped up by 140,000 american troops.
the "faction" is the Baathist party. lead by? Saddam's number two?
"What is their proposed government?"
the status quo ante
"Do they have a constitution or even some rudimentary articles of government?"
see previous gov't of Iraq
"Are they formally recognized by other nations and if so which ones?"
the gov't of Saddam and his party was recognized by the world.
"Have any international bodies (ie, UN, NATO, Arab League) recognized this alternate government?"
has the arab league recognized the puppet regime in Baghdad? has the Iraqi nation? the jury is still out.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:48pm
how do you explain that 43% of americans continue to believe in the lie about Saddam and Osama.
Some portion of them are woefully uninformed, or unintelligent, or both at once. Some portion of them really don't believe the lie...they are just liers and say that they do. Some portion of them really don't believe the lie...they just WANT so strongly to believe it that they somehow manage to rationalize a false belief.
how do you explain that 80% of our troops believe this?
Same as above. Although, I'd suspect that the majority of the difference probably falls into the last category. There's no accounting for the rationalizations that our minds might make when thrust into circumstances of extreme psychological duress.
Note: yes, I did say that a portion of our population IS woefully unintelligent. This does not contradict my already stated argument. To the extent that Americans are stupid, so are citizens of every other country in the world. I do not claim that stupidity doesn't exist; I just claim that stupidity is NOT the cause of our electoral and political problems, and to say so is to be intellecually LAZY (or, maybe just plain stupid).
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 1:48pm
the above has nothing to do with whether there is a civil war going on in Iraq. look at OTHER civil wars, Lebanon, Algeria, Greece etc and see if those questions apply.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:49pm
"the gov't of Saddam and his party was recognized by the world."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 1:48pm
recognized as what?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 1:49pm
or, maybe just plain stupid).
Posted by LIVEEASY 09/15/2006 @ 1:48p
oh yes call me stupid, that'll support your fatuous arguments real good.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:51pm
Posted by MASK 09/15/2006 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person
I know you didn't ask me, but I would have to say that at this point, I don't know WHO I'd vote for in any of the three possibilities you mentioned...would have to watch the debates and actually use my noggin a bit.
One thing's for sure...the debates would certainly be a HELL of a lot better than any we've seen in the last few Pres. election cycles.
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 1:52pm
To the extent that Americans are stupid, so are citizens of every other country in the world.
they're NOT in Iraq.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:53pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 1:51pm
Sorry FRANK, since it was addressed to "wingnuts"...didn't figure it was meant for me....hehe.
Answer--I fully support a strong Geneva Convention. No reason why we shouldn't. And the fact that terrorists and rogue nations don't abide by it and we do will show OUR moral high ground.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 1:55pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person
I didn't call you stupid...it was a joke (albeit obviously not a very good one).
And how is my argument any more fatuous than your own (to the extent that you even MADE an argument)?
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 1:56pm
Easy, challenging your argument IS my argument.
jokes here are a very tricky proposition, as is irony and sarcasm. they have to be very blunt and big, lest they go over the head of those it is aimed at, and cause hard feelings.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 1:59pm
Posted by LIVEEASY 09/15/2006 @ 1:52pm
It was an open question....I think if you want to see some fun here at "The Nation" blogs, it'll be the split between the "McCain Left" and the "He's No Better Than Bush Left" come 2008.
McCain, despite his occasional "sucking up to Dubya and the Religious Righties", still maintains a lot of his appeal to conservative, even moderate Democrats. There is even some common agreement that, if McCain can get past the primaries and any opposition from the Hard/Religious Right, he'd take it in a cake-walk.
But I think you'll see a real brouhaha on some of the liberal blogs if it comes down to, say, Hillary and McCain. She is developing a loathing among the Left for her "hawkishness"; while, as I said, McCain can pull in some Democrats. So you'll have people who hate Hillary defending voting for her as the "slightly lesser of two evils"....and calling once-compatriots in Bush-hatred "traitors to the Cause".
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 2:00pm
Don't forget Malicki's visit to Iran looking for security.
file this under unintended consequences, Frank.
the war in Iraq is like smashing the pieces of the middle east against a wall, and expecting that the pieces fall in such a way to make it whole again.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 2:02pm
how do you explain that 43% of americans continue to believe in the lie about Saddam and Osama. how do you explain that 80% of our troops believe this?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 1:39pm
I keep hearing this, could you post a link to the most recent poll that shows this to be true? Thanks in advance.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:13pm
it is a complete waste of time to endlessly deconstruct critical assessments of the president. we all know precisely what americans mean when they express even banal frustration with the president. mr. bush can't possibly do much worse before even his hardcore supporters bail. his "revelation" that the CIA has been using secret prisons to torture prisoners should terrify us all. just think about it: the united states of america is using chinese water torture on prisoners. and the president admits it. this sends a message to the world: there are no rules anymore. even if there were, we don't follow them. now, any american soldier caught in battle is FUCKED beyond belief.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 2:16pm
Here [zogby.com] you go, JOHN B, since FRANKGRITS is lazy (which I've already asserted, and now he's proven).
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 2:20pm
That article contains the 46% number, but I couldn't find the 80% of troops believe in the link article.
Posted by liveeasy at 09/15/2006 @ 2:21pm
Stop asking others to do your homework for you. Google it!
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006
With all due respect Frank... fuck off. If someone posts results from a poll... rather than everyone else trying to find the exact poll stated, the person posting the numbers should provide a link. It is not that much to ask.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:23pm
Easy, you gotta lotta nerve to call anyone lazy. the 80% number has been widely reported in many newspapers. a quick google should clear that up for you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 2:25pm
bush said this today from the rose garden, in response to powell's suggestion that the USA is losing the moral high ground in the war on terror:
"It's unacceptable to think there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective"
does bush listen to ANY advice? ever?
oh no, certainly no immoral equivalency between the US and Islamic extremists. the US is spreading "democracy" by killing innocent women and children. how can we deny it?
let's just go through it SLOWLY:
-bush wants to spread democracy
-bush chooses iraq
-bush goes into iraq with army
-army kills innocent women and children
and what do the 'islamic extremists' do:
-bin laden is angry at US military presence in the region
-says we are stealing his oil
-wants to goto the USA and blow shit up
-does so, and in the process kills innocent women and children
what's the difference?
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 2:25pm
Easy, you gotta lotta nerve to call anyone lazy. the 80% number has been widely reported in many newspapers. a quick google should clear that up for you.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF
Perhaps in the future, if you are going to cite poll results, you could provide the links to back them up.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:28pm
how do you explain that 43% of americans continue to believe in the lie about Saddam and Osama. how do you explain that 80% of our troops believe this?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 1:39pm
I keep hearing this, could you post a link to the most recent poll that shows this to be true? Thanks in advance.
Posted by JOHN B 09/15/2006 @ 2:13pm
John -
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 2:29pm
all i'm saying is: let's cut the horse shit and be honest here. the united states might look pretty on the surface, but let's look a little deeper:
does anybody think for a minute that our extraordinarily luxurious lifestyle doesn't come at a price to the third world? we have been massively exploiting, dominating, enslaving and terrorizing the third world for over 400-500 years.
why is iraq any different? i mean, let's face it, they got oil. we NEED oil. they also have big fat construction contracts to be had. let's face it, IRAQ WAS FOR THE TAKING, AND WE TOOK IT.
so to bush, i say: just be honest dude, don't BS with us. tell it like it is. we torture, we kill, we bully, we do whatever we can to ensure that we are the richest and most powerful country on earth. if other countries don't adopt this truth, we don't listen to them (venezuela, cuba, iran, etc)
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 2:30pm
Sorry, Liveeasy beat me to it...
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 2:31pm
If someone posts results from a poll... rather than everyone else trying to find the exact poll stated, the person posting the numbers should provide a link. It is not that much to ask.
Posted by JOHN B 09/15/2006 @ 2:23pm
Agreed.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 2:32pm
the history of the world is: men with weapons, and a bloodthirsty greed for power. we women have been largely left out of this arrangement for eternity. left to make babies, do the cooking and cleaning, while you go out and kill, even for sport you kill. and look what you've done? look at this once beautiful planet, now destroyed with your rockets and bombs. you've ruined everything, stupid men. you're (almost) all the same, in my opinion.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 2:33pm
liveeasy & ND... thanks, I appreciate the links to the polls.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:34pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 2:33pm
DARLA...quoting "Plan 9 from Outer Space"?
Eros: [with disgust] Stronger. You see? You see? You're stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Eros: It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 2:39pm
the number about the troops appears to be even worse than I thought.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 2:39pm
It's old news John. Where the hell have you been? The polls you seek have been posted here before WHILE you were here so don't act like you don't know about them. You got Liveeasy to do your work for you. The rest of us aren't as gullible.
Posted by FRANKGRITS
1) There are numerous polls out there Frank. If someone is posting numbers from one, then they obviously have the link handy (having just taken the numbers from the poll).
2) If you pay attention, you might note that Johannes numbers and the numbers from Zogby are slightly different.
3) New poll results: 83% of Americans think people citing polls should post links to polls being cited. The other 17% are lazy bastards.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:40pm
Darla---the difference is intent. Also Jihadist attacked the United States prior to our invasion of Iraq. And on purely a political note, I think you should continue to compare the actions of the U.S. with Jihadist---I am sure it's a winning plan.
Posted by Len Mosse at 09/15/2006 @ 2:41pm
we don't listen to them (venezuela, cuba, iran, etc)
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 2:30pm
Gee....why is it that we should listen to the DICTATORS....and not democracies, DARLA? I mean you could have said "France, Italy, Germany"...ANY of the European countries that oppose the war and Bush just as strongly.....
yet you picked the dictatorships....and even odder...dictatorships run by MEN?!?!!?!?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 2:41pm
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2
Thank you.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:43pm
"How would you like Saudi Arabia to be in the hands of someone who was hostile to America and punished us with economic pressure by witholding supplies of oil".
you may insert Chavez instead of Saudi. Bush thinks he's the emperor of the whole fucking world.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 2:44pm
Posted by JOHN B 09/15/2006 @ 2:40pm
Note on Zogby, JOHN. Since 2004, the Big Z has been off on his polling (oddly skewed against Bush, where no other poll even bad ones for Bush, have been). His "53% support impeachment poll" of last year (always a crowd pleader) has NEVER been duplicated by any other polling company.
Just....odd.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 2:44pm
John -
I understand that you have pissed off many of those on the boards who sit a little (or a lot) to the left of me (go figure), but I will say again to my friends that:
John B. is NOTHING like Rio, Barry, Maasch, Mask, CPT, Todd, et al, guys, and I don't think he's deserving of the contempt that gets spit his way here most of the time.
With me, at the very least, he has always seemed honest and forthright, even when we disagree (even when we vehemently disagree). I also believe that he does NOT just talk out of his ass - as a general rule, he has always seems measured and thoughtful to me, especially by comparison to those I mentioned above, and he also usually seems to research and think through what he has to say before he says it.
Give the guy a break and try civilized discourse with him - he's clearly apable of it, and we shouldn't rush pell-mell towards breaking down that open and civilized line of communication if we can help it... God knows there are enough folks who come here just to be disruptive...
I just do not believe that John B. is one of "them".
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 2:44pm
what's the intent when civilian populations are bombed by US planes?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 2:45pm
Posted by JOHN B 09/15/2006 @ 2:28pm
If you want to mix it up here and stay off people's ignore lists, you have to be willing to earn it and do your own research, BEFORE you question anyone elses.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006
Frank, do you honestly believe that people should be able to post poll results or quotes etc... and then tell the rest of the board to go look it up? That is ridiculous. If you make a statement, it is up to YOU to back it up. If you wish to put me on your ignore list, go right ahead and do so, that is your choice.
73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:47pm
mask, chavez is not a dictator, he wasn't appointed, he was elected. and anyway, this isn't the point.....the point is that the united states of america doesn't listen to anyone who challenges their supremacy. on a cultural level, france was included in the "those we don't listen to" category...
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 2:47pm
Mask,
I have often participated in Zogby's polls via on-line polling. The questions are generally balanced. As far as the impeachment poll... timing is everything.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:50pm
No, Frank. I was simply being honest.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 2:51pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/15/2006 @ 2:44pm
thanks.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:51pm
OK, John, drop it.
Posted by FRANKGRITS
Fine with me Frank, but remember YOU are the one that jumped in the middle of it.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
Would you reference that for us please?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006
www.franklookitup.com
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
You weren't around during some of the past dialogue. I, or one, have my suspicions about jB. Recognize his style under a former name.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006
Frank, there is no way I can prove this to you, but I swear I have never been on this site under a different name.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 2:57pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 2:47pm |
Okay, DARLA....I'll grant Hugo his "democrat" status and apologize.
Now....explain Iran and Cuba. (By the way, I love that you think we should "listen to" a government run by men, who believe in the supremacy of men, like Iran! See: Iranian Civil Law)
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 2:57pm
And Mask -
Saw your response over at "Novak vs. Armitage: Was the Plame Leak Deliberate?" following up on your lies and misrepresentations about my words over at "Cheney, 9/11 and the Truth about Iraq".
Now, you're even trying to add in the lie that I am in favor of ignoring people, even though I wrote a long post decrying that very sort of thing.
I invite everyone to go over and look at our conversations on the two relevant threads before you continue discourse with Mask.
He remains a lying, shit-stirring punk and a patently dishonest debating partner, with a gross penchant for creating quotes out of whole cloth and putting words into people's mouths whenever he isn't twisting what people actually did say just so he can attract attention to himself and argue, which he thinks is "fun".
You're gross, Mask. Vile. Repugnant.
And wholly transparent.
Fuck you, buddy.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 2:58pm
I have often participated in Zogby's polls via on-line polling.
Posted by JOHN B 09/15/2006 @ 2:50pm
JOHN....what KIND of "on-line polling"? Do you have to register your e-mail and IP protocol number and thereby prevent "double dipping" or is it the kind of "on-line polling" you get at Daily Kos where "93% of the respondents think Bush should be hanged for war crimes" kind?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 2:59pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/15/2006 @ 2:51pm
You weren't around during some of the past dialogue. I, or one, have my suspicions about jB. Recognize his style under a former name.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 2:55pm
Frank -
That may very well be true, but I cannot fault this incarnation (if it is a reincarnation of a previous poster) for the things he is often faulted for here by those who disagree with him.
I'm only pointing out that his current conversations with me have always been civil.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 3:00pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/15/2006 @ 2:58pm
And yet....he won't put me on his Ignore list?!??!?!
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 3:00pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/15/2006 @ 12:47am
It could be argued that the home-grown variety is more insidious, because you can only give your own life once.
Posted by drhammer at 09/15/2006 @ 3:00pm
Mask... yes, you have to register
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 3:01pm
C'mon. John don't come here with stats you haven't referenced for us. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006
Well frank... you see, I made the numbers up. I know that was really difficult for you to contemplate. Which is why people should post links.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 3:03pm
polls and statistics are not the same thing. statistics can be compiled in a number of different ways. I guess it could be argued that polls result in statistics.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 3:04pm
"I love that you think we should "listen to" a government run by men, who believe in the supremacy of men, like Iran!"
have i said anywhere that i think we should listen to iran? no! mask, you have an extraordinary ability to argue on my behalf. i'm just stating the obvious, mask. the united states is not in it for the "warm, fuzzy" democracy feeling. we're in it for power. for wealth.
it isn't just a question of whether these countries are democracies. it's also a question of whether they are democracies that we prefer. take mexico: if obrador had won, the united states would have been seriously dismayed, and who knows how our policy of dealing with them would change. or what about bolivia or chile? doesn't it bother bush that both of these countries are run by socialists?
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:05pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/15/2006 @ 2:58pm
And yet....he won't put me on his Ignore list?!??!?!
Posted by MASK 09/15/2006 @ 3:00pm
Why? So you can continue to libel me without being exposed? So you can accuse me of some new lie, like being scared to debate you, or supporting censorship, or some other bullshit?
Ignore you? You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Well, not a chance.
Keep lying, expect to keep getting called on it.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 3:07pm
Lunchtime.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 3:09pm
Just being honest at 2:58, too, friend Frank.
;)
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 3:10pm
Ignore you? You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Well, not a chance.
Keep lying, expect to keep getting called on it.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/15/2006 @ 3:07pm
....Uh....does anybody have the number for some publicly funded mental health professional? RESE and PLUNGER are Comic Book Guys compared to this kind of paranoia.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 3:12pm
Saddam wasn't a dictator ( after all he won every uncontested election with 99.9% of the vote, and the lib's over here saw no reason to question the results or legitimacy of those landslide victories)! Neither was Castro....just ask any liberal or Harry Bellafonte! Bush is the dictator, war-monger , terrorist etc.!
Posted by barry25 at 09/15/2006 @ 3:15pm
Don't go all "NEW DAWN" on me, DD...
"have i said anywhere that i think we should listen to iran? no!"-----Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 3:05pm
"if other countries don't adopt this truth, we don't listen to them (venezuela, cuba, iran, etc)"---Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 2:30pm
Okay, so even if they DO "adopt this truth"....you don't want us to listen to them, is that right?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 3:17pm
here's an excellent breakdown of the article 3 controversy...
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/at-last-issue-is-publicly-joined-and. html
bush had a near meltdown on the podium today.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:17pm
i think we should definitely talk to iran and venezuela. and cuba.
why not?
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:19pm
LOL....okay now, let's look at this...
"have i said anywhere that i think we should listen to iran? no!"-----Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 3:05pm
"if other countries don't adopt this truth, we don't listen to them (venezuela, cuba, iran, etc)"---Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 2:30pm
"i think we should definitely talk to iran and venezuela. and cuba. why not?"----Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 3:19pm
So ...when we TALK to them (3:19 post), do we LISTEN to them (3:05 post)?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 3:21pm
here's what powell, and a bunch of CIA officials wrote to bush:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides the minimum standards for humane treatment and fair justice that apply to anyone captured in armed conflict. These standards were specifically designed to ensure that those who fall outside the other, more extensive, protections of the Conventions are treated in accordance with the values of civilized nations. The framers of the Conventions, including the American representatives, in particular wanted to ensure that Common Article 3 would apply in situations where a state party to the treaty, like the United States, fights an adversary that is not a party, including irregular forces like al Qaeda. The United States military has abided by the basic requirements of Common Article 3 in every conflict since the Conventions were adopted. In each case, we applied the Geneva Conventions -- including, at a minimum, Common Article 3 -- even to enemies that systematically violated the Conventions themselves.
We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.
If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.
* * * *
Last week, the Department of Defense issued a Directive reaffirming that the military will uphold the requirements of Common Article 3 with respect to all prisoners in its custody. We welcome this new policy. Our servicemen and women have operated for too long with unclear and unlawful guidance on detainee treatment, and some have been left to take the blame when things went wrong. The guidance is now clear.
But that clarity will be short-lived if the approach taken by Administration's bill prevails. In contrast to the Pentagon's new rules on detainee treatment, the bill would limit our definition of Common Article 3's terms by introducing a flexible, sliding scale that might allow certain coercive interrogation techniques under some circumstances, while forbidding them under others. This would replace an absolute standard – Common Article 3 -- with a relative one. To do so will only create further confusion.
Moreover, were we to take this step, we would be viewed by the rest of the world as having formally renounced the clear strictures of the Geneva Conventions. Our enemies would be encouraged to interpret the Conventions in their own way as well, placing our troops in jeopardy in future conflicts. And American moral authority in the war would be further damaged.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:22pm
mask, by talk, i mean, "have relations", i don't mean adopt their political philosophy.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:23pm
McCain, Warner, and Graham and of coure susan Collins and all of the emocats understand this. I'd still like to know why Rumsfeld and other officers got away with the abuses at Abu Ghaib and aren't being court marshalled like the grunts were.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 1:39pm
Assuming you meant Democrats, Frank, that isn't exactly accurate:
Brushing aside the objections of Mr. Bush and most of his Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee to produce legislation on Thursday that would provide detainees with protections beyond those sought by Mr. Bush, setting up a collision with the House, where a measure approved by the administration is advancing.
After their meeting with the president, House Republicans sought to play up their differences with House Democrats on the detainee legislation although the bill passed the Armed Services Committee on an overwhelmingly *** bipartisan *** vote.
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt456.html
Posted by fromredbird at 09/15/2006 @ 3:32pm
"The leftwing responses to Bush's press conference are no surprise; neither should it be a surprise that I cheered loudly as the president with great animation and passion strongly defended his actions."
animation and passion? the entire press corps was simply aghast at his irritability, liberty. and would you like to qualify what you mean by "leftwing response" when colin powell (a republican), as well as 29 current and former CIA officials (many republicans), wrote a letter expressing contempt for the administration's bill to breach the geneva convetion article 3?
the so-called "liberals" would be the ones who are bringing this issue the nation's attention. the rest are more concerned with paris hilton's recent sexual rampage.
liberty, man. you are just clueless.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:37pm
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 3:23pm
Okay, DD...I understand, but you just "walked it back" (a la Presiential Press Briefings) as far as your previous post on "listening".
If you meant "don't adopt their philosophy" you should have said so, it was a bit confusing to hear you ask us to "talk" to Iran, but not "listen" to Iran.
(lesson to NEW DAWN, by the way)
But "have relations" brings up another point. In what sense? And would you insist on "having relations" with a fascist dictatorship (Hitler, Pinochet, Honduran junta) with the same friendliness as you would Iran?
And what criteria would you use for ENDING "relations" with a country...if any?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 3:38pm
and what about mccain and warner, both republicans? are you surprised at their reaction, liberty?
liberty, try using your head for once. if we breach the geneva convention, then we will be paving the way for future breaches, by other nations. in other words, there will be no laws in warfare from now on, if we breach this.
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:39pm
and keep in mind, this bill is an attempt to retro-actively justify what they've already been doing.
secret CIA prisons in eastern europe? what do you think they were doing there?
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:40pm
This has been a hashed out before and ends up in the same spot...Iraq is a cog in the wheel of the battle against those who want to kill is off...
Look how those idiots respond to a quote by some one else from the Pope, or the cartoons...Why is the Iraq and Saddam/ 9/11 such a issue for you here? There is no direct link and who cares...in time given his history there may well have been,,we should focus forward on how to help Iraq instead of running backwards and arguing as who who said what and why we think believe who "said what to as why we are there"...We are there and need to help...and not leave them in the trench alone..
And I really want to know about oil...I thought the war was about oil, so did we get it and prices dropped? Down to $1.85 a gallon in Mo.? Good news!!!Where is the joy?
I want to know how come the oil companies are not screwing us anymore abd the governement still is? Everything dropped except the tax? Conspiracy? Did the demand drop and the price fall with it, as the reports say,because of free market rules or did the country shame them into making less money now?
I want hearings as to why the price can not drop further by lowering the tax per galllon, we need to encourage more to protest the high cost of tax.
Posted by john maasch at 09/15/2006 @ 3:48pm
liberty you are a cheerleader for disaster. how many Iraqis were killed since the US invasion? the puppet gov't cannot stand on its own, and it is not clear that they ever will. that 70% peaticipation in the elections, where is that number from? considering that the sunni are estimated to be 20% of the population, your 70% number does nothing in the way of inclusiveness in the election, and it does nothing to lend credence to your optimism.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 3:52pm
"those who want to kill is off..."
and who would that be, maasch? can you actually describe who "those" people are? are you talking about the less than 3% who are fighting us there? or the 97% who are fighting each other?
on another note, let me paraphrase liberty: "mr. president, thanks for your continued support of torture in secret CIA prisons! we truly love you!"
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:52pm
Don't go all "NEW DAWN" on me, DD...
"have i said anywhere that i think we should listen to iran? no!"-----Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 3:05pm
"if other countries don't adopt this truth, we don't listen to them (venezuela, cuba, iran, etc)"---Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 2:30pm
Okay, so even if they DO "adopt this truth"....you don't want us to listen to them, is that right?
Posted by MASK 09/15/2006 @ 3:17pm
Yes, don't go all "New Dawn" by refuting and exposing Mask's continuing lies and manipulation of other's words.
He hates it when people do that.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 3:53pm
Easy, challenging your argument IS my argument.
jokes here are a very tricky proposition, as is irony and sarcasm. they have to be very blunt and big, lest they go over the head of those it is aimed at, and cause hard feelings.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 1:59pm
J., his original post sailed over your head with plenty of clearance and there weren't any jokes in it. It stated that many Americans are uninformed due to the dishonesty and low quality of the American news media. You come right back and ask how that explains that Americans are uninformed. Are you trying to say that Americans are stupid compared to yourself? Or, WTF?
Damned funny. That and you telling someone else to learn some history and also asking a third one to back up what they're saying, which you rarely if ever do yourself.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/15/2006 @ 3:58pm
yeah, frank, maasch might have well said:
"all of the reasons we gave for going into iraq turned out to be false. it has cost scores of thousands of lives, and 1/2 a trillion dollars. but nobody needs to be held accountable."
no accountability?? what sort of a government is this?
maasch = colossal idiot
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 3:59pm
They are there to fight the common enemy and that is also in Iraq...Iraq is but 1 link in the battle we are in,...but to you it is the only game and it is an isolated incident unrelated to our battle....that is why our 2 sides will never come together because we come at the terrorist problem from 2 different definitions.
Posted by john maasch at 09/15/2006 @ 3:59pm
"The UN, the Arab League and the entire world (except for Liberals in the US) have recognized this Iraqi Government and welcomed them."
except for a few dead enders IN IRAQ. why are muslims all over the world so upset about the american invasion and occupation of Iraq? according to you they are all pleased as punch. how do you reconcile this?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 4:00pm
Zero -
Never answered my question about whether I am on your ignore list or not...
Which means, I guess, that I am...
How unfortunate.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 4:03pm
Zero, to whom are you referring to?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 4:04pm
Posted by ZERO 09/15/2006 @ 3:52pm
"The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Although President Bush and other senior administration officials were at that time regularly linking Hussein to al-Qaeda, the CIA's highly sensitive intelligence supporting the contrary view was apparently not passed on to the White House or senior Bush policymakers."
http://tinyurl.com/kext8
Because the White House had made it very clear that they didn't want to see any s*** like that. Check out the article and see how they rushed to Bush and Cheney any scrap that could be twisted to validate the thesis for war.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/15/2006 @ 4:05pm
i read that national review article. oh god, what a moron.
he actually says this:
"The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden never signed an accord in Geneva hardly precludes their plotting evil together."
oh, ok. well, then, i guess that since we have no evidence of them working together, that they MUST have done SOMETHING together. right?
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 4:05pm
"Have any international bodies (ie, UN, NATO, Arab League) recognized this alternate government?"
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 1:48pm
"The UN, the Arab League and the entire world (except for Liberals in the US) have recognized this Iraqi Government and welcomed them."
except for a few dead enders IN IRAQ.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/15/2006 @ 4:00pm
So the international bodies HAVE recognized the government? Right?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 4:06pm
oh brainless conservatives, what shall we do to you?
do you need sex? drugs? what??
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 4:07pm
Off-topic....but again, what isn't here...
If it's a "conspiracy" or even "post-dated conspiracy"...it seems to be working--
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Fri Sep 15, 1:38 AM ET----WASHINGTON - Consumer confidence zoomed to a seven-month high as lower gasoline prices made people feel a lot better about the current economic climate and their own financial standing.
The RBC Cash Index, based on the results of the international polling firm Ipsos, showed confidence rebounding to 93.7 in early September.
That marked an improvement from August, when consumer confidence sank to a three-month low of 74.8. At that time, the toll of soaring energy prices was blamed for weighing on consumers' psyches. The recent drop in energy prices, however, provided people with some relief and propelled confidence to its best reading since February.
"The drop in pump prices is very visible to consumers and seems to have a huge impact," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Bank of America's Investment Strategies Group. "Consumers seem to view gasoline prices as a barometer to their overall well being."
After surging past $3 a gallon in many areas, gasoline prices are now hovering around $2.62 a gallon nationwide, the Energy Department says.
Economists believe that price relief figured prominently in the upswing in consumers' feelings about current economic conditions. This measure shot up to 118.8 in early September. That was up sharply from 92.1 in August and was the highest reading on record. Ipsos started the confidence index in 2002.
The drop in other energy prices also is good news for consumers and businesses alike, analysts said.
Oil prices, which surged to a record closing high of $77.03 a barrel in mid-July, have since eased and are now above $63 a barrel. Natural gas prices, meanwhile, fell to a two-year low on Thursday, raising hopes that homeowners who depend on gas to heat their homes will see lower bills this winter.
The rebound in consumer confidence comes as the election season is in high gear. Economic conditions may shape voters' choices at the polls. President's Bush approval rating on the economy is at 39 percent among all adults surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll. That remains near his lowest ratings.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 4:09pm
oh brainless conservatives, what shall we do to you?
do you need sex? drugs? what??
Posted by DARLADOON 09/15/2006 @ 4:07pm
Actually, I've always thought they were a weird combination of sex and drugs. Like Thalidomide.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/15/2006 @ 4:09pm
I want hearings as to why the price can not drop further by lowering the tax per galllon, we need to encourage more to protest the high cost of tax.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Not sure if you are serious, but this is one area that I do believe higher taxes are justified. Because it is a consumption tax. Those that use more are taxed more. As long as the government uses the tax revenues from gas to research alternate fuel sources and to pay for highway construction etc... then I say increase the tax even further.
We have to reduce our dependency on oil.
Posted by John B at 09/15/2006 @ 4:11pm
one too many to-s
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 4:12pm
more proof of how conservatives are not COMMUNICATING.....watch tony snow bristle at a reporter's totally open and honest line of questioning:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Snow-Powell.mov
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 4:20pm
FROMRED is going to get soooooooooo mad.
John Nichols just posted a new article and, try as I could to resist, I got "First Post"...hehe
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 4:22pm
liberty, I do not contend your reportage on the arab league. but you have heard of the arab street. I find it telling that you have not responded to my points about the civil war raging in Iraq, or taken any position on the huge death toll in that country. I did not realize the Iraq invasion and occupation is such a big hit in the muslim world.(irony and sarcasm alert)
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 4:28pm
"Why do you persist in denying the reality of where the Arab world (in terms of the various governments)"
and there's the rub. all arab countries are dictatorships, not a democracy among them. by definition they do not represent the people of that country, also none of those arab countries supported the invasion, in contrast to the first gulf war.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 4:31pm
Zero. New Dawn wants to know if he's on your ignore list.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/15/2006 @ 4:09pm
Thanks, Frank.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/15/2006 @ 4:36pm
bush: "we didn't ask for this war"
unbelievable!
Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2006 @ 4:36pm
$63 per barrel of oil is good news? For Halliburton and Exxon, maybe.
Posted by The Goods at 09/15/2006 @ 5:00pm
Ergo you must concur when they cheered the news of 9/11? or how about Madrid, Daniel Pearl's beheading?
don't put words in my mouth, this is beyond any reasoned discussion.you should croak.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 5:29pm
So then it is your contention that the Arab Street represents a reasoned evaluation of the Middle East.
it is my contention that it represents reality, a concept you are incapable of embracing.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 5:30pm
liberty your concern for Daniel Pearl is touching. I have yet to hear any concern of the estimated 100 000 dead Iraqis, including, I'm sure, many who voted.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 5:51pm
Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test. These critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning.
And that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, "Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions," and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?
BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction.
So now hsuB says our troops are to be secretly tortured and convicted with secret evidence for the good of the WORLD! Who does hsuB WORK for-- NOT the USA
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2006 @ 6:19pm
QUESTION: But how do you measure progress with a body count like that?
BUSH: Well, one way you do it is you measure progress based upon the resilience of the Iraqi (dead) people: Do they (dead Iraqis) want there to be a unity government; or are they (dead Iraqis) splitting up into, you know, factions of (dead Iraqi) people warring with the head (dead Iraqi)leaders, with different alternatives of governing styles and different philosophies?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2006 @ 6:46pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/15/2006 @ 6:19pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/15/2006 @ 6:46pm
The publicly profound preposterousness of this mule can be the only explanation of why the American public is turning against the Republican Party. It sure as hell isn't due to a responsible news media.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/15/2006 @ 7:16pm
how about Madrid, Daniel Pearl's beheading?
when a US marine executes a wounded Iraqi prisoner, that is exactly equivalent to Pearl's murder, no more no less. when the US air force drops bunkerbusters on civilian housing, killing Iraqi families, that is exactly equivalent to a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a crowd. the distinction of intent is a false one if the result is the same. the invasion of Iraq unleashed a civil war and Bush is responsible for the Iraqi on Iraqi violence with his meddling. only a new administration, one untarnished by this war, will be able to bring this to a conclusion. Gore in '08.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 11:09pm
UN Head: Most Middle East Leaders Feel Invasion Of Iraq Has Been "Disaster"...
that shoots your claims to hell, liberty
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/16/2006 @ 2:08pm
Ergo you must concur when they cheered the news of 9/11?
for you to insinuate that I cheered when my city was attacked was the slimiest thing that has come my way on this or any other blog. congratulations you're number one.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/16/2006 @ 6:13pm