Captured al Qaeda letter details their intentions.

[jmervyn]

Just noticed this gem. It's a shame that in your long course of study no one bothered to mention to you that Iraq had a policy of non-alignment between the US and Soviet Union. Or that Saddam was a CIA stooge. Hope you didn't pay for that education. If you did, you deserve your money back :thumbsup:

I don't think it's worth bothering to go over your previous post, since you obviously are unable to admit defeat or accept reality. But to cover just a few points -
First, you keep citing this supposed policy by Iraq without "proving" it existed. Doubtless that policy is why there were so many Soviet advisors and so much Soviet equipment in Iraq during previous years. If you want to quibble over the precise definition of "client state" vs. "satellite state", please do it in your room.

Second, you reject anything contrary to your view as biased, not credible, etc. So there's no satisfying you. The truth of the matter is that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was stretched beyond their scope of investigation, and they 'fessed up openly that it was being used in that manner.

Third, I'm tired of rehashing the difference between evidence and intelligence. We had bad intelligence, and we had good intelligence. What hopefully will be shown in Saddam's trial will be evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't mean that intelligence is faulty or untrue, and it certainly doesn't constitute lying as you BLCD types scream from the rooftops. If it did, then you'd have to convict Clinton, Kofi, the French, Russians, and Bulgarians, the Saudis, ad infinitium.

Lastly, failing to be able to refute my points, you try to rephrase the question as "were Saddam and Al Quaeda working together". Are you and I working together? Hardly. But we're sharing information on common ground that is not readily visible, and therefore any number of conclusions could be drawn about our conduct. Saddam's Iraq was quite obviously "working" with Al Quaeda in this context; trying to claim that a political commission has the core nugget of truth is silly at best. And your claims that the intelligence communities agreed is even worse; it sounds like you're the one doing the cherrypicking.

Oh, and as to the Clinton appointees bit, where should I begin? Cisneros? Reno? Berger? I know you can add plenty more names, if you want to be honest.

 

[FreezerBurn]

I don't think it's worth bothering to go over your previous post, since you obviously are unable to admit defeat or accept reality. But to cover just a few points -

Your opinion on reality is about as valid as Bush's on integrity. As for defeat, I readily admit you're defeated.

First, you keep citing this supposed policy by Iraq without "proving" it existed. Doubtless that policy is why there were so many Soviet advisors and so much Soviet equipment in Iraq during previous years. If you want to quibble over the precise definition of "client state" vs. "satellite state", please do it in your room.

Iraq was neither. I told you to check your history. I even gave you a brief overview. But seeing as that did no good I'll even give you a link. Now read up and shut up. You're wrong and not worth my time.

http://www.country-studies.com/iraq/the-soviet-union.html

Second, you reject anything contrary to your view as biased, not credible, etc. So there's no satisfying you. The truth of the matter is that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was stretched beyond their scope of investigation, and they 'fessed up openly that it was being used in that manner.

You're familiar with the concept of a scale? It's a tool used for balancing things. Let's imagine a mental scale if you will. On one side, let's put reports that our intelligence agencies, along with the 9/11 commission concluded Iraq and al-qaeda were not working together. On the other side of this scale, we'll place a seven year old indictment against bin Laden and the opinion of a former federal prosecutor. You tell me which carries more weight.

Third, I'm tired of rehashing the difference between evidence and intelligence. We had bad intelligence, and we had good intelligence. What hopefully will be shown in Saddam's trial will be evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't mean that intelligence is faulty or untrue, and it certainly doesn't constitute lying as you BLCD types scream from the rooftops. If it did, then you'd have to convict Clinton, Kofi, the French, Russians, and Bulgarians, the Saudis, ad infinitium.

We were talking about whether or not Bush mislead the American public. You said they didn't know he was using false intelligence. Clearly they did. I'm not surprised you didn't want to respond to this.

Lastly, failing to be able to refute my points, you try to rephrase the question as "were Saddam and Al Quaeda working together". Are you and I working together? Hardly. But we're sharing information on common ground that is not readily visible, and therefore any number of conclusions could be drawn about our conduct. Saddam's Iraq was quite obviously "working" with Al Quaeda in this context; trying to claim that a political commission has the core nugget of truth is silly at best. And your claims that the intelligence communities agreed is even worse; it sounds like you're the one doing the cherrypicking.

You failed to make any point to begin with. Fortunately for the sake of truth, you're long past your one hour time limit to edit your comments. Your claim:

Saddam, again embodied as Iraq, definitely supported Al Quaeda, though the degree, scope, and location are at best unclear.

Show me this definitive proof. All you've got is that Iraqi agents once talked to al-qaeda, just as CIA agents have talked to al-qaeda and and Iraqi agents as well. Counter that with the CIA's belief that they had no cooperative relationship and you don't have dick.

Oh, and as to the Clinton appointees bit, where should I begin? Cisneros? Reno? Berger? I know you can add plenty more names, if you want to be honest.

Cisneros - Former mayor credited with restoring downtown San Antonio. I don't really consider the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development a vital post. Nevertheless, he was qualified.

Reno - 5 terms as a state attorney general. Hard to find a more qualified candidate for US attorney general.

Berger - Served as deputy director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department

 

[Module88]

Point is, I have no fight with muslims fighting for independence in the Philippines. They didn't attack my country. I'm not going to sign up for a crusade against terrorism the world over. But if I had a chance to kill the man responsible for 9/11 at the risk of my own life I would take it.

It wasn't a war on OBl. It was a war on terror, remember?

I'm telling you most of what they spew is opinion. I'm smart enough to distinguish between the two. But when someone states something as a fact and it's proven to be untrue, that's what you call a lie. If you've got more on Bill that an after hours blowjob, I'd like to hear it.

You call that a lie? How about, intentionally decieving someone about something when you know it is false? :uhhuh:

Like I said. Successful to a point. Becoming President makes him more successful than 99.999% of politicians from a career standpoint.

I'm not sure being a President that's not well liked is more successful, but that's opinion.

There certainly is some stupidity here. But it's not coming from me. To repeat, Bush cited her performance as National Security Advisor as her primary qualification to be Secretary of State. Now, if you agree she did a crap job as a National Security Advisor, how the hell does that qualify her to be Secretary of State?

Just because you're a bad general, does it mean you'll be a bad diplomat? Oh and by the way, to think that working with Russia isn't important is pretty stupid. Where do you think a nuclear device used by terrorists is going to come from, Iraq, or the hundreds of missing or unguarded nuclear weapons proliferated as a result of the fall of the SU?

If I'm going to get a job in one based on my performance in another, I'd say my prior experience is relevant. But that's just logic talking. I'm sure your brain, or lack thereof, has entirely different take on the matter.

You're damn right it does. Crummy cashiers don't necessarily make crummy generals, politicians, or real estate agents. But then, that's just logic talking. I'm sure your brain, or lack theorof, has an entirely different take on the matter.

In case you haven't noticed, Senators in the minority party can't pass a whole hell of a lot. And governors are governors of states. Not overly relevant in a discussion of national politics.

In October 1994, a low point of Clinton's presidency and just a month before the Republicans gained control of Congress, roughly a third (35%) believed Clinton would go down as an unsuccessful president, compared with 41% who say that about Bush currently. However, more people also think Bush will ultimately be successful than expressed that opinion about Clinton in October 1994 (26% vs. 14%).

And while Bush and his party are struggling, the Democratic Party continues to be viewed in the same negative light as the Republicans. Only about third (32%) approve of the job Democratic leaders in Congress are doing, while the same number has a positive view of Republican congressional leaders (32%).

The people have spoken. I'm not much for polls because of their inaccuracy and fine print, but don't try to tell me one number is noticably less accurate than another in the same poll. :uhhuh:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=259

They're both unqualified. So what's your point?

You surprised? :scratch:

I'm calling it for what it is.

No, you call it how an ultra die hard liberal would call it. That's the problem with you folks. It's all about the liberals and conservatives or Democrats or Republicans. For you, it's never about what it is. It's about what side it's on.

Bush never admitted that he made any mistakes. He said that as president he is responsible for the failures of those under him. The fact that he denied any responsibility for nearly a week after the fact speaks to his sincerity. This was a political move. Someone told him that if he "takes responsibility" without admitting any fault, it would help his public perception. But watch the video and watch his body language and you'll see why no one bought it and his approval rating is still 39%.

Did he deny responsibility for a week? Some evidence to show. I think I know what you're going to show me, but show me anyway so I can see how my fortune telling skills are.

You said I'm ignoring the good. Show me the good and we'll see if I ignore it.

He took responsibility for the federal government and its failures, something he's never done before.

Were you the one arguing that Iraq wasn't a screw up or was that someone else?

Wasn't me.

The fact is, you'd be hard pressed to come up with any good that's come out of this administration. Which is why you're citing an apology that 70% of the country didn't buy as his one good deed.

Err. who was arguing against that? :Scratch: Wasn't me.

That's because you and many others don't accept the real rationale for the war, made all the worse by the Admin's emphasis on the WMD aspect. The real rationale, as I've reminded OTF'ers of countless times, was that Saddam was the most devout terrorist-snuggler that we could kick while he was bent over.

Because Freezer is just like you in a sense, I'm going to stop ranting about the blind party loyalty thing. But dude, I really really really don't see how you could justify this war. The fact is, it did NOT need to be fought. Quite frankly, I didn't go to bed each night fearing Iraq would drop a bomb on us. I'm a reasonable guy. Show me some valid evidence, and a sufficient amount, that would justify:

A) The monetary cost of this war.
B) The lives lost on both sides
C) The destroyed reputation of America as a whole abroad
D) The inability to negotiate with most of our allies on important matters

Don't know why you're impressed. Politically I fell into the same set of views as PLF, and according to his own wildly imaginative claim, Freezerburn himself. The only person who claims I'm an ultra-rightie is Ill, and if you believe him you might as well subscribe to Indymedia pages as gospel truth.

Typically you don't give ground no matter what, just like Llad. No, I don't buy Llad's rhetoric, even though he thinks he'll be an influential force on intellectuals about such affairs. It's my own belief you're on the right side, but certainly not as far as others, because, as I've said, you have given some ground, which is something ultra libs and conservatives just don't do. It's almost a law.

However, retreat and appeasement encourages governments like the ones I listed elsewhere, and (taking a cue from the blasphemy thread) James 4:7 says, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you."

We weren't really negotiating with Saddam before we dropped ourselves into it. I agree with you on that point, but appeasement does not always work and neither does war. Diplomacy can solve problems if people are reasonable and logical.

Are you sure? Maybe one side is totally wrong and the other is totally right. In which case the latter is right to stay imperturbable.

To say that one side cannot make one valid point is ridiculous. Good and bad things happen.

Maybe that sort of military inferiority complex is the problem with the American war machine. All of history's great generals won wars in either fair fights or against terrible odds; fortune favours the bold.

Anyone who knows anything about the military will agree with Jm. You don't put down your weapon because your opponent doesn't have one. You kill him. Don't like it? That's war. Maybe we shouldn't fight them if we don't have to. You clearly don't know anything about war if you think "all great generals won wars in fair fights or against terrible odds." Sure, great generals have the capability to win against bad odds, provided the other general isn't as good. You think war is some kind of game of honor like you see in Walker Texas Ranger or something. You've been watching too much TV.

 

[Dondrei]

Hey, it's your dime. Or not, can't remember if you're one of the Aussies.

I am indeed. That dime is probably worth about $150 Australian.

You need more military study (my first career, remember?). Tactically and strategically you're almost always better off dispatching an active but weakened foe, particularly if you have cause and/or aren't at war with the others. You should know that even from gameplay. The rest is your opinion; I personally disagree with your assessment and consider Zarqawi a threat as well.

Were you a general or a grunt? I totally disagree with your strategic assessment, starting a battle on another front because it's easier than confronting the real enemy is like How to Lose a War 101. Bear in mind that you never needed to be in Iraq, you could've ignored it entirely and finished Al Qaeda off in Afghanistan then moved on to other countries that really provide support for terrorists. Iraq is a massive strategic blunder.

And on the gameplay issue, conveniently enough I'm playing Civilisation III at the moment. If I take the time to mop up the weak Greeks the English and Indians are going to have time to reinforce their defenses with newly invented tanks. That'll slow me down so much that they'll almost certainly beat me in the space race. Game, set, match my friend.

Balderdash, and boldness is not at issue.

Sounds to me like it is, and I think you should brush up on your military history. Faint heart never won fair lady Liberty.

Huh? Did we just shift realities, and did you really consider what you just typed?

Casualties are very important, and though their scale has lessened drastically in recent times, our population has blossomed. Yes, there are an assortment of other factors, but one which you may be ignoring with the cooks comment is that the "tooth to tail" ratio is likewise drastically different from what it used to be.

Sure they're important, but if they're your only measure of success then I think I'm starting to understand why the U.S. military keeps screwing up. If you've managed to keep casualties low by playing it too safe (thereby prolonging the conflict) and not pushing towards your goals hard enough then that doesn't count.

The population isn't relevant, only the number of soldiers you sent to the conflict. Let's try to do some comparisons: how many troops were sent to Vietnam and how many casualties were there? How many have so far been sent to Iraq? There's been about 2000 casualties there if I recall correctly.

Now like I said, without knowing whether the soldiers in question were in comparable roles these ratios won't be conclusive, but it should be a lot more informative than comparing raw numbers.

If you're going to apply arbitrary standards and discount any contrary points, I'm no better off trying to discuss this than with Freezerburn. Roads & schools, understood - but trying to say that eliminating Saddam's regime is somehow not worth a certain amount of destabalization is far more callous and heartless than anything I've ever said here.

Well, I didn't mention Saddam's regime, but okay. There's plenty of Iraqis who'd rather have Saddam + stability back rather than "freedom" + chaos. It's human nature, the abstract idea of political freedom has never appealed to people nearly as much as knowing where there next meal comes from. People will put up with all kinds of brutality as long as there's stability. Lay off the "callous, heartless" rhetoric by the way, it bores me. Go hug a Care Bear.

If you want one of the most obvious examples, which is desparately underreported in the U.S. media, it is the combination of 3 things - a drastically falling death rate of U.S. soldiers to actual combat, the reliance of the "insurgents" on terrorist techniques (roadside bombs), and the way in which the "insurgency" has turned on the Shiite population (and even the Sunni, to an extent).

1. That's because the Insurgents have started concentrating on the Iraqi militia the U.S. is desperately trying to build up so it can get out of there some time in the next century. You'd be much better off in the long run if they were attacking your soldiers. The number of battalions of Iraqi troops ready to operate on their own is actually down from three to one. That's incredibly bad news.

2. Why wouldn't the insurgents rely on terrorist techniques? That's been the most effective form of resistance. In fact, modern military thinking seems to be trying to have large conventional armies mimic the tactics of guerrilla soldiers because it is so effective.

3. The insurgency's turning the war from Iraq vs. America to Sunni vs. Shiite is actually a huge problem for the U.S. if it wants to leave a stable Iraq rather than a smoking crater full of terrorists. Sectarian hatred and violence will be a huge problem for the country even after all foreign troops leave. It's a huge threat to the stability of the country and the region and is much worse than if they were uniting Sunni and Shiite factions against the invaders.

 

[FreezerBurn]

It wasn't a war on OBl. It was a war on terror, remember?

Afghanistan was a war to get bin Laden. I remember some crap about an old west poster, wanted dead or alive spewing from Bush's mouth. We even made an offer. Turn him over and we won't invade. Remember that? Or has your revisionist historian already rewritten that chapter, seeing as we didn't achieve our goal?

You call that a lie? How about, intentionally decieving someone about something when you know it is false? :uhhuh:

Hard to say without a specific example. Perhaps you'd care to share one.

I'm not sure being a President that's not well liked is more successful, but that's opinion.

Only 43 people have ever reached the highest office in politics. That alone is some measure of success. That said, Carter is looked on far more favorably now, the general consensus being he got a bum rap for a bad economy.

Just because you're a bad general, does it mean you'll be a bad diplomat? Oh and by the way, to think that working with Russia isn't important is pretty stupid. Where do you think a nuclear device used by terrorists is going to come from, Iraq, or the hundreds of missing or unguarded nuclear weapons proliferated as a result of the fall of the SU?

She had no experience with terrorism. As a result, she de-prioritized that which she did not understand. In effect, she tried to mold the threats to this country around her strengths. And to some extent, she bares the blame for 9/11.

You're damn right it does. Crummy cashiers don't necessarily make crummy generals, politicians, or real estate agents. But then, that's just logic talking. I'm sure your brain, or lack theorof, has an entirely different take on the matter.

Crummy politicians make crummy politicians. And one more time for the kid on the short bus. Bush cited her job performance as her primary qualification. If you believe she did a bad job as NSA, that's not much of an argument in her favor.

The people have spoken. I'm not much for polls because of their inaccuracy and fine print, but don't try to tell me one number is noticably less accurate than another in the same poll. :uhhuh:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=259

I'm not sure I'd give democrats in congress a favorable rating either. I'm ambivalent at best. It hard to rate their performance when they don't have the power to do anything.

You surprised? :scratch:

Bush's stupidity should have ceased to amaze me long ago. But when you appoint a political crony to the Supreme Court fresh on the heels on a scandal of the same nature, you have to begin to question his sanity.

No, you call it how an ultra die hard liberal would call it. That's the problem with you folks. It's all about the liberals and conservatives or Democrats or Republicans. For you, it's never about what it is. It's about what side it's on.

I'm a registered independent. I would have voted for McCain over the two choices we were given. But with Bush's strings being pulled by elements from the extreme right, any moderate appears liberal by comparison.

Did he deny responsibility for a week? Some evidence to show. I think I know what you're going to show me, but show me anyway so I can see how my fortune telling skills are.

You should know what I'm going to tell you. It's straight from your talking points. Does the term "blame game" ring a bell. As in Bush and his cronies repeating the phrase, "we're not going to play the blame game" for nearly a week.

He took responsibility for the federal government and its failures, something he's never done before.

So that's it? That's all the good deeds you can come up with? An insincere apology? That's pretty damn convincing. I must be ignoring the greatness of this administration :uhhuh:

Wasn't me.

In that case, that's directed to idiot #2.

Err. who was arguing against that? :Scratch: Wasn't me.

Someone claimed I was ignoring the good deeds of this administration, whether it was idiot #1 or idiot #2, I don't care to scroll back and check. But you're the one arguing the point.

 

[Stevebo]

I am indeed. That dime is probably worth about $150 Australian.

So the Aussie peso is up this week?

 

[Dondrei]

So the Aussie peso is up this week?

Yeah, we converted from the ruble.

 

[Module88]

Afghanistan was a war to get bin Laden. I remember some crap about an old west poster, wanted dead or alive spewing from Bush's mouth. We even made an offer. Turn him over and we won't invade. Remember that? Or has your revisionist historian already rewritten that chapter, seeing as we didn't achieve our goal?

Afghanistan wasn't a war in the first place. :uhhuh: Was it, "The war on the Taliban"? Or "The War on Afghanistan"? We're fighting a War on Terror, and that involves going where the terrorists go, be it Afghanistan or Britain (notice how US troops responded to the attacks). You're full of it. If you think we're fighting "the War on Afghanistan," you need to just leave.

Hard to say without a specific example. Perhaps you'd care to share one.

I can't even believe I need to do this. Even the other's aren't as bad. :uhhuh:

"Have you seen my pencil"?

"No." (You took it and hid it in your backpack)

Lie.


"What's the HW for tonight."

"Read pages XX-XX by Tuesday."

You later find out that you copied it down wrong and it's really due Wed.

Not a lie.

:thumbsup:

 

[Module88]

Only 43 people have ever reached the highest office in politics. That alone is some measure of success. That said, Carter is looked on far more favorably now, the general consensus being he got a bum rap for a bad economy.

American politics, that is. Sure, it's some measure, I'll give you that. But are you saying Bush is successful?

She had no experience with terrorism. As a result, she de-prioritized that which she did not understand. In effect, she tried to mold the threats to this country around her strengths. And to some extent, she bares the blame for 9/11.

Crummy politicians make crummy politicians. And one more time for the kid on the short bus. Bush cited her job performance as her primary qualification. If you believe she did a bad job as NSA, that's not much of an argument in her favor.

Wow. You still don't get it. You somehow think all politcians need the same qualifications. Anyone with a brain would realize this isn't true.

As for the second part, I don't give a rat's *** what Bush said about her. Did she have the qualfications for Sec State or not? With her educational background, I'd say so. She's more qualified than you as far as I'm concerned. Did she have the qualifications for NSA? With her education background, I'd say no. She has no experience with security issues they deal with. :thumbsup:

I'm not sure I'd give democrats in congress a favorable rating either. I'm ambivalent at best. It hard to rate their performance when they don't have the power to do anything.

And then I could easily bring up that Bush is just a pathetic puppet of Rove and doesn't have any power to do anything anyway.

I'm a registered independent. I would have voted for McCain over the two choices we were given. But with Bush's strings being pulled by elements from the extreme right, any moderate appears liberal by comparison.

Good enough for me, but we won't get to see that now will we.

You should know what I'm going to tell you. It's straight from your talking points. Does the term "blame game" ring a bell. As in Bush and his cronies repeating the phrase, "we're not going to play the blame game" for nearly a week.

God am I good. For someone who seems to think he knows a lot about politics, you don't seem to know very much. That's called a "political dodge," at least in my book. Point is, he's not denying responsibility, and he's not accepting it either. Politics isn't black and white if you didn't notice.

So that's it? That's all the good deeds you can come up with? An insincere apology? That's pretty damn convincing. I must be ignoring the greatness of this administration :uhhuh:

Someone claimed I was ignoring the good deeds of this administration, whether it was idiot #1 or idiot #2, I don't care to scroll back and check. But you're the one arguing the point.

Here we go again. It is IRRELEVANT how many good deeds he did. You refuse to accept the only one that's probably important. No one is arguging he has run this country well or has had a great administration, yet you keep bringing it up. You're so blind in your hatred, you refuse to accept the ONE thing he did right, regardless of everything else he did.

 

[FreezerBurn]

Afghanistan wasn't a war in the first place. :uhhuh: Was it, "The war on the Taliban"? Or "The War on Afghanistan"? We're fighting a War on Terror, and that involves going where the terrorists go, be it Afghanistan or Britain (notice how US troops responded to the attacks). You're full of it. If you think we're fighting "the War on Afghanistan," you need to just leave.

If you think Afghanistan wasn't a war to get bin laden you need to quit servicing Bush in the oval office. That was the stated objective. Which, to repeat, is why we offered to not invade if the Taliban turned over bin Laden. Of course Bush changed his tune once it was apparent he got away. Hang onto that blue dress though. That stain might be worth something. :uhhuh:

I can't even believe I need to do this. Even the other's aren't as bad. :uhhuh:

"Have you seen my pencil"?

"No." (You took it and hid it in your backpack)

Lie.


"What's the HW for tonight."

"Read pages XX-XX by Tuesday."

You later find out that you copied it down wrong and it's really due Wed.

Not a lie.

:thumbsup:

Specific examples regarding Clinton, genius. I heard about the cigar. Did I miss pencilgate?

 

[Module88]

If you think Afghanistan wasn't a war to get bin laden you need to quit servicing Bush in the oval office. That was the stated objective. Which, to repeat, is why we offered to not invade if the Taliban turned over bin Laden. Of course Bush changed his tune once it was apparent he got away. Hang onto that blue dress though. That stain might be worth something. :uhhuh:

Afghanistan is NOT a war. We offered not to invade it as a part of the War on Terror because we wanted him. Even if we did get him the war wouldn't be over, and your attempt to make yourself look holy by "wanting to join" is disrespectful and even insulting.

Specific examples regarding Clinton, genius. I heard about the cigar. Did I miss pencilgate?

I told you, but I'll elaborate. He didn't just lie to the American public. He shook his finger, looked us in the eyes, and flat out lied and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and the kicker, he specified "Monica Lewinsky." Bush may lie to the American public, but he's not very good about it. And until the evidence came out, all it was was "a right wing conspiracy." Of course, I didn't monitor Clinton's career, but if there's anything that sticks out like a sore thumb, it has to be the finger.

 

[FreezerBurn]

American politics, that is. Sure, it's some measure, I'll give you that. But are you saying Bush is successful?

Successful as a politician? Sure. As a president? Far from it.

Wow. You still don't get it. You somehow think all politcians need the same qualifications. Anyone with a brain would realize this isn't true.

As for the second part, I don't give a rat's *** what Bush said about her. Did she have the qualfications for Sec State or not? With her educational background, I'd say so. She's more qualified than you as far as I'm concerned. Did she have the qualifications for NSA? With her education background, I'd say no. She has no experience with security issues they deal with. :thumbsup:

If academics is the only measure, there has be a million more qualified people than her. Which is why her experience was cited as her primary qualification.

And then I could easily bring up that Bush is just a pathetic puppet of Rove and doesn't have any power to do anything anyway.

If that's the best you can come up with, take it and run with it. It's as good as the rest of the crap you've been spouting.

Good enough for me, but we won't get to see that now will we.

McCain as president? Not likely when the far right zealots in his own party question his sanity and disparage his war record.

God am I good. For someone who seems to think he knows a lot about politics, you don't seem to know very much. That's called a "political dodge," at least in my book. Point is, he's not denying responsibility, and he's not accepting it either. Politics isn't black and white if you didn't notice.

Wow, you've completely changed my mind about bush. So now he "dodged" responsibility over Katrina. How admirable. So that's is? This is the one good deed I've been ignoring :uhhuh:

Here we go again. It is IRRELEVANT how many good deeds he did. You refuse to accept the only one that's probably important. No one is arguging he has run this country well or has had a great administration, yet you keep bringing it up. You're so blind in your hatred, you refuse to accept the ONE thing he did right, regardless of everything else he did.

You have yet to convince me that this was a good deed. But I'm far from alone in my skepticism. Watch the video. He looks like a little kid forced to apologize to the neighbor for breaking his window. An insincere, pseudo apology doesn't impress me.



PS no response on misleading us into war? Wow, looks like you finally realized you were wrong for once. :thumbsup:

 

[Module88]

Successful as a politician? Sure. As a president? Far from it.

Can you even justify how Condy was a poor politician? If you agree with your own statement here, then you should agree with me when I say she is qualified for Sec State. You have to prove she's an unsuccessful politician, as you claim, before you can make that statement.

If academics is the only measure, there has be a million more qualified people than her. Which is why her experience was cited as her primary qualification.

How many people graduate high school at that age and do a little work at Stanford, get involved in the political arena, and soforth again?

If that's the best you can come up with, take it and run with it. It's as good as the rest of the crap you've been spouting.

All you need to do is take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

McCain as president? Not likely when the far right zealots in his own party question his sanity and disparage his war record.

The election as a whole.

Wow, you've completely changed my mind about bush. So now he "dodged" responsibility over Katrina. How admirable. So that's is? This is the one good deed I've been ignoring :uhhuh:

Wow. How can you respond without opening your eyes? HE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAILURES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. You can't even accept that. Stop dodging the question and ADMIT he did that, and did the right thing when he did so. If you're so blind you can't even see that, there is nothing further to discuss.

You have yet to convince me that this was a good deed. But I'm far from alone in my skepticism. Watch the video. He looks like a little kid forced to apologize to the neighbor for breaking his window. An insincere, pseudo apology doesn't impress me.

Ah link it and I'll watch it over again, in a while.

PS no response on misleading us into war? Wow, looks like you finally realized you were wrong for once. :thumbsup:

Where'd you say anything about that? Oh, and if I actually believed ignoring points necessarily meant "accepting defeat," I'd point it out. Fortunately for me, I'm not blind, perhaps unlike you, considering I already said I was against the war in the first place. Keep at it. :thumbsup:

 

[FreezerBurn]

Afghanistan is NOT a war. We offered not to invade it as a part of the War on Terror because we wanted him. Even if we did get him the war wouldn't be over, and your attempt to make yourself look holy by "wanting to join" is disrespectful and even insulting.

Does this crap make sense in your mind before you type it? Because it sure as hell doesn't make sense to anyone else. Afghanistan wasn't a war? Let me guess. It's not a war because congress never declared war. They never declared war on terror either. Or on Iraq for that matter. And whether or not someone of your intelligence believes me means slightly less than nothing to me.

I told you, but I'll elaborate. He didn't just lie to the American public. He shook his finger, looked us in the eyes, and flat out lied and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and the kicker, he specified "Monica Lewinsky." Bush may lie to the American public, but he's not very good about it. And until the evidence came out, all it was was "a right wing conspiracy." Of course, I didn't monitor Clinton's career, but if there's anything that sticks out like a sore thumb, it has to be the finger.

That's the example I gave you. But with a memory like yours, I'm not surprised you forgot even that. I asked if you had anything anyone other than bible thumping zealots cared about. Rice has been caught in a series of lies and deceptions to cover up this administration's incompetence. Their lies and actions cost thousands of Americans their live. Clinton's lie gave us little more than some good TV and a dry cleaning bill.

 

[FreezerBurn]

Can you even justify how Condy was a poor politician? If you agree with your own statement here, then you should agree with me when I say she is qualified for Sec State. You have to prove she's an unsuccessful politician, as you claim, before you can make that statement.

Like I said, if her only qualification is academic studies, then most of the academic world is better qualified than her. The fact remains, he primary qualification was her experience as NSA. If you agree she did a crap job there, the only thing left is political *** kissing. In a word, she's a crony.

How many people graduate high school at that age and do a little work at Stanford, get involved in the political arena, and soforth again?

How many people graduate from Ivy League schools every year? Tens of thousands. And Stanford, albeit a good school, is generally considered a step below them. So if you're going to argue she was qualified to be Secretary of State based on academics alone, you don't have a leg to stand on.

All you need to do is take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

To see and hear what? That Bush is a spineless Douche and listens to whatever Rove and Cheney tell him? We all know that, but the fact remains, he's the one in power.

The election as a whole.

You're making even less sense than usual. Care to try again?

Wow. How can you respond without opening your eyes? HE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAILURES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. You can't even accept that. Stop dodging the question and ADMIT he did that, and did the right thing when he did so. If you're so blind you can't even see that, there is nothing further to discuss.

Like I said, he stopped short of acknowledging his own mistakes. He said as president he's responsible for the mistakes of others. Even then, watch the video. Then tell me he was sincere.

Ah link it and I'll watch it over again, in a while.

If I have time, I'll look for one later. But it looks like he's pulling another Rove on this anyway. Guess he couldn't stand for anyone to think he actually admitted it was his fault.

Bush said if a congressional investigation finds the federal government was at fault in the initial response to Katrina, he would accept responsibility.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051011/pl_nm/hurricanes_bush_dc

So now unless his own party finds him at fault at some later date when no one's looking, he wasn't responsible for anything :uhhuh:

Where'd you say anything about that? Oh, and if I actually believed ignoring points necessarily meant "accepting defeat," I'd point it out. Fortunately for me, I'm not blind, perhaps unlike you, considering I already said I was against the war in the first place. Keep at it. :thumbsup:

A few pages back. But it appears I have you confused with JM. Guess that's what happens when you two share the same half of a brain.

 

[Module88]

Like I said, if her only qualification is academic studies, then most of the academic world is better qualified than her. The fact remains, he primary qualification was her experience as NSA. If you agree she did a crap job there, the only thing left is political *** kissing. In a word, she's a crony.

Making assumptions again eh? Who said she wasn't a crony? She may very well be, that doesn't necessarily mean she's unqualified, as you'll see below.

How many people graduate from Ivy League schools every year? Tens of thousands. And Stanford, albeit a good school, is generally considered a step below them. So if you're going to argue she was qualified to be Secretary of State based on academics alone, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Aside from graduating high school at the age you were probably still in Middle School, here are a few other qualfications.

In 1974, at age 19, Rice earned her B.A. in political science (cum laude) and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver. In 1975, she obtained her Master's Degree from the University of Notre Dame. In 1976 she switched her party registration/affiliation to the Republican Party. She first worked in the State Department in 1977, during the Carter administration, as an intern in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In 1981, at age 26, she received her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. In addition to English, she speaks Russian, French, and Spanish.

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of the fall of Berlin Wall and the final days of the Soviet Union), she served in the George H. W. Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice helped develop Bush's and Secretary of State James Baker's policies in favor of German reunification. She so impressed Bush that he introduced her to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the one who "tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."[12]

In 1989 she served as director for Soviet and East European Affairs at the National Security Council and reported directly to National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. In 1990 she became George H. W. Bush's principal advisor on the Soviet Union. In 1997, she sat on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military.

And where does your bit fit in?

On December 17, 2000, Rice was picked to serve as National Security Advisor and stepped down from her position at Stanford. She was the first woman to occupy the post.

She's been in politics and school longer than you probably have been alive, and she has worked in departments that would be beneficial to a Sec State. That, along with the fact that she speaks a few languages, and again, graduated at the age you were in Middle School, makes her a lot more qualified than most people. :uhhuh:

 

[Module88]

To see and hear what? That Bush is a spineless Douche and listens to whatever Rove and Cheney tell him? We all know that, but the fact remains, he's the one in power.

Let's start with reason, and go from there.

You're making even less sense than usual. Care to try again?

I don't plan on coming to these forums for the rest of my life. :uhhuh:

Like I said, he stopped short of acknowledging his own mistakes. He said as president he's responsible for the mistakes of others. Even then, watch the video. Then tell me he was sincere.

Ignoring the issue again. Did he take responsibility for the federal government, and did he do the right thing, yes or no? You like to go and ignore it and then claim "oh, well he stopped short!" Irrelevant. Did he take responsibility or not? :thumbsup: You're dodges seem to indicate you are too stubborn to admit that he did take responsibility for the federal government.

If I have time, I'll look for one later. But it looks like he's pulling another Rove on this anyway. Guess he couldn't stand for anyone to think he actually admitted it was his fault.

Well, until you have time for it, I'll sit around. I do have stuff to do anyway, so it's not a problem.

Bush said if a congressional investigation finds the federal government was at fault in the initial response to Katrina, he would accept responsibility.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051011/pl_nm/hurricanes_bush_dc

So now unless his own party finds him at fault at some later date when no one's looking, he wasn't responsible for anything :uhhuh:

A bit recent eh? Why don't we try...

""Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said during a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.impact/index.html

A few pages back. But it appears I have you confused with JM. Guess that's what happens when you two share the same half of a brain.

Or it's because you can't use the half of a brain you have effectively. :uhhuh: Denying responsibility... Sounds a lot like a few politicians I know.

 

[FreezerBurn]

Making assumptions again eh? Who said she wasn't a crony? She may very well be, that doesn't necessarily mean she's unqualified, as you'll see below.

Aside from graduating high school at the age you were probably still in Middle School, here are a few other qualfications.

In 1974, at age 19, Rice earned her B.A. in political science (cum laude) and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver. In 1975, she obtained her Master's Degree from the University of Notre Dame. In 1976 she switched her party registration/affiliation to the Republican Party. She first worked in the State Department in 1977, during the Carter administration, as an intern in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In 1981, at age 26, she received her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. In addition to English, she speaks Russian, French, and Spanish.

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And where does your bit fit in?

She's been in politics and school longer than you probably have been alive, and she has worked in departments that would be beneficial to a Sec State. That, along with the fact that she speaks a few languages, and again, graduated at the age you were in Middle School, makes her a lot more qualified than most people. :uhhuh:

You posted her resume before. Posting it again doesn't make her any more qualified. The Secretary of State is the highest diplomatic post in our country's government. Prior to being named Secretary of State, she had no experience in diplomacy whatsoever. Aside from her lack of experience, there are certain qualities you look for in a diplomat. Credibility and integrity being two of the most important. When she talks to her foreign counterparts, they'll have more than enough ammunition to question her honesty and dismiss her as a liar. The US often makes promises to get other countries to do what we want. Doesn't work if no one believes her.

 

[FreezerBurn]

Let's start with reason, and go from there.

You're taking nonsensical posts to a new level. Is it intentional?

Ignoring the issue again. Did he take responsibility for the federal government, and did he do the right thing, yes or no? You like to go and ignore it and then claim "oh, well he stopped short!" Irrelevant. Did he take responsibility or not? :thumbsup: You're dodges seem to indicate you are too stubborn to admit that he did take responsibility for the federal government.

I'm not ignoring anything. It looks to me like a carefully worded speech that doesn't actually admit he did anything wrong. And the issue, in case you forgot, is whether or not I'm ignoring the good from this administration. It's quite amusing that a disputed apology is the best you can come up with. Thanks for the laugh :thumbsup:

Well, until you have time for it, I'll sit around. I do have stuff to do anyway, so it's not a problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/09/13/VI2005091301493.html

A bit recent eh? Why don't we try...

""Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said during a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.impact/index.html

He's made two statements. "to the extent that the federal government didn't do it's job right..." and "if a congressional investigation finds the federal government was at fault..." One serves to clarify the other. I don't believe he thinks he did anything wrong. Until he or someone in his administration publicly states he screwed up by appointing brown, you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

Or it's because you can't use the half of a brain you have effectively. :uhhuh: Denying responsibility... Sounds a lot like a few politicians I know.

To the extent that your posts sound like they're coming from the same mindless sheep, I accept responsibility for confusing you two. :uhhuh:

 

[Dondrei]

[/Plays the kooky fight music from the original Star Trek series]