This post from Cassandra at Villainous Company is worth reading. Regardless of how you feel about the war, or about our young people going off to fight and possibly die, it’s full of the kind of truth you will never read in any newspaper.
P.S. Ignore the comments [UPDATE: I mean the comments at the linked post]. Our favorite Cindy Sheehan wanna-be makes an appearance. It’s a distraction. Treat it as such and pay no attention.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Powered by WordPress.
Ignore what comments? As of my login at 12:57 CDT there aren’t any. Is that a glitch?
MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/14/2006 @ 10:58 pmOh, you must’ve meant the comment on the link, nevermind.
MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/14/2006 @ 11:01 pmI believe the only humanity left out is among the ones going off to fight and possibly die, otherwise?????????
Hannah (9e43cb) — 7/15/2006 @ 2:15 amThere is something about Marines that I envy. I was Air Force and Army and it’s not the same. Why does that Frisch person want to intrude on such moments ? Psychology indeed.
Mike K (416363) — 7/15/2006 @ 8:09 amI speak proudly of my father’s 21-yr service in the military in 3 wars. He rarely discusses what he saw, who he knew, or what exactly happened. When I read things like this, I realize, yet again, what an honorable thing military service is. One not to be taken lightly. It is why I encourage all my children to serve in the military, even if it doesn’t become a career. It is, most definitely, a life-changing time.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/15/2006 @ 8:34 amthe juxtaposition of king henry v and george w. bush made me grin. i would have picked king richard iii or maybe king john instead.
assistant devil's advocate (afa5d9) — 7/15/2006 @ 10:03 amcassandra made one statement which has absolutely no basis in fact:
“anyone who thinks president bush doesn’t understand the grief of military families does not comprehend how many times he has seen the faces of wives, mothers, children of our fallen soldiers, sailors and marines as they struggle to contain their loss.”
so, how many times was it? from edward m. gomez, a blogger in the san francisco chronicle, comes the answer:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=6914
the issue isn’t whether you support the troops. it’s whether you support the mission and whether you have confidence in the commander-in-chief.
So much for not making it political. WTG, ADA.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/15/2006 @ 10:27 amassistant devil’s advocate said:
Then he links to a blog post dripping with leftist lies and condescension. The money paragraph in the post:
I like the comment “killed in his war.” Apparently Gomez thinks the date is still 9/10/01 and is caught in a Groundhog Day loop. Take a look at Ground Zero, you ignorant baboon; maybe you’ll get a clue why it’s our war.
Next sentence, Gomez repeats the no-basis-in-fact libellious assertion that Bush was AWOL, which shows he’s as delusional and lacking credibility as Dan Rather.
After quoting Bush’s reason (perfectly legitimate since he obviously doesn’t want to slight anyone by attending some and not others) Gomez suggests that attending one would honor them all. How so? Using a Clinton-style photo-op? If he did anything of the sort, the BDS sufferers would caterwaul that he was using it to bolster his poll numbers or garner support for “his” war.
As for you, Mr. Assistant Devil’s Advocate, how about living up to your posting handle and ponder this:
So he hasn’t attended a fallen soldier’s funeral. So what? Does that mean he’s never looked into the eyes of a grieving mother, father, sister, brother or child of a fallen soldier killed in Iraq the last three years? Have you or Gomez been following Bush around 24/7 since the start of the war documenting everyone he talks to to be 100% sure he’s never seen the grief? Because the Stars & Stripes article Gomez linked has this passage as the lede:
It also has this comment from Bush:
Next time, do some research.
Assistant Devil’s Advocate my Aunt Fanny.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/15/2006 @ 11:08 am@sharon:
assistant devil's advocate (afa5d9) — 7/15/2006 @ 11:39 ami didn’t initiate the political aspects, cassandra did in a piece which could just as easily have been crafted without them, making it invulnerable to snark. your comment is symptomatic of a greater ailment of your side, a studied aversion to the political aspects of our occupation of a foreign country, an occupation which has cost the lives of over 2500 of our troops and almost 300 billion dollars.
i believe that it is the duty of every american citizen during a war of invasion/occupation such as this one, to question whether we as a country are getting fair value in return for the resources we are expending, and whether the mission was intelligently conceived and is being competently executed. a studied aversion to asking these questions is actually a disservice to the very troops one claims to support.
@paul:
thank you for your spirited rejoinder, even though i don’t agree with it. i don’t even mind being called an ignorant baboon, just want to remind you that iraq and saddam hussein had nothing to do with ground zero.
we have only bush’s word that he has met “hundreds” of bereaved families, his word is not gold, these are private meetings and the families ain’t talking, so the subject is an impenetrable black box not subject to research. i’m sure he’s met **some** families, only one encounter i know of has been publicized, and i thought cindy sheehan overplayed her cards when she lost the specific focus of her grievance and started weighing in on supreme court nominations.
best wishes to your aunt fanny. does that name run in your family?
ADA: I didn’t call you the baboon, I called Gomez an ignorant baboon for writing dishonest claptrap in his post. Maybe I didn’t make that clear.
As for no links between Ground Zero and Iraq-Saddam there are some, not directly, but Saddam gave aid, assistance and training to terrorists connected with Bin Laden and others; Captain Ed has a whole catagory dedicated to posting translations of captured Saddam memos demonstrating that he actively promoted terrorism.
The subject of Bush visiting bereaved families is an impenetrable black box? How do you know? You didn’t even bother to read Gomez’s linked source. If you are too lazy to do the research, don’t comment.
I do agree with your assessment of Mother Sheehan.
Since you seem to not know, Aunt Fanny is an expression; since I didn’t want to curse on Patrick’s blog by using a three-letter word that starts with A and ends with S, I uswed the expression instead.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/15/2006 @ 12:33 pmADA: you stated in your response to Sharon:
If only liberals would look at the boondoggle of government programs in that light.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/15/2006 @ 12:45 pmNow back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we have the freedom to call people who write dishonest posts ignorant baboons.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/15/2006 @ 12:48 pmAssistant Devil’s Advocate says above . . .
your comment is symptomatic of a greater ailment of your side, a studied aversion to the political aspects of our occupation of a foreign country, an occupation which has cost the lives of over 2500 of our troops and almost 300 billion dollars.
i believe that it is the duty of every american citizen during a war of invasion/occupation such as this one, to question whether we as a country are getting fair value in return for the resources we are expending, and whether the mission was intelligently conceived and is being competently executed.
When the first thing that one asks is “are we getting fair value”, the derogatory phrase “a nation of shopkeepers” springs to mind. There’s a mindset there that suggests that war is like a bolt of cloth, or a sack of sugar, and that you can buy it by the yard, or by the pound and that you shouldn’t pay more than X cents a yard or pound.
It’s actually paid for in blood and suffering–and I will note that one “side” as Assistant Devil’s Advocate states has a duty to see that “we get fair value”–but that side, the liberal bean counters who sniff at the idea that their sons or daughters might actually have to serve wouldn’t dream of actually paying the price–they just count the costs and feel superior to the “poor folks who can’t make it in any other line of work and so have to go in the military”.
I’m reminded of the punch line from the old joke about Italian women protesting the Pope’s position on birth control–where they told the Pope: “You no playa the game, you no make a the rules.”
If all you are going to do is stand on the sidelines and snark–well, that won’t cut it with the broader American population.
Mike Myers (290636) — 7/15/2006 @ 1:38 pmThe Assistant Douchebag said:
It is noted the troops are “ours” when they die and “yours” when they fight a war. Anyone else notice this peculiarity? “Invulnerable to snark”? OMG.
Cass is not much given to partisanship and your claim she injected “political aspects” (bad Cass!)is laughable, for war is politics by other means. Can’t you honor our troops w/o dragging some stinking tripe across the carpet at the memorial?
In the matter of spending, when did liberals care how much money was spent, so long as it is someone else’s and buys liberals political power?
Cass’ husband is an active duty marine officer and I suspect she has a far better take on how the berieved families perceive bush than some baboon scribbling for the Baghdad by the Bay Chronicle.
Asst. Douchebag, please explain how Bill Clinton treated the families of the slain after Mogadishu. Find the Shift Key while searching for Billy’s cajones. Start your Easter egg hunt at “Hazardous Duty”, by David Hackworth; pp. 186-90. Jimmy Carter may as well have flown the airliners into the WTC, with Clinton as co-pilot.
Mark (206a30) — 7/15/2006 @ 2:09 pm@paul:
assistant devil's advocate (c49f65) — 7/15/2006 @ 6:45 pmi agree with you on liberals/boondoggle/government programs.
the onus is not on me to do this research. going back to her original statement:
“anyone who thinks president bush doesn’t understand the grief of military families does not comprehend how many times he has seen the faces of wives, mothers, children of our fallen soldiers, sailors and marines as they struggle to contain their loss.”
i don’t think anybody can fully understand the grief of such a family except another family similarly situated, it is presumptuous to assert that you or i or the president could do so. she founds this irrational, gratuitous sop to our incompetent leader in the middle of her otherwise elegiac, moving and somewhat disturbing (the occupational specialty aspirations of the young marine couple) piece on the premise of the number of times bush has seen the faces of wives, etc., and she literally challenges our comprehension on this point. the onus is on her to do the research to enlighten us.
@mike myers:
lol@”nation of shopkeepers”, originally attributed to napoleon commenting on britain’s military prowess, not its morality. if being a “shopkeeper” in this instance means identifying a minimum level of return for my country below which i think it’s shameful and stupid to waste the lives of our soldiers, then i’m proud to be a shopkeeper. i also don’t think it’s a winning bet to belittle entrepreneurial morality on a supposedly conservative blog.
@mark:
i see you’re one of the more mature posters here…
{/sarcasm}
really, being called a douchebag doesn’t bother me. like rufus t. firefly in “duck soup”, the magic word is “upstart” to get me to hit you. wish you could think of more original insults and not plagiarize patterico.
i don’t deny the valor, heroism and sacrifice of american soldiers in iraq, i just have a problem when somebody exploits this to cast our president in the false glow of reflected valor, giving him a free pass on the credibility of his self-serving declarations of empathy and compassion by deeming them a priori truth. the most patriotic reaction we can have to the news of these tragic losses is to figure out how we can bring them to an end as soon as we can.
To continue the beating on Assistant Devil’s Advocate:
Now a new Captain Ed post addresses that very subject. The key points:
After posting the text of the document, demonstrating that Saddam had contact with Bin Laden while the latter was in the Sudan, Ed adds this analysis at the end (emphasis mine):
Game. Set. Match.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/15/2006 @ 7:02 pmADA said:
You charge that Cassandra’s statement wasn’t based in fact, link to a post that is patently dishonest while it failed to mention that Bush visited with the grieving families in private. You make the charge, you back it up, buddy boy.
Ever hear of the word “empathy?” I suggest you look it up and add it to your vocabulary.
She “challenges our comprehension?” No, I think you just proved her point. As Mark pointed out, Cass is married to a marine, and the two of them have known the grief of losing friends in Iraq, have a far better perspective on Bush’s empathy (Learn that word!) and possibly have heard first hand accounts of Bush meeting with some of those families.
So let’s recap, Mr. ADA: you went from Bush not having any contact with the families because he didn’t attend any funerals to he visited with *some* families to he can’t possibly know or understand their grief. I think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough on this thread, good day to you.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/15/2006 @ 7:42 pmYes its very sad to hear about the fallen but its also very angering to read that Bush lied and lied and lied again and throws away their lives on his lies and arrogance. We have found no WMDS, no connection to international terrorism in the part of Iraq and contrary to what Bush says the US and IAEC were active in Iraq before he launched this unwinnable war. Bush father knew better but Bush talks to god.. the god that tells him to lie and kill and keep spinning the truth. This ignorant photo op man ought to really be impeached for the death and destruction he has caused and all his empty platitudes and photo ops cant hide his arrogant disregard for our fighting men and women. I have seen all this before.
charlie (e583c4) — 7/16/2006 @ 7:31 amVietnam Era Vet. who knows that true patriots who REALLY care about our military and our country want Bush removed the sooner the better.
Hey Devils Advocate. When I first read your name I figured you were a Bush supporter!! ha ha..Yes as you see Bush can spin and spin all he wants and they refuse to hold him accountable. I especially like Paul who still insists Iraq was somehow involved with 9/11. Advocate, you can bet these same folks would be raving and ranting if Clinton had done the exact same thing.
These Bushavecks see solders as cannon fodder in a game. They dont know the facts and when the facts intrude on their ‘reality’ they deny them or make up new facts to support this Liar in Chief.
There is no rational justification for the attack on Iraq but Nazi minister Goering had it right when he said at his trial..”of course people dont want war but it is the leaders of the country that determine policy and its always a simple matter to drag people along whether its a democracy, a fascist dictatorship or a parliment or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. Thats easy. All you have to do it tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pascifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger”
charlie (e583c4) — 7/16/2006 @ 7:56 amGoerings words must be engraved on Bush, Cheney and Roves heads. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. The hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, friends of the Bush family. Hey but who cares about facts if you live in Bush world!!
Charlie,
When are you going to get some talking points that are actually true? The “Bush lied” tactics are old, tiresome, and lies by fanatics. No ties between Saddam and international terrorists? I guess you don’t read much, either. But keep spinning, buddy. Not sure anyone said Iraq attacked us on 9/11. We do know that Saddam was the only world leader to cheer it, though.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/16/2006 @ 8:04 amHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Just as Charlie recycles (again!) the old “Bush Lied” talking points, Captain Ed has yet another Saddam memo translation filled with terroristic plans in which “Uday Hussein, in 1999, ordered a series of bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and in the autonomous areas of Iraq.”
That’s right, keep coming in here and embarrasing yourselves. Read and research, my man, read and research!
Sorry, Charlie.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 9:46 amNow back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we have the freedom to publically embarrass ourselves by spouting recycled unresearched out-of-date arguments.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 9:48 amPaul, unless you can produce evidence that Bush knew all of this before he decided to start a war in Iraq, you’re the one embarrassing yourself. If Bush had this evidence before the war, why wasn’t it publicized? He sure as hell paraded all of the bogus intel. that he could get his hands on.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 7/16/2006 @ 10:28 amAm I, Psyberian? I’m not the one that is wrong.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 10:43 amNow back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we have the freedom to be outlandishly wrong in the face of overwhelming truth.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 10:45 am“I like the comment “killed in his war.” Apparently Gomez thinks the date is still 9/10/01 and is caught in a Groundhog Day loop. Take a look at Ground Zero, you ignorant baboon; maybe you’ll get a clue why it’s our war.” – Paul, Dupe-In-A-Loop
No, Paul, it’s OUR problem – but it’s YOUR war, dupe.
In your own immortal words, “Do some research.”
Why don’t YOU take a good look at Ground Zero and then explain to us why the neocons wanted that to happen.
Word of warning to ya, pal. You’ll need to come up with your own words for this one. Regurgitating right-wing sound bites won’t get you off the hook here.
Yes, 9/11 was an inside job. That’s apparent to anyone who’s done the research. So you’re either a mindless cheerleader for evil or just a run-of-the-mill dupe.
Can’t wait to see you embarrass yourself over this one!
Brent Mack (97dd7b) — 7/16/2006 @ 11:12 amReally, Brent? Where’s your evidence?
If 9/11 was an inside job by neocons, how come no leftist sacred ground was hit?
Is the moon full in your world, Brent?
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 11:34 amNow back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we have the freedom to come up with unhinged conspiracy theories with no moorings in reality.
I’m gonna come out with a wooden stake and mallet if these creatures of the night keep popping up.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 11:38 am“Paul, unless you can produce evidence that Bush knew all of this before he decided to start a war in Iraq, you’re the one embarrassing yourself. If Bush had this evidence before the war, why wasn’t it publicized? He sure as hell paraded all of the bogus intel. that he could get his hands on.”
How is it embarrassing that we are finding intelligence that confirms Saddam was supportive of international terrorism?
sharon (fecb65) — 7/16/2006 @ 11:41 amDefinitely.
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/16/2006 @ 11:41 amI don’t know guys, but I have a hunch that “charlie,” “brent mack,” and “a.d.a.” emanate from that place…wait, the signpost ahead says we’ve now entered, “Michael Hiltzik’s World of Sock Puppetry.”
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/16/2006 @ 12:01 pm“Now back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we have the freedom to come up with unhinged conspiracy theories with no moorings in reality.” – Paul. Dupe-In-A-Loop
Paul – wise choice in NOT addressing the subject I raised because you can’t defend YOUR neocon consipiracy theory about 19 guys with boxcutters overwhelming NORAD. Do some research, Bub.
Regarding your “many fine men and women…” line, I find that a good rule of thumb when it comes to neocons is that the more flattering they are toward the military – they more likely they are to just be big ol’ run-at-the-mouth chickenhawk.
Did you ever serve, Paul? I bet you didn’t!
Brent Mack (97dd7b) — 7/16/2006 @ 12:19 pmOK Sharon, I’ll spell it out for you. In order for Bush to have made an honorable and honest decision to go to war with Iraq, he would have to have good evidence that Iraq was a threat. (With me so far?) But the evidence that Paul claims was apparently not available before Bush made that decision, so it is of no consequence in this context, is it?
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 7/16/2006 @ 12:41 pmOk Brent, you want me to out you as an ignorant baboon, here you go:
This is a detailed computer generation flight simulation of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.
This is a detailed, frame-by-frame refutation of Dylan Avery’s despicable Loose Change video.
Psyberian said: “OK Sharon, I’ll spell it out for you. In order for Bush to have made an honorable and honest decision to go to war with Iraq, he would have to have good evidence that Iraq was a threat.”
He did. It’s called UN Resolution 1441 which Saddam ignored. He had his chance to comply, buddy boy.
Now, can we get this thread back to the original subject?
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 1:16 pmLet’s listen to the immortal words of John Foragainst Kerry. Bush is sooooooo deluded. Face it, weasels, the main complaint of the left is that Bush is in office, not the war.
“Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.”
December 14, 2001
Larry King Live
“It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will misjudge, provoke and stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much promised it.”
October 9, 2002
“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if the enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”
September 6, 2002
New York Times
“Well, it wasn’t only on that basis. … Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler and the United Nations.”
2003
CBS Face the Nation
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses. The reason I think we need to really think about him is because he presents a particularly grievous threat through the consistency with which he is prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate a former American President. He miscalculated his own military strength and he miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it’s not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we’ve known this.”
January 23, 2003
Georgetown University
“Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations agree to limit or give up? Why is Saddam attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit the potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten to provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and decieve inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned, airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of those things because he wants to live by the international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he’s a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him.”
October 9, 2002
On the Senate Floor
“I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11. But I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way. … The important thing is that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein fired weapons on Israel! … In addition to that he has refused to live by the terms of the treaty that he signed at the end of the war in which he agreed to do certain things.”
December 11, 2001
The O’Reilly Factor
“[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”
November 9, 1997
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..”
November 9, 1997
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”
October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”
from http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/
The truth is a bear. See what Bubba Clinton and other prominent leftwing hypocrites had to say. Crickets chirping?
Mark (206a30) — 7/16/2006 @ 2:08 pm“Brent Mack” = “charlie” = “assistant devil’s advocate”
The return of sock puppetry !
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/16/2006 @ 2:12 pmOh, please, Brent, don’t call me a chickenhawk!!!
Mark (206a30) — 7/16/2006 @ 2:21 pmJust visit http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/
Bwaaahahahahahahaha!!!
Hey Mark I guess your position is that Bushman is not be be blamed because everyone else made the same mistake..well not quite,.,.most others wanted the inspections to continue..and most others did not want to attack without further evidence.. But that was not the Bush way …he gambled that he could be a wartime President just like his daddy and he lost. Hell when the French and Germans questioned the speech Powell made in the US the radical right called them cowards and more. Well turns out they were right and even Powell admits his speech was a bunch of lies.
Pat Buchanan and others on the real right are against him too so dont say its just liberals..
Bush is a liar and a criminal and in any decent society he would have been removed from office for blatant malfeasance.
Bush is a blatant liar but you wouldn’t admit that no matter what.. and his lies are clear but not to those that dont want to see no matter what.
Bush is also a coward who refuses to attend the funeral of military who have died because its bad PR and you believe the spin about not wanting to favor some and not others they you probably believe Tom Delay couldnt get in the military because there were so many others more qualified ahead of him!!!
Bush is the worst President this country has ever had. Iraq is the best thing that ever happened to Osama Bin Ladin..and anyone who thinks that our soldiers died to fight terrorism better realize that this entire thing was a creation of the mad right that used this war as a means of enhancing their power and money.. It has only the thinnest of connections to WMDs, connections to Al Quida, fighting terrorism or helping the Iraqi people, most of whom now understandably hate us.
charlie (e583c4) — 7/16/2006 @ 3:15 pmIt has everything to do with protecting Israel, protecting oil and making a war President out of a shallow, small minded man who hasnt a clue and could care less for anything beyond his own image and tax breaks for his friends. He is an embarrassment to this nation and I was happy to see Putin nail his pathetic butt yesterday!!
Hey Paul you can believe Captain Ed.. I prefer the CIA and the 9/11 commission.. Let me know when Captain Ed discovers the WMDs..ok?
charlie (e583c4) — 7/16/2006 @ 3:24 pmCharlie—
You’re a youngish sort of moron, aren’t you? Good.
Dan Collins (74550b) — 7/16/2006 @ 3:26 pmDan & Paul,
“charlie,” “brent mack,” and “assistant devil’s advocate” are all one and the same.
Don’t sweat his attacks—he’s just an angry guy.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/16/2006 @ 3:48 pmAh.
Everything about you becomes clear, now.
At least you’re not threatening anyone’s child.
Yet.
Abraxas (828688) — 7/16/2006 @ 3:49 pmharlie said: “Let me know when Captain Ed discovers the WMDs..ok?”
Sure, Charlie. Happy to oblige.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/16/2006 @ 4:19 pmHey Paul you better tell that to the investigators who say the documents do not prove Sadam had WMDs and in fact show the opposite..
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607120001
As far as the WMDs ..Where are they Paul??? Why isnt the administration making a big thing over this proving their case? Answer me that Paul? I will tell you..
Because they know that if they do they will once again be found to be distorting things so they leave it to sources like Captains Quarters to publish these things.. its under the radar so to speak… enough to convince people like you but not enough publicity to generate any serious discussion.
If you were President Bush and you had a chance to prove your case with new information, would you not do it? Of course you would and so would anyone else but Bush remains silent as does the adminstration because they know these documents do not prove what you say they do..but that hardly matters to the true Bushies does it?
charlie (e583c4) — 7/16/2006 @ 5:26 pmWho in the world would have ever thought a President could involve us in a war for reasons proven false and not be thrown out of office? Our national values are in the toilet!!
Not if the dhimmicrats were so busy hanging themselves with their serial lies. Bush won’t be running for re-election. Rove-a-Dope, baby.
Dan Collins (061a15) — 7/16/2006 @ 5:35 pm“charlie” is a sock puppet of “assistant devil’s advocate.”
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/16/2006 @ 5:40 pmCharlie, what do you want to do when you graduate from high school?
Is there a plumbing problem at Indymedia today? I think there has been a sewage spill.
Mark (206a30) — 7/16/2006 @ 7:16 pmIf Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, why would he have used that reason to go to war? And why would he have been told WMDs was a “slam dunk”?
sharon (fecb65) — 7/16/2006 @ 8:12 pm@desert rat:
assistant devil's advocate (8d9190) — 7/17/2006 @ 1:05 amyou are a liar. i don’t use sock puppets.
Charlie said: “As far as the WMDs ..Where are they Paul???”
What are you Charlie, Baghdad Bob reanimated?
If the truth was a crocodile biting off your legs, you’d deny that it was ripping your limbs from your body. Like Assistant Devil’s Advocate, you keep altering your position each time your arguments are refuted. Also like ADA, you’ve embarrased yourself enough for one thread. Good day to you.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/17/2006 @ 4:12 pmNow back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that Patterico has the freedom to use moonbat repellent on his blog.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/17/2006 @ 4:15 pmI should have added this yesterday after my response to Brent:
Now back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we have the freedom to not only call people ignorant baboons, but to be ignorant baboons.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/17/2006 @ 4:25 pm@paul:
assistant devil's advocate (7c7219) — 7/17/2006 @ 6:11 pmi didn’t change my position. the party who raises a point bears the burden of proving it, and it was cass who first referred to the number of times bush has seen bereaved families. absent a specific number, her statement is a meaningless sop to the president, sort of like a “heil”.
feel free to exercise your right not only to call people ignorant baboons, but to be one yourself.
ADA: If you can’t accept the truth, that isn’t my problem.
Let’s review once again: you came in here and charged that Cass’s statement has no basis in fact because Bush hasn’t attended any Iraq-deployed fallen soldier’s funeral, remember?
I refuted that by simply reading and quoting the Stars & Stripes article linked from the Gomez article you linked to as proof that Bush had never seen the faces of grieving families; you claimed “no contact.” In short, you were refuted with your own evidence.
Then you changed your position to he visited with *some* families, claiming that researching this was an “inpenetreble black box.” After this was refuted by myself and others, you then claimed Bush can’t possibly know or understand their grief.
So, to repeat:
What you did is what is commonly referred to as “backpedalling.” That means you did indeed “change your position.”
By the way, I gave you an assignment to look up and learn the word “empathy.” Have you done it yet?
Paul (c169e9) — 7/17/2006 @ 7:52 pmNow back to the discussion of the many fine men and women willing to serve, defend and make personal sacrifices for our country, so that we can backpedal with impunity when losing an argument.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/17/2006 @ 7:53 pm