FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Riptide · May 21, 2013

Is this Tombstone?
Step off, huckleberry.

3_Octave_Fart · May 21, 2013

Riptide said:

Is this Tombstone?
Step off, huckleberry.
Click to expand...

Kneel before Zod.

Riptide · May 21, 2013

3_Octave_Fart said:

Riptide said:

Is this Tombstone?
Step off, huckleberry.
Click to expand...

Kneel before Zod.
Click to expand...

More like Zed and his Gimp.

Baron Scicluna · May 21, 2013

3_Octave_Fart said:

Riptide said:

Is this Tombstone?
Step off, huckleberry.
Click to expand...

Kneel before Zod.
Click to expand...

I never thought this thing would go the distance.

BenPoquette · May 21, 2013

Baron Scicluna said:

BenPoquette said:

Baron Scicluna said:

BenPoquette said:

Baron Scicluna said:

hondo said:

Baron Scicluna said:

3_Octave_Fart said:

Baron used the deaths of 4,500 servicemen and -women and no one finger-wagged him.
Click to expand...

That's because those deaths could have been avoided and the people who are screaming about 4 deaths are strangely silent about the deaths of the 4,488. Pretty hard to avoid deaths in a tornado, unless there are ways to improve the climate.

BTW, 143 American soldiers were killed between 3/19/03 and 5/1/03, you know, when Bush said the war was over (http://antiwar.com/casualties/). Who was using American deaths for a photo op?
Click to expand...

So we should ignore the circumstances of the four deaths because 4,000 others were killed in two wars? At least they had more of a fighting chance given the fact that the Benghazi four were abandoned by their government.
Click to expand...

That 4,488 isn't in two wars. That's just in Iraq.

And like I said, if the GOP is really concerned about the circumstances of the four deaths, they'll take impeachment off the table, like Pelosi did for Iraq. Not to mention, if they were so concerned about those four deaths, they should have been concerned with the other 4,488 deaths. They weren't, with a few exceptions (ironically enough Coburn was one of them).
Click to expand...

Spoken like a person who knows what's coming down the pike, and is terrified of it. You have to wonder if Baron will ever admit he was wrong about Obama. Very doubtful.
Click to expand...

The GOP has the votes in the House to impeach him any time they want.

Getting the conviction in the Senate is a different matter.

The difference is, of course, is the Dems could have found a reason to impeach Bush in '07 (treason?) for the lies in Iraq. The Dems not only chose not to do so, but they chose to be adults about the 4,488 deaths and take it off the table.

Let's see if the GOP wants to act like adults about 4 deaths

I'm not terrified of it. I'd be majorly pissed off that the GOP, for a second time, would try to overturn the will of the people and throw a president out of office for, on this occasion, something less serious than what they were in mostly-full approval of in the previous decade.
Click to expand...

Willful ignorance/delusion is a fascinating thing.

FYI, your little fantasy about the Dems letting Bush off the hook out of the goodness of their hearts is stunning. If they would have had anything remotely resembling treason, or the "lies" you speak of, they would have stumbled over themselves trying to run him off.

You keep talking about these lies Bush supposedly told. Can you give me one or two specific ones...either in speeches or in congressional transcripts? Shouldn't be too hard, right?
Click to expand...

Sigh. I've posted this already.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq

Then there's this:

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

And this:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm
Click to expand...

Post those links all you want...they are liberal opinions formulated to make George Bush look bad. Again, I can post all the quotes from Hillary and the rest of the leftist cabal talking about Saddam and his WMDs. It's spinning wheels. You have nothing, no lies, nothing that remotely resembles treason. What you do have is a President that went to congress to get a war resolution passed...and he was successful.

Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with the current piece of garbage that sullies the White House. The Blame Bush! crowd is hysterical and a bit pathetic. Go back to Media Matters and see if you can find something either relevant or original because the whole "Bush did this, so Obama can do whatever he wants" meme is a joke.

Baron Scicluna · May 21, 2013

BenPoquette said:

Baron Scicluna said:

BenPoquette said:

Baron Scicluna said:

BenPoquette said:

Baron Scicluna said:

hondo said:

Baron Scicluna said:

3_Octave_Fart said:

Baron used the deaths of 4,500 servicemen and -women and no one finger-wagged him.
Click to expand...

That's because those deaths could have been avoided and the people who are screaming about 4 deaths are strangely silent about the deaths of the 4,488. Pretty hard to avoid deaths in a tornado, unless there are ways to improve the climate.

BTW, 143 American soldiers were killed between 3/19/03 and 5/1/03, you know, when Bush said the war was over (http://antiwar.com/casualties/). Who was using American deaths for a photo op?
Click to expand...

So we should ignore the circumstances of the four deaths because 4,000 others were killed in two wars? At least they had more of a fighting chance given the fact that the Benghazi four were abandoned by their government.
Click to expand...

That 4,488 isn't in two wars. That's just in Iraq.

And like I said, if the GOP is really concerned about the circumstances of the four deaths, they'll take impeachment off the table, like Pelosi did for Iraq. Not to mention, if they were so concerned about those four deaths, they should have been concerned with the other 4,488 deaths. They weren't, with a few exceptions (ironically enough Coburn was one of them).
Click to expand...

Spoken like a person who knows what's coming down the pike, and is terrified of it. You have to wonder if Baron will ever admit he was wrong about Obama. Very doubtful.
Click to expand...

The GOP has the votes in the House to impeach him any time they want.

Getting the conviction in the Senate is a different matter.

The difference is, of course, is the Dems could have found a reason to impeach Bush in '07 (treason?) for the lies in Iraq. The Dems not only chose not to do so, but they chose to be adults about the 4,488 deaths and take it off the table.

Let's see if the GOP wants to act like adults about 4 deaths

I'm not terrified of it. I'd be majorly pissed off that the GOP, for a second time, would try to overturn the will of the people and throw a president out of office for, on this occasion, something less serious than what they were in mostly-full approval of in the previous decade.
Click to expand...

Willful ignorance/delusion is a fascinating thing.

FYI, your little fantasy about the Dems letting Bush off the hook out of the goodness of their hearts is stunning. If they would have had anything remotely resembling treason, or the "lies" you speak of, they would have stumbled over themselves trying to run him off.

You keep talking about these lies Bush supposedly told. Can you give me one or two specific ones...either in speeches or in congressional transcripts? Shouldn't be too hard, right?
Click to expand...

Sigh. I've posted this already.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq

Then there's this:

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

And this:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm
Click to expand...

Post those links all you want...they are liberal opinions formulated to make George Bush look bad. Again, I can post all the quotes from Hillary and the rest of the leftist cabal talking about Saddam and his WMDs. It's spinning wheels. You have nothing, no lies, nothing that remotely resembles treason. What you do have is a President that went to congress to get a war resolution passed...and he was successful.

Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with the current piece of garbage that sullies the White House. The Blame Bush! crowd is hysterical and a bit pathetic. Go back to Media Matters and see if you can find something either relevant or original because the whole "Bush did this, so Obama can do whatever he wants" meme is a joke.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Doc: Did the GOP say those things or not? Yes or no?

What website they come from doesn't matter. What matters is did they say it?

And, as it has been said before, Hillary and the leftists relied on the President of the United States to tell them the truth and voted accordingly. Yeah, they screwed up. They made the mistake of believing the guy.

The joke is on the GOP, who, when they're confronted about their past, are not only ashamed of it, but they keep screaming that we have to forget about it and believe they are telling the truth now.

Armchair_QB · May 21, 2013

Baron, none of those statements were lies. The liberal trash did everything in their power to make them appear to be lies but, much like their attempts to fix Florida in 2000, they failed miserably.

And, as usual, Ben has made you look like the fool you are. Only a complete left wing fuckwit like yourself would believe the Dems could have impeached Bush on what they had but only let him go out of the goodness of their hearts. L. O. L.

Now run along and leave this thread to the adults little man.

hondo · May 21, 2013

Baron Scicluna said:

Boom_70 said:

Baron Scicluna said:

Armchair_QB said:

old_tony said:

Another Whitehouse embarrassment.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Rhode Island should be both embarrassed and ashamed.
Click to expand...

Never let a crisis go to waste. Even if it means standing on the bodies of dead schoolchildren.
Click to expand...

Speaking of never letting a crisis go to waste, it'll be real interesting to see Oklahoma's GOP senators in action here. The same ones who voted to cut disaster relief to Hurricane Sandy victims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/oklahoma-senators-disaster-relief_n_3309234.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Click to expand...

MSNBC seems happy to show tornado story tonight so they don't have to talk about the scandals.
Click to expand...

So they should ignore the actual news to talk about the same old shit from the last two weeks?
Click to expand...

The same old shit isn't going away. Deal with it.

doctorquant · May 21, 2013

The fact is that only the most slobbering of Obamaphiles would suggest that those links make a compelling case that President Bush "lied" in the run-up to the Iraq war. As Baron is our resident MObPhi*, we should not be surprised that he treats this hackery as evidence that is indisputable. Nevertheless, anyone with a modicum of intellectual maturity/honesty would note that, while President Bush's case for the Iraq war did turn out to be flawed, history is full of instances in which consequential decisions are made for the wrong reasons. Indeed, if President Bush is to be called a liar for the Iraq War, then President Roosevelt could fairly be considered a traitor for being duped by the Japanese in the days prior to Pearl Harbor.

A clearer-headed view of the run-up to the Iraq war is, I believe, presented by this author (who, I might note, served both Presidents Clinton and Bush 43) :
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/17/a_decade_later_and_the_iraq_debate_is_still_contaminated_with_myths:

I have addressed this myth before. It is a staple of the anti-Iraq/anti-Bush commentary -- and not just of the pseudonymous trolls in blog comment sections. John Mearsheimer, one of the most influential security studies academics, has written a book built around the claim that leaders regularly lie and that Bush in particular lied about Iraq. Mearsheimer claims "four key lies," each one carefully rebutted by Mel Leffler.

The first is the question of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. As I noted above, while the Iraq files contain no "smoking gun" of an active operational link, the record includes ample evidence of overtures originating from either side -- each pursuing precisely the kind of enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend alliance of convenience that Bush worried about.
The second is the Bush administration statements of certainty about Iraq's WMD programs. It turns out the Bush administration officials were wrong on many of those particulars and should have been less certain about how they were reading the intelligence, but there is no compelling evidence that they knew they were reading the intelligence incorrectly, which is what is logically required to prove the charge of "lying" rather than being "mistaken."
The third is the charge that Bush claimed Saddam was behind the attacks of 9/11. Here Mearsheimer ignores the explicit and repeated explanation by President Bush (and countless administration figures) about what they meant -- namely that the links they saw were (i) how 9/11 had changed their risk calculus and (ii) how terrorist groups and states sponsors of terror should be treated as part and parcel of the same war. Again, the Bush administration may or may not have been wrong to view things that way but these are disputes of reasoning and policy, not fact.
The fourth is the charge that Bush "lied" about sincerely pursuing a diplomatic solution short of war in 2002-2003. In fact, Bush was committed to a final resolution of WMD issue, which he believed would require either abject capitulation by Hussein or forcible regime change. Bush was not open to a wide range of face-saving and half-way diplomatic measures, but he never claimed to be. In other words, Bush was not willing to accept diplomatic solutions that others might have accepted, but he did go to great lengths to secure the diplomatic solution he was willing to accept but Saddam was not.
When one examines the historical record more fairly, as Leffler does, the "lying" myth collapses. This doesn't absolve the Bush administration of blame, but it does mean that those who allege "lying" are themselves as mistaken as are the targets of their critique.
Click to expand...

*Master of Obama-Philism

Armchair_QB · May 21, 2013

So, basically, Baron is liar.

3_Octave_Fart · May 21, 2013

If one cannot accept fact and evidence staring them square in the eyes, that person is something worse than a liar.

BenPoquette · May 21, 2013

doctorquant said:

The fact is that only the most slobbering of Obamaphiles would suggest that those links make a compelling case that President Bush "lied" in the run-up to the Iraq war. As Baron is our resident MObPhi*, we should not be surprised that he treats this hackery as evidence that is indisputable. Nevertheless, anyone with a modicum of intellectual maturity/honesty would note that, while President Bush's case for the Iraq war did turn out to be flawed, history is full of instances in which consequential decisions are made for the wrong reasons. Indeed, if President Bush is to be called a liar for the Iraq War, then President Roosevelt could fairly be considered a traitor for being duped by the Japanese in the days prior to Pearl Harbor.

A clearer-headed view of the run-up to the Iraq war is, I believe, presented by this author (who, I might note, served both Presidents Clinton and Bush 43) :
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/17/a_decade_later_and_the_iraq_debate_is_still_contaminated_with_myths:

I have addressed this myth before. It is a staple of the anti-Iraq/anti-Bush commentary -- and not just of the pseudonymous trolls in blog comment sections. John Mearsheimer, one of the most influential security studies academics, has written a book built around the claim that leaders regularly lie and that Bush in particular lied about Iraq. Mearsheimer claims "four key lies," each one carefully rebutted by Mel Leffler.

The first is the question of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. As I noted above, while the Iraq files contain no "smoking gun" of an active operational link, the record includes ample evidence of overtures originating from either side -- each pursuing precisely the kind of enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend alliance of convenience that Bush worried about.
The second is the Bush administration statements of certainty about Iraq's WMD programs. It turns out the Bush administration officials were wrong on many of those particulars and should have been less certain about how they were reading the intelligence, but there is no compelling evidence that they knew they were reading the intelligence incorrectly, which is what is logically required to prove the charge of "lying" rather than being "mistaken."
The third is the charge that Bush claimed Saddam was behind the attacks of 9/11. Here Mearsheimer ignores the explicit and repeated explanation by President Bush (and countless administration figures) about what they meant -- namely that the links they saw were (i) how 9/11 had changed their risk calculus and (ii) how terrorist groups and states sponsors of terror should be treated as part and parcel of the same war. Again, the Bush administration may or may not have been wrong to view things that way but these are disputes of reasoning and policy, not fact.
The fourth is the charge that Bush "lied" about sincerely pursuing a diplomatic solution short of war in 2002-2003. In fact, Bush was committed to a final resolution of WMD issue, which he believed would require either abject capitulation by Hussein or forcible regime change. Bush was not open to a wide range of face-saving and half-way diplomatic measures, but he never claimed to be. In other words, Bush was not willing to accept diplomatic solutions that others might have accepted, but he did go to great lengths to secure the diplomatic solution he was willing to accept but Saddam was not.
When one examines the historical record more fairly, as Leffler does, the "lying" myth collapses. This doesn't absolve the Bush administration of blame, but it does mean that those who allege "lying" are themselves as mistaken as are the targets of their critique.
Click to expand...

*Master of Obama-Philism
Click to expand...

These things do not matter when a person has his eyes closed, his fingers in his ears and is screaming "LALALALALALALALA."

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Riptide Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

BenPoquette Active Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

BenPoquette Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Riptide Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

BenPoquette Active Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

BenPoquette Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches