Washington — The White House and Sen. John Kerry traded their harshest accusations Tuesday since the 2004 presidential race, with President Bush accusing the Democrat of troop-bashing and Kerry calling the president's men hacks who are "willing to lie."
The war of words, tough even for this hard-fought campaign season, came after Kerry told a group of California students Monday that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq."
The two parties are searching for any edge amid indications Democrats could take back the House and possibly win control of the Senate in next week's midterm elections. Though neither Bush nor Kerry is on any ballot, the bitterness with which they fought each other as 2004 rivals spilled over as both campaign hard for their parties in a race shaped in large measure by public doubts about the Iraq war.
As Republicans demanded that Kerry apologize, a Democratic congressional candidate in a close race in Iowa, Bruce Braley, canceled a campaign event with Kerry, saying the senator's comments were inappropriate.
Bush, campaigning later in Georgia, said Kerry's statement was "insulting and it is shameful."
"The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology," Bush said during an appearance for a former GOP congressman, Mac Collins, who is trying to oust Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall. There were boos at the mention of Kerry's name and cheers at Bush's call for an apology.
Kerry, who is considering another run for the White House in 2008, angrily fired back.
At a hastily arranged news conference in Seattle, Kerry said: "I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy."
Kerry said the comment in question was "a botched joke about the president and the president's people, not about the troops ... and they know that's what I was talking about."
It came during a campaign rally for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. Kerry opened his speech at Pasadena City College with several one-liners, saying at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but now "lives in a state of denial."
He then said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
That, Kerry said, was meant as a reference to Bush, not troops. Kerry said it is the president who owes U.S. soldiers an apology - for "a Katrina foreign policy" that misled the country into war in Iraq, failed to adequately study and plan for the aftermath, has not properly equipped troops and has expanded the terrorist threat.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
opinion (anonymous) says…
RT,
Page 4A.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Bush is arrogant incompetence personified. When will you quit pouting about people calling it as it is, RT?
craigers (anonymous) says…
Kerry gets on my nerves. Talking about our troops like they are just victims of our schools and couldn't make it in the education realm, so they have to fight for our country for a living. There is a lot more to those soldiers choosing to serve and protect our freedom than not getting all of their homework done.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Granted, it was poorly worded joke, but Kerry wasn't talking about the troops. He was talking about Bush ignoring all information about the dangers of invading Iraq and now being stuck there as a result of his lack of education.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Your willful ignorance is showing again, RT.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
The White House is desperately trying to spin anything they can. Pathetic.
craigers (anonymous) says…
And Kerry isn't trying to spin what he actually said into something that has merit? Bozo, you are stretching it and had to read into that speech to hear what you did. He should have known by saying those comments on a news conference that he was going to get nailed for it. The general public doesn't think, "I wonder what he meant by that." No, they will be like, "Why did he call our military people dumb?" He should have be smart enough to not say what he did, but then again I guess he is ex-military. (This was in no way meant to be a dig on the military)
Porter (anonymous) says…
The spin is making me dizzy!
opinion (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus ,
"but Kerry wasn't talking about the troops"
I know that is what he is saying now but that really does not align with his recorded statement. His statement indicated that he feels, if you study (IE are educated) you won't be in Iraq. That means those in Iraq did not study (IE are uneducated). A misstatement perhaps in regards to what he truely feels but that is how it reads. I think he would be better to say he misspoke and then in a few days attack President Bush's policies like he wants to. As is, he sounds like an elitist. If he wanted to attack the President in his statement - why didn't he just directly do that?
The other thing that bothers me about his apparent sentiment is that those that are in the military are there as a last resort - because they didn't study and therefore HAVE to go into the military. He of all people should be aware of the fact that many serve out of sense of duty and honor.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Kerry's comments were poorly written, but even if he meant exactly what BushCo say he meant, the fact remains that BushCo were arrogantly reckless in entering Iraq, and well over 3000 Americans (if you count private contractors) have died there as a result, with thousands more likely to die, for no apparent reason.
There could be no greater disrespect shown to the troops than that, and Kerry giving BushCo the chance to distract from that fact is his biggest sin in these comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
How do you justify that notion given that Kerry is a decorated war hero, while Bush is a draft-dodger, RT?
JimmyJoeBob (anonymous) says…
I don't know what kind of spin Bozo is trying to put on this but it isn't spinning. He must have never attended college and is not smart if he can't understand what Kerry said was insulting and wrong. Doesn't Kerry know of the many military colleges we have in the United States or the number of young college students who also are serving in Iraq due to the fact they are also members in the National Guard. The military is very high tech now and not just any Bozo can get in. Here are his words he used the word smart not underprivledged.
Kerry"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Throw this on the pile with:
"that a**hole from the 'New York Times'"
'We need all of them coming down. Go balloons- balloons? What's happening balloons? There's not enough coming down! All balloons, what the hell! There's nothing falling! What the f--k are you guys doing up there? We want more balloons coming down, more balloons. More balloons. More balloons'...
"Well, bad weather is like rape: if it's inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it."
"We're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House. yyyyeeeeaaahhhhhhhhh!!"
"i want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
"I... did not... have sexual relations... with... that... woman."
"F**k off!"
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
BrianR (anonymous) says…
"And Kerry isn't trying to spin what he actually said into something that has merit?"
I'm glad you recognize that.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I fault Kerry for his poor choice of words that allow BushCo an avenue for yet another distraction from its own arrogant incompetence.
But Kerry's poor choice of words have not killed 3000 Americans, and as many as a half million Iraqis, as BushCo have.
But I'm sure that won't dissuade you from your dear, dear willful ignorance.
JimmyJoeBob (anonymous) says…
I don't even think Kerry is as rich as he portrays himself to be. He just married into it. He is a total fake.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
http://www.cnn.com/2006/politics/11/0...
Right about now, Democrats don't want Sen. John Kerry's snakebit support. The senator's "botched joke" about bad students getting stuck in Iraq unleashed venomous GOP reaction. And Democrats in tight congressional races want the Massachusetts lawmaker off their stumps. "You just don't need something that might bring out extra people for the other side," a campaign official said.
_______________________________________________
This is hilarious! Two years ago, Bush and Kerry were the two guys everyone wanted to see; today, they're the two guys *NOBODY* wants to see! LOL!
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Powell/Obama in '08! (party affiliation irrelevant)
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
BOE (anonymous) says…
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
President Bush, Aug 5, 2004
===
All Americans (except maybe for his core 1/3 supporters) want Bush and his administration to stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, or resign.
But at the very least, shouldn't he apologize?
Of course I think he should resign, but at this point I'd settle for him to just stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people.
BOE (anonymous) says…
by right_thinker on November 1, 2006 at 9:40 a.m.
The big difference twixed Bush and Kerry though, is Bush does not lead based on polls and does not flip-flop day to day.
===
Huh?
"Listen, we've never been stay the course."
President Bush, Oct 23, 2006
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
It's be nice if he'd base his decisions on information, rather than just his gut feelings.
And that is exactly what Kerry's point was.
meggers (anonymous) says…
Right thinker,
Bush doesn't flip-flop? Apparently, you missed all of the 'stay the course' rhetoric, along with the swift reversal of that agenda(and rather bizarre denial)a little over a week ago. You might also have missed the 'we will not set a timetable in Iraq' administration that just last week, paraded out a plan for Iraq, complete with "benchmarks" (aka: deadlines)set by the Bush administration for Iraq.
I realize that yourself and many other republicans are eager to hear some good news for a change, but Kerry's gaffe really isn't newsworthy in the larger scope of things. Nor is the fact that he opposed an administration's failed foreign policy over thirty years ago.
estespark (anonymous) says…
Politics aside, let's not overlook both the idiocy of his remark and the timing.
Classic quote from TIME Magazine - "You've got to wonder about John Kerry's eye-hand coordination."
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"The big difference twixed Bush and Kerry though, is Bush does not lead based on polls and does not flip-flop day to day."
_____________________________________________
You're right. Bush sticks to his guns. No matter how poorly they're aimed, no matter how wrong the target... no matter how many solidiers are killed in the process (they'll always make more, don'tcha know)... Bush will not be swayed from his course. He won't even be swayed by new, updated information.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
right on patriotman and righty!
the loonie lefty spin sure sounds shrill thin and silly on this one! john kerry, in his comment, simply represented the views of the loonie lefty demorat base: members of the military are either psychologically flawed individuals, or they are "stuck" in the military being victims.
shame shame shame!
and, kerry already called our troops in Iraq terrorists, so no big dif. just glad this view from the lefty fringies is getting exposed.
vote for nancy boyda, you're supporting this along with nancy pelosi. just who do you think boyda will support for speaker of the house? pelosi, or, hmmm murtha? wow, there's defeat and retreat in a name:
"cowards cut and run. Marines never do!"
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Conservativeman, how about coming up with something original, eh?
And if you're going to copy/paste from the web, at least have the scruples to show proper attribution.
http://www.kerrystreason.com/
Oh wait, hypocritical theocratic fascists like you don't have scruples. Or honor, for that matter.
Welcome back, caveman.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
As much as some on here wants to distract everyone else from the real issue here, I suggest that we remember where our attention should be focussed....
"It's still the war, stupid"
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Conservativeman/Patriotman... I'm not in the least threatened by your hypocrisy. Exposing your foolishness takes only a few seconds.
Fish in a barrel...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Meanwhile the Repugs keep looking more and more idiotic.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I never liked Kerry, and wish he'd shut up.
The only person I want to hear from in the Democratic camp is St. Hillary . . . but it seems the handlers are keeping her away from everything but the most generic condemnation of Cheney & Co's myriad negligences, malfeasance, and incompetence.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Oh yeah I forgot hga, everyone is WRONG except those that agree with your position!
Kerry is a yahoo. If you think Bush is a Zero, then Kerry amounts to even less.
I believe the originla sin of "homosexual pedophile" was a democrat, and he was awarded with a committee chairmanship about a decade ago. YOUR party rewards such behavior. My how you forget and how times do change.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"..but it seems the handlers are keeping her away from everything but the most generic condemnation of Cheney & Co's myriad negligences, malfeasance, and incompetence."
As opposed by the Clinton's "negligences, malfeasance, and incompetence."
That is a riot!
meggers (anonymous) says…
right thinker,
I don't think my sweetness or cuteness has much relevance to this discussion, but thanks all the same for the flattery.
I read and watch a variety of news sources and I'm well aware that the Kerry incident is receiving a lot of play at the moment. That still doesn't mean the onslaught of attention is justified. Bagdad is under siege, Maliki and Bush are locking heads, and Iraq is disintegrating into a full scale civil war. That all strikes me as tremendously more important than a dumb comment made by a senator who isn't even up for reelection.
With regard to the election, there are races all over the country that are neck-in-neck, with new developments each day. Some of these races will be the deciding factor in who winds up controlling either or both chambers of Congress. Kerry isn't even up for reelection- he's nothing more than a part of the political scenery right now. Or at least, he should be.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Bush was in the military, and he is/was incredibly ignorant and uneducated. He only went to a fancy college because of his family. I'm not saying that all troops are ignorant, but it's definitely not the brightest group in the world. They work hard and have to use common sense. There's really no need for much in terms of book smarts. The military is one of the few decent options for those who really didn't do well in school, OR for those who want help paying for college. I'm definitely proud of our troops for putting up with this crap, but we need to be honest about the average intelligence of a soldier.
horsegirl (anonymous) says…
Kerry's comment was in poor taste, considering his position, however, that doesn't make his comment wrong. In fact, I'd be willing to bet big bucks that most of the men and women in Iraq actually fighting (save for the Reserves... but even that majority is probably not highly educated) do not have much beyond a high school education. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone has the desire or means to go to college, but the fact is that kids do use the military as a choice when they don't know what to do with their lives. Or when they are in trouble (my husband did that). Honestly, we don't have a military full of patriots as would be nice to believe. So go ahead and berate Kerry for being stupid with his statement, but don't try to act like he's lying about the educated state of our military. And also, don't equate not being educated to being dumb, as the Right is trying to do now to further their agenda. Education does not equal intelligence.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Why are we talking about Kerry? He's not our senator. He's never going to be president, and nobody running for office is listening to him! Who cares if he put his foot in his mouth?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Here is a picture ofthe troops asking for "help." The link is slow, but is worth itand says it all!
http://www.620wtmj.com/images/uploade...
weedwacker (anonymous) says…
I'm just a bit sick of hearing about how the majority of the men and women serving in Iraq are not as educated. Has there been a survey on the education levels of our troops, how do we know for sure. Unless you have numbers to back what you are saying about the education of the men and women over there, Shut the Hell Up. I know for a fact that a lot of the deployed from this area are very educated. Some are doctors, veterinarians, teachers and many other professions that are there. Now are you telling me that you don't need a higher education to be a doctor or a teacher? We are at war. Most of us living today do not know what it is like to not have the freedom of speech and the rights we have, we have not been around when wars were going on, we only read about them in our history books, think about what it would be like if our ancestors hadn't fought for us. Let's support the men and women over there, I have known many that will not ever be coming home, and I am disgusted that we would ever think they thought it wasn't worth fighting for our freedom since they have lost their lives for our freedom. Yes we are free to have our own opinion, just keep the down grading about our service men and women to yourselves.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"I'm just a bit sick of hearing about how the majority of the men and women serving in Iraq are not as educated."
Me, too. I wish the Republicans would quit droning on about it.
wheatridge (anonymous) says…
Hey confrontation - how much intelligence does it take to spend your life as a blogger? Let me guess, you are educated and have served, so you have book knowledge and practical knowldge, right. Being honest and all.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
John Kerry was saying what he and all Liberals beilieve, if you don't agree with them, you're an idiot. Funny thing is John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and this volunteer force has a higher level of education than the general population.
Don't be suprised if these "uneducated" conservatives decide we don't need liberals to run our lives anymore.
weedwacker (anonymous) says…
Sigmund---That link is just great!!! I'm glad to see the troops are right on it. Thanks for sharing the picture. Took me a little bit to catch on, I guess I am a bit un-educated. Also bozo, I don't think it is just the republicans' that are making a big deal about this. If it was a mistake, then why not apologize? How hard is that?
weedwacker (anonymous) says…
Apologizing for a bad joke is NOT apologizing to our men and women serving, how would any of you feel to hear that said about you while you were fighting for your country. holygrailale, put yourself in their posion.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Kerry apologized after he "apologised to no one". Sound familiar?
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
Sigmund: "Don't be suprised if these "uneducated" conservatives decide we don't need liberals to run our lives anymore."
Umm...
The conservatives have been the ones running our lives for quite a while now (at least since 2000, but more likely since 1994's "contract with America.")
meggers (anonymous) says…
I just discovered that this article completely misrepresents what Kerry said, as has much of the main-stream media.
This is the exact text of Kerry's speech:
"It's great to be here with college students. I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Please note the "us" in that last sentence. Sort of changes the context, doesn't it? And some of you continue to insist that there is some sort of vast liberal media conspiracy? What a joke.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/kerry...
weedwacker (anonymous) says…
So holygrailale, why are you defending Kerry so much? And stating that the men and women in Iraq know they shouldn't be there. That is not all true and you know it. Sounds good though doesn't it? I know a bunch of military that have been there, and some are on their second and thrid deployment. Not a ONE of them said we shouldn't be there. One guy came back in better shape than when he left here. He said it made him feel better about the war. I think until YOU are over there and see what is really going on, you have no right to question what the service men and women are doing.
horsegirl (anonymous) says…
You are correct in that if you want to move up in ranks, you generally will have some higher education or specialized training, however, the military is not made up of all leaders. There are still the kids who enter the military to stay out of trouble or because they have nothing else to do. They serve their 4 years and then they get out. And THEY make up the majority of the military.
Patriotman, is there such thing as a Liberal elitist? I would rather not throw accusations around...
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Yep we are much to dumb to understand what John Kerry meant. And he apologized, or didnt apologise for saying it. Might want to educate Hillary Clinton on what Kerry meant and did or didnt apologize for. She called it insulting as well and she is the smartest women in the world! It is just part of that vast rightwing conservative mainstream media conspiracy.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs...
i like holygrailale approach better, it is honest. Disagree and you are and idiot because they hate Bush. The rest is just too nuanced for our small minds.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Agree it was petty, but still no excuse for a grammatical error. I can only hope you were smart enough to catch the meaning of my pathetic post. Point well made!
drewdun (anonymous) says…
Your level of goodness - does that include blindly following fascist leaders, and supporting a war based on lies in which 2800 of our troops have died?
Reading this, it is funny that so many wingnuts are upset about what Kerry said (personally, I think he should have just kept his damn mouth shut - he's not even running in this election) but don't seem to mind the fact that their boy sent the troops to actually die for lies. Shows where the fascists' priorities are.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
forty years ago, my father was a student at Baker University. In those days, if you didn't make grades,
your name was submitted to the local draft board.
You made grades in college or you were shipped off to Vietnam. I would like to see how all of these history-
deficient well-to-do JOCO Conservative kids would do
if they had to make grades or be faced with the possiblity of becoming cannon fodder. Mr. Kerry and
Mr. McCain both recall this era and are both veterans.
My father almost quit grad school at Duke University
to go to Vietnam, which he thought would be easier to
deal with than graduate school. The military recruiter
in North Carolina told my father, "Son, stay in School".
My father ended up being a minister for 40 years. There
wasn't any verbal missteps made in Mr. Kerry's comments. he simply recalled the context of the time
when he was a college student and a soldier in the
1960's. There are too many history-deficient Fox news
-watching arm chair quarterbacks who don't know what
growing up during wartime is really about. I saw the end
of Vietnam as a five year old, with the copters evacuating
Saigon on TV. There needs to be a draft again, so that
this country doesn't have a rich mans war and a poor man's fight, which Mr. Kerry was referring to.
drewdun (anonymous) says…
Sorry to harp, but it really is interesting that this 'story' has dominated the media all day. Yep, that 'liberal' media at work again. 103 troops dead in Iraq in October alone? 'Don't worry about it - there is a much more important fabricated controversy that the Republican Party needs us to push big time in the next few days.'
It really shows the state of our society and the news media that covers when a man making a dumb remark, even if it was intentional, is somehow now more important than all other news combined; that John Kerry giving a speech is more important than the war in Iraq and the abortion that it is the leadership of the Bush Administration and their Republican allies in Congress. The media is getting played like a fiddle, and boy are they loving it. Pathetic.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
This back and forth, my party walks on water/your party is from the depths of Hell, is a plot arranged by the wealthiest of Americans to make sure people aren't actually speaking about the issues. It is one thing to agree with more of what one party represents than another, but neither is perfect. Not even close. The occassional joke is one thing, but constantly repeating the mantra of "we're great, you suck" gets nothing accomplished. If you are doing this, then you are just dancing to the music while Rome burns around you.
And Big Deal! -- Kerry said something stupid! Oh my! A politician who isn't part of the upcoming election shouldn't be such a headline, although it is clear to everyone why it is. Anything is more important than talking about the issues. It hardly ranks up there with "Mission Accomplished," "Hell of a job, Brownie," or "It depends on what your definition of is is."
Get past it kids. Focus on the real issues.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
If your point was John Kerry is living in the past and that we have a very different military that is all volunteer and dealing with a very different war today, I agree. But if you are implying that the average soldier today only enlists or reenlists becasue they have no other options (ie too stupid and/or poor) and don't believe in the cause they are fighting for, you are wrong.
The education levels are higher for the military than for the general population and reenlistment is running very high for those who have already served in both in Iraq and Afganistan. We don't need, and the military does not want, a draft. In fact involuntary conscription is one reason why morale and support dwindled for Vietnam. Sons of congressmen and women are serving in combat today and the vast majority of todays military had a real choices and yet still chose to serve. Sen Kerry words were ignorant and insulting and I am glad he has finally apologized to them.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
IS SO!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
For all you idiots that support John Kerry's stupid and clumsey remarks. From the Boys and girls that can't spell in Iraq:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/01...
drewdun (anonymous) says…
Yeah, because the media has made this into a huge story, even bigger than, what was it, I just lost it, come on..........oh. yeah. Our troops dying in Iraq.
Now rt, I know you and the wingnuts will be pushing this 'story' hard for the next five days to get people to forget about the failure of your party to adequately govern, but the only thing this will do (besides get the media wet with excitement) is convince already convinced GOP base voters to vote. I don't think the rest of the American people are stupid enough to let a speech by John frikkin Kerry override their deep concerns about the spectacular incompetence of Bush and the GOP. You Republicans can play this all you want - it will just let people know you have nothing else to run on, and besides that, it will bring the Iraq debacle even more into the fore of public consciousness, which is a loser for your team, I guarantee.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Of the 535 members of Congress, at least seven that I know of have children in the military who are already participating in the war or could be called to do so. House and Senate information offices do not have a comprehensive list of members who are military parents.
The lawmakers who've confirmed that their kids are now serving includes Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Republicans Jon Kline of Minnestota, Todd Akin of Missouri, Duncan Hunter of California, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Ed Schrock of Virginia and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
Even if no others join and if some lawmakers have not chosen to disclose that still is over 1% which I think fairly reflects household in the general population. BTW, 2005 was the latest numbers I have, if you have a link to 2006 number I would love to look at it.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
asbestos, Thanks for posting that new link. The one I posted earlier got blocked. I can only assume because of high bandwidth usage.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
VP Cheney:
"..He (Kerry) was for the joke .. before he was against the joke."
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
BTW, for the libs,
On Fox tonight, Kansas turning to a BLue state.
Oh that is right, that is a righty News Outlet.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Don Imus (supporter of Kerry:
"IMUS: Please stop it. Stop talking. Go home, get on the bike.."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMRec...
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I like red herrings in mustard sauce on thin crusty bread....with a frosty malted beverage of course.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Meggers and Hole,
the text you are referencing of Kerry's speech was released later, and is supposed to be his *intended* remarks. turn down the conspiracy wackonut volume. when you *actually* listen to spoken words of Kerry, who is supposed to be so lucid, smart and edumicated, he doesn't say "us" or ref the pres in that sentence, which btw didn't sound like a joke either.
and, RE joke, if it did point to the pres, GWB got better grades than Kerry, has one more degree, and has a higher IQ it seems. also, GWB beat Kerry in the '04 election, too.
-->go to college, and you might wind up in the Senate, and marry a b|tch for her money and live off her wealth.<--
some of the fringie lefty posters above have proven what I posted, that Kerry's actual spoken statement simply represents deeply held prejudices against members of the military. surprised haven't heard more of the 'psychologically flawed' half of that ugly prejudice!
I too must praise Righty for his persistence and express appreciation for patriotman. thanks boys!
werekoala (anonymous) says…
I thought the banner the troops were holding was hysterical.
I also think all this hoopla about Kerry's remarks was funny. It's amazing how much ersatz outrage can be synthesized when the right-wing's agitators find something they can attack on.
I guess I wish that the same folks going on and on about how Kerry (former soldier) disrespected the troops would care more about how Bush & Co (protected Texas from Charlie, when he had the time) have cut back VA funding, since it was politically inconvenient to have such a well-functioning public health care system.
But if the modern Republican party has taught us anything, it's that words are more important than actions. It doesn't matter what Kerry does or what Bush doesn't do, only what they SAY. Just as it doesn't matter if a Congressman is a sexual predator, it's okay to cover that up as long as he says the right things about "family values" when the cameras are rolling.
Put it this way - if he meant what he said he meant, it's not a big deal. And considering how badly Bush mangles the King's English (seriously, sit through an entire unedited press conference feed sometime and try not to wince), I think Kerry's entitled to a Mulligan.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
RT,
his 'posted' "apology" includes the claim that his words were "misinterpretted." this cancels his apology in my book! his words *were not* misinterpretted. no apology yet.
***
sHrillary said his comment was "inappropriate...I remember her inappropriate comment early in the Clinton occupation of the whitehouse, calling the Secret Service "pigs" for wearing rubber gloves whilest searching purses and backpacks of visitors! "pigs!" there ya' go, sHrillary's view of the 'Service, probably her true view of all in uniform, too. yes, Kerry's being dropped as a "hot potato" by demorats all over the country, that's how it is appropose to today's election, and he *was* the standard bearer of the demorat party in '04...thank God he wasn't elected! he has trash talked troops before RE his 1971 appearance before the Senate. few months ago, said our troops are "terrorizing" iraqi women and children.
agree: good thing this puts the fork in his candidacy for '08. too bad that, he'd have been fun to knock around again.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Patriotman: Where do you get that idea? I see a decided lack of shame and sense of right and wrong on both sides of the isle, every time I try to look.
It's a shame, though, that Kerry can't just go away. Truly a terrible politician, and either way you decide to interpret his remark it's a bad joke with no redeeming merit at all.
However. .. . who the @#$% cares, anyway?!?!?!?!?
i have an idea. Why don't you folks on the extreme right admit that all of your outrage over this supposed slight on the troops is faked, because you're just using this example as the easiest, most efficient way to derail any conversation on real issues because up until two days ago you knew you were badly losing ground on keeping your control of the government for the very simple reason that your party has been f@#$%n up for several years now? This is a total non-issue, not, as Right-Thinker said "HUGE!" Kerry is just one voice of one party, and taking his gaffe to mean anything more than that is as irresponsible as, say, taking Bush's comment "They never stop thinking about how to harm America, and neither do we!" and making an issue about how Bush hates America.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
Like other registered republicans who are voting against republicans in Kansas this year, this whole Kerry thing has not changed my mind one iota on who I'm going to vote for next week!
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Wow RT, try something other than Fox News. Reading some of your posts makes me wonder if you're in some parallel universe.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Right-Thinker: Sorry, allow me to rephrase myself.
This SHOULD be a non-issue, not, as Right Thinker said, HUGE!
Kerry 2008 election chances? You mean that he had those? According to whom?
Seriously, the only thing this whole mess amounts to, at the bottom, is Kerry saying something stupid.
holy crap!?!? kerry saying something stupid?!?!? Never would have thought THAT would happen!
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Democray Now is like the left-wing version of O'Reilly - both are superfluous garbage. Anyone who would base their politics on what they hear on shows like this are too stupid to have the responsibility of voting for world leaders.
The rest you mention are far left? I forget how prevalent the liberal media myth really is. Any extremist is going to find the media slanted. Hearing that Katie Couric is part of the "left-wing media" really sends my wacko-meter off the scale.
Be careful who you adopt as media heroes.
I'm waiting for the day when Bill O'Reilly slips and actually says "Jew" instead of "secular progressive" now THAT will be an interesting news cycle or two.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…
Re: Twist and spin
by:cheaplaborcapitalist 11/02/06 09:40 am
Msg: 1436622 of 1436624
1 recommendation
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
---------------------------------
multiple choice:
1)both statments are true
2)both statments are false
3)one true, one false
4)Bush is an incompetent, irresponsible, corrupt, lying failure.
horsegirl (anonymous) says…
This country will always have problems as long as we have such extreme thinking for either side. It is a shame. And Right_Thinker, the hatred is coming from both sides, including the Right (just read your friend Patriotman's posts).
However, back to what the original mispoke statement was, concerning the education level of our military, please read the following article from the Washington Post (it actually has statistics). Note that in 2005, 87% of all new recruits were high school graduates. And most joined the military because there weren't any other opportunities, not because they were doing their patriotic duty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Why don't we drop this issue and move to something that actually matters?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"...does not exist (WMDs)"
They did exist and we did find some. We will find more later. Additinally, there have ben a couple of IED'x with chemical warheads that did not go off.
Yes they are there, it is just it will compromise intel if we reveal soruces and methods.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.
They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity."
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman."
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"The White House admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq months ago."
no they did not. THey said they had not found the ones that were weaponized after the first gulf war.
We have found stockpiles of old WMD's that were supposedly destroyed.
We will find WMD's from Iraq.... someday and hopefully not on our head. IF dems get the seats, that is exactly what we will find in our laps.
Appeasment and withdrawl is not a successful stragegy when dealing with those whom want to instill fear and teror.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
You see how closely the Terrorists language is to that of the Democrats that want to get elected.
That should scare the tar out of you and sink the dems.
They are weak as H on security.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
All we have are the words and testimony of terrorists that say the same things as the Democratic party.
""The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.
While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.
Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."
He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S.""
drewdun (anonymous) says…
Bottom line: the Republican Party is done. Bankrupt. Finished. this is all they've got left - seizing on a f*&(*ng misquote of John Kerry. Do you wingers understand how truly pathetic, infantile, and desperate your leaders are? And what does that say about you who follow them?
This last ditch hail mary from the RNC, with MUCH help from the media, is still going to fail. You want to know why? because the majority of people in this country are not brainwashed zombies that allow themselves to be distracted by this nonsense, despite the gop and media's best efforts. the fear, divisiveness, polarization, hate, misinformation, downright lies, and finally, and most importantly, i-n-c-o-m-p-e-t-e-n-c-e of your right-wing heroes is finally going to catch up to them, in a big way. so worry about what john kerry said all you want - rational, normal people are worried about the miserable state of the entity that takes a third of their paychecks every two weeks. we're damn tired of paying so much for so little.
fascist fanatics: enjoy these last five days, in three months they will be nothing but a fond dream for you, and a nightmare to be forget about for the rest of us while we're busy repairing the immense damage your mindless zealotry has caused our great nation.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
"Do you wingers understand how truly pathetic, infantile, and desperate your leaders are?"
I don't see the lust for power to be any of these things. It is very scary though.
drewdun (anonymous) says…
"terrorist dancing and celebrating"
Gee, I see that everyday in the images from Iraq.
"while the Democrats protest the war effort"
correction: while Democrats end this f*&(ng insane and pointless war.
"Why do Democrats hate America?"
Why do Republicans hate reality, and blindly follow human garbage like Bush, Cheney, DeLay, etc?
Must be their authoritarian personalities.
Navin_R_Johnson (anonymous) says…
rightthinker and patriotman,
i've read these boards for awhile and followed this drama since it started.
i 'm interested to see if this holygrailale poster will address the allegations of actually being the former poster known as wendt.
think he'll run like a sis, or face the music he makes others listen to?
there's some pretty good info over at marion's site about this character.
peace,
navin
Navin_R_Johnson (anonymous) says…
scenebooster,
i want the democrats to win the house. they've had it too easy for too long. it's easy to play critic and scream 'gotcha.'
i say let em have the house and then we'll see what TOUGH action they're lack of articulating ideas produces.
let's do it. i'll support it...for a goof, as if democrats were a any real solution to the inefficiencies of republicans.
yuk yuk,
peace,
navin
Navin_R_Johnson (anonymous) says…
"Posted by drewdun (anonymous) on November 2, 2006 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bottom line: the Republican Party is done. Bankrupt. Finished. this is all they've got left - seizing on a f*&(*ng misquote of John Kerry. Do you wingers understand how truly pathetic, infantile, and desperate your leaders are? And what does that say about you who follow them?"
that's the type of talk that'll sway people to your side.
NOT!!
peace,
navin
Navin_R_Johnson (anonymous) says…
patriotman,
nice to meet you.
i'm often mistaken for a "jerk."
peace,
navin
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA,
The ISG also state that they have only surveyed only 10% of the likely sources and areas. 90% reamain.
hahahahahahhhaaaahhhahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaahhaahahahahahhahhahahahahhahahaahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahah
Democrats want terrorists to win and kill AMericans because Americans are evil and the whole world hates us.
Democrats hate America because of the Traditional values.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"there's some pretty good info over at marion's site"
yea, right
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
You are forgetting about those that harbor and assist the terrorism.
THe Dems will never "get" that. That is the most disturbing thing in the country.
Whey the Terrorists and the Democrats agree on what their view of the world is... the Dems may want to rethink their position...and STOP being so ANTI-American.
If the shoe fits....
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
OH, GOOD one HGA (not). About the outing of an agent that wasn't. However you do get allriled up over Valarie Plame the hussie, but you have no problem giving the Republicans hell about being tough on our enemiew. YOU want to give them aid and comfort constantly and geneva protections (which they do not deaserv) and Consitituional protectins (which they also do not qualify for).
ANd you are up set about one lonely non spy, and her big mouthed bragging husband.
You have to be insane not to see the ridicule you justly set yuourself up for.
BUT, since you brought it up about the "yello cake" and nuke things with Iraq and things WMD, here is a link:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/0...
Someday you will have to apologise to Pres. Bush. I don;t expect you to do the proper thing, but an apology is owed after how you have treated the man and spoke about the man.
Hell, Clinton wasn't treated this bad.
The smart move is to keep in power those with a backbone (Republicans) and a plan;and leave the bitchy big mouths with no clue or solution or plan out of the process (Democrats).
That is the only smart move. Especially with Anit Americans of Rangel, Kerry, Kennedy, Soros, Pelosi, Reid.
The Republicans may be in your opinion corrupt and have a bad plan, but the dems are worse and just mouth off and complain, and can muster no coherent message on the WoT or on Iraq, other then Repbulicans and George Bush suck.
That is no message or vision, regardless of what you spew. We are in a hell of a lot more control than we would be with the DEMS in power. If and when they are in power we will bow before our enemies, and cower to them for appeasement, and barganing from a position of weakness, not from strength.
Then we will have to invade and start all over again.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Typos are not "inaccuracies" they are poor technique.
The ideas and theory is sound. Rave on crazy expert typists!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Do something other than posting the same old disproven Democrat "talking points" over and over. You posted this once, and it was roundly debated and argued and you lost!
Besides you just proved my point! YOu raise holey hell over Valarie, but have a big problem with rendition? Are you insane?
The Geneva Conventions only apply (again for you because you fail to take this into account again) uniformed soldiers from state governments. They don' t apply to terrorists for all the reaches of the globe that band together in a "gang" duh!
The rest of your statements (as per usual) are just left wing blather talking points taken out of context (your process).
Blather on and just because YOU choose to believe, or refuse to intelectually and honestly analyze the facts is not a basis for refuting fact.
You obviously did not read the article so I will post it again. It is titled, "U.S. removes Iraqi nuclear documents from Web":
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/0...
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Sorry dear Protocols I and II have nothing to do with the combatants. It has to do with "victims". Are you saying the terrorists we have at Abu Gahib and Gitmo are *victims*? Laughable. That is the difference from the real document, and something a left wing website TELLS you it is. I can read by myself, You OTOH seem to need the left wingerd "pre digest" information for you, before you form your opinion.
"Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of 2 August 2006 it had been ratified by 166 countries.
Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. As of 2 August 2006 it had been ratified by 162 countries."
You are WRONG again, here is the real deal, angain NOT from a left wing website. Third Geneva Convention, Article 4:
"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
(Cont.)
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy."
The fourth applies to the civilian populations. SO YOU are wrong on that one as well. IF you would read the actual document, you would see clearly, that the terrorists are violating all the articles.
why should they get the protections?
Ironically, your Protocols 1 and 2 DO apply to the populations of Isreal, and those terrorised by the Hezbulaah in Lebannon as well. The *non uniformed* violated that $th geneva conventions. SO do the insurgents in Iraq.
where is your outrage for them.
i can find NONE of the articles which the US violated and did not prosecute. zero. none!
Put that in your pipe!
Still haven't read the article yet have you?
How does it feel "often wrong"?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
NOW would you PLEASE stop repeating the erroneous reporting that the US violated the Geneva Conventions? please? It is clearly untrue. Those that say so (such as yourself) are WRONG, and do not know what you are talking about.
THAT is what I mean as being un american.
i amy be a slouch at typing, but I KNOW my subject.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"I pointed you to the actual Geneva Conventions website, not a left wing Geneva Conventions interpretation site."
NO you did not, it is a left wing website that is the "Society for Professional Journalism". Nice try, but no it is not the "Geneva Conventions website, that is just dumb to say it is.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Since there are provisions which apply the Geneva Convention to non-uniformed combatants, your statement of 5:10 p.m is in error."
No it is not. You just cannot read and are unwilling to accept the truth. Article 4 is VERY clear, you HAVE to be part of an official army ie uniformed, duh!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
It was NEVER stated as you put it "the insurgents in IRAQ were responsible for 9/11 and saying so is dishonest.
What you left out of the Pres. Bush press conference, was what he said after what you posted (again out of context).
he stated that IRAQ was NOT involved with 9/11, but Al Quaida WAS in Iraq and supporting them in training camps, just as they were in Afganistan.
Failure to accept that is again because of "I hat Bush" myopia.
Your debating skills are intellectually dishonest, and usually wrong, and out of context!
What people can see is that you misrepresent yourself, and then TRY to appear as "I ment that".
You STILL haven't read that article have you about the NUKE plans IRAQ had and the Republicans put it on the web, because the DEMS wanted "PROOF",
Still haven't read that have you!
We are the good guys and are on the right side of things almost all the TIME. A Heck of a lot more that the rest of the world.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"11 soldiers convicted for things you claim we "don't" do.
The United States Military disagrees with your assessment."
Out of context again dear.
I said:
"I can find NONE of the articles which the US violated and did not prosecute. zero. none!"
As you left out (why did you do that) I stated prosecuted!!! You see the terrorists do not prosecute their people that behead somebody or blow up civilians.
THE US on the other hand, actually catch the guys and sent them to court. Same with the Abu Grahib, we prosecuted the personnel..
all Of what I have said is true.
I think "water boarding" of terrorists is just fine.
We aren't killing them or maiming them or cutting their hands or heads off. we treat them humanely. it is the other countries that are the bad guys.
Nuff with talking to a brick wall.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I guess this perfect, you arguing about how bad our guys are on the Kerry dustup thread!
speaks volumes!!!!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA:
"Your thesis is that Americans don't violate the Geneva Conventions."
The US did not violate the conventions. read it. we arrested them and prosecuted them. That is then accountable to the conventions.
You love the terrorists don't you. ANd hate the Americans.
Why don;t you just say it, you want terrorists to kill Americans, and Americans should take a back seat to the world.
I may need a spell checker, you need much more than that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is why the Army does not do it, the CIA has authority to even propose it. You don;t even know what you are talking about do you. You just type what you read on a left wing blog. No independent thought on your own.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can bet I am going to read this thing cover to cover. You had better hope your left wing blog was right.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phasei...
You lefties are sad. not consistent. and very un-american.
Buy a clue.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Well, I guess we won't be hearing from Asbestos for a few hours since he's reading a government hearing document.
I am curious to know what left-wing blog he keeps referring to that all the lefties read.
As for the ICRC being a leftist organziation...
From their website under what we do...
Our mission is to work on a strictly neutral and impartial
basis to protect and assist people affected by armed conflicts
and internal disturbances. This involves:
visiting prisoners of war and security detainees
searching for missing persons
transmitting messages between separated family
members
reuniting dispersed families
providing safe water, food and medical assistance to
those in need
promoting respect for international humanitarian law
monitoring compliance with that law
contributing to the development of that law
So Asbestos considers searching for missing persons to be leftist?
Reuniting dispersed families is leftist?
BTW, thanks for the link Asbestos for this little gem...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/0...
Katara (anonymous) says…
BTW Asbestos, you still have difficulty in thoroughly reading sources that you put up (2x) as proof for your points.
The Last paragraph of your link...
"A senior U.S. intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed "where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures." The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. He called the papers "a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you read the article thoroughly enough to note that it was conservatives that caused the website problem to begin with?
"The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who argued that U.S. spy agencies had failed to adequately analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion began."
and Bush approved this website...
"The director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, had resisted establishing the Web site, which some intelligence officials felt implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of government analysts. But President George W. Bush approved the site's creation after congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the release of the documents."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you understand why the website was taken down?
"Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help countries like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the U.S. ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency's technical experts "were shocked" at the public disclosures."
So basically Republicans like Santorum and our President have potentially "aided & abetted" our enemies that could use this (such as Iran). Isn't that treason?
and to top it off from your link that you provided, this isn't the first time there has been a problem with info put on the website...
"The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the Web site. Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, UN arms-control officials in New York obtained the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is hardly a "smoking gun" or a "trump card" that you apparently believe it to be.
I bet you were a huge fan of the "Squirrel Killers" handbook in high school debate, weren't you?
Katara (anonymous) says…
Quick! Look behind you!!!
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Weren't Pit Squirrels banned in Lawrence?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
thank you Katara, you got it, and read that article. very good!
It shows why sometimes the Bush Admin does not explain itself and cannot. It is revealing "sources and methods". ANd yes building a bomb is revealing a method. Now they are trying to answer your questions to "How did we know", and you accuse the Republicans of "aiding and abetting?". Dear you cannot have it both ways.
The material was released because the DEMS kept screaming about all the things this administration doesn't explain in context of the Iraq war. Your party countinually stated that this administration doesn't explain itself and just does what they want.
1. NOW you know that the Iraqis were trying, otherwise, how was ther a "failure" that Iraq made. SO they WERE trying to develope WMD.
2. NOW you know why Pres. Bush doesn;t explain every little thing to a bunch of whining left wingers. Because it puts people in danger. By explaining *how* we know they were in fact in this activity we explain *how* to go about building a bomb.
YOU lefties are going to get an earfull after this President leaves office or material just like this. I know that the President would jus LOVE to release all this info.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"....that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure."
"..., but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. He called the papers "a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car."
These 2 indicate that there was an active attempt by Iraq to make these weapons.
As for the INtel report.... It does not take into consideration Pre 2002 intel. It is limited to the 2002 NEI.
There is a whole appendix about the Republicans upset over that part. Seems the DEMS on the Intelligence committee did not want to llok at INTEL pre 2002. The date on the committee vote? Well what a coincidence, just the same time the Democrats were complaining about the Committee "dragging it's feet". YUP, partisian move to try to lay it at the feet of the Bush Admin.
This report as for intel on Iraq Pre was only for the year before and multiple sourses and reportw were left out at the direction of democrats under the threat of committee delay.
That report as is is incomplete BS. Read the appendix.
You can spin these documents all you want, all you will get is tangled up.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
good work asbestos:
report proves *saddam* had an active nuclear weapons program at least through 1995. after toppling him, a huge quantity of uranium was removed from iraq. you have the figure...seems it was 500,000 pounds. seems he *was* trying somewhere to procure uranium. hmmm.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Oh but bearded one, the Dems say that is not "yellow cake" it is not "weaponized", et al, and etc.
The Dems want the US to be torn down more than keeping the citizenry safe.
Here it is in Black and white, clear as a Kansas Sunny Summer afternoon. But that doesn't fit in their "We hate Bush" at all costs mentality.
They hate Bush so much they would doom our country and tear it down.
And they consider themselves "enlightened", "intelligent", "knowledgeable". Not by a long shot! They don't either undestand or refuse to accept that these folks are trying to Kill us and will continue to do so. Appeasment and withdrawl is NOT any answer at all.
With leaders like that, who needs enemies?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA:
"You are in error.
You're like those Congressional Republicans who are beyond desperate in this election season (wonder why)."
Oh yeah, I forgot YOU HGA are the only one here with an even keel, and a good grasp on the situation. (According to YOU.) The rest of US are just [partisian DA's. But you however have almost magical powers of analysis. not quite! not even close!
You took both of those things out of contest (again and predicitable). Remember this document had to be put out.
WHY???
Because of all the whining of "Show me the proof" by stupid and biased Dems like yourself have been asking of the Bush Admin.
When they do release it ...suprise suprise, it show how to make the bomb and where Iraq made mistakes.
What part of that do you not understand HGA?
Oh, how silly of me, youi refuse to accept ALL of it, as your political bias clouds your factual analysis.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA,
Sorry Dear, but these are from "captured documents". They did not exist until AFTER 2003-4, and still had to be translated.
SO, the argument that "Bush Lied" could only be proven by invading Iraq and getting the very documents that showed they did not have WMD.
Additionally from the article:
"European diplomats said in the past week that some of the nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the UN Security Council in late 2002, as the United States prepared to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms."
AND
""It's a cookbook,"
Why would Iraq need a *cookbook* if they weren't *cooking*???????
So I guess the Democrap line that "Bush lied" has been refuted.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA, Bearded ones response was not on the article, but on YOUR link to the Senate Committe report. Again it appears as if you have not read it.
It DOES talk about those levels of 500,000 of unprocessed uranium, and 250 tons of processed but non enriched material.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA you are loosing it, NIGER is NOT the only place to pick up "yellow cake". Your rant on the Plame Niger thing is wearing thin and is so VERY yesterday.... and wrong.
Still trying to sell the dispelled and disproven Plame BS.
Same old argument, asme old line.
As you can tell I read NEW material, and REFINE my argument.
you otoh, ramble on about the same old BS.
The Report that you posted here states that very thing. The source of the existing Yellow cake was not known.
remember these are captured documents!!!!
This was not fore knowledge!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Niger's only connection with Saddam Hussein is a comment from an Iraqi diplomat that they MIGHT want to do business in the future."
So Iraq was trying to acquire some uranium!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA,
"Using your own content, I demonstrated that you were wrong." ON the uniformed thingy)
NO you did not. You can't properly read regulations obviously.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"(2) You stated that there was evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war."
I did NOT state that, and you know that. It was the intelligence prior to 2002. all of which was left out of your pretty little senate report. Showed you that. Additionally, I also showed you that it was captured documents, that p[roved your point, and that is why Pres. Bush made his statments.
however, before the war, the intel all pointed to WMD's. I still think we will find them there.
Or as the Senate Intel Committee reported in YOUR link, the evidence may have been moved to Syria or other countries in the regions.
Forgot to read that part too did you!
Your self vaunting *debunking* isn't that great. A legend in your own mind, bested by a poor typist with short fingers and poor manual dexterity!
You are right this is a waste of your time, as barking up the wrong tree or trying to argue from a blown position IS a waste of anybodies time.
One should learn not to bang one head up against a brick wall of factual information and proper analysis.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Asbestos,
what's also sad is she (hole) is giving joe wilson as a credible source!!!
after the Armitage facts came out about his wife's name, once again showing that joe wilson's fantasies were a house-of-cards coming down!
***
and you recall the british intelligence when it reviewed bush's state of the union ref (called the "16 words") Scarlet their intelligence director stood by the claim that saddam *had* been trying to purchase yellow cake from Niger.
also note that she (hole) doesn't even try to respond RE the 250-tons of it removed from iraq, just her idiot laughter and personal slights instead of any political argumentation. very revealing, that!
***
elsewhere, she has proven to be extremely deficient in history/context, and preoccupied with personal slights as well as changing the topic instead of staying on topic of discussion threads. she is a prime example of the empty-headed "hate bush" fringies!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
For a so called intelligent, enlightened, and progressive group, the lefties certianly have spun themselves in a corner with this one.
liberal dummacrat:
"Give us the information and prove it.!"
Bush Admin:
"We cannot, it will reveal dangerous people or processes and undermine our WoT. You know sources and methods stuff"
liberal dummacrat:
"Give me that information. You are a liar. What do you have to hide!!!"
Bush Admin:
"OK here it is"
liberal dummacrat:
"Hey this stuff is dangerous, how could you let this stuff out?"
Bush Admin:
"you accused us of covering up and lying, and demanded that it be revealed, that's why."
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
check!
Katara (anonymous) says…
Sorry Dear, but these are from "captured documents". They did not exist until AFTER 2003-4, and still had to be translated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you high, Asbestos? These documents existed well before 2003-04. They were taken then. The boxes of documents has items that were pre-First Gulf War.
You know what else is in those boxes of documents?
Some of Saddam's world famous poetry.
So you mean to tell me that lying in these untranslated documents that are so so important to the WoT that they haven't bothered to find anyone to go through all of it?
I would think that maybe there would be a priority in getting the documents accurately translated & organized so as to get rid of unrelated items such as Saddam's Odes to himself.
And before you start crowing about how this is the smoking gun Bush needs to justify his war on Saddam Hussein, take a look at this...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/...
How about this little gem?
The first surprising thing we find in the documents, which are available here through the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office's Joint Reserve Intelligence Center, is that they are not necessarily from, or even about, Iraq. For example, document 2RAD-2004-601189 is described as "Abu-Zubaydah Statement on the Capability of al-Qaidah to Manufacture and Deliver Nuclear Weapons to the U.S." Sounds like smoking-gun material, but what exactly does it have to do with the case for war against Saddam? Zubaydah, a top bin Laden operative who was captured in Pakistan in 2002, told interrogators that al-Qaida could build a "dirty bomb," but he didn't say anything about getting Saddam's help to do it. Moreover, the "statement" itself is nothing more than an Arabic summary of a 2002 CBS News story on Zubaydah's claims. It has no identifiable link to Iraq, other than the odd fact that it appears on a U.S. government site billed as Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents."
And even better yet...
The site's disclaimer warns that "the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein," but it casts no doubt on their provenance or relevance.
The U.S. government cannot even guarantee that these documents are authentic or valid.
I bet you even like this one even more...
"Whether intentional or not, the conflation and confusion of materials has been more than sufficient to convince bloggers on the political right that there were, as Bush officials insisted, operational links between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida. Midnightbluerant, for example, referenced an al-Qaida document from the Harmony collection (AFGP-2002-001120) and concluded that "captured Iraq documents" tell us how Iraq funded an al-Qaida strong enough to pull off 9/11."
Do you enjoy being duped by your government, Asbestos?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Katara you and HGA are out there. Your citation links ALWAYS go to a left wing website. Do you guys have any independent thought?????
no, not all the documents are from pre 1991. And again they did not exist to us prior to the war. For you whom refuse to accept fact, we did not know what these documents existed until AFTER the Fall of Baghdad at the most, most likely after 2005.
As for the priority in translation that has to do with the available numver of arabic speakers availible. I bet salon.com did not say either that only about 20% of the document had been translated and vetted. Forgot that ond did they???
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANd if your source were not biased and in reality a reputable "news source" why would it say the same old Democrap talking points, word for word????
"Whether intentional or not, the conflation and confusion of materials has been more than sufficient to convince bloggers on the political right that there were, as Bush officials insisted, operational links between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida."
What a gem! No that is not a biased statement at all from Salon.com. What an idiot. This is not an official site either. Good lord!
Nice try men but another swing and a miss by scouring the internet(s) for leftwinger blogs that agree with your POV and back up your misrepresentations makes you look foolish and biased. Additionally, it makes you appear as not knowing much about the subjct, you seem to need a leftwing blogger to validate your world view.
I thought lefites were all about "independent thought".
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
No I don't see it.
But knowing you it will probably be something of no consequence, or a typo, or some other inane thing.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Dizzy yet from spinning there dear?
No that is not what was stated. I stated that the documentation evidence from the pre 1991 documents was unknown to us ie there was no fore knowledge of the content of these documents captured AFTER the President and congress gave the go ahead for war.
You forget that the rest of congress including democrats jerks lied then too, if you claim that Pres. Bush lied. That one mistifys me. How you give Bush hell, and let your precious dems that voted for the war off for saying the same damn thing!
again, all the documents are not only pre-1991! how many times do you have to be told????
Pres. BUsh was then in your scanario going to war to prove he lied. Which is so dumb. That is beneath you. You lost the argument and now resort to word play ... and lost again! HA HA!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"We were in Iraq as an occupying force!!"
Unh, NO! We did not "occupy Iraq in Desert Storm. We stopped at the "Highway of death" and turned around. You made that one up.
We were in Saudi Arabia, but we never "occupied Iraqi Soil" in Desert Storm.
Sorry dear you lost that one 2. My brother was one of the last to come home. There was I repeat no occupying force in IRAQ.
Remember, we weren't there and the shi'ites were slaughtered by Saddam.
Good lord, you are loosing your memory as well as your reasoning skills!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lying misrepresentation, and word play are your trade in debate. Why don't you check my spelling too. You are misreable.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
all correct points asbestos. hole thinks we occupied iraq in 1991...wow man. that really shows her historical (hysterical) ignorance!
again, fails to answer your points, uses distraction, etc. so obvious to any reader!
***
elsewhere, hole has expressed herself as favoring partitioning of iraq for peace. this overwhelming pride is so offensive! we should not be the ones determining how iraq settles itself...guess what the iraqis should determine that themselves!!!
thought she was opposed to dictators and fascism...yet wants to dictate to another people how to settle their problems!
***
and, should note, this thread was about *john kerry* and his amazing comment. as a defensive move she has changed the topic off of Kerry's shameful abuse of our troops!
note further, that earlier in the thread hole and other lib fringies made comments *confirming* Kerry's expressed attitude about those serving in iraq!
but, most of all, take note of the fact that hole has tried so desperately to change the subject here, to protect her beloved Kerry. suppose she's voting for him in '08? or, maybe she's a deaniac.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Every American needs to see the movie "obsesion". Excerpts and discussion on www.obsessionthemovie.com.
time to wake up!!!
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
have seen some of it highlighted on foxnews. wow. really shows our enemy declared war against us. these fools (we're coping with on this board) would declare defeat, and retreat. they actually think that if we just make nice then the terrorists will behave! that's a funny one!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Desert Storm was only to carry out the coalition and UN mandates of getting Iraq out of Kuwait. The Coalition of troops made the condition that NO US troops be "occupying" Iraq, and that only "Arab Countries" would have any long term occupation of Iraq.
That dear is the fact of Desert Storm. Desert Storm was not about conqeuring Iraq, but to get them out of Kuwait. Pres. Bush Sr. stopped at the "highway of death" because it would fracture the Coalition and aleinate the Arab Countries that were helping us in that conflict. We never went into Baghdad because the Saudi's and the Egyptians told us not to go any further.
Your revisionist history sucks to high heaven and is completely wrong.
this war is to unseat a dictator, effect political change and instill a democracy, and secure and destroy WMD capabilities and stockplies in Iraq. UN resolution 1449, and 17 others, were to be enforced in the current Iraq war.
YOu show you have no clue of what the actual issue is, but will run your mouth off and make yourself look stupid.
Iraq has seen "cut and run" too many times in it's history. We did it in 1992. The UN did it in 2003, when they pulled out (the yellow bellied chicken _____!) and never came back nor offered any help in enforcing the Security Council's Resolutions. BTW, it was Sadar that killed that UN Ambassador from Spain. Forgot about that one did you.
If anyone is to blame with the current Iraq situation, it is the UN!! WIth their support this would have been over said and done. But they withheld all that money, they withheld all that resource (which we pay 25-35% of the UN budget).
NO NO NO, the US is NOT the bad guy here.
The Dems are taking ques from the UN.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA:
"Hell, most conservatives can't even use their native language well."
Hell most dems refuse to remember history!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Funny how you have to misrepresent when you can't argue."
That is what your last post was dear.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"That's recent news but both of you are having difficulty with current (and past) events."
As I just pointed out, you misrepresented what Desert Storm was about and how it was fought and how it ended.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
I see you're handling hole very well Asbestos! note she still is *off topic*!
and pretty lame defense of her overwhelming self-centered pride at dictating to the kurds sunnis and shiites how to run their country!
and, included was the personal slight (she's especially skilled at those) that conservatives can't use the english language well...funny that under the thread of kerry's statement...kerry who is the opposite of a conservative! but he didn't have a problem with the language as he claims, but rather his comments represent his true feelings about our service personnel!
iraq certainly was not occupied! if it had been, a lot different would have happened! her listing of the total number of troops in desert storm somehow is her credentialling on that...not all the 600K went into kuwait, even fewer went into iraq! you had iraqi units surrendering to members of the press. but point is *they didn't stay in iraq*! she has really revealed herself as historically (hysterically) ignorant.
now, hole, there's some use of english for you.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Finally lost that last screw, didn't you dear.
Must be a "left" handed thread.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
if not left-handed thread, then perhaps hex-nut?
***
just because she says a paragraph is "irrelevant doesn't mean it is. the 1991 gulf war did come before this and we did have a treaty with iraq on the end of that war (you know, the one she says we *occupied* iraq during it). relying on her as a source for the other paragraphs would be pretty lame, too.
in her last post she's conflating wmd's and the uranium necessary to make nuclear wmd's. conflating is also one of her poor argument strategies!
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
sad, hole has a son? how is this child being raised? we call for an investigation!
***
note, she *is still off topic*! and, Asbestos, she is playing 8th grade english school teacher instead of facing the truth in your posts. you have some bad spellings but we understand your writing. some of us need a spell-checker more than others, does not detract from our arguments.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Good psychotic response ther dear.
nothing to do with the topic at all, nor is it intelligent rebutal. NOthing there but a *big empty*. I did not come here to debate my typing skills. I know quite well by hand have been broken a couple of times, and I just type and post. SORRY if your or your son finds aproblem with that, however,... that is not what a blog or online is about. DUH!!!
Done there and now. More important things happening on the big dustup on the Army Times editorial.
http://www.militarycity.com/discussio...
I think we are going to hear from our armed forces as a unit after the election and the media is going to take a butt chewing.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
still...she's way off topic, wandered far afield...bla bla bla.
maybe the VP will take hole hunting! that'd improve things around here.
at least when he shot his friend, the V.P. didn't try to say his actions were "misinterpretted" like john kerry! hehhehheh.
***
apparently, judging by how much blather the hole has generated off topic, she must be very upset about this thread's original topic. kerry's "misinterpretted words" (not) must've really revealed a raw nerve! ya' think, Asbestos?
***
and, Asbestie, I too have recovered from hand surgeries, bilateral. it ain't fun man. good luck.
Katara (anonymous) says…
As for the priority in translation that has to do with the available numver of arabic speakers availible. I bet salon.com did not say either that only about 20% of the document had been translated and vetted. Forgot that ond did they???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Salon.com was good enough for a now banned right-wing blogger to use as a source and I figured it would be good enough for you.
Wouldn't one want to increase the number of Arabic speakers if one wanted to translate 48,000 boxes of documents looking for evidence?
And wouldn't one want to find the evidence prior to invading Iraq so that if there were questions, one could say I have proof here that Saddam has a nuclear program?
Many of the documents are pre-Gulf war. Others have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. So we've taken documents talking about Al-Qaida & their ability to get their hands on some WMDs and stuck them in the Iraqi file as a pretty stupid stunt to try to link them together.
And what are we doing about Al-Qaida or Osama? Nothing.
BTW, check this out just for you...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/1...
Wanna explain why Bush would so under-man an invasion of country?