Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Bush damage

December 12, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

Not long ago, I asked the question in print in this newspaper, "How comfortable should we be with George W. Bush continuing in the role as president of the United States and just how comfortable should Congress be with this fact?"

Now we discover that his World War III comment aimed at the Iranian issue and his pounding again on the war drums was another of his manipulative attempts to what, convince the American people that Iran was an immediate threat to our national security? Or regain some credibility with countries that had been our allies on Sept. 12, 2001, right after the World Trade Center event, only to be alienated by the policies of this administration when they falsified the intelligence they thought would justify pre-emptive war?

Either way, now the president is once again caught in a lie over when he knew that the attempt to make nuclear weapons had been abandoned in Iran in 2003 and his blatant bellicose speech about the possible imminence of World War III? This man has zero credibility with everyone, which means that American has no credibility anywhere in the world. Is it not time to ask our Congress to start the process provided in the Constitution to remove this man and his equally guilty No. 2 from their offices? We could draw names from a hat and do better. How much more damage must we suffer from these people?

E.G. Hickam,

Lawrence

Comments

sdinges 7 years ago

Kozakid: "Were there headlines during the spring of 1945 that said World War II was over?"

Well now, I wasn't born in 1945, but since the war ended that year, I imagine there were. They probably read something along the lines of:

Victory! Germany Surrenders after Berlin Falls! Hitler Dead! Germany Defeated! Japan Surrenders after A-Bombs Dropped!

Not that it's a comparable scenario. The United States imposed sanctions on Japan rather than actually joining the war. Eventually, Germany and Japan declared war on the U.S. when it refused to lift those sanctions, forcing it to join.

This is vastly different from the current administration's policy of "Let's invade Iraq/Iran/whoever we feel like, cause, well.. whatever, do we really need a reason or a plan? I want a legacy!"

Richard Heckler 7 years ago

Invading another country that has not attacked the USA will prove to be equally as stupid as invading Iraq!

Since Saddam was brought down: 1,000,000 Iraq people have died 4,000 USA soldiers have died Approximately 30,000 USA soldiers are permanently disabled Vets are having difficulty getting the med care they need and Bush has VA budget cuts scheduled for 2009-2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html *http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/3/black_gold_controlling_global_oil_from

Kathy Getto 7 years ago

Comfortable? You have to be kidding. We should be terrifed that this man is running our country. We can only hope he will be tried as the war criminal he is someday.

Curtiss 7 years ago

Good morning. Just dropped by to see Kevin's explanation of how this is all Clinton's fault. Nothing yet; I guess he's still typing away.

I'll check in later.

Kathy Getto 7 years ago

I would ask you the same Dolly, but that would mean that I care and I don't. Responding to neocon idiocy is not my thing.

chet_larock 7 years ago

"What kind of jobs in the real world do you all pursue? Or do any of you work?"

... ok.... 7 posts a day....

blackwalnut 7 years ago

"What kind of jobs in the real world do you all pursue? Or do any of you work?"

Online blogs are the new water cooler. Once people spoke to their co-workers on a break. Now they check their email and blog.

I work full-time and then some, for the record.

pomegranate 7 years ago

Blackwalnut: In another lifetime a few years ago, I used to have a giant black walnut tree in my back yard. Boy, those were tough nuts to crack, and they sure did draw the rats. I am no longer employed, but like to check out the sites and give my useless 2-cents worth now and then. Just like most of you.

Grundoon Luna 7 years ago

lmao! Denial of the truth? Liberals? You have got to be kidding. You have totally divorced yourself from reality! Shrub has completely screwed the pooch, and I mena really bad, and you can't even see it. You are suffering from brainwashing. It truly is tragic, dear. Just turn off the Faux news and don't pay atention to the man behind the curtain.

Average for the last two weeks: 54.5 per week hours worked.

Centrist 7 years ago

Fox news "fair and balanced" ?

Don't make me laugh ..

Last night on "Try it before you buy it" - the Xmas toy they showed was the American Idol game. Strange ... isn't that a Fox show? And strange that it got the thumbs up?

ALL the networks are biased. They all do it, every one of them, even PBS, which occasionally leans a bit liberal.

As for Bush & Co, yeah, they're crooks. I don't care who you vote for, this is easily the worst administration ever .. even Republicans (those who have the guts to speak up) have acknowledged that!

Erin Parmelee 7 years ago

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says:

Oh boy, "dollypawpaw", another slanderous post by a neocon. Instead of actually saying what the "liberals" are wrong about, you necons, "rightthinker", "merrill", and now "dollypawpaw", simply insult and run away. Sounds like the same chickenhawk tactics they've been using for years: you people can't even be men on a message board:

If you haven't noticed, that appears to be Dollypawpaw's MO. I'm of the belief that DPP is R-T's alter ego, but hey, that's just me. I will say this however. DPP has nothing relevant to say, and to date, has never once backed up an assertion with--oh, I don't know, a fact or even a tidbit of information. You nailed it--insult and run. That's what trolls do.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

If everyone else is so wrong and you are so right, kozakid, then why is it that you keep getting kicked off of forums and rely on suspect sources to support your arguments?

If liberals are the problem (remember, about half the country that didn't vote for your boy, W) and are so gullible, then why haven't they just lapped up the Faux noise, W's lies, and the far right spin doctors?

If you want to get a good look at the problem, stroll on over to the nearest mirror, chump.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

"That's what trolls do."

Yep. They just gotta go out and spread the hate.

What a miserable life.

kansas778 7 years ago

I wish one of you enlightened persons would explain to me what the difference is when the Clinton adminstration says things about Iraq and Iran, and it's not a lie, but when the Bush administration says the same exact things, it is a lie?

Tom Miller 7 years ago

...hmmm...I MUST have missed something...but then, maybe not.

Mkh 7 years ago

Da Kid:

Let me try and make this quick and to the point because an incredible Russ Meyer film is on television.

What is it that you don't understand? Clinton wasn't the only US President with policies that were viewed unfavorable in the Middle East. If you cannot accept that I don't know to else to do with you, but ignore. Bush had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War.

Did Clinton have a hand in 9/11? For sure! However, I must point out that he had a much more important role in covering up the terrible domestic crimes of World Trade Center 1 bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton is surely a criminal and I wish that someday the American people bring him and a long list of people to justice for the crimes they have sinned against the American people and the World.

If we go back in history we see that every generation is faced with the same criminals. From the false flag attack of the USS Maine in 1898 under Cleveland's administration to Kennedy's Operation Northwoods to Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin, etc etc etc.

"da kid": "You liberals now tell us that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the U.S. If that was the case, what was the justification for our troops being in Saudi Arabia and sanctions on Iraq. If both the troops and the sanctions had been removed in, say, 1995, do you really believe al Qaeda would have attacked us on 9/11?"


First of all I'm not a "liberal", in the poli-sci term associated with big government. Considering you blindly support W Bush I'd gather you a far greater liberal than I could possibly imagine. How you rationalize the most rapid increase in government size since FDR as Conservative I have no explanation whatsoever.

You are obviously extremely ignorant of history and geo-politics to pose such a question as above. But we have known that for some time, haven't we?

Our presence in Saudi Arabia (or the Middle East in general) has Never had anything to do with "Security" in terms of preventing a military attack on this nation. It is now and always has been about maintaining and expanding and Empire and strategic control over the Earth's most valuable resources. This is nothing new, this very spot of land is what more or less caused the Great War (WWI) and countless of other wars throughout history.

However, the American people (and other people on general) must always require a "morally rational" mandate for funding these operations with billions from their paychecks...hence the long line of manufactured excuses provided by the government and media for why this must occur for "security".

Mkh 7 years ago

kansas778 (Anonymous) says:

"I wish one of you enlightened persons would explain to me what the difference is when the Clinton adminstration says things about Iraq and Iran, and it's not a lie, but when the Bush administration says the same exact things, it is a lie?"

That's easy 778, They Are Both Lying!!! They are All Lying!

kansas778 7 years ago

After rereading I should be more clear: "and perhaps could have used some more scrutiny" by the Bush adminstration in carrying it out.

Curtiss 7 years ago

I knew he'd show, but who knew he'd have this much time to hack away at his keyboard?

With all that endless blather he fills this space with (some of which is even actual, verifiable fact), I kind of thought kozakid was intelligent. Confused, reality-denying, wrongheaded, propaganda-spewing, but at least intelligent.

But one of today's posts indicates he actually seems to think Fox News is... well, real news.

Wow. Talk about loony things to state in public. Do you think he actually believes that?

Or is he just BSing us with all this stuff, and he actually knows better? I've suspected all along that he's a liberal, posing as a rightwingnut. Maybe his posts are designed to make it seem like all conservatives are idiots.

They aren't, are they?

Come on, this is supposed to be a red state. Why can't we get an occasional conservative comment, discussion or rebuttal here, from someone with a little common sense? Isn't there anyone who can represent the viewpoint of the right without being hateful, slanderous or dishonest?

I mean really; this is a forum, and we could all benefit from hearing each other's viewpoints discussed calmly and factually. Instead, what do we get here representing the right? Hit and run name callers. Insult hurlers. And the guy with the ax to grind who thinks Clinton is the cause of all the world's problems past, present and future.

Are they really ALL like that?

janeyb 7 years ago

"Self employed"-DPP

-

Translation: I collect aluminum cans and return them for cash.

Thank you logicsound--between finals, work and weather I need something to smile about.

Dollypawpaw is a guy? I thought maybe it was a women who looks like Dolly Parton because she has big pawpaws.

Received an email today--guy holding a sign that says "Someone hurry and give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him." I'm not volunteering.

Grundoon Luna 7 years ago

No, sir. Not for a stack of 20's the size of a brick.

shockchalk 7 years ago

Curtiss.........your last post is pretty ironic since you were the first to mention Clinton on this board. In fact, you had nothing factual, calm, or of any benefit in your first post. Of all the facts that Kozakid posted, most of you can only comment on the fact he watches Fox news. I guess it's you in fact that is slow and has no common sense.

shockchalk 7 years ago

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, February 17th, 1998

hottruckinmama 7 years ago

janeyb (Anonymous) says:Received an email today-guy holding a sign that says "Someone hurry and give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him." I'm not volunteering.

I always kind of suspected Condie Rice or Ann Coulter already had that job (pardon the pun) but then again all three are such prudes I doubt they'd know how to proceed...

Okay. Sorry. I just couldn't resist.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

shockchalk (Anonymous) says:

"Curtiss:::your last post is pretty ironic since you were the first to mention Clinton on this board."

Wrong. See KK's 11:35AM post.

Not sure if you have been following these forums for long SC, but KK has a tendency to rant continuously and solely about liberals, Clinton, and Iraq. It's become such a staple in his posts that people are probably tired of making the same worn-out argument with KK. I happen to agree with Curtiss in his observations. I had wondered the same things.

KK went by a different moniker until a few months ago.

kneejerkreaction 7 years ago

Al Qaeda has been kept busy in Iraq. The alternative is to be planning another attack on US soil, which hasn't happened since this "inept" president has been in office.

Why don't some of you offer solutions?

And the liberal response to 9/11 would have been.....?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK writes, "However, it is a fact that the Clinton policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately resulted in 9/11."

That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in my entire life!!! OBL and al-Qaeda caused 9/11!

SC, do you see Curtiss' point now?

shockchalk 7 years ago

A flock of Jayhawks.....No, not wrong. Curtiss's post was at 8:08 am, well before the 11:35 post by KK.

Mkh 7 years ago

"Not all our problems. However, it is a fact that the Clinton policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately resulted in 9/11. This is indisputable. Here's Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2E:"

This statement would be more accurate if it read:

it is a fact that the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, and Wilson policies vis-a-vis the Middle East ultimately resulted in 9/11.

However, ultimately I believe you have to consider the CIA as the guiltiest of all, followed by the rest of the permanent government. Note the military-industrial complex.

btw, Albright and the rest of the neo-con (nazi) gang were wrong about it all...it's Not "worth it".

Mkh 7 years ago

"And the liberal response to 9/11 would have been:..?"

Liberals would Increase the size and spending of the federal government like never before, take away individual's rights in favor of government regulation/control, open the borders to increase illegal immigration, and engage in massive nation building while racking up terrible foreign debts.

Thanks so much "W" for restoring conservative values!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

shockchalk (Anonymous) says:

"A flock of Jayhawks:..No, not wrong. Curtiss's post was at 8:08 am, well before the 11:35 post by KK."

My bust. You are correct. Curtiss' post was in anticipation of what was to come.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK writes, "I said..."

I quoted what you said. It was so ridiculous that I can't believe that you are actually trying to back it up. Wow!

Calliope877 7 years ago

Pywacket (Anonymous) says:

"Well, heck.. Who's writing headers these days? I opened this one thinking "Bush Damage" was going to be some salacious and amusing article about rough sex in the heartland.

But noooooo: Just another political argument.

Carry on."

lol...thanks for that.

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

The Worst President Ever has another 13 months. His "legacy" in Iraq is a travesty, so he is trying to dabble in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.

"Chicken with its head cut off" comes to mind when I think of Bushco in these last two years.

"Shock and awe" didn't lead to "strong and stable democracy" as Bushco naively assumed it would, so they are running out the clock.

Not even bothering to try try to score again because they are too far behind.

All that remains for us is a morbid curiosity of what might happen next.

KS 7 years ago

How much of this blog stuff do you guys do on "company time"? Talk about petty theft! I guess that is how some of you can afford internet access. The boss pays for it.

sdinges 7 years ago

I don't understand why we should even be considering another war while there's no end in sight for Iraq.

I can only assume that Bush is trying to distract himself and us from his failure in Iraq by trying something new in some other country, for no real pressing reason.

We are already footing the bill for two of his half-finished pet war projects, do we really need to add a third? Today an article on CNN says that the Democrats are approaching an agreement to fund the war with no time-line for withdrawal, proving yet again that they don't have the backbone to stand up for what they claim is important.

Our government is a joke.

Mkh 7 years ago

Kiddie Pool: "Source? And which part(s) of the Constitution has Bush violated?"


Hmmmmmmmmmm, let's do a quick checklist.

For starters we have clear violations and disputes in the following:

Article 1. Section 8 and 10

Article 2. Section 4

1st Amendmnt 2nd Amendment 4th Amendment 5th Amendment 6th Amendment 8th Amendment 9th Amendment 10th Amendment.....

let's all just pray he doesn't violate the 22nd Amendment.

sdinges 7 years ago

Kozakid: "Failure in Iraq? Have you read a newspaper during the past few months?"

Did I miss the headline that said the war was over? Maybe I stopped reading after the paragraph that recounted how Bush fully expected to get 200 billion dollars more for Iraq without any time line attached.

I don't know how anyone can call that a success.

uncleandyt 7 years ago

Impeachment now,dangit, Now, please

kansas778 7 years ago

Mkh (Anonymous) says:

Kiddie Pool: "Source? And which part(s) of the Constitution has Bush violated?"

Hmmmmmmmmmm, let's do a quick checklist.

For starters we have clear violations and disputes in the following:


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was in regards to a 5th amendment violation by Public law 107-40, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. It was a questionable area of law that Congress had passed, and the Supreme Court knocked it down. The law was passed only a few days after 9/11, and perhaps could have used some more scrutiny.

Anyways, I'd just love to read all the court cases regarding the violations you ascribe to President Bush. Full citations are appreciated, but names only will do in a pinch.

Jurisprudential sidenote: for those of you who think Scalia is a republican dog, in the above cited case, he wanted to restrict the President's power of indefinite detention of an American citizen without due process the most, saying that either he must be tried in a criminal court, or Congress had to use its power to suspend the writ of habeus corpus, which can only be done under certain circumstances.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK, You could read my responses to your questions as they were posed to me under your "ferdinandlanghoff" moniker. Unless they were quoted by others, your original posts no longer exist.

ramsrevenge 7 years ago

Whew!!! That headline scared me. For a minute there I thought it was about something else.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

"So, I asked again, what has changed since Bush won a majority in 2004?"

That sooner or later, (s)electing pathological liars to the presidency will eventually bite us in the a**.

Mkh 7 years ago

"If you believe Cleveland was president in 1898, I'm not surprised that the rest of your version of U.S. history is bunk."

LOL. Gee Kid you sure got me, I guess I miscalculated by about nine months when going back through the presidential timeline in my head last night at 1 am while trying to watch a Russ Meyer film. It was actually the young McKinley Administration that took advantage of the American people and duped them into war. Cleveland had just left office.

Other than my minor miscalculation there is nothing "bunk" about my history, The USS Maine was a false flag attack, there are dozens more examples if you would like them.

I noticed you didn't even attempt to back up your claims that Clinton is the only U.S. President with empirical foreign policy against the Middle East. In fact Clinton himself had very little to with it, you could have a random guy off the street in the White House then or now and our outcomes would be very similar. These policies are often not being formulated by specific Presidents, but rather by the Elite policy making groups which transform political paradigms. Therefore these policies of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergs, etc, span for decades across party lines and Administrations, they have allegiance to Central Banks, not the American people.. Blaming one Administration exclusively is just being ignorant of history and the larger picture in general.

You, and others like yourself are guilty of blaming only Clinton, and your alleged enemies, "the far-left Bush haters" are also guilty of the same thing! It's not about little GW or little Willy, or you freaking kidding me? You think anyone would actually put those morons in charge? No they are NWO troll puppets who are staging a game for you to believe in. Next year they will attempt to install their next puppet, Hillary, so the "left" will feel the system is working and the "right" will have something to pretend to hate in the White House, while in reality Hillary will just be continuing the agenda from the Bush Administration which has been pre-planned by the Global Elite power structure. They have been successfully doing this process for almost 100 years in America and many centuries before in Europe. However, they are getting extremely scared because they realize that a small but growing educated public is becoming aware of their game.

Impeachment, while Constitutionally correct, is only putting a band-aid on a massive wound. If only Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson could see us now.

Kontum1972 7 years ago

LoL...its just a little too late now folks to realize what a bunch of weasels all these people are that are currently leading us down the path....4,000 dead soldiers many others badly wounded..and they will soon be forgotten like the Nam vets....those of you who voted for this pip squeak helped pull the trigger that killed our soldiers....the war game....oh yeah i heard a rumor the iranians have the bomb...personally i am more frightened of the crew in the white house than i am about Iran....

Mkh 7 years ago

"Oh, we have a conspiracy theorist. Did you make your own tin-foil hat?"

No, I read books about history and politics...try it sometime, you'll sound smarter...well maybe.

Mkh 7 years ago

"If Clinton had lifted sanctions on Iraq and had not put 7000+ U.S. troops on Saudi soil, do you honestly think we would have had 9/11?"

You don't get it Kevin.

Since you love straw man hypothetical questions so much, here is one for you.

If the CIA had not created, recruited, trained, and funded al Qaeda and other Saudi terrorists would 9/11 have happened?

Mkh 7 years ago

kiddie pool: "They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."


I suspect that you actually might be gullable enough to believe that.

So the CIA, State Department, the Saudi's and CNN say that the CIA didn't help create al-Qaeda? Wow I'm shocked kid, never saw that coming.

"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west." www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,...

"Hekmatyar, an Islamic fundamentalist, was the most virulently anti-American of the Afghans and the one closest to the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI), which the CIA was using as its cut-out to support the mujahideen. He was also the top recipient of the CIA's largesse, reeling in about 20% of the $3 billion-plus in funding and materiel the agency poured into the jihad. That support was matched dollar-for-dollar by our friends the Saudis, who dealt directly with the Arab Afghans and were bin Laden's chief benefactor.

In short, the CIA helped create al Qaeda. It opened its checkbook but blindly relied on the ISI, which was (and is) rife with Sunni fundamentalist sympathizers." www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22...

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

Ferd/KK writes, "Note that al Qaeda's #2 also said the U.S. had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Did you overlook that."

But you said Clinton did according to AQ's #1. Which is it?

This is the problem with most of your circular "arguments" and why you haven't seemed to figure out that you just cannot build a Bentley from old Yugo parts. But you continue to try, Arminius.

Mkh 7 years ago

Kido:

I'm sure that Peter Bergen knows far more about al Qaeda than I do, I just know that he is lying about it to the public because he is contradicting the statements of countless other "experts" and intelligence officers. He understands full well that Blowback is very real, but if he says that on CNN there would be consequences for him.

This is how these people work, they openly commit actions and then blatantly lie about it and ridicule through the media anyone who attempts to prove them wrong. That's how they accomplish openly merging the economies of North America, they do in plain sight then simply lie about it to the public and call the people exposing them as "conspiracy theorists". It's like a kid lying to his mom about the hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure you and your mom go through the routine often "kozakid".

I actually kind of like that name compared to some of your previous titles, it suits you.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

Fred/KK/Arminius writes, "I've been on this forum for three months and this is the first time I have been accused of being another poster. Apparently, "Arminius" and "ferdinandlanghoff" also were moonbat slayers."

Gimme a break. Using the same circular arguments, citing the exact same sources, on the same Clinton bent, they disappeared now you appear, even down to using the exact same language. If you wanted to fool anybody, you didn't try hard enough, Kevin.

ndmoderate 7 years ago

Ferd got kicked off (after having been kicked off several times previously), so he slunk away and read a new anti-liberal book. Then he came back on as another new poster, this time kozakid, and is saying the same crap, but the quotes are now from a new book. After kozakid gets kicked off once again, I predict said psychopath will slink away and find yet another anti-liberal book to read so he can magically reappear as yet a new poster and quote from that book.

I'd say that's pretty circular.

But hey, whatever makes you happy, man.

Harry Tuttle 7 years ago

you are all missing the point. It's not about Republicans or Democrats. Its about your freedom.

The argument from intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence. They make up lies to divide you and quibble over useless minutia. How can a front-runner in the straw polls be a fringe candidate? How can the lead fundraiser of both parties be a dark horse candidate? But they continually marginalize and exclude Dr Paul so that his message is not heard above the din and clatter of sheeple in heat.

The founders of our nation foresaw that any government ruled by humans would tend toward corruption, so the Constitution was created to limit the powers of the government. Yet slowly, almost imperceptibly, our Constitutional rights have been infringed upon and eroded by our elected officials.

The true battle we need to be concerned about is in the primary elections. Both supporters and detractors of Ron Paul's candidacy agree that if he wins the Republican nomination, he has excellent odds of winning the general election. As Samuel Adams, one of the founders of our great country said, "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Once the primary hurdle has been passed, there is no doubt that Ron Paul's candidacy will soar. His message resonates with the American people. We want our freedom and our liberties protected. They want the government off of there back and out of their wallet. Most of all, his honest patriotism has reignited the flames of liberty that had nearly been extinguished here in the United States.

So quit arguing who did what and to whom and think about working together to change it.

preebo 7 years ago

With this Administrations continued destruction of the balance of power between the three co-equal branches of government it is quite possible that the damage done to our country and its principles may be felt long after January 20th, 2009. These people have sought to destroy the federal government in favor of a imperial executive office (example 1,100 Signing Statements -- almost twice as many as all 42 previous Presidents, all placed to void portions of Congressional legislation ). They have also decided to create a ""New American Century"" (Pun definitely intended) throughout the world, by launching a pre-emptive invasion on a weakened Iraq post Desert Storm to insert a friendly to provide America with cheap oil and sprout an ideologically friendly Middle-Eastern nation in a sea of Islam, all the while selling off American capital to corporate holdings. This is quite possibly the real enactment of the Manchurian Candidate. Serious work will need to be done to restore America at home and abroad.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK writes, "I already demonstrated that your circular argument charge was bogus."

All you did was to selectively rephrase what you stated or how you stated it. That's far short of demonstrating anything substantive.

As far as the language, one only needs to revisit some of the posts that were quoted to see the glaring similarities. English? Talk about diversionary tactics.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. There's no doubt that anyone who can conduct an honest assessment of where America finds itself relative to the damage done to our credibility by W and his administration in the world community recognizes that this will make it more difficult for America to convince anyone of anything. To say or think otherwise is either foolish or disingenuous.

Let's put in your favorite terms -- the strawman. I'll even play the villain in the hopes that you might see the light.

Let's say I work for you and I have a pretty good reason to believe that something I have been telling you is wrong. Let's say I didn't know it was wrong when I first told you, but it came to my attention later that it was wrong. Despite that knowledge on my part, I continue to mislead you. At some point, you find out that I am wrong...maybe I told you or someone else did.

I'm not going to try to tell you how you might handle that situation, but I'll walk you through some typical scenarios if I were in that position. First, I want to know more about what they knew and when they knew it. Second, I want to assess the risk to the business. If my customers or business collaborators are aware of it or become aware of it and it will cost me business, current or future, I might need to take steps to distance myself from that employee just for my own survival. And, if I want to continue to do business with my existing customers, I'm probably going to have to take extra steps to secure that relationship. In fact, my competitors will probably see an opportunity to take the business I currently enjoy away.

Now, substitute the Pres as me (BTW, I am pres of an organization), the voters and customers as you, business collaborators as other potentially US friendly countries of the world, and competitors as unfriendlies.

Now do you understand why there is such an uproar over the damage done by this administration? And I agree with one of the other posts on this thread that it isn't all Bush. W, of all people, can't do it all and relies on the people around him in his administration to provide guidance and advice. However, he is the one that makes the final decision and must take ultimate responsibility.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

Awww, you burned down my strawman, KK. And it took me some time to assemble.

Oh well, no one can say I didn't try.

Mkh 7 years ago

what ever he wants to be called writes: "What possible motive would Bergen have to lie? And you still have not provided proof to back up your blowback claim. Above I quoted from Bergen's 2001 book on al Qaeda. He was still calling the CIA-bin Laden connection "hogwash" in 2006."


I don't know what Bergen's motivation is to do anything...he's probably lying in my opinion, but who knows he may just be wrong. But I do know he'd loose his high paying Big Media job if he told us the truth.

If I present you further evidence linking CIA-al Qaeda will you shut up and go away or continue this nonsense?

Frankly, I wonder if it's even worth my time.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK writes, "Are you honestly going to tell that there is not a single journalist employed at Fox News who is not biased?"

Well, when they fit that bill they are usually dismissed and smeared. Ask Judith Regan.

ndmoderate 7 years ago

kozakid says: "Here's an idea, moonbat. Instead of playing your paranoid guessing game (a violation of the forum rules), why not address the issues being discussed here. Every time you moonbats are confronted with inconvenient facts, you find some new diversionary tactic and attempt to use it to cover up your inability to debate the issues."

If you'll kindly notice, I have not been posting on this article; I'm not on this particular thread to debate the issues. I was merely making an observation about you. You see, I've witnessed you spew the same parsing runaround crap several times before with other posters, and it's just not fun anymore.

I don't seriously know how you can still be denying that you used to post under the previously mentioned screen names...you give yourself away every time you respond to them. If that wasn't you, why are you responding?

By the way...thanks for the laugh by bringing up violations of forum rules--that really made my day! You've been booted how many times? I've been booted....never. Hell, I'll even admit outright that I used to post under the name ksmoderate, but only changed the moniker when I moved away from Kansas.

But I digress. By all means....shine on, you crazy diamond.

ndmoderate 7 years ago

"Then why the hell are you posting here?"

I'll refer you to the second paragraph of my 5:14pm post.

"I'm fairly certain that the collective IQ of Kansans went up when you moved away."

Oooh, good one. The hits just keep comin'! Given your fair certainty, it might pain you to learn that I left Kansas to begin work on my doctorate. Ouch!

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

I think I have a strangulated Bushorrhoid.

Mkh 7 years ago

"I asked for proof. Thus far, you haven't even provided evidence."

Gee Kid, did you happen to not notice my two previous sources? Well here are some more for you to pretend to ignore.

"Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured in at least US $6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin [in Afghanistan]. Other western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more. ... Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. ... Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction."

[Norm Dixon, "How the CIA created Osama bin Laden" (autumn 2001)]

"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar ["Services Office"] ? the MAK ? which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war. What the CIA bio[graphy] conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation. ... "

[Michael Moran, "Bin Laden comes home to roost", MSNBC, 24 Aug. 1998]

"J. Michael Springmann, head of the non-immigrant visa section at the "CIA-dominated" US consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1987-88, said he learned that the CIA had a "program to bring people to the United States for terrorist training, people recruited by the CIA and its asset Usama bin Laden, and the idea was to get them trained and send them back to Afghanistan to fight the then Soviets." "Their nationalities for the most part were Pakistani, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese." These "recruits without backgrounds" were given visas over Springmann's protests." (Transcript of Springmann interview, Fox TV, 18 July 2002, Center for Cooperative Research; transcript of Springmann interview with CBC, 3 July 2002, 9/11 Review )

Mkh 7 years ago

since you asked so nicely...

"The MAK, headed by the Palestinian-Egyptian Abdullah Azzam in conjunction with bin Laden, was based in Peshawar, Pakistan. Numerous branches were established in the USA under the name of al-Khifa. The first was set up in Tucson, amid the large Arab community there, in 1986. The 9/11 Commission's Report later noted that "A number of important al Qaeda figures attended the University of Arizona in Tucson or lived in Tucson in the 1980s and early 1990s".

The largest branch of al-Khifa was in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue, New York (in or next to the Farouq Mosque). Other branches were in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. Officially known as the al-Khifa Refugee Center and the associated Afghan Refugee Services, the Brooklyn centre provided the interface for "Operation Cyclone", the American effort to support the mujaheddin. The organization became known as the "Services Office", after its Peshawar original, and worked to raise funds and train recruits for the war effort.

Azzam is believed to have visited from time to time, and bin Laden was numbered among the financial supporters. Al-Khifa had a training camp in Connecticut, where "Recruits received brief paramilitary training and weapons induction, according to evidence in [subsequent terrorist] trials". Several former members of the "active service" of the CIA were employed there as "expert consultants". "

(Andrew Marshall, "Terror 'blowback' burns CIA: America's spies paid and trained their nation's worst enemies", Independent on Sunday [UK], 1 Nov. 1998; Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (Penguin, 2005 edn), p.155; 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 2, p.58 [HTML version]; ibid, chapter 7, p.226 [HTML version]; Richard Lab鶩貥, Dollars For Terror [Algora, 2000; translation of Les Dolleurs de la Terreur, Grasset, 1999], pp.223-4)

"In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques, (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built "training camps", some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them. These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers. ...

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company ? albeit one that integrates the operations of a military force and related logistical services with `legitimate' business operations."

[Norm Dixon, "How the CIA created Osama bin Laden" (autumn 2001)]

Mkh 7 years ago

Don't worry...I have much much more....

"As the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan during 1988-9, a policy split emerged between the US State Department and the CIA. The State Department focused on moderate Afghan factions and a negotiated supersession of the Soviet-installed Najibullah regime. But the CIA continued military support, via Pakistan, of Hekmatyar and other Islamists. Meanwhile, Arabs continued to flow in to fight alongside the Afghan Islamists. ..." (Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (Penguin, 2005 edition), chapters 10 to 12)

"... bin Laden split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan. ... Afghan vet[eran]s, or Afghanis ... " [Michael Moran, "Bin Laden comes home to roost", MSNBC, 24 Aug. 1998)]

"The CIA decided that bin Laden's "Arab Afghans" were too useful an ally to abandon after the Soviets left Afghanistan, and in a meeting at Green's Hotel, Peshawar, Pakistan, in late 1991, between their local representatives, Prince Turki bin Faisal (head of the Saudi intelligence service) and the "Arab Afghans", they decided to continue links. The "strategic" position of Afghanistan vis-a-vis Central Asian oil was a factor in this decision." (Lab鶩貥, Dollars For Terror, pp.104-5; cf. pp.227-8. "Arab Afghans" is a term Lab鶩貥 uses for both the "proto-Qaeda" formed in Afghanistan with the CIA's help, and the later "fully-formed" version.)

Mkh 7 years ago

Let us not forget what happened in 1993:

"At 18 minutes past noon on 26 February 1993, a huge truck bomb exploded in the underground parking garage beneath the twin towers of the New York World Trade Center. ... (9/11 Commission Report, chapter 3, p.71. [HTML version])... The ensuing FBI investigation led to (amongst others) "terrorist mastermind" Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was subsequently convicted on various terrorist charges, including a plot to bomb New York landmarks such as the UN building, the FBI headquarters and the Holland Tunnel.

Rahman's record is revealing. Born in Egypt, he was "spiritual mentor" of several Islamist groups. These included Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was later to "merge" with al-Qaeda, and more especially Jama'a Islamiya (the Islamic Group), which had formed from a split with Jihad (and was later to partially remerge with it). Rahman played a leading role in recruiting foreign Islamic fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and also raised finance for the "holy war". He was issued a US entry visa in 1987. In 1990, Rahman was interviewed in Khartoum, Sudan, by the CIA's area station chief. He was subsequently issued with a multiple-entry visa by an undercover CIA operative who worked in the consular section of the US embassy there. This included the coveted green-card ? permanent-resident ? status. (Official statements later put down the visas to a series of computer errors; and the fact that the consular official was a CIA agent was dismissed as "sheer coincidence".) On entering the US, Rahman went to the al-Khifah "refugee center" in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue, New York, the front for raising anti-Soviet fighters ... He was also a "central figure" at the Farouq mosque next door, and also preached at a mosque in nearby Jersey City."

(Richard Lab鶩貥, Dollars For Terror, pp.221-4 [he refers to Newsweek as confirming the visa story, but fails to give a specific reference]; Peter L Bergen, Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden [Weidenfield & Nicholson, London, 2001], pp.72-3 [his reference is Marguerite Michaels, "Martyrs for the Sheik", Time magazine, 19 July 1993]; 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 3, p.72 [HTML version])

Mkh 7 years ago

"Ramzi Youssef, the man who parked the truck bomb under the WTC, was himself an "Arab Afghan" who learned the arts of terrorism in Peshawar, Pakistan. And he had, according to a classified FBI file, been recruited by the local branch of the CIA." (His uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [KSM], was to become the "mastermind" of 9/11.) (Lab鶩貥, Dollars For Terror, pp.220-1. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 3, p.73. [HTML version]) ...

Mkh 7 years ago

kozakid (Anonymous) says:

MKh:

"You obviously do not understand the concept of proof. All you have offered it quotes. If those same people said that clouds were actually marshmallows, those quotes would not be proof that clouds are actually marshmallows."

HA! Dang you are pathetic! All you have is one quote from one guy! Face it, you've just been destroyed! Proof? Where is your fricking Proof of Anything you have ever babbled on here?

Heck, where is even your Proof that bin Laden carried out the 9/11 attacks?????

I was right, you are not worth my time Kevin the Kid.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK writes, "We all know that most liberals cannot win a legitimate debate with most conservatives."

Huh? Add that to the list of nuttiest Ferd/KK moments. Utterly amazing!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

Should be rephrased "We all know that most people cannot win a legitimate debate with those who are hopelessly fixed in their position."

Here's the problem. It's not about winning. It's about understanding. But when you are so focused on winning against (insert your favorite "those other guys" label, yours happens to be liberals, apparently), and you continually paint that which you will not consider in that manner, then "legit debate" is not really in the agenda.

Erin Parmelee 7 years ago

kozakid (Anonymous) says:

flock:

"Huh? Add that to the list of nuttiest Ferd/KK moments. Utterly amazing!"

Thanks for making my point. You moonbats are extremely predictable.

LOL!! Please tell me you see the irony in responding to your own accusation of people of name calling and failing to make an argument, by name calling, and failing to make an argument.....

Erin Parmelee 7 years ago

Flock offered no argument so there was no argument I could offer as a counter. You don't really believe that "moonbat" is on par with "sissy," "moron," and "idiot," do you? What would you prefer I call flock, et. al. If I called them liberals, they are so sensitive they would consider that name-calling as well.

I think you already know that you're making a non-sensical semantic argument. Name calling is name calling, is is not? Are we really going to break it down into "degrees" of name calling? I'm not taking anyone's side on it, just found it quite funny to blame people for name calling and then turn around and do the same thing. In my opinion, the strength of any argument is going to come from the content--not who can offer up the best insults.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

I'll admit it--the only name I called KK was "chump" very early in the thread to which he responded with a reasonable request to "keep it civil". It was wrong, I admit it, and I refrained from any name calling through the remainder of this thread and any others I may post to. My apologies to KK and the readers in this forum.

ndmoderate 7 years ago

(channeling R_T)

This is 'merica, Frenchie. We speak English here. Now get yourself some Freedom Fries and get back with the program!

(channeling done)

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

Dollypawpaw (Anonymous) says:

"As usual Liberals are in denial of the truth. They make up a fantasy and then stir each other up into believing it.

What kind of jobs in the real world do you all pursue? Or do any of you work?"

Yes, Liberals do work, just like Conservatives. The only difference is that conservatives work for big oil and defense companies that needed such a war to expand.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

Yeah, but a point that you'll never get, KK.

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

"Fox news "fair and balanced" ?"

Sure enough. Hannity doesn't have a degree but laughed at a professor who wasn't teaching at Berkeley... It's really fair and balance to have Hannity.

Fox News is owned by an Australia, who also owned SkyNews Network. He is a businessman... and makes news to suit people's tastes, so that he can earn MONEY. Get it?

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

sdinges:

"Victory! Germany Surrenders after Berlin Falls! Hitler Dead! Germany Defeated! Japan Surrenders after A-Bombs Dropped!"

Al Qaeda isn't a country! No amount of weapons can kill of an ideology that spreads like wildfire.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years ago

KK writes, "See Dinesh D'Souza's "Illiberal Education" for examples of liberals trying to shut down debate at universities."

No one is trying to shut down an honest debate here. By all means, continue to make a fool of yourself. I still can't believe that you tried to claim that Clinton's policies led to 9/11. Then tried to back it up. Incredible!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.