Bush is a hero
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160284 Mar 17, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always said that that was the most far-reaching fellatio in history. No BJ, no GWB, no Iraq debacle, no injection of further instability in the ME that we'll be dealing with for years to come. Reading the Plan For A New American Century, one could almost think the BJ was another neocon Godsend. Maybe Monica was neocon mole.......
Hey, speaking of sex, did you know I'm pretty much the Topix expert on Pilgrim sexual practices and behavior? I usually give a little speech on it around Thanksgiving.
Given your propensity to go on a sexual offensive when you're annoyed {yes, I've seen you do this before} you might enjoy it.
It might also give you some new material the next time you're trying to off-put a woman not of your team. Yes, it's an old trick occasionally employed by the male gender .... it's right up there with a boy dropping a pollywog on a little girls sandwich so he can watch her squeal.

You have an oddly fascinating way of politically expressing yourself and self promoting your vast knowledge of sexual terms simultaneously.

Maybe it's just another peculiar liberal thing.
Anyway, keep it up. You're very good at it!

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160285 Mar 17, 2013
For cryin' out loud.

Dozens, possibly hundreds, of nameless government employees are the ones that 'got' bin Laden. They're the kind of people who are not impacted by a Presidential election, unless you count the fact that the more senior of them periodically directly reports to a new political hack that couldn't find the restroom (or his or her ass) without a road map.

They crunched numbers and stared at photos and they tracked trends and followed the money and listened to phone conversations and charted message traffic and chased down who knows how many dead end rabbit holes until they finally found him.

Does Obama deserve some credit? Sure - in the same way any mucky-muck deserves some credit for what the people working for them does.

Did Obama claim more credit for the elimination of bin Laden than he deserved? Of course he did. That's what mucky-mucks do, whether they are in the public or the private sector.

Unless you just crawled out from a box of rocks that's smarter than you are you KNOW that's how the game is played. Unless you are a complete and total idiot, you know damned good and well that the same reflected glory would have been claimed by Bush if he was successful, by McCain if he'd won in '08.

Did Bush inadvertently give Obama the opportunity to claim credit? Of course he did, when he tried to deflect attention away from the fact that we hadn't found him yet by minimizing the importance of the task.

Welcome to politics, American style. It's been around for a while ... it's not like it's new.

Jeez.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160286 Mar 17, 2013
Henri wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see! This is a forum for students of American fiction! Of course!
Hey- be NICE, Mr.Luxembourg.

Soooooooo, what's it like being squashed between France, Belgium and Germany?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160287 Mar 17, 2013
Henri wrote:
<quoted text>
But you know, the truth is stranger than fiction.
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction - but sometimes a duck is just a duck.

Truthers, now ... they don't even qualify as strange. They're just, well, fuzzy.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#160288 Mar 17, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
For cryin' out loud.
Dozens, possibly hundreds, of nameless government employees are the ones that 'got' bin Laden. They're the kind of people who are not impacted by a Presidential election, unless you count the fact that the more senior of them periodically directly reports to a new political hack that couldn't find the restroom (or his or her ass) without a road map.
They crunched numbers and stared at photos and they tracked trends and followed the money and listened to phone conversations and charted message traffic and chased down who knows how many dead end rabbit holes until they finally found him.
Does Obama deserve some credit? Sure - in the same way any mucky-muck deserves some credit for what the people working for them does.
Did Obama claim more credit for the elimination of bin Laden than he deserved? Of course he did. That's what mucky-mucks do, whether they are in the public or the private sector.
Unless you just crawled out from a box of rocks that's smarter than you are you KNOW that's how the game is played. Unless you are a complete and total idiot, you know damned good and well that the same reflected glory would have been claimed by Bush if he was successful, by McCain if he'd won in '08.
Did Bush inadvertently give Obama the opportunity to claim credit? Of course he did, when he tried to deflect attention away from the fact that we hadn't found him yet by minimizing the importance of the task.
Welcome to politics, American style. It's been around for a while ... it's not like it's new.
Jeez.
Of course you're right, saying what shouldn't need to be said. The worker-bee does the actual work. Same as it ever was. However, in the "buck stops here" tradition, the President bore the responsibility for the final Go/No-Go, as well as the subsequent result, for better or worse. Thus it is entirely appropriate to say that the "mucky-muck" deserves a considerable portion of credit for his part. In addition, he did in fact re-elevate the priority, and re-assigned resources to the hunt which had been downgraded previously. That's another executive decision for which he certainly deserves credit.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#160289 Mar 17, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, speaking of sex, did you know I'm pretty much the Topix expert on Pilgrim sexual practices and behavior? I usually give a little speech on it around Thanksgiving.
Given your propensity to go on a sexual offensive when you're annoyed {yes, I've seen you do this before} you might enjoy it.
It might also give you some new material the next time you're trying to off-put a woman not of your team. Yes, it's an old trick occasionally employed by the male gender .... it's right up there with a boy dropping a pollywog on a little girls sandwich so he can watch her squeal.
You have an oddly fascinating way of politically expressing yourself and self promoting your vast knowledge of sexual terms simultaneously.
Maybe it's just another peculiar liberal thing.
Anyway, keep it up. You're very good at it!
Nice bob and weave. A two-fer! Misdirection as well as Faux self-absorbed indignation all in one! As for my part in your passion play, I merely elaborated on the topic YOU broached, for your own "political expression". In addition, not one word of it could be in any way construed to be personally directed at, around, toward, in the direction, of, or affiliated with, you, nor is there the remotest inclination to do so.

But any port in a storm,'ey?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160290 Mar 17, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Nice bob and weave. A two-fer! Misdirection as well as Faux self-absorbed indignation all in one! As for my part in your passion play, I merely elaborated on the topic YOU broached, for your own "political expression". In addition, not one word of it could be in any way construed to be personally directed at, around, toward, in the direction, of, or affiliated with, you, nor is there the remotest inclination to do so.
But any port in a storm,'ey?
Whatever you say, you little freethinker you!

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160291 Mar 17, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you're right, saying what shouldn't need to be said. The worker-bee does the actual work. Same as it ever was. However, in the "buck stops here" tradition, the President bore the responsibility for the final Go/No-Go, as well as the subsequent result, for better or worse. Thus it is entirely appropriate to say that the "mucky-muck" deserves a considerable portion of credit for his part. In addition, he did in fact re-elevate the priority, and re-assigned resources to the hunt which had been downgraded previously. That's another executive decision for which he certainly deserves credit.
I think you have to split some hairs to argue that the search for bin Laden was 'downgraded' or that Obama re-prioritized. The search for al Qaeda never ceased, and the two were inseparably linked.

That said - you're right, he deserves some credit for making the decision. There were diplomatic risks involved in the byzantine morass of Pakistani politics regardless of success or failure because of our presence in Afghanistan.

The political risks, if the mission failed, probably shouldn't have to be enumerated, but based on the way this conversation has been framed so far ...

There's a script that the parties pass back and forth between one another for circumstances like that. The Rs used it on Carter over the failed Iranian hostage mission; the Ds tried it on Reagan over Lebanon and Qaddafi; the Rs took it back for Clinton over the attempts to get bin Laden.

If Obama's a quarter of the crafty politician he's credited with he knows that script. That's another risk he took - one that, if you accept the notion that he's a political hack only out for power, was far greater than the benefit to be gained.

The amount of credit I'm willing to give Obama is tempered by the fact that I believe that any responsible American politician serving as President from either party would have made the decision Obama made when he made it.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160295 Mar 17, 2013
details details wrote:
<quoted text>
Six months after the September 11 attack:
www.youtube.com/watch...
You were saying something about splitting hairs?
I'm aware of the quote.

And?

What part of "terror is bigger than one person" puzzles you, exactly?

Look, I'm no fan of George Bush, and I have references right here in the thread who can verify it - but this is silly. Six months out we had no way of knowing if bin Laden/al Qaeda had other plots in motion like 9/11. It would have been sheer folly to focus exclusively on one individual under those circumstances.

To go further - our understanding of al Qaeda itself was shaky.

Was there a bit of exasperation at the fact that the question of bin Laden kept coming up in that response? Sure, and I'll bet you the only thing Bush regrets more than that one was the 'bring it on' nonsense.

BTW ... the only thing dumber than assuming Bush didn't care about capturing/eliminating bin Laden based on that video is claiming it's proof that 9/11 was a false flag operation, and that 'the truth' of the event is unknown except by a small cadre of enlightened individuals who look down on us sheeple.
Jim

Austin, TX

#160296 Mar 17, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Ron Paul, huh?
I never would have guessed...
Ron Paul and/or Dennis Kucinich and/or Cynthia McKinney. They were all presidential candidates, ignored by the mainstream corporate media, who would have been much "better" than the anointed cyphers.

Is there a reason why you didn't acknowledge my mention of the other two?
Jim

Austin, TX

#160297 Mar 17, 2013
Henri wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes hi, remind me what bin Laden did again? Was there a trial, in which evidence of criminal wrongdoing was presented? Was there a mention of bin Laden's enduring ties to U.S. intelligence? I'm fuzzy on the justification for and details regarding the bin Laden "liquidation"...
(I have a vague recollection of this silly obsession Americans had at one time regarding "innocence until guilt was proven in a court of law"... Must have been a passing fad rather than the cornerstone of American jurisprudence as it was typically presented)
Thanks for demonstrating how a non-mainstream, outsider view is likely to cut right through the bullsh!t. The trouble is, you are questioning foundational beliefs, upon which people have constructed elaborate edi-feces.(It's amazing how attached folks are to their edi-feces).

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160298 Mar 17, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Ron Paul and/or Dennis Kucinich and/or Cynthia McKinney. They were all presidential candidates, ignored by the mainstream corporate media, who would have been much "better" than the anointed cyphers.
Is there a reason why you didn't acknowledge my mention of the other two?
I'm unaware of Kucinich or McKinney enjoying cult status, that's all.
Jim

Austin, TX

#160299 Mar 17, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
I know spring is coming soon and all, but it's a little early for a cockroach infestation.
I mean, where did all the truthers come from?
"Truther" wielded as an insult? Surely this will be one of the distinguishing characteristics of early 21st century American fiction!

I used to think Orwell's dystopian visions were too unbelievable...
Jim

Austin, TX

#160300 Mar 17, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, sure, the guy who ran the black-stained EI program says so. What else would he say? In fact,(for the benefit of those who care about such silliness as facts), professionals tell us that EI is THE reason bin Laden lived another ten years. The "informant" you're talking about was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who lied about bin Laden's courier, saying he was retired, sending the hunt down the wrong paths for near a decade....
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man who was reportedly waterboarded 183 times in one month alone? Let's see, that's almost six sessions a day.

He lied?? Goodness, that was unexpected...

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160301 Mar 17, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
"Truther" wielded as an insult? Surely this will be one of the distinguishing characteristics of early 21st century American fiction!
I used to think Orwell's dystopian visions were too unbelievable...
Personally, I find the truther dystopian visions too unbelievable, but I'm not one of the enlightened ones.

So ... assuming for a minute that the official story of 9/11 is false and al Qaeda wasn't behind the attack (if there was an actual attack), who did cause it?

That, btw, is a direct question, and I'd appreciate an equally direct answer absent any attempt to bring me to the proper conclusion.
Jim

Austin, TX

#160302 Mar 17, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'm unaware of Kucinich or McKinney enjoying cult status, that's all.
This is because you self-identify with the "left," which has invested its resources in ridiculing the threats to the status quo that, through superficial analysis, fall on the "right" side of the simplistic bipolar political spectrum.

If you were a "conservative," then the words "Kucinich" and "McKinney" would likely trigger lots of frothing at the mouth and spilled beer.

;)

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160303 Mar 17, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
This is because you self-identify with the "left," which has invested its resources in ridiculing the threats to the status quo that, through superficial analysis, fall on the "right" side of the simplistic bipolar political spectrum.
If you were a "conservative," then the words "Kucinich" and "McKinney" would likely trigger lots of frothing at the mouth and spilled beer.
;)
Nope. I meant what I said - I'm unaware of Kucinich or McKinney enjoying cult status, and that's all.

Generally speaking, when someone criticizes Obama with something like "So you support Obama, even though he's essentially perpetuating and expanding Bush's assault on the constitution, perpetuating Bush's wars and launching new ones, and even openly assassinating where Bush tried to secretly kidnap and torture?" you're talking to a member or fellow-traveler of that cult.
Jim

Austin, TX

#160304 Mar 17, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Personally, I find the truther dystopian visions too unbelievable, but I'm not one of the enlightened ones.
So ... assuming for a minute that the official story of 9/11 is false and al Qaeda wasn't behind the attack (if there was an actual attack), who did cause it?
That, btw, is a direct question, and I'd appreciate an equally direct answer absent any attempt to bring me to the proper conclusion.
Perhaps we need to put aside "faith-based history" for awhile and examine the evidence. This isn't a matter of "believing" and "not believing."

Your question is constructed on a false assumption beyond the explicit, hypothetical assumptions, and so I cannot answer it directly. Specifically, you are assuming that "al Qaeda" is an autonomous group unconnected to U.S. intelligence and U.S. allies. However, a great deal of evidence indicates that "al Qaeda" is an instrument of the U.S. military/intelligence apparatus, playing a "blue team" role against the Russians (in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and other former Soviet bloc countries), against China (in Xinjiang), in Iraq (where "al Qaeda" did not exist prior to the U.S. invasion), and more recently in Libya and Syria.

Also, the official 9/11 narrative is demonstrably false. There is no need for hypothetical assumptions there. A bit of research would convince you of this and lead you to a better initial question: why would the U.S. government openly lie about the 9/11 attack?(And, following up on a topic already broached on this thread, how is it that not only Condoleezza Rice but a great many other people in positions of responsibility in the military and federal agencies were PROMOTED following this "failure" of our massive and well-funded military/intelligence apparatus? And was anyone fired? No?!?)

I will be happy to go on, but I find that this is a topic that folks need to discover for themselves, should they have the impulse to actually research and question currently held assumptions.
Jim

Austin, TX

#160305 Mar 17, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. I meant what I said - I'm unaware of Kucinich or McKinney enjoying cult status, and that's all.
Generally speaking, when someone criticizes Obama with something like "So you support Obama, even though he's essentially perpetuating and expanding Bush's assault on the constitution, perpetuating Bush's wars and launching new ones, and even openly assassinating where Bush tried to secretly kidnap and torture?" you're talking to a member or fellow-traveler of that cult.
I'm not following you. Is it possible to open a statement with "so you support Obama, even though..." while simultaneously addressing a "fellow-traveler of that cult [of Ron Paul supporters].

The thing that distinguishes Paul from Kucinich and McKinney is that his message reached and resonated with a large segment of the population that is disillusioned with American politics (and crony-capitalist economics). On the other side of the fake bipolar spectrum, the "left" team had just survived an eight year fixation on the disgraceful titular "POTUS" Bush, and many had pinned high hopes on "anybody but..." When titular "POTUS" Obama won, the "left" team declared victory and promptly put their brains in storage until the next political skirmish.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160306 Mar 17, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps we need to put aside "faith-based history" for awhile and examine the evidence. This isn't a matter of "believing" and "not believing."
Your question is constructed on a false assumption beyond the explicit, hypothetical assumptions, and so I cannot answer it directly. Specifically, you are assuming that "al Qaeda" is an autonomous group unconnected to U.S. intelligence and U.S. allies. However, a great deal of evidence indicates that "al Qaeda" is an instrument of the U.S. military/intelligence apparatus, playing a "blue team" role against the Russians (in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and other former Soviet bloc countries), against China (in Xinjiang), in Iraq (where "al Qaeda" did not exist prior to the U.S. invasion), and more recently in Libya and Syria.
Also, the official 9/11 narrative is demonstrably false. There is no need for hypothetical assumptions there. A bit of research would convince you of this and lead you to a better initial question: why would the U.S. government openly lie about the 9/11 attack?(And, following up on a topic already broached on this thread, how is it that not only Condoleezza Rice but a great many other people in positions of responsibility in the military and federal agencies were PROMOTED following this "failure" of our massive and well-funded military/intelligence apparatus? And was anyone fired? No?!?)
I will be happy to go on, but I find that this is a topic that folks need to discover for themselves, should they have the impulse to actually research and question currently held assumptions.
What makes you think I'm using 'faith-based history' that I haven't examined the evidence, or that I'm adverse to challenging assumptions?

Surely you're not silly enough to think that's a given just because I don't ... well, since you won't say what you do believe, let's just say share your suspicions?

Yes ... I think you are that silly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Happy Lesbo 70,907
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 min Chauvanistic Leo 618,852
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Gods r Delusions ... 658,739
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 4 min Pope Ben Out To P... 176
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 9 min Leo Mars 3,854
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 38 min RiccardoFire 45,616
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 52 min ffj 974,740
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 282,991
More from around the web