Gawain 0 #26 November 18, 2005 Quote>What the hell does that mean? It means you're fast! That's s compliment. Scott McClellan compares him to Moore, you compare him to Moorea few hours later. Ah, if only I had cable, and saw the news conference. Then, I'd be "fast". I guess then, you can attribute it to "GMTA"... Quote>It's a valid comparison. No it's not. Moore is a moviemaker who stands to make a lot of money on his extreme opinions. Murtha is a veteran who has seen this for real, and has strong opinions on the subject - for which he will be crucified by the majority party. But it's a great slam, and I applaud you for rapidly copying it. Oh, and Murtha doesn't stand to win re-election in the liberal northeast by joining the shrill? He doesn't gain notariety in being suddenly outspoken on this matter? This guy was a nobody. His own district (Westmorland County) was touched by Flight 93 on 9/11. His rather sudden turn of ideas is nothing more than his next election.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #27 November 18, 2005 QuoteMy opinion is that they don't "think".......they "feel" Oh yeah? What did Bush say about Miers again? I believe it was "I know her heart." Notthing to do with this, but don't try to pin that not thinking thing on just the Democrats. On this issue, it can be said again. The Senate does NOT get the same info the prez does. They did NOT get all the same intelligence that he got. Therefore, even if they agreed at one time, the data that they did not receive may have made a world of difference in their decision at the time. Or maybe not. The key is that they did not have as big a picture as the prez. In any case, are they going about it the wrong way? Damn straight. But I expect nothing more from such a limp party.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 November 18, 2005 QuoteI'm sure we will see an increase in terrorist attcks because of people like Murtha. Or haven't you noticed the pattern yet. http://www.cnn.com/ QuoteSuicide bombers killed dozens of people today in Baghdad and near the Iranian border in Khanaqin. The blasts came a day after Rep. John Murtha, a Democratic hawk on defense issues, sparked a firestorm of debate when he called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. and from CNN of all sources. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, logical fallacy #69... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #29 November 19, 2005 >The Senate does NOT get the same info the prez does. They did NOT get all the same intelligence that he got. Therefore your belief is that the Senators in question are a bunch of dumb asses. I guess those Senators that set on the Intel. Com. don't have access to shit. I guess having a Secret clearance so they can have access to secure information was a waste of time and money. Well I'm now getting alittle more informed by your sources that in fact our Senators are truely a bunch of inept asses incapable of doing their job. As far as the big picture? Maybe they just got the 5X7's in the mail along with drawings done in colors. Nothing personnal but you truely don't have much of an idea as to what they knew or when they knew it. I do agree with you though they don't know more than then Prez, because they are truely a bunch of dumb asses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #30 November 19, 2005 >Therefore your belief is that the Senators in question are a bunch of dumb asses. No. They are (mostly) smart people without access to good intelligence. If you have poor information you make poor decisions even if you're smart. > I guess those Senators that set on the Intel. Com. don't have access to shit. They don't have access to the PDR. >I guess having a Secret clearance so they can have access to >secure information was a waste of time and money. Well, not a complete waste of money. At least they can attack people's wives when they disagree with the administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteMy opinion is that they don't "think".......they "feel" Oh yeah? What did Bush say about Miers again? I believe it was "I know her heart." Notthing to do with this, but don't try to pin that not thinking thing on just the Democrats. On this issue, it can be said again. The Senate does NOT get the same info the prez does. They did NOT get all the same intelligence that he got. Therefore, even if they agreed at one time, the data that they did not receive may have made a world of difference in their decision at the time. Or maybe not. The key is that they did not have as big a picture as the prez. In any case, are they going about it the wrong way? Damn straight. But I expect nothing more from such a limp party. As for the intell? Well, you are correct if you speak of the sentate in total.....but.......the senate intell committee gets the same intell as the president I believe that Harry Reid is on the intell committee?? The wrong way, your opinion and you and I will continue to disagree here and only time will show who is correct. The "I know her heart" comment has some relevance here? OK, if you say so........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 November 19, 2005 Quote>Therefore your belief is that the Senators in question are a bunch of dumb asses. No. They are (mostly) smart people without access to good intelligence. If you have poor information you make poor decisions even if you're smart. > I guess those Senators that set on the Intel. Com. don't have access to shit. They don't have access to the PDR. >I guess having a Secret clearance so they can have access to >secure information was a waste of time and money. Well, not a complete waste of money. At least they can attack people's wives when they disagree with the administration. Well, lets take a look at what the illustrious Democrats do when they get intel: QuoteHarry Reid Didn’t Read Prewar Intel Report by Amanda B. Carpenter Posted Nov 18, 2005 Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who is leading a spurious Democratic campaign that alleges President Bush misled the country into war, admitted last week that he did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet prepared in 2002 at the request of Senate Democrats specifically so Congress would have up-to-date intelligence as it debated whether to authorize the Iraq war. The NIE was delivered to Congress at the beginning of October 2002, and Reid voted on Oct. 11, 2002, in favor of authorizing the war. The NIE concluded that Saddam Hussein’s regime was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and possessed chemical and biological weapons (see story by Terence Jeffrey earlier this week). Reid locked the Senate into a controversial closed session three weeks ago to demand accountability on prewar intelligence, but it turns out he did not bother in 2002 to thoroughly familiarize himself with what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying about Iraq in the run-up to his own pro-war vote. In an April 7, 2004, article by Dana Priest, the Washington Post reported that few members of Congress read the full 92-page October 2002 NIE. “No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material,” the Post said. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10375 Didn't even fucking read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #33 November 19, 2005 QuoteWhat you fail to understand is this war will be won or lost on the will of the American people. Just like Vietnam was. You would have to be living in a major state of denial to not understand that OBL and Zarqawi have studied the lessons of Vietnam. What you fail to understand is that no occupation in the history of the world has ever proven successfulillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhat you fail to understand is this war will be won or lost on the will of the American people. Just like Vietnam was. You would have to be living in a major state of denial to not understand that OBL and Zarqawi have studied the lessons of Vietnam. What you fail to understand is that no occupation in the history of the world has ever proven successful What you fail to understand is we have no desire to occupy. We will leave as soon as the Iraqi Govt. asks us to leave and we feel their security forces can do their job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purnell 0 #35 November 19, 2005 How about Germany, 1945-2003. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #36 November 19, 2005 Quote What you fail to understand is we have no desire to occupy. We will leave as soon as the Iraqi Govt. asks us to leave and we feel their security forces can do their job. Shouldn't that be "they", not "we"? I think you just inadvertantly revealed your real agenda.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuote What you fail to understand is we have no desire to occupy. We will leave as soon as the Iraqi Govt. asks us to leave and we feel their security forces can do their job. Shouldn't that be "they", not "we"? I think you just inadvertantly revealed your real agenda. WE being us and the Iraqis. I think you just revealed your agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #38 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote What you fail to understand is we have no desire to occupy. We will leave as soon as the Iraqi Govt. asks us to leave and we feel their security forces can do their job. Shouldn't that be "they", not "we"? I think you just inadvertantly revealed your real agenda. WE being us and the Iraqis. I think you just revealed your agenda. Lame attempt to cover your imperialist tracks. Your entire sentence structure reveals your true meaning. You used "we" three times, and your lame explanation makes no sense when the entire paragraph is analyzed. I don't recommend using Cheney as a role model, he got caught out too. Nixon was right, the cover-up is worse than the crime.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What you fail to understand is we have no desire to occupy. We will leave as soon as the Iraqi Govt. asks us to leave and we feel their security forces can do their job. Shouldn't that be "they", not "we"? I think you just inadvertantly revealed your real agenda. WE being us and the Iraqis. I think you just revealed your agenda. Lame attempt to cover your imperialist tracks. Your entire sentence structure reveals your true meaning. You used "we" three times, and your lame explanation makes no sense when the entire paragraph is analyzed. I don't recommend using Cheney as a role model, he got caught out too. Nixon was right, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Although admittedly poorly written, I brought the Iraqi Govt into the sentence and then said "we." Lame attempt to impose your Stalinist agenda by assuming "we" to be dictatorial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #40 November 19, 2005 QuoteHow about Germany, 1945-2003. I'll concede that piont. There are differences here though..illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #41 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow about Germany, 1945-2003. I'll concede that piont. There are differences here though.. Then, there was the post-WW2 US occupation of Japan, 1945-52. How was that unsuccessful? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow about Germany, 1945-2003. I'll concede that piont. There are differences here though.. Then, there was the post-WW2 US occupation of Japan, 1945-57. How was that unsuccessful? Don't forget the European occupation of America 1492-present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #43 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What you fail to understand is we have no desire to occupy. We will leave as soon as the Iraqi Govt. asks us to leave and we feel their security forces can do their job. Shouldn't that be "they", not "we"? I think you just inadvertantly revealed your real agenda. WE being us and the Iraqis. I think you just revealed your agenda. Lame attempt to cover your imperialist tracks. Your entire sentence structure reveals your true meaning. You used "we" three times, and your lame explanation makes no sense when the entire paragraph is analyzed. I don't recommend using Cheney as a role model, he got caught out too. Nixon was right, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Although admittedly poorly written, I brought the Iraqi Govt into the sentence and then said "we." Lame attempt to impose your Stalinist agenda by assuming "we" to be dictatorial. Now you're really thrashing and making yourself look silly. Why don't you just admit you made a Freudian slip? You cannot point to a single instance where I have advocated dictatorship, socialism, collectivization or mass murder of opponents.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 November 19, 2005 Quote You cannot point to a single instance where I have advocated dictatorship, socialism, collectivization or mass murder of opponents. Whooosh.. must be cold up there in Chicago today. Talk about making oneself look foolish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purnell 0 #45 November 19, 2005 Bwahahah. Touche. 500+ years and still going strong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 November 19, 2005 I am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist Happy now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 November 19, 2005 QuoteI am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist Happy now? "The truth will set you free".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteI am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist Happy now? "The truth will set you free". Naw, what will set me free is to get my guns and go conquer something. I'm looking forward to enslaving men, raping women and forcing children to work in my sweatshops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #49 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist Happy now? "The truth will set you free". Naw, what will set me free is to get my guns and go conquer something. I'm looking forward to enslaving men, raping women and forcing children to work in my sweatshops. So you still remember the the GOP's platform from the 2000 Convention.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 November 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist I am a closet Imperialist Happy now? "The truth will set you free". Naw, what will set me free is to get my guns and go conquer something. I'm looking forward to enslaving men, raping women and forcing children to work in my sweatshops. So you still remember the the GOP's platform from the 2000 Convention. No, wrong. We wanted to pollute the water, starve old people by forcing them to eat dog food and make the air unbreathable. Another GOP failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
