hillbillypharmacist:

Comedy gold.


/is a goateed, non-vest wearing prof

Kerry and the rest of the Senate and the House voted to give Bush the authority to make the decision whether to go to war or not. Bush made the decision to go to war.

Blaming Kerry and any other Democrats who voted "for the Iraq war" is typical Bush-bot lies and spin, seeing how they voted to give Bush the authority, not a vote to go to war, specifically.

They gave Bush the authority to make that decision, and Bush made the wrong one.


NOW......feel free to lie and spin some more.

Got it? Good.

Wizzywig,

No one is going to vote for Kerry unless they fall for his bullcrap.

And Bush's bullcrap is somehow better than Kerry's? The list of BS Bush has pushed is voluminus.

If the people knwo what is good for them, they will vote for Bush.

Is that along the lines of the vague "Vote for Bush or die in another terrorist attack" threat that Cheney's been slinging as of late?

Kerry is a liar,

If your implying that Bush ISN'T a liar, your beyond hope at this point. By the way, Kerry's lies haven't led to a war with tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and over a thousand dead coalition troops. That seems like a worse result to me.

and unlike Bush he isn't at least trying to do the righ thing. He is just a liar..

Actually, Kerry wants to get us back on the right path by trying something new, since its pretty clear Bush has f*cked up so amazingly thus far. The WMD claim turned out to be a bust, the "capture Osama dead or alive" macho bullsh*t turned out to be just that- bullsh*t, and the lack of correct post war planning is evident every day over there.

Can you at least try to see the other sides point, instead of blindly following a single party? In case it helps, I did. I gave Bush a chance, and he screwed up. BIG.

oops, I'm not all that good with the HTML today, it seems...

""2004-10-08 02:02:28 PM Terraformer


Wizzywig:

Did you miss the part about IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION, and noone elses? Doesn't matter who agreed with him and who did not.
""

Wrong. Your logic was just as recently broken as your politcal hymen.

Did you miss the part in government class when you heard the president has to have authorization from congress to wage war? Wrong. It is not bush's fault. It is the fault of everyone who gave him the authority, and so on down thre chain, down to and including the people who voted for Bush, and supported this war.

That however, is what YOU are saying, whether or not you meant to. for me, there is no blame to be placed. This was the right thing to do.

Mr. Clarence Butterworth
Kerry and the rest of the Senate and the House voted to give Bush the authority to make the decision whether to go to war or not. Bush made the decision to go to war.
...
They gave Bush the authority to make that decision, and Bush made the wrong one.

Riiiight. No culpability there at all. It's as clear as day.

Do you import, or grow your own?

Cuyose
"If Clinton would have done the same thing after the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, and the first World Trade Tower attack, maybe we would have thwarted the planning for the 911 attack. "

You really don't know much do you? Go research all those bombings and who were behind them. Then find those names and look where most are now? Clinton, though a crappy president, actualyl went after these guys pretty hard. it may not of been bombing but some were put in prisons due to foreign governments helping track them and others are dead. Did Clinton screw up while in office? Yep so did republicans who wasted 40 million on Ken Star and his campaign to rid the world of Clinton.

Mr. Clarence Butterworth,

Slick is that you?

/utterly preposterous spin from an utterly preposterous spinboy.

/yawn
didn't take long for the someone to blame clinton for 9/11
and Cuyose is the one.

Maybe if Bush had listened to his anti-terror czar Richard Clark something could have been done (BTW the 9/11 commission confirms almost everything what Clark had said, its in the new paperback version of his book), Maybe if bush hadn't taken a month long vacation before 9/11 something could have been, maybe if bush had paid attention to the CIA memo that stated al-qeda was intent on using airplanes as weapon on buildings in New York something could have been done?

yes, Mr Clarence Butterworth, you've nailed it.

Anyone see 'The Daily Show' awhile back, I forget who the guest was, but John Stewart nailed it on the head perfectly.

He said something to the effect of what you and I are trying to educate the Bushies about.

Stewart said, in effect, "we gave Bush the 'bat' (euphemism for 'stick' over 'carrot') to go to war, but we didn't know he would immediately go 'oh, THANK YOU.' (grabs bat, mimics bashing Iraq with said bat).

Hard to explain, but you get the drift. Voted for the decision, not the action. And only after all other avenues exhausted. They weren't.

Wizzywig
Did you miss the part in government class when you heard the president has to have authorization from congress to wage war?

Technically, I do not believe the US ever declared war.

It is not bush's fault.
It's unpossible that the responsibility for decision making ends with the president. OK.

It is the fault of everyone who gave him the authority, and so on down thre chain, down to and including the people who voted for Bush, and supported this war.

I believe that you have the authority to protect yourself and your family. I would vote to provide you with that right. If you misuse that right, the responsibility for misuse falls on your shoulders. Not mine or anyone else who believes you have the right to defend yourself. Or no?

""2004-10-08 02:08:03 PM Mr. Clarence Butterworth


Kerry and the rest of the Senate and the House voted to give Bush the authority to make the decision whether to go to war or not. Bush made the decision to go to war.

Blaming Kerry and any other Democrats who voted "for the Iraq war" is typical Bush-bot lies and spin, seeing how they voted to give Bush the authority, not a vote to go to war, specifically.

They gave Bush the authority to make that decision, and Bush made the wrong one.""

WTF? you cannot be serious. I fully blame congress for this as much as I do Bush. That is the stupidest disgrace to logic I have ever seen, Butternuts. It is as much Kerry's fault as Bush's. Holy crap you are twisted and wrong.


""2004-10-08 02:08:54 PM Hugh G. Rection

If your implying that Bush ISN'T a liar, your beyond hope at this point. By the way, Kerry's lies haven't led to a war with tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and over a thousand dead coalition troops. That seems like a worse result to me. ""

I am not implying Bush is not a liar. He is a politician.


""Actually, Kerry wants to get us back on the right path by trying something new, since its pretty clear Bush has f*cked up so amazingly thus far. The WMD claim turned out to be a bust, the "capture Osama dead or alive" macho bullsh*t turned out to be just that- bullsh*t, and the lack of correct post war planning is evident every day over there. ""

Are you serious? GET US BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK?! The man has no plan for Iraq, and just yesterday said "I do not even know what I will find when I take office". how can he play Monday Morning Quarterback when his idiot arse doesn't know the score, the players, hell or even the friggin GAME?!? Kerry couldn't find his ass with a map and a flashlight.

""Can you at least try to see the other sides point, instead of blindly following a single party? In case it helps, I did. I gave Bush a chance, and he screwed up. BIG.
""

I see both sides, sir. I do not like GW, and I like Kerry less. Kerry has NO foreign policy and Bush's domestic policy is, pardon the pun, an abortion.

honest to god? you guys are still going at it? can't everyone take a vow of silence until november 3rd?

think of the huge amounts of memory and bandwidth that have been wasted on fark flame wars since late-january, mid-february 2003.

won't someone think of the bandwidth?!?

Rye_ and judasdiomedes: You fellows are the heirs of a comfortable lie that has its roots in Chivalry. You see, all of this stuff about non-combatants and innocent civilians is just a lot of fluff built up by effete Europeans over the centuries in their twisted attempts to justify war by making up "rules" about it. If war has "rules," war becomes "legitimate."

Now, everyone knows that these "rules" have always been, and always will be, ignored or broken when a war takes place. In WWII, the rules were routinely and savagely shattered by all sides.

In ancient times, warfare was total. Anyone was fair game on the other side. Women supported the warriors by reparing their tack and cooking their food, children were seen as potential slaves at best and potential warriors at worst. There was no fluff surrounding the endeavor. It was ALWAYS us versus them with no holds barred.

Do you pay taxes to the U.S. Governement? You are a legitimate target for Al Qaeda and any other mujahed. Your wife is a legitimate target. Your children are legitimate targets. Your dog is a legitimate target if its slaughter will demoralize you.

If you live in Fallujah and the mujahedeen meet in the house next door, or indeed anywhere in your city, you are implicitly blessing their efforts, and you have chosen your side. You are a legitimate target.

Don't you see the trap you've fallen into? You abhor war, but then parse its inevitable effects. Your objection to "terrorism" or "collateral damage" is a surrender to the notion of war. By selectively choosing which death is "fair" and which death is "wrong," you have blessed the entire enterprise, and in doing so, have implicitly made yourself a legitimate target.

If your nation is at war, YOU are a combatant. There is no such thing as "terrorism." This is a word we use to fool ourselves about our own culpability.

This fellow Bigley was not murdered, he was killed in a war. He was in Iraq to make money off the invaders. He was a legitimate target. Period. The children and women of Fallujah being splattered by 500-lb laser-guided American bombs are legitimate targets. Period.

Grow up.

From Salon

Bush's mystery bulge
The rumor is flying around the globe. Was the president wired during the first debate?

Oct. 8, 2004 | Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer.

The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate?



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

I obtained a copy of the debate video and the Red Hawk image intensification software (developed for NASA), which combines multiple images into a sharper image and then had the contrast enhanced with Photoshop. Other than cropping and resizing of the image, no other manipulation was done. I stand 100% behind the fact that this image was taken from the debate video, independently confirming the Salon.com photo, but interpretation is up to you.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/images/bulge.jpg

Image moved...

http://www.electoral-vote2.com/images/bulge.jpg

First of all I blame Al-Quada for 911, but the simple fact remains, our ho-hum attitude towards this didn't help matters. If you can prove that the planning of 911 happened in the 8 months that Bush took office, than fine I will blame Bush and our intelligence agencies for mucking the whole thing up. Thats going to be pretty tough though seeing that there is irrefutable evidence that was in the planning for much longer than the 8 months leading to the attacks

FUBuddy:

No. Clinton was one of the best presidents this nation even had from a fiscal standpoint.

""I believe that you have the authority to protect yourself and your family. I would vote to provide you with that right. If you misuse that right, the responsibility for misuse falls on your shoulders. Not mine or anyone else who believes you have the right to defend yourself. Or no?
""

No. I like the broken John Stewart analogy. To make it correct, it should have read "John Kerry and others gave him the bat, after saying it needed to be used, and how, and then after Bush used it, they changed their story". THEN it would have worked. Your analogy, while a nice attempt is severely flawed. Kerry made speeches authorizing, and after the START OF THE WAR said the war was the right hting. It wasn't until the race got underway that he flip flopped and changed his story for the first of 50 times on this issue. Yes, they are both flip floppers.

Kooter, the August 6th PDB you refer to said that OBL wanted to attack us (no shiat, he did many times when Clinton was in charge), and said OBL was scoping out _federal buildings in NYC_. Last I checked, the WTC wasn't a federal building. The memo was too vague to act on. "They don't like us and they're planning something big". No Shiat. What was Bush supposed to do based on that?

Colgate

Hey, it's not my fault reason and common freaking sense are way beyond your grasp.


If the buck doesn't stop at Bush, where does it stop?

I think we all learned two things from this thread, Bush sucks, and so does Kerry. This election is turning into voting for whoever you hate less. That's not the way this country was meant to be run. The two party system is obviously broken. VOTE INDEPENDENT. Check out

www.badnarik.com

The libertarians have a good platform on almost every issue.

"Kooter, the August 6th PDB you refer to said that OBL wanted to attack us (no shiat, he did many times when Clinton was in charge), and said OBL was scoping out _federal buildings in NYC_. Last I checked, the WTC wasn't a federal building. The memo was too vague to act on. "They don't like us and they're planning something big". No Shiat. What was Bush supposed to do based on that?"

Nothing, I'm just stating that blaming Clinton for this shiat is even worse than blaming bush for this shiat. Neither should really be blamed but if you blame Clinton you're really reaching.

Franky17 - and that's all Bush was doing. Protecting his family (and their interests, friends in the region, his pension etc)

Damn liberals just don't get it.

Slightly OT- still a non-member but if I subscribe to Total Fark then I can block certain posters, right?

/looks at Wizzywig

Wizzywig:

Okay, I give up. Sadly you, and many of my fellow Americans, cannot or will not see the difference.

Voting to give Bush authority to wage war (which is what Congress did, allowing him to make the decision) is NOT the same as Bush using that authority (i.e., deciding to go to war with that authority). The decision was wrong, all that we were told as a rationale is a moving line in the sand. The reasons for war change every day almost (e.g., WMD, WMD-related activities, capability to make WMD, intent to make WMD, now it's oil-for-food).

There are none so blinded as those who will not see.

Cuyose: We have been directly or indirectly warring with the Arabs for fifty years. 9-11 was not terrorism, it was a counter-attack. If you support the long-standing American war against the Arabs, don't complain about counter-attacks. If you support the President, that's fine with me. But don't try to tell me his policies are very smart, because they are not. He has taken Osama's bait and escalated a conflict which we cannot win. I don't think that is very smart.

""If the buck doesn't stop at Bush, where does it stop?
""

It doesn't stop. stopping the buck in this case is a misnomer, in a sense. You are doing what is called a "witchhunt". You are looking for your little scape goat, and playing the blame game to simplistically blame it on a single man. It is as much congress's fault as Bush;s. But there again, I do not need to ponder YOUR dilemma. There is no blame to be assigned in my opinion. This war was the long overdue.

Wizzywig what the hell does Clinton fiscal policy have to do with past terorrist acts? Or is it just normal to rant against Clinton whenever his name comes up.

/already stated i didn't care for Clinton earlier, can I have my republican cookie now?

Canyoneer. I really wish you would listen to yourself speak. If the US intentionally bombed a CIVILIAN target in attempt to kill as many civilians as possible, would you refer to it as a counter-attack after 911. In your own words you did not, you called it murder. It is nice to see who you give the benefit of the doubt too.

Rye_

Usually when you cede absolute authority to someone, you no longer have that authority yourself. I can't boil it down any simpler unless you want a flow chart, diagram or finger painting.

Here is a brief look at what Bush has done:

He has taken away many of our civil liberties with the patriot act, and he has gotten us stuck in the middle of a guerilla war. America has never won a guerilla war in the 20th century. This one doesn't look any different. Vietnam was the perfect example of what will happen.

On the other hand, Kerry would help the continuing ruin of our economy by increasing taxes and inflation. For those of you who actually know economics, this is a disincentive to production, people will have no reason to work as hard. Also, Kerry probably will do no better in protecting our rights than bush has done.

When both candidates suck, it's time to go independent. the only hitch is that it requires intelligent thought instead of party rhetoric

sonny. I think it is nice that people want to block me simply because I proved some peopel worng and they do not agree with my veiws. how very communist of you!

""Wizzywig what the hell does Clinton fiscal policy have to do with past terorrist acts? Or is it just normal to rant against Clinton whenever his name comes up.
""

Nothing. I voted for Clinton. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Terra. I am not partisan or brainwashed. I am right. There is a difference.

They authorized him the authority to use force and indeed, that is NOT the same as telling him to wage war. It must be considered however, that it was clear from Kerrys speeches before AND AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, as well as those of his fellow senators and reps, that they knew what they were doing. They know full well what Bush was going to do. They alloowed him the authority to do what they had been asking him to. In truth, it is more their faul tthan his because they soapboxed and told him to do it.

Wizzywig

You are looking for your little scape goat, and playing the blame game to simplistically blame it on a single man.

No, Bush is the top man, the quarterback, el Jefe. He calls the shots, he gets the blame.

Kooter, if Clinton had responded swiftly and intensely to OBL's previous many attacks, then OBL would have either (a) been dead, or (b) been taken into custody when offered to Clinton, or (c) learned that we meant business. Instead, Clinton was busy getting his knob gobbled (can I say "knob gobbled" on fark?) instead of slapping down a terrorist who at the time was stoppable. So yes, I blame Clinton's inactions for allowing OBL to become ballsy enough to carry off 9/11.

Seems like post-Saddam Iraq is a bigger threat to the world than it was when Saddam was in power

Terraformer

I mean, can we break it down any more simply?

;)

The quarterback always gets blamed for the loss, but not alone. This is like the coach telling him when, how and why to do something, and then blaming him when the plan doesn't go perfectly.

wizzy, a witch hunt is not the desire to place blame on a single person. a witch hunt is when a small group unnessecarily tears apart a community in order to punish purported criminals. like salem did to witch in the 1690's, or mccarthy did to hollywood in the 1950's. if, let's say, congress decided that the administration were fascists, and put the entire administration on trial on flimsy grounds and conjectural evidence, and then convicted and exiled or executed all of them, that would be a witch hunt. again, placing all of the blame for a war on one man (whether deserved or not) is not a witch hunt.

/i'll play ref.

canyoneer

All I did was show you some photos of kids, the "unlucky" kids, who have been hurt, killed, and/or displaced because of war, and who have nothing to do with the politics and hatred involved in it. You can call them combatants all you like. I call them innocent.

""2004-10-08 02:34:20 PM Mr. Clarence Butterworth


Terraformer

I mean, can we break it down any more simply?

;)
""

No. But you also cannot explain it more complexly, because you lack the ability to comprehend the situation properly.

djh0101010

You are aware that Clinton did have a bunch of tomahawks launched at Al-Qaeda in Afganistan following the attacks, and that the Republicans accused him of wagging the dog and trying to distract from their Lewinski story?

Cuyose: Where did I use the word "murder?"

Kooter, if Clinton had responded swiftly and intensely to OBL's previous many attacks, then OBL would have either (a) been dead, or (b) been taken into custody when offered to Clinton, or (c) learned that we meant business. Instead, Clinton was busy getting his knob gobbled (can I say "knob gobbled" on fark?) instead of slapping down a terrorist who at the time was stoppable. So yes, I blame Clinton's inactions for allowing OBL to become ballsy enough to carry off 9/11.


Then you're a moron. Clinton responded and the supsected bombers were brought to justice. If Bush had paid attention more and not taken a vacation for over a month maybe it wouldn't have happened. It's almost like he didn't care what richard clark had to say. Sorry don't try to blame clinton on Bushs' failures.

if i owned a corporation with foreign (non-middle eastern) employees working in iraq...

i'd suggest to my employees that they get a GPS chip embedded into their bodies in a hidden location.

hell, the u.s. military should set traps like this...

let a few get captured, then zero in (using the GPS chips) on the bastards hideout.

then go in with guns blazing and exterminate the bastards.

my thoughts...

Nuke man, you might want to look at who voted for the patriot act. Hint: It passed the Senate 98:1:1. Pretty bipartison to me. Kerry voted for it. Edwards voted for it. This may surprise you, but Bush isn't in the senate.

Rye_: Fine. Believe your comfortable lie. It's a free country.

Wizzywig

I'll leave the spinning to you, thanks.

Wizzywig

sonny. I think it is nice that people want to block me simply because I proved some peopel worng and they do not agree with my veiws. how very communist of you!

Relax, junior. It was just a simple question. It doesn't indicate my political preference one way or the other. I can't be the only one around here who wouldn't mind blocking your drivel. Anyway, FArQ answered my question.

Seems like post-Saddam Iraq is a bigger threat to the world than it was when Saddam was in power

Of course, and the busheep don't realize it or want to realize that their president has made things worse for us. He truly is a Miserable Failure.