If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   President Obama handed a PDB titled "Al Qaeda determined to strike in US by July 2010." Let's see what happens   (usatoday.com) divider line 445
    More: Obvious, CIA Director Leon Panetta, South Carolina Republican, FBI Director Robert Mueller, FBI director, military tribunals, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Dianne Feinstein, al-Qaeda  
•       •       •

16108 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2010 at 7:23 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



445 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-03 12:11:33 PM
fracto73: IXI Jim IXI: YoMammaObama: I know your mom told you it was a unicorn at the "petting zoo"... And you still believe her and all... but...

Either way, it was still wrong of you to sit on its head.


Your conversation has inspired me to do a GIS for "unicorn". While most of the results were what one might expect I feel I must share this one, on account of its intrinsic WTF!?


I think that was the original poster for Robocop 3: The Robocop-out.
 
2010-02-03 12:15:54 PM
wejash: Spad31: Atillathepun: I have a feeling that clearing brush on the ranch is not on the agenda.

Too prissy to have a ranch and actually get his successful and attractive self dirty.

You mean like George W. Bush? Who bought a ranch just in time to run for office. And then sold it within months of leaving office, moving back to the comfortable suburbs?

Right.

Buying a prop farm certainly works to make tards who need a "cowboy" hero fall in line, apparently.


hey has anyone mentioned yet that shrub (lil bush), Massachusetts born and raised... prep school educated, ivy league college attending, failed texas oilman, who owned a 'ranch' in Texas was referred to by Texans as "all hat no cattle"
because said ranch was just a prop of a wealthy east-coast carpetbagger?
 
2010-02-03 12:15:55 PM
letdogsvote: I_C_Weener: the_falling_duck: fracto73: He will take the threat seriously and give instructions to ramp up security. The head of the TSA will increase security at airports, screening more closely for terrorist suspects.

Why does everyone think that an attack will happen with planes again? Seriously, a group of coordinated attacks on multiple malls with gunmen would be more effective in the TERROR part of terrorism.

Targets that are easier than flying planes into high rises:
-Little League games (it is America's past time)
-NFL/NBA/MLB/MLS games
-Schools, like they did in Russia (Chechnya?)
-the Mall of America...a la that zombie movie remake
-Boston commons with electronics
-Cruise ships
-regular ships...think of the mess if we had to increase security to all the shipping out there
-destroy a commuter train track just before a fully loaded AMTRACK passes by
-daycare and offices at a small midwestern city's government center
-college games


Man, that is so true. I've thought it and said it for years now. Terror groups really want to mess with the US psyche, they don't keep trying to strike high profile big coastal cities. I mean, yeah, they can try, but security is much higher and it's much tougher to do.

No. You want to mess with the US, you take a small plane (easily done) load it with explosives of various shapes and sizes and plenty of nails, and airburst the sucker at 100 feet at the fifty yard line of a well attended college football game in Indiana or Missouri or Utah, etc. Or you suicide bomb a church service in a small town in Kansas. Or you Oklahoma City-style car bomb a well attended high school basketball game in Ohio.

Makes me feel bad just posting this, but it's truth.



Far too much over head, it would make it easier to detect beforehand. Sure you will get a body count, but if you want terror there are small things you can do. How about every second Tuesday get like 5 guys to go out into rural places and run a school bus off the road. They just need to acquire a dump truck or big rig, use it once, then disappear only to repeat it the next month in a different state. How long do you think it would be before school buses had police escorts? Would kids be going to school on that day? It would be very effective and hard to deny the effect with so many kids out of school.
 
2010-02-03 12:17:44 PM
I_C_Weener: Lee Hamilton (D) thinks that Obama might be asleep at the switch

In Indiana, -D means 'right-wing'. -R means 'batshiat looney far right-wing'
 
2010-02-03 12:19:42 PM
blindio: "According to the lead prosecutor in the case Berger only took copies of classified information and no original material was destroyed."

Yep. Just the copies that were used in meetings, the ones that had hand written notes on them were taken. The "original" pdf documents were all left in place.

Now, were the notes just Bill's doodles of Monica in her 'Humidor' position, or was there something more? Thanks to Sandy, we'll never know for sure. And all he had to do was pay 50K in fines. I'm sure he makes that in one speaking engagement.
 
2010-02-03 12:21:45 PM
What ever Barack Obama does about Al Qaeda, you can bet the republicans will be hoping he fails. Because they love America so much...and are so patriotic and stuff.
 
2010-02-03 12:31:45 PM
glenlivid: What ever Barack Obama does about Al Qaeda, you can bet the republicans will be hoping he fails. Because they love America so much...and are so patriotic and stuff.


He will fail. It is not possible to stop all terrorist attacks. No one could do it.
 
2010-02-03 12:32:10 PM
hitlersbrain: NeedleGuy: HansensDisease: At least he won't be stupid enough to attack a country that had nothing to do with it.

Give him time. Iran is starting to get uppity.

/hasn't seen the O man do anything different than W so far.

NOT torturing illegal prisoners.

NOT alienating out staunchest allies.

NOT invading countries to uphold his feudal family honor.

Please think before you type. Your ignorance is embarrassing.



Are you sure about that? I haven't read, anywhere, that the CIA's top secret interrogation shops have closed. The CIA takes orders from the President only. Closing-down those torture shops is something this admin would definitely boast about. If it could.

Gitmo is STILL holding prisoners that we are quite certain do not/never did pose any threat. None of them, TTBOMK, have been formally charged. What exactly *is* your definition of 'illegal prisoner', other than what Air America (or Rush Limbaugh, if you're reading this and you're a drooler from the "other team") tells you?

The other two "NOT"s I'll grant you, but you're sadly mistaken if you assume that Obama is anything other than Bush's third term...or if you prefer, Clinton's fifth term.

There is no "left" in US government.
There is no "right" in US government.
There are just left/right words, and corporate-dictated actions.

Which do you think is a better indicator of intent: what someone says, or what they do?

Here're A Few Examples:
Obama and Congress *say* that they want the economic crisis solved. Then they appoint, and reappoint, the same people who directly enabled the economic crisis to occur in the first place - the same people who claim they were blindsided by it - and *say* "These Guys Can Fix It!"

Riiiiiiiiight. And yet America buys it (or more likely, is confused and complacent about it).

Obviously, the goal is NOT to fix the crisis (the actions are counter to the words). So, what IS the goal?

I dunno, maybe the goal is to disguise a semi-controlled devaluation of the dollar (a devaluation is an age-old way to default on debt) and, at the same time, force the US dollar into parity with the undervalued, dollar-pegged, Chinese renminbi making US exports competitive again.

Which explanation makes more sense from a cui bono perspective? Hint: we cannot benefit, medium/long term from a return to the past two decade's status quo.

There are other possible reasons that make sense too. An End-Of-Days-style money-grab by the controlling elite - the Plutocracy or Corporatocracy if you will - is not as conspiracy-theory as it sounds.

The one thing we can *know* is that the stated goals are either an obvious lie or a symptom of incompetence on a scale never seen before.


Bush and Obama say they want terrorism to stop, yet they keep blowing up weddings and picnics with Predator UAVs (only 3 confirmed AQ kills with a UAV, more than 10x that many civilians). Nothing advertises "Join AQ Today!" sentiment faster than a UAV ripping through a wedding reception, and as anyone familiar with .mil PR can tell you, it's only a "mistake" the first time it happens. If you create 10 AQ recruits with each civilian you maime/kill, and UAVs only nail 1:10 AQ types, then UAV strikes guarantee a neverending supply of AQ types. Think it's incompetence? Maybe, but there are no better problem solvers on this planet than the US military.

The actions run counter to the stated goal. It's either intentional or teetotal incompetence.

Maybe the real goal is a 'controlled burn' of pro-AQ sentiment (remember, actions define true intent), but why that is a goal is anyone's guess. Unless maybe US business interests in the region benefit from continuous military presence. What businesses have interests in the region? Do they have any political ties?


Stop listening to what politicians and MSM say, and start interpreting what the politicians actually do. (Honest) history books are filled with what was *done* - not with an era's political (or Glenn Beck's or Keith Olbermann's) soundbites.
 
2010-02-03 12:33:20 PM
Joe Blowme: fasahd: Farkomatic:
So, even after Iraq complied fully with the UN demands - a 13,000 page dossier discounted by Bush as full of lies, but turned out to be far more truthful than our intelligence services - and no WMD could be found even with unfettered access, Bush pulled the trigger. The only way this could be done legally is attacking in self defense - 100% connected to Iraq's ability to induce terror with WMD.
.

So what is your opinion of the Bush Doctrine Sarah?

Uh, umm...

You know...
"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate".

Arbitrarily killing someone because you have a hunch they kinda maybe sorta might be a threat to you at some time in the future is not self defense. It's unprecedented in our history and it's not legal. Go shoot somebody and try that defense in a court.

What really sucks though is it was a poor chess move. Suddam had Iran in check. Now look where we are. It was a doublecross and mob hit by an oil baron and his cronies for personal gain with the U.S. military as cannon fodder pawns.

Yea, now the Irainian people are standing up to the islamic thugs risking death. But that had nothing to do with liberating Iraq.


I'm certainly not convinced that it did and I do think you can show causation.
There are a lot of factors at play.
They have the influence of the Internet.
Unlike Iraq, Iran had tasted Western culture under the Shah. It has a burgeoning and restless youth populace:
Population
31,234,000.(April 2009 IMF est.)
Age structure
0-14 years: 39.7%
15-64 years: 57.3%
65 years and over: 3%


Some German Girl once Blogged: It's okay America, we elected a
guy like that once. But twice? How farked up are you?
Iranian youth are just trying to pre-empt the sort of thing
Hitler and Bush did.
 
2010-02-03 12:35:50 PM
fracto73: glenlivid: What ever Barack Obama does about Al Qaeda, you can bet the republicans will be hoping he fails. Because they love America so much...and are so patriotic and stuff.


He will fail. It is not possible to stop all terrorist attacks. No one could do it.


I think it's also a bit much to say Republicans (or anyone) hope for a successful attack for political advantage.
Or at least I hope it is.
 
2010-02-03 12:35:57 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: AmazingRuss: Fark It: NeedleGuy: HansensDisease: At least he won't be stupid enough to attack a country that had nothing to do with it.

Give him time. Iran is starting to get uppity.

/hasn't seen the O man do anything different than W so far.

Besides taking Afghanistan and healthcare seriously?

Well that's kind of sad. Taking something seriously and failing at it strikes me as worse than not failing at something you don't take seriously.

/not that he was the moran that started this shiat

It isn't just the failing. It is the failing on a "historic scale".
He had the press behind him
He had public opinion clammering for it
He was really popular so much so he wins the nobel peace prize based on his potential
He had Pelosi and Reid as strong supporters
He had the house
He had the super majority in the senate

He could have had healthcare done in July, taken a break in August and done some other historic thing from Sept to Dec.


He also inherited two wars and a destroyed financial system propped up by a trillion dollars worth of borrowed bailing wire and bondo. If he can keep the whole shiathouse from going up in flames for a few more years, that will be quite an achievement in itself. It won't get him re-elected though.
 
2010-02-03 12:36:35 PM
i have yet to read the thread, but surely everyone here agrees that Al-Qaeda attacked America before Bush was President, that Al-Qaeda would have attacked American even if Gore had been President, and that if America is attacked by Al-Qaeda after Bush is no longer President, the blame doesn't lay on his shoulder, right?

Nor should Obama be blamed for this, because even if McCain had won, Al-Qaeda would have attacked anyway, right?

Everyone here agrees that it would be a very horrible thing if terrorist attacks were to happen here, that no one wants and we can only pray or hope that such attacks do not materializes....

Right?
 
2010-02-03 12:40:31 PM
It may be time to get out the duct tape and plastic wrap again.
 
2010-02-03 12:42:53 PM
skullkrusher: fracto73: glenlivid: What ever Barack Obama does about Al Qaeda, you can bet the republicans will be hoping he fails. Because they love America so much...and are so patriotic and stuff.

He will fail. It is not possible to stop all terrorist attacks. No one could do it.

I think it's also a bit much to say Republicans (or anyone) hope for a successful attack for political advantage.
Or at least I hope it is.


Are you kidding me?
 
2010-02-03 12:43:03 PM
Tatsuma: if McCain had won, Al-Qaeda would have attacked anyway, right?

McCain said he knows how to catch Bin Laden but it seems to be his secret.
 
2010-02-03 12:48:33 PM
Tatsuma: Everyone here agrees that it would be a very horrible thing if terrorist attacks were to happen here, that no one wants and we can only pray or hope that such attacks do not materializes....

You! Stop being reasonable! We won't stand for it!
 
2010-02-03 12:49:10 PM
rnld: McCain said he knows how to catch Bin Laden but it seems to be his secret.

My guess is that his plan prominently features a belt and an onion.
 
2010-02-03 12:49:50 PM
fracto73: Your conversation has inspired me to do a GIS for "unicorn". While most of the results were what one might expect I feel I must share this one, on account of its intrinsic WTF!?

Holy hell, that Unicorn is going to have a sore back in the morning...
 
2010-02-03 12:50:42 PM
glenlivid: skullkrusher: fracto73: glenlivid: What ever Barack Obama does about Al Qaeda, you can bet the republicans will be hoping he fails. Because they love America so much...and are so patriotic and stuff.

He will fail. It is not possible to stop all terrorist attacks. No one could do it.

I think it's also a bit much to say Republicans (or anyone) hope for a successful attack for political advantage.
Or at least I hope it is.

Are you kidding me?


you made an assertion based on nothing. I say I don't think it's the case - also based on nothing. Would they like to see the Pres fail in reviving the economy? Yeah, that I would believe. Do they want to see Americans die for political gain? No, I don't think so. Would they use such a thing for political gain? Probably.
So no, I am not kidding you.
 
2010-02-03 12:52:34 PM
fasahd: It has a burgeoning and restless youth populace:
Population
31,234,000.(April 2009 IMF est.)
Age structure
0-14 years: 39.7%
15-64 years: 57.3%
65 years and over: 3%


Iran has a population of at least double the number that you're talking about - nearly 70mm. The rest of your stats are wrong. I think that you cut and pasted from the wrong page at the CIA World Factbook.
 
2010-02-03 12:53:36 PM
It's so sad the middle east is a problem that's still affecting that region.
 
2010-02-03 12:56:53 PM
In August 2001 when Bush got the memo with the headline Bin Laden determined to attack the US, the FAA wasn't asked to tighten security, there was no public release of information to keep on alert.

The last time the color coded terror alert system was rasied was right before the 2004 election.
 
2010-02-03 12:59:27 PM
Giblet:

...

Stop listening to what politicians and MSM say, and start interpreting what the politicians actually do. (Honest) history books are filled with what was *done* - not with an era's political (or Glenn Beck's or Keith Olbermann's) soundbites.


Your points are well reasoned and thought out. I prefer to think (but have no proof) that Obama is just a skilled politician walking a tightrope at a time when a good portion of the country is going batshiat crazy from aging, paranoid brains close to death.

We still have the cuban prisoner camp because of a concerted effort by his opponents from accepting the prisoners into civilian prisons for bogus 'security' reasons.

I know nothing about 'secret' prisons so cannot comment.

Much like Lincoln pre-civil war, he has to deal with evil (not sure what else to call them) people in an effort to work out a plan best for everyone.

Letting the big wigs with all the money have a few concessions (like appointing some of their cronies) is a way to reassure them that he does not want to take away all their stuff in some socialist revolution.

Same with the redneck 'kill 'em all' types that would go nuts if we stopped all drone attacks on AQ. Though after the pirate shooting Obama seems to be a little blood thirsty himself when it comes to people attacking Americans.

A lot of democrats want him to strap on his six shooters and go to town on all the elitist baddies without realizing that, evil as they may be, these guys could seriously hurt our economy if they were scared enough.
 
2010-02-03 01:00:43 PM
Tatsuma: i have yet to read the thread, but surely everyone here agrees that Al-Qaeda attacked America before Bush was President, that Al-Qaeda would have attacked American even if Gore had been President, and that if America is attacked by Al-Qaeda after Bush is no longer President, the blame doesn't lay on his shoulder, right?

Nor should Obama be blamed for this, because even if McCain had won, Al-Qaeda would have attacked anyway, right?

Everyone here agrees that it would be a very horrible thing if terrorist attacks were to happen here, that no one wants and we can only pray or hope that such attacks do not materializes....

Right?


Which Bush?
Arabs living in abject poverty while the royals are in a lap of
luxury funded by our oil gluttony. Rub salt on the wound by putting a U.S. base in the country of their Holy of Holies "Mecca" to enforce the Status quo. Throw in a black sheep from a wealthy family of builders to stir the pot of revolt amongst the masses and bingo. The answer is to give up oil and let them have their 6th century world. I don't know if Gore would have appeased them in time but we would have been moving in that direction, so maybe it wouldn't have happened. Who knows? Anyway those who are serious about not wanting attacks should embrace any and all moves to end our oil dependence.
 
2010-02-03 01:01:37 PM
YoMammaObama: blindio: "According to the lead prosecutor in the case Berger only took copies of classified information and no original material was destroyed."

Yep. Just the copies that were used in meetings, the ones that had hand written notes on them were taken. The "original" pdf documents were all left in place.

Now, were the notes just Bill's doodles of Monica in her 'Humidor' position, or was there something more? Thanks to Sandy, we'll never know for sure. And all he had to do was pay 50K in fines. I'm sure he makes that in one speaking engagement.


Go ahead and cite that please. Since you were hammering others about citing what they say I'm sure you won't mind. Personally, I think you're reaching at this point. If you have a citation to prove it I'd be interested to see it.
 
2010-02-03 01:03:19 PM
skullkrusher: stewmadness: skullkrusher: YoMammaObama: Yeah, keep farking that chicken jim... Just don't dress it all up and pretend it is something it isn't. Oh wait, you can't help it can you?

I spent last weekend with one of Ernie Anastos' colleagues. Ernie has yet to offer any explanation as to what the phrase means. Figured I'd give everyone an update on that.



I'm friends with Merlin Olsen.

yeah... having a tangential acquaintanceship with a local news guy is totally worthy a namedrop.
It really was just an update on the chicken thing and I had to give the reason why I knew this.

funny response though.


thanks, in no real way was it supposed to have anything to do with what you were saying, it was just the first thing in my mind... couldn't even find a gif of the scene, but oh well
 
2010-02-03 01:04:41 PM
Tat'dGreaser: First off, there will never be an attack as large as 9/11.

Not to be a fearmongerer, but I'd be hesitant about making a bold claim like that. The concerns about terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon aren't entirely unfounded. I'm not saying I think it will happen, or that it's even likely to happen, but saying that something worse than 9/11 will never occur is putting an awful lot of faith in the ability of the intelligence community to detect and thwart a large-scale attack.
 
2010-02-03 01:05:32 PM
jonnyh:
Iran has a population of at least double the number that you're talking about - nearly 70mm. The rest of your stats are wrong. I think that you cut and pasted from the wrong page at the CIA World Factbook.


/Note to self: Self update wiki page (new window).
 
2010-02-03 01:06:21 PM
Atillathepun: NeedleGuy: HansensDisease: At least he won't be stupid enough to attack a country that had nothing to do with it.

Give him time. Iran is starting to get uppity.

/hasn't seen the O man do anything different than W so far.

Well, it hasn't been perfect, but Obama's administration has been the least lobbyist-riddled one for about 50 years at least. Again, not perfect. He asked for and got some waivers (meaning even where he "fudged" there was full disclosure.)

As opposed to the most lobbyist (and felon,) riddled administration in history under Bush.

/b-b-b-ut they're all the same!


HalliburtonLOL (new window)
 
2010-02-03 01:07:53 PM
Tatsuma: Al-Qaeda would have attacked American even if Gore had been President

The clinton admin seemed to have a better grasp of the terror situation so the warnings coming from a dozen intelligence agencies might have been heeded.
 
2010-02-03 01:10:55 PM
I can't believe people actually believe this shiat...

*sigh*

America: The country of pussies.
 
2010-02-03 01:16:08 PM
Headso: Tatsuma: Al-Qaeda would have attacked American even if Gore had been President

The clinton admin seemed to have a better grasp of the terror situation so the warnings coming from a dozen intelligence agencies might have been heeded.



Clearly. Sandy Burglar went to the National Archives and illegally stole documents in his socks and down his pants affirming just that. I'm sure of it.
 
2010-02-03 01:16:30 PM
They're actually almost right on time if you consider the timespan between the first WTC bombing (2/26/93) and 9/11/01 to today.
 
2010-02-03 01:20:29 PM
IXI Jim IXI: rnld: McCain said he knows how to catch Bin Laden but it seems to be his secret.

My guess is that his plan prominently features a belt and an onion.


It was the fashion at the time.
 
2010-02-03 01:20:51 PM
FishingWithFredo: Headso: Tatsuma: Al-Qaeda would have attacked American even if Gore had been President

The clinton admin seemed to have a better grasp of the terror situation so the warnings coming from a dozen intelligence agencies might have been heeded.


Clearly. Sandy Burglar went to the National Archives and illegally stole documents in his socks and down his pants affirming just that. I'm sure of it.


The all powerful Sandy Burglar also told bush to answer a question about the cole bombing with the need for a missile shield. He also told Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to think that too much time had lapsed to respond to the cole bombing when links were finally made to AQ.
 
2010-02-03 01:21:21 PM
FishingWithFredo: Clearly. Sandy Burglar went to the National Archives and illegally stole documents in his socks and down his pants affirming just that. I'm sure of it.

I think better evidence is a large opening in the skyline that was filled by something before Bush's term.

Can't quite remember what used to be there. Don't worry, it'll come to me...
 
2010-02-03 01:26:07 PM
amoricanCrowe: They're actually almost right on time if you consider the timespan between the first WTC bombing (2/26/93) and 9/11/01 to today.

Al Qaida orginally named 6 targets countries. They have successfully attacked 5 of the 6 named targetted countries. USA (of course), Spain (subway), UK (subway), Austrailia (via Bali nightclub bombings) and I forget the 5th country that was successfully attacked (was it France?). The only country on the list that hasn't been attacked yet is Canada.

Thank God Canada doesn't have any big events in 2010.
 
2010-02-03 01:26:55 PM
Joe Blowme: fasahd: Farkomatic:
So, even after Iraq complied fully with the UN demands - a 13,000 page dossier discounted by Bush as full of lies, but turned out to be far more truthful than our intelligence services - and no WMD could be found even with unfettered access, Bush pulled the trigger. The only way this could be done legally is attacking in self defense - 100% connected to Iraq's ability to induce terror with WMD.
.

So what is your opinion of the Bush Doctrine Sarah?

Uh, umm...

You know...
"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate".

Arbitrarily killing someone because you have a hunch they kinda maybe sorta might be a threat to you at some time in the future is not self defense. It's unprecedented in our history and it's not legal. Go shoot somebody and try that defense in a court.

What really sucks though is it was a poor chess move. Suddam had Iran in check. Now look where we are. It was a doublecross and mob hit by an oil baron and his cronies for personal gain with the U.S. military as cannon fodder pawns.

Yea, now the Irainian people are standing up to the islamic thugs risking death. But that had nothing to do with liberating Iraq.


Nope. Sure didn't. Believe it or not, some things happen in other countries without the United States' immediate input. That's why we call them "other countries" and not "territories". Couldn't the right have left their failed domino theories in Korea and Vietnam where they belong? How many more civilians need to be carpet bombed into oblivion before we accept that this crap doesn't work.
 
2010-02-03 01:27:48 PM
IXI Jim IXI: FishingWithFredo: Clearly. Sandy Burglar went to the National Archives and illegally stole documents in his socks and down his pants affirming just that. I'm sure of it.

I think better evidence is a large opening in the skyline that was filled by something before Bush's term.

Can't quite remember what used to be there. Don't worry, it'll come to me...


Yes because we all know Bush and Cheney blew up the towers to justify freeing 25 million brown people and killing a dictator.
Why do you hate brown peoples freedom?

/oh and to pump cash into industrial millitary complex
 
2010-02-03 01:27:51 PM
mrshowrules: The only country on the list that hasn't been attacked yet is Canada.

Maybe they were but nobody gave a shiat...
 
2010-02-03 01:29:52 PM
aden_nak: Joe Blowme: fasahd: Farkomatic:
So, even after Iraq complied fully with the UN demands - a 13,000 page dossier discounted by Bush as full of lies, but turned out to be far more truthful than our intelligence services - and no WMD could be found even with unfettered access, Bush pulled the trigger. The only way this could be done legally is attacking in self defense - 100% connected to Iraq's ability to induce terror with WMD.
.

So what is your opinion of the Bush Doctrine Sarah?

Uh, umm...

You know...
"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate".

Arbitrarily killing someone because you have a hunch they kinda maybe sorta might be a threat to you at some time in the future is not self defense. It's unprecedented in our history and it's not legal. Go shoot somebody and try that defense in a court.

What really sucks though is it was a poor chess move. Suddam had Iran in check. Now look where we are. It was a doublecross and mob hit by an oil baron and his cronies for personal gain with the U.S. military as cannon fodder pawns.

Yea, now the Irainian people are standing up to the islamic thugs risking death. But that had nothing to do with liberating Iraq.

Nope. Sure didn't. Believe it or not, some things happen in other countries without the United States' immediate input. That's why we call them "other countries" and not "territories". Couldn't the right have left their failed domino theories in Korea and Vietnam where they belong? How many more civilians need to be carpet bombed into oblivion before we accept that this crap doesn't work.


I can think of one off hand...
 
2010-02-03 01:30:01 PM
fireclown: fracto73: Ok, I will spot you Ted Kennedy. You are still down one. Who would that be?

Not sure where the other seat went. I'm blaming it on the independent senators in Connecticut and Vermont who sit on democrat controlled committees.


ftfy
 
2010-02-03 01:34:19 PM
mrshowrules: amoricanCrowe: They're actually almost right on time if you consider the timespan between the first WTC bombing (2/26/93) and 9/11/01 to today.

Al Qaida orginally named 6 targets countries. They have successfully attacked 5 of the 6 named targetted countries. USA (of course), Spain (subway), UK (subway)...


ZOMG! There is a "Subway" going floor by floor as they build the new tower! They're planting explosive BMT's at key structural points until they reach the 40th floor. We're all doomed!
 
2010-02-03 01:34:36 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: fireclown: fracto73: Ok, I will spot you Ted Kennedy. You are still down one. Who would that be?

Not sure where the other seat went. I'm blaming it on the independent senators in Connecticut and Vermont who sit on democrat controlled committees.

ftfy



They are not democrats. They can not be counted on to vote with the democrats. If you simply said that the democrats had a historic majority in the senate I wouldn't care. If you said they squandered the democratic majority and got nothing done, I would agree.
 
2010-02-03 01:37:50 PM
Joe Blowme: Yes because we all know Bush and Cheney blew up the towers to justify freeing 25 million brown people and killing a dictator.
Why do you hate brown peoples freedom?


We were talking about his grasp on the terror situation, not about him wanting to get back at the man who tried to kill his daddy.
 
2010-02-03 01:42:16 PM
IXI Jim IXI: Joe Blowme: Yes because we all know Bush and Cheney blew up the towers to justify freeing 25 million brown people and killing a dictator.
Why do you hate brown peoples freedom?

We were talking about his grasp on the terror situation, not about him wanting to get back at the man who tried to kill his daddy.


Oh like people who paid families of suicide bombers? Or let wanted terrorist stay in thier country? got it, i forgot the Iraqi resolution passed by congress had just 1 reason, "They tried to kill my dady!" my bad
 
2010-02-03 01:42:39 PM
I_C_Weener: Antimatter: I_C_Weener: fracto73: That is an awesome link!
There were still not 60 democrats.

So this is the talking point I've been waiting for. True as it is, it is still a large majority, even now, than Bush ever enjoyed. And yet, the only thing coming out of Congress is spending bills. I weep for our future. Well, I would if I didn't enjoy schadenfreud so much.

The democrats don't march in lockstep like the GOP does. Goppers generally vote for whomever their masters tell them to.

So, you admit that Democrats can't get anything done and Republicans are the party of progress?


Pushing an utterly regressive and poorly designed agenda into law hardly is "progressive".
 
2010-02-03 01:44:39 PM
Crotchrocket Slim: I_C_Weener: Antimatter: I_C_Weener: fracto73: That is an awesome link!
There were still not 60 democrats.

So this is the talking point I've been waiting for. True as it is, it is still a large majority, even now, than Bush ever enjoyed. And yet, the only thing coming out of Congress is spending bills. I weep for our future. Well, I would if I didn't enjoy schadenfreud so much.

The democrats don't march in lockstep like the GOP does. Goppers generally vote for whomever their masters tell them to.

So, you admit that Democrats can't get anything done and Republicans are the party of progress?

Pushing an utterly regressive and poorly designed agenda into law hardly is "progressive".


Then why do people call Obama progressive?
 
2010-02-03 01:46:11 PM
dustman81: FlashHarry: Fart_Machine: Isn't this part of the GOP wish list?



on one hand, it would give them a chance to pile on obama, demanding his impeachment (just like the dems did with bush after 9/11 - oh, wait!) but on the other, they risk the nation rallying around him and pumping his approval up to 90%. and since it's unlikely obama will attack mexico or albania in response, his approval would likely stay there for a while.

It'd be a Teabagger's wetdream as they will say "See, Obama failed from protecting us from the terrists."


I don't understand, what is a "terrist"? I know quite a few "Teabaggers" and none of them talk about "terrists".
 
2010-02-03 01:46:39 PM
Joe Blowme: Crotchrocket Slim: I_C_Weener: Antimatter: I_C_Weener: fracto73: That is an awesome link!
There were still not 60 democrats.

So this is the talking point I've been waiting for. True as it is, it is still a large majority, even now, than Bush ever enjoyed. And yet, the only thing coming out of Congress is spending bills. I weep for our future. Well, I would if I didn't enjoy schadenfreud so much.

The democrats don't march in lockstep like the GOP does. Goppers generally vote for whomever their masters tell them to.

So, you admit that Democrats can't get anything done and Republicans are the party of progress?

Pushing an utterly regressive and poorly designed agenda into law hardly is "progressive".

Then why do people call Obama progressive?



People also call him a Socialist and a Kenyan. I don't think any of those people care about the truth.
 
Displayed 50 of 445 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report