Skip navigation

Rosa Parks Rocks

or Register to post new content in the forum

60 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 31, 2005 3:34 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong).<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

[/quote]

Mike, the problem with all this is that you actually believe it. Still clinging to the WMD were moved before we got there spin? Or are you on the we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here band wagon? Mike, I don't know how to break this to you , but there is no Santa Claus. I'm sorry that I had to be the one to tell you.

Remember, all of this started with getting Osama Bin Laden. Don't hear too much about him these days. But not to worry, even though he is no longer our number one worry, despite his being our number one threat, he hasn't forgotten us. We're still in the bullseye, his number one target. Maybe if we invade another country, it will help. How about France, we don't like them and Lance isn't in the tour next year anyway.

Say what you will about Clinton. Those towers were still standing when he left office. Clinton's a stand up guy about the fact that his administration should shoulder some of the blame for the 9/11 attacks. Wouldn't it be refreshing if Bush did the same?

I'd be careful with the dissing of Clark. The guy was our number one expert on terrorism and Bush wouldn't give him face time because of protocall. The president just doesn't meet with underlings. Your cynically calling the foremost terrorism expert in the country a second string player is exactly the arrogant thinking the Bush administration employed in not letting him meet with the president. Clark did his best to convey his alarm at the coming attacks. He knew something was coming, not what, when or where. Obviously, Condi didn't take him seriously or didn't grasp what he was saying. At least those messeges weren't conveyed. We paid the price of this arrogance.  Even after the attacks Rice had to be led by the hand as high level terrorism experts gave her the who and why of what had happened.

Clark was shocked that the war planning taking place on September 12TH wasn't Afganistan, but Iraq. He was told to find an Iraq connection. His role in the administration was further marginalized when he reported back that there was no Iraq link to the attacks.

You're right we did have OBL in our sights a few times and we didn't get him. You also know that we didn't have a clear shot at him. If we did he'd be dead. At least, at that time, Clinton recognized him as the threat that he is and tried to get him. What's Bush doing? Think if we took some of this Iraq effort and applied it to finding bin laden, that he'd still be out there?

Oct 31, 2005 4:33 pm

[quote=tjc45][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong).

Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

[/quote]

Mike, the problem with all this is that you actually believe it. Still clinging to the WMD were moved before we got there spin?

[/quote]

Where did I say anything even remotely like “all the WMDs were moved”, and what does WMDs (and the failure of intelligence agencies to get that right) have to do with Clarke?

[quote=tjc45]

Remember, all of this started with getting Osama Bin Laden.

[/quote]

An interesting change of topic on your part, and since you mentioned him, why didn’t Clarke ever get him with all the opportunities he had? BTW, are you really of the mind that getting bin Laden now would slove our problem with Al Qeada? If so, you’re all alone on that one.

[quote=tjc45][

Say what you will about Clinton. Those towers were still standing when he left office.

[/quote]

Purely by luck. They didn’t come down in  1993 when he said “don’t worry about it” and we were attacked around the world for the entire eight years he was in office and he did precious little about it, even to the point of refusing to take OBL into custody and/or kill him when he had chances. Having said that, how did Clinton’s failures become the topic, aside from the fact that Clarke was in charge of the operation when Clinton was in office?

I personally wouldn’t bother to spend time on Clinton’s performance on the subject were it not the fact that his #1 man on the subject failed miserably and then wrote a book attacking Bush who had all of eight months to do what Clarke couldn’t do in eight years.

[quote=tjc45][

I'd be careful with the dissing of Clark. The guy was our number one expert on terrorism and Bush wouldn't give him face time because of protocall.

[/quote]

See above why it’s accurate to go after Clarke, and Bush didn’t brush him aside on protocol, he brushed him aside because unlike Clinton, Bush wanted to hear from the HEAD of the agency, not a worker bee who had a miserable track record to begin with.

[quote=tjc45][

The president just doesn't meet with underlings. Your cynically calling the foremost terrorism expert in the country a second string player is exactly the arrogant thinking the Bush administration employed in not letting him meet with the president.

[/quote]

What a load on nonsense. Clarke had zero record of success and Bush ELEVATED the sense of urgency by hearing directly from the HEAD of the agency. You hold Clarke out to be some superhero dispite his abject failures. Clinton wouldn't even meet regularly with his own head of the CIA or FBI.

[quote=tjc45][

 Clark did his best to convey his alarm at the coming attacks. He knew something was coming, not what, when or where.

[/quote]

“Something’s going to happen, I can’t tell you what, where, how or when, but ain’t I useful?” ROFLMAO….

Gee, let me do my Clarke impression; “Some number’s going to win the super lotto….”.

[quote=tjc45]

Even after the attacks Rice had to be led by the hand as high level terrorism experts gave her the who and why of what had happened.

[/quote]

More nonsense from Clarke. The guy’s already been caught in a lie about Condi not even knowing what AQ was until HE, super hero Clarke briefed her, why bother to listen to any more of his lies?

 

[quote=tjc45][

Clark was shocked that the war planning taking place on September 12TH wasn't Afganistan, but Iraq.

[/quote]

Says Clarke about meetings he didn’t attend, and contradicted by everyone who did. BTW, who was it who said of OBL, “If we don’t kill him here, he’ll boogy off to Iraq”?

[quote=tjc45][

You're right we did have OBL in our sights a few times and we didn't get him. You also know that we didn't have a clear shot at him. If we did he'd be dead.

[/quote]

Wrong, yet again. We had him under survaillence in a AQ training camp, as clear a shot as there will ever be, (we've all seen the video by now) and we let him go. We were offered him on three occasions, and while the spin is “It wasn’t a real offer” you can hear Clinton himself on tape say we didn’t take him because we didn’t have a crime to charge him with.

[quote=tjc45][

 At least, at that time, Clinton recognized him as the threat that he is and tried to get him.

[/quote]

Pure, unmitigated spin. Clinton/Clarke had numerous chances and they didn’t pull thr trigger. NOW, after the fact, they talk big. Need I remind you again of eight years of inaction and Clinton's refusal to even meet with his own CIA and FBI heads?

[quote=tjc45]

Think if we took some of this Iraq effort and applied it to finding bin laden, that he'd still be out there?

 [/quote]

You’re absolutely clueless if you think it requires the same force structure to assist Iraq in freeing itself from a dictator as it does to comb through caves in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. You’re even more clueless if you think a dead OBL would end the fight with Islamofacists.  

Oct 31, 2005 4:36 pm

[quote=SonnyClips] Kristol and Podoretz were teaching at City College and were not kiddies flitting around to make there parents mad. It really makes you uncomfortable that this is true.

[/quote]

I couldn't care less that Kristol had a brief fling with Marxism as a college student, even if you make it part of your signature line and/or repeat it in your every post. It just doesn't matter. Now, what really makes me uncomfortable is that I was once on the ranks of people as misguided as you are.

Oct 31, 2005 8:54 pm

[quote=SonnyClips]Brief fling? He said in the seventies that he was proud of his early Trotsky related perspective and he was a Prof not a student. Your whigging out dude. [/quote]

The link you provided, and everything else I've ever read on the subject said Irving, BILL'S FATHER,  was a Trotskite briefly in college. How you've managed to make that an issue at all, much less try to pretend that says anything about his SON, BILL, is a mystery for the ages.

Again, I was a liberal Democrat at a young age, Reagan was a union boss, BFD.

Oct 31, 2005 10:43 pm

[quote=SonnyClips]Now are you going to address me as if I claimed they worked for ZOG or the Trilateral commision. It's as if you respond without even reading the previous post. Just cherry picking from them in order to support your dilluded perspective. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

?

[quote=SonnyClips]

I am still interested in any historical perspectives you might have to support our tactics in Iraq.

[/quote]

What part of overthrow the dictator, allow the dictator-free country to produce a security force to defend itself and then allow them to elect a government isn't clear enough for you? You're the one with the burden f proof here, declaring we're doomed to failure because there's an insurgency, bestowing some sort of populist legitimacy on them that their tactics, and the voter turn-out with the risk of life present, don't entitle them to.

[quote=SonnyClips]

You claim I'm insincere...

[/quote]

I say your claims are hard to believe. One reason why is your incessant conspiracy mongering about the "real reason" went  to war, when the "real reason" is exactly what's been said all along. Every intelligence agency on the planet said he was still hiding WMDs. I hope you are sincere, but you’ll forgive me if I’m not wholly convinced.

 [quote=SonnyClips]

which frankly has a tinge of the old hackneyed "love it or leave it" line.

[/quote]

Oh spare me. Are you about to whine that your patriotism has been questioned? Straight down the talking points list, eh?

[quote=SonnyClips]

Are you saying that I wouldn't rather have Americans succeed in Iraq? Or is this just a dodge because you have no answers, no unique perspective if you will.

[/quote]

Obviously it isn’t because I lack answers. I've answered every question you've posed.

It's because Bush-rage has engulfed your party to the point that members will, as Wilson did, admit they would rather have had the election on the constitution go against progress, even though it would have harmed the US cause and the Iraqi cause, because it would have "taught Bush a lesson". Too many Democrats would welcome a setback if it harms Bush by extension. Don’t believe me? Read any Democrat website like Democrat Underground or Daily Kos.

Nov 1, 2005 1:39 am

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=tjc45][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong)

Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

[/quote]

Mike, the problem with all this is that you actually believe it. Still clinging to the WMD were moved before we got there spin?

[/quote]

Where did I say anything even remotely like “all the WMDs were moved”, and what does WMDs (and the failure of intelligence agencies to get that right) have to do with Clarke?

[quote=tjc45]

Remember, all of this started with getting Osama Bin Laden.

[/quote]

An interesting change of topic on your part, and since you mentioned him, why didn’t Clarke ever get him with all the opportunities he had? BTW, are you really of the mind that getting bin Laden now would slove our problem with Al Qeada? If so, you’re all alone on that one.

[quote=tjc45][

Say what you will about Clinton. Those towers were still standing when he left office.

[/quote]

Purely by luck. They didn’t come down in  1993 when he said “don’t worry about it” and we were attacked around the world for the entire eight years he was in office and he did precious little about it, even to the point of refusing to take OBL into custody and/or kill him when he had chances. Having said that, how did Clinton’s failures become the topic, aside from the fact that Clarke was in charge of the operation when Clinton was in office?

I personally wouldn’t bother to spend time on Clinton’s performance on the subject were it not the fact that his #1 man on the subject failed miserably and then wrote a book attacking Bush who had all of eight months to do what Clarke couldn’t do in eight years.

[quote=tjc45][

I'd be careful with the dissing of Clark. The guy was our number one expert on terrorism and Bush wouldn't give him face time because of protocall.

[/quote]

See above why it’s accurate to go after Clarke, and Bush didn’t brush him aside on protocol, he brushed him aside because unlike Clinton, Bush wanted to hear from the HEAD of the agency, not a worker bee who had a miserable track record to begin with.

[quote=tjc45][

The president just doesn't meet with underlings. Your cynically calling the foremost terrorism expert in the country a second string player is exactly the arrogant thinking the Bush administration employed in not letting him meet with the president.

[/quote]

What a load on nonsense. Clarke had zero record of success and Bush ELEVATED the sense of urgency by hearing directly from the HEAD of the agency. You hold Clarke out to be some superhero dispite his abject failures. Clinton wouldn't even meet regularly with his own head of the CIA or FBI.

[quote=tjc45][

 Clark did his best to convey his alarm at the coming attacks. He knew something was coming, not what, when or where.

[/quote]

“Something’s going to happen, I can’t tell you what, where, how or when, but ain’t I useful?” ROFLMAO….

Gee, let me do my Clarke impression; “Some number’s going to win the super lotto….”.

[quote=tjc45]

Even after the attacks Rice had to be led by the hand as high level terrorism experts gave her the who and why of what had happened.

[/quote]

More nonsense from Clarke. The guy’s already been caught in a lie about Condi not even knowing what AQ was until HE, super hero Clarke briefed her, why bother to listen to any more of his lies?

[quote=tjc45][

Clark was shocked that the war planning taking place on September 12TH wasn't Afganistan, but Iraq.

[/quote]

Says Clarke about meetings he didn’t attend, and contradicted by everyone who did. BTW, who was it who said of OBL, “If we don’t kill him here, he’ll boogy off to Iraq”?

[quote=tjc45][

You're right we did have OBL in our sights a few times and we didn't get him. You also know that we didn't have a clear shot at him. If we did he'd be dead.

[/quote]

Wrong, yet again. We had him under survaillence in a AQ training camp, as clear a shot as there will ever be, (we've all seen the video by now) and we let him go. We were offered him on three occasions, and while the spin is “It wasn’t a real offer” you can hear Clinton himself on tape say we didn’t take him because we didn’t have a crime to charge him with.

[quote=tjc45][

 At least, at that time, Clinton recognized him as the threat that he is and tried to get him.

[/quote]

Pure, unmitigated spin. Clinton/Clarke had numerous chances and they didn’t pull thr trigger. NOW, after the fact, they talk big. Need I remind you again of eight years of inaction and Clinton's refusal to even meet with his own CIA and FBI heads?

[quote=tjc45]

Think if we took some of this Iraq effort and applied it to finding bin laden, that he'd still be out there?

 [/quote]

You’re absolutely clueless if you think it requires the same force structure to assist Iraq in freeing itself from a dictator as it does to comb through caves in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. You’re even more clueless if you think a dead OBL would end the fight with Islamofacists.  

[/quote]

Mike where do you get all your misinformation? Do you believe everything the Bush administration puts out there?

Interesting that you believe bringing OBL into the conversation is a change of subject. Wasn't getting OBL and fighting terrorism job one on our national priorites list? What happened to that anyway?

Even the clueless realize that we've stopped looking for OBL, and that Iraq isn't about fighting terrorism. The clueless realize that because of that we're going to get our asses kicked again.

Much if not most of what Clarke wrote was corroborated by aides, cabinet heads, or deputy secretaries who were still employed by the admin at the time. Fox news didn't report that, which is why you missed it.

Under Clinton, Clarke attended weekly meetings with the CIA chief and the FBI chief. Then they would all meet with Clinton together. They did it this way to make sure nothing got lost in the transmission. If Clinton had questions, he could ask Clarke directly. Clinton always had questions. They worked as a team to identify and quantify this brand new threat. They did a good job. They had it figured out. Bush and Condi, didn't want to hear it. They had bigger fish to fry, and put Wolfowicz in charge developing an Iraq invasion strategy. That Iraq had to go was a matter of national security. Saddam had become too much of a destabilizing influence to the region. He was scaring the sh*t out of Bush's good friends the Saudi Royal Family. This was pre 9/11.  Where did you hear that Clinton didn't meet with these guys?

As for failure, if only it was that Clarke had failed. How great would that be? Blame one incompetent and move on. It would be great and Bush wants you to believe it's true because it takes a lot of heat off him. Unfortunately, it's not true. Give Clarke some credit, he was able to find OBL several times. That we weren't able to bring OBL down can't be laid at Clarke's feet. Nor Clinton's. Of the three confirmed OBL sightings at least one wasn't reliable enough to act on. We later found it was him, but while we had him the information flow wasn't fast enough. Another, the training camp you mention, there were two other occupants of that camp who were members of the royal family of another Gulf State. We couldn't kill OBL without killing them. Killing innocent royals is a no no. Well it was for Clinton anyway. So Clarke was able to find the needle in the haystack time after time. Under Bush we aren't looking for the needle anymore.

This only gets worse from here. If you believe things are going well in Iraq, you stand alone. The country is tetering on the brink of civil war. Operation Iraqi Freedom was poorly planned and is being poorly procecuted. Our troop readiness is winding down to it's lowest point since the post Vietnam era. Moral is at it's lowest point since Vietnam. Deployed troop percentages are the highest in our countries history. We are on the verge of having a disfunctional Army and Marines. By last count, last week there were two trained Iraqi regiments ready for duty. That's down, not up from the prior count and far from the hundred plus the administration wants you to believe are ready to go. By the way, the real number comes from our own military command, not some back office spin machine connected to the fax machine at FOx.

So freedom's on the march for Iraqis. Unfortunately, the North Koreans will have to wait for freedom until we can figure out how to invade them without them nuking the west coast. Turns out spreading democracy around the world is a bitch.

Nov 1, 2005 4:22 am

QUOTE=SonnyClips]No you haven't answered the basic question of why do you believe that Iraq will be successful.
[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Sorry, that burden's on you as to why we're "doomed". Thus far we've seen a progressive movement, from power hand-off, to election of an interim gov't, to a constitution passed, all with massive turn-out levels. Iraqis are wearing uniforms and doing most of the fighting and dying. Yep, the burden's on you to prove why that's not working.

[quote=SonnyClips]
WMD's was one of a number of reasons that have been given for the war which between the Sy Hirsch column back in '02 and treasongate we know that the whole yellow cake thing was the result of a disinformation campaign by the Brits in the late nineties it was never supposed to be used by our intelligence services. I believe the term is blowback.

[/quote]

I believe the term is gibberish. WMDs and Saddam's refusal to comply with inspections is why Clinton made regime change US policy. The Brits STILL stand by their claim that Saddam had people poking around Niger, AND Wilson's onw report said the same. BTW, since no one was charged with anything even remotely resembling “treason”, do you have a rational explanation for your use of the term? While you’re at it, could you explain why “treason” doesn’t fit Joe Wilson and the others hoping for a setback in Iraq to “teach Bush a lesson”?

[quote=SonnyClips]
As far as Demo rage so what?

[/quote]

I clouds the judgment and causes otherwise rational people to pray for setbacks no matter what the cost so long as Bush is harmed. I've given you more than enough proof on the subject.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 I like the Kristols and I think that the whole basis for going to Iraq was sound except that Iraq was the wrong place ...

[/quote]

Iraq was the only place where a dictator that had already used WMD was refusing to comply with the inspections he had agreed to. Had we not stood firm on this you know France and Germany was going to get Saddam completely off the hook in terms of oversight. Then all bet would have been off.

[quote=SonnyClips]

...obviously because nither you nor I can think of a historical precedence for how a modern govn't can deal with this kind of insurgency ...[/quote]

What a steamy load. This insurgency doesn't have the support of the populace, in fact they're targeting the populace. They're not the problem you pretend that they are ala the VC or some other genuine nationalistic movement. The IRA, ETA, the Red Brigade, how many more terrorist groups that failed because they didn’t get the support of the people do I need to list for you?

 

[quote=SonnyClips]

....when I get stupidly angry about all the deaths that will be in vain when we fail, I think we should do because the whole f**king world is looking at our country as if this is our intention anyway. So how's that for wide eyed liberal idealism...

[/quote]

That's the sort of bedwetting "when we fail" hysteria that ensures your party will be waiting a long time before it's trusted with national security again. The bit about "our intention anyway" is pure drama queen nonsense. 

[quote=SonnyClips]

To be rational though this isn't going to happen UNLESS you have a perspective that I don't fully understand. But no, the whole "people of Iraq want freedom and want a part in the process" thing just doesn't hold water for me because frankly it isn't a strategy its a wish.

[/quote]

It isn't a wish, it's a fact. The population turned out to vote with the insurgency threatening them will death if they did so. Insurgencies can only succeed if they represent the people, and this one doesn't. It's even led by an outsider. Have you read AQ's head's letters? Even he says he's failing to get the people behind him.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I do think you question the lefts patriotism....

[/quote]

That "you're questioing my patriotism gambit is just too old and tired. Find a new line. If I question anything it's your willingness to face up to the fact that the Islamofacists don't care much about your navel gazing and bedwetting.

[quote=SonnyClips]


You know as well as I the North Vietnamese copied the US Constitution word for word and they were still a totalitarian communist state so don't tell me about the Iraqi constitution. It's just rhetoric and I know Rhetoric I have a Masters in it.
[/qtuote]

I'd be getting my money back if I were you.

[quote=SonnyClips]


Butler give me an idea of what this plan for Victory in Iraq is or point me in the direction of a source for it so I don't have to feel so horrible about this goddam war anymore.

[/quote]

Look, drama queen, you feel how you wish to feel. None of the progress made means anything to you. None of the sacrifices made by the Iraqis prove anything to you. You see a crowd of murderous thugs and you're looking hard for a way to surrender to them even though in your heart of hearts you know they don't represent the population at large. Why don't you stand aside, spend the next year or two in tears and let your betters, the people who took out that Taliban that you and yours said couldn't be defeated, take care of business.

Nov 1, 2005 5:00 am

[quote=tjc45]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mike where do you get all your misinformation? Do you believe everything the Bush administration puts out there?

[/quote]

Wow, what a deeply penetrating bit of debate there. I suppose you won’t bother to detail what I said that’s “misinformation”. As far as I can tell there’s someone here swallowing spin hook, line and sinker and it’s you buying Clarke’s fantasies.

[quote=tjc45]

Interesting that you believe bringing OBL into the conversation is a change of subject. Wasn't getting OBL and fighting terrorism job one on our national priorites list? What happened to that anyway?

[/quote]

Buy a newspaper. Al Qeada’s in Iraq and THEY call it the center of the global war. Remember, it was none other than your hero, Clarke, who said OBL would “boogie off to Iraq”, obviously HE thought there was a connection. The other American killing terrorists living safely in Saddam’s gulag seemed pretty safe and secure.

[quote=tjc45]

Even the clueless realize that we've stopped looking for OBL,..

[/quote]

The troops on the Spec Ops guys and the straight leg troopers in Afghanistan would be amazed to hear that…. and so would the Pakistanis that have been conducting operations inside their borders... and of course the numerous AQ staffers we've tracked down, captured and killed would be surprised. In fact, your revelation would catch quite a few people flat-footed...

[quote=tjc45]

 …..and that Iraq isn't about fighting terrorism.

[/quote]

Cue Twilight Zone music as tjc45 breaks out the conspiracy theory du joir…

[quote=tjc45]

 The clueless realize that because of that we're going to get our asses kicked again.

[/quote]

Yet another bedwetter….. "Surrender Now!!!" should be your slogan for the next election cycle.

[quote=tjc45]

Much if not most of what Clarke wrote was corroborated by aides, cabinet heads, or deputy secretaries who were still employed by the admin at the time. Fox news didn't report that, which is why you missed it.

[/quote]

When you got nothing else, you can always try to make Fox the issue…. Clarke's a staffer who never got results under Clinton and lost his job under Bush. He's pissed, period. He's got nothing on his resume, after eight years, to point to.

[quote=tjc45]Under Clinton, Clarke attended weekly meetings with the CIA chief and the FBI chief. Then they would all meet with Clinton together.

[/quote]

Bzzzzz, wrong. Clinton didn’t met with his CIA head regularly and he went almost two years before he met with the head of the FBI.

[quote=tjc45]

Clinton always had questions. They worked as a team to identify and quantify this brand new threat. They did a good job. They had it figured out.

[/quote]

You must be joking. Just what did they “figure out”? That AQ was in the country planning 9/11 for two years? That they had attacked and killed US citizens around the globe for eight years with impunity?  That they had bombed the WTC in 1993, the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole and two US embassies in Africa without the US doing anything of consequence?

Name a single success. Go ahead, we’ll wait right here.

[quote=tjc45][

That Iraq had to go was a matter of national security. Saddam had become too much of a destabilizing influence to the region.

[/quote]

Right, as of 1998 when Clinton made regime change US policy and a Democrat controlled US Senate voted in favor of it. Perhaps you missed the 12 years of cat and mouse games with inspectors. Some how those facts never get factored into the conspiracy theories...

[quote=tjc45][

As for failure, if only it was that Clarke had failed. How great would that be? Blame one incompetent and move on.

[/quote]

It wasn’t Clarke alone, but he surely did fail. Clinton failed (I have to tell you I don't like whipping up on Clinton like this, I'd much rather focus on post 9/11, but if you're going to claim there had been some "success" that Bush had pushed aside...) The FBI and CIA failed. The  AG failed by building that foolish wall between agencies so they couldn't share info.

[quote=tjc45]

Give Clarke some credit, he was able to find OBL several times. That we weren't able to bring OBL down can't be laid at Clarke's feet. Nor Clinton's.

[/quote]

Are you really so misinformed that you haven’t seen the video of OBL walking around an AQ training camp? And why didn’t Clinton kill him? There was a Saudi there and Clinton didn’t want to take a chance on hitting him with the target. Any Saudi walking around a terrorist training camp with an enemy of the US should have been killed with OBL. Clinton turned down three offers of OBL. Just spare me the spin…

[quote=tjc45]

This only gets worse from here. If you believe things are going well in Iraq, you stand alone. The country is tetering on the brink of civil war.

[/quote]

The defeatists have been saying that since the day after Saddam’s statue came down. Will you ever tire of it? Now that Sunnis have joined in the election process, just what’s the trigger for this civil war? AQ’s #1 man in Iraq says he’s not winning hearts and minds and OBL’s #2 tells him to find a new strategy. And what does the left in this country do? They claim we’re doomed. Say, that’s just what they said about Afghanistan….

[quote=tjc45]

 Moral is at it's lowest point since Vietnam.

[/quote]

I assume you mean MORALE. Not only can you not spell it, you don’t know what it is. Reenlistment rates are astronomical. Morale is high I’m told from friends in country now. You’re simply talking out of your Bush-hating ass on that one.

[quote=tjc45]

 Deployed troop percentages are the highest in our countries history.

[/quote]

WTF does that even mean? Do you mean the percentage of US that are deployed are the highest ever? That's nonsense. In WWII we had better than 90% of the force overseas. We've had far, far more than 150k deployed before many, many times.

[quote=tjc45]

By last count, last week there were two trained Iraqi regiments ready for duty. That's down, not up from the prior count and far from the hundred plus the administration wants you to believe are ready to go.

[/quote]

Pure, unmitigated lies. There are over 80 Iraqi regiments fighting. Two are capable of completely independent operations. Most operate with small teams of US advisors for coordination and the balance are only combat ready when deployed along side US troops. You obviously haven’t the slightest idea what you’re babbling about.

[quote=tjc45]

So freedom's on the march for Iraqis. Unfortunately, the North Koreans will have to wait for freedom until we can figure out how to invade them without them nuking the west coast.

[/quote]

Is this the latest conspiracy theory from the moonbat fringe?

 

Nov 1, 2005 3:50 pm

[quote=tjc45]<O:P></O:P>

 Moral is at it's lowest point since Vietnam.

[/quote]

I assume you mean MORALE. Not only can you not spell it, you don’t know what it is. 

 

The one fact in your diatribe that is correct. Way to go Mr. Spelling Bee!

 

 

 I’m told from friends in country now.

 

You have friends? 

 

A few years ago I witnessed a horrible car crash. After dealing with helping the victims I was in the process of giving a statement to the police when this guy came over, we'll call him MR. A.  A stands for A personality or asshole, take your pick. Mr. A interupts to tell the police that he overheard what I was saying and that I had it all wrong. He then launches into his version of events, which didn't gibe with any of the other witness versions. Nor did it relate to the scene.  Mr. A insisted he was right and everyone else was wrong. The police rightfully took Mr. A's statement, realizing that people have different perspectives.  Mr. A then berated the other witnesses for lying to the police.

Mike, you remind me of MR. A. So I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I don't need you to tell me what I know or don't know. I don't need you to tell me what I've seen.

I know truth when I see it. I'm not seeing truth here.

I'm truely sorry you are unhappy about  whatever circumstance landed you here taking pot shots on the internet rather than taking real shots in Iraq. The good news is that even the Marines have lowered their standards and you can now get in. They really like people who can spell. And they absolutely love recruits who believe fighting over there is keeping us safe over here. You'll fit right in.

OK, I've had my fun. See how easy this is?  Mike , we will never agree. That's what makes a democracy.

 

Nov 1, 2005 4:59 pm

[quote=tjc45][quote=tjc45]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 Moral is at it's lowest point since <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam.

[/quote]

I assume you mean MORALE. Not only can you not spell it, you don’t know what it is. 

 [/quote]

[quote=tjc45]

The one fact in your diatribe that is correct. Way to go Mr. Spelling Bee!

[/quote]

Oh, so that's the only thing I got right? Why is it I suspect you won't/can't point out specifically what you claim I got wrong. I suppose the fact that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about has nothing to do with it….

[quote=tjc45]

Mike, you remind me of MR. A. So I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I don't need you to tell me what I know or don't know.

[/quote]

Understood, you don’t wish to be confused by facts, you have your Clarke hero. And you’ve “seen” absolutely nothing, but you’ve swallowed any number of goofy conspiracy theories. You’re the debating equivalent of the child with his fingers in his ears yelling “nah-nah-nah” in order to ensure you hear nothing that disturbs your little fantasy world. That’s fine, that makes you the typical Democrat screaming “BUSH LIED!!!” in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

BTW, how’s that list of Clarke successes coming? Will you have it for us any time soon? I mean, if he had it “all figured out” as you claim, there must be a long list of success to detail for us. We’ll be waiting…

[quote=tjc45]

I'm truely sorry you are unhappy about  whatever circumstance landed you here taking pot shots on the internet rather than taking real shots in Iraq.

[/quote]

Golly, I’m cut to the quick. Having tossed out your super-witty “Oh yeah, um, well, FOX NEWS!!!!!!” piercing attack in a prior post, you’re left to asking me why I’m here and not in Iraq. Believe me, you’ve cut me so deeply that I’m in tears. Why, even the fact that I already served in the military, and am a little older and grayer than what they’re looking for won’t console me now that you’ve mounted your cutting attack. Golly.

 

Nov 1, 2005 7:21 pm

Oh, so that's the only thing I got right? Why is it I suspect you won't/can't point out specifically what you claim I got wrong.

 

Mike who has time? You're wrong on everything. You come off as a lunatic hegemony loving right wing war zealot. The justifications for war have been exposed as lies, yet you call me a bedwetting Bush hater for saying so. That Bush and company lied and bent the facts to make a case for war and then sell it to us, is lost on you. And it goes down hill from there. What's next with you, sky isn't blue, gravity doesn't exist? So why should I bother?

I read something disturbing today. There was a young soldier who was killed in Iraq while guarding an Iraqi survey group. The survey group was looking for WMDs, this after it had been established that there were no WMDs. They were told to go and look anyway, make a good show of it. And this young soldier died protecting these actors. How deceived should his parents feel? Mike, how many more of our sons and daughters have to die for the lies?

Deployment percentage= number of times troops have been redeployed. All time high with Iraq. It's wearing our troop down.

Mike, looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

 

 

Nov 1, 2005 9:11 pm

[quote=SonnyClips]Come on <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Butler. Why don't you go help out if your so gung ho. Older and greyer? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

I do enjoy the fact that liberals seem to think that they’re on to something on this line of attack. When their whining fails, the “uh, well, FOX NEWS!!!!!!” response doesn’t get them anywhere, they fall back on the “uh, well, eh, (nervous shifting eyes, sweating plams, fight or flee juices flowing..)  then how come YOU’RE not there if you agree with the war?”.

The problem is it falls flat in two ways. 1) Agreeing with a policy doesn’t mean you’re obligated to join in the physical effort. For example, I’m a law and order kinda’ guy, but that doesn’t mean I have to volunteer to be a cop. Many liberals are anti-drug laws, but that doesn’t mean they have to allow their home to become a crackhouse. 2) Many of us already served when we were the appropriate age.

[quote=SonnyClips]

And I'm waiting on the bottom line on a winnable strategy in Iraq.

[/quote]

Then you need to listen closer. It’s been spelled out many times for you. Build a time table that allows for the election of a government, the ratification of a framework for that government, the training of security forces. We’re doing all of those things and the majority of the population is joining in to support. The burden’s on you to explain why we’re “doomed to defeat” by an enemy that can’t hold terrain, slaughters innocents as a matter of strategy and doesn’t have the support of the population.

[quote=SonnyClips]

…..because it hasn't been communicated to my friends and my friends are pretty well connected and Republican.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO....

[quote=SonnyClips]

Now do your creepy obsessive quoting and distorting of this post too.

[/quote]

That’s a funny way to complain about being quoted verbatim….

[quote=SonnyClips] Oh and liken me to a transvestite and call me a bedwetter …

[/quote]

I must have missed the transvestite reference, but as to bedwetter, what else better describes someone who says we’re “doomed” when the enemy’s only tools are IEDs and snipers?

[quote=SonnyClips]

and obfuscate somemore so you don't have to address your parties decline in strategy both at home and abroad.

[/quote]

Typical. I’m talking about winning a war, and you’re talking about political parties. Ask me again why I find it hard to take your “I’m sincere about wanting victory” seriously. 

Nov 1, 2005 9:31 pm

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=tjc45]

Mike who has time? You're wrong on everything.

[/quote]

Then it should have been easy for you to be specific, but just like that list of Clarke successes, I guess your dog ate it….

[quote=tjc45]

You come off as a lunatic hegemony loving right wing war zealot.

[/quote]

Perhaps if you’re a visitor from the planet moonbat…

[quote=tjc45]

 The justifications for war have been exposed as lies, yet you call me a bedwetting Bush hater for saying so.

[/quote]

“Proved as lies”? Says who? It sure wasn’t the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton appointed CIA director who said, and I quote, it would be a “slam dunk” to prove Saddam had WMD.  Not the investigators in the British Parliament.  It certainly would not be the Democrats on the bi-partisan Senate investigating committee.

It’s funny how it was true in 1998 (and even in 2003) when Democrats said it, but it’s “BUSH LIED!!!” to people like you now.  So, who proved the “lies” theory?  Perhaps you refer to that deep thinker, Michael Moore….

BTW, did you happen to catch Joe Wilson’s speech? The one three months after the start of the war when even HE said he felt we would find WMDs? Need the link? Here you go, check out the 7:50 point.

http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/28-l ecture-wilson-32.m3u

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/before-novak-joe-w ilson-speech-that.html

 

[quote=tjc45]

I read something disturbing today. There was a young soldier who was killed in Iraq while guarding an Iraqi survey group. The survey group was looking for WMDs, this after it had been established that there were no WMDs. They were told to go and look anyway, make a good show of it.  [/quote]

I suggest you stop believing things you read on Democrat Underground, especially when they use the bodies of dead soldiers to try to make their case.

[quote=tjc45]

It's wearing our troop down.

[/quote]

Gee, you’d think re-enlistment rates would decline if you were right, but they haven’t, so you’re wrong.

[quote=tjc45]

Mike, looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

 [/quote]

Put your fingers back in your ears.

Nov 1, 2005 11:06 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=tjc45]

Mike who has time? You're wrong on everything.

[/quote]

Then it should have been easy for you to be specific, but just like that list of Clarke successes, I guess your dog ate it….

[quote=tjc45]

You come off as a lunatic hegemony loving right wing war zealot.

[/quote]

Perhaps if you’re a visitor from the planet moonbat…

[quote=tjc45]

 The justifications for war have been exposed as lies, yet you call me a bedwetting Bush hater for saying so.

[/quote]

“Proved as lies”? Says who? It sure wasn’t the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton appointed CIA director who said, and I quote, it would be a “slam dunk” to prove Saddam had WMD.  Not the investigators in the British Parliament.  It certainly would not be the Democrats on the bi-partisan Senate investigating committee.

It’s funny how it was true in 1998 (and even in 2003) when Democrats said it, but it’s “BUSH LIED!!!” to people like you now.  So, who proved the “lies” theory?  Perhaps you refer to that deep thinker, Michael Moore….

BTW, did you happen to catch Joe Wilson’s speech? The one three months after the start of the war when even HE said he felt we would find WMDs? Need the link? Here you go, check out the 7:50 point.

http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/28-l ecture-wilson-32.m3u

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/before-novak-joe-w ilson-speech-that.html

[quote=tjc45]

I read something disturbing today. There was a young soldier who was killed in Iraq while guarding an Iraqi survey group. The survey group was looking for WMDs, this after it had been established that there were no WMDs. They were told to go and look anyway, make a good show of it.  [/quote]

I suggest you stop believing things you read on Democrat Underground, especially when they use the bodies of dead soldiers to try to make their case.

[quote=tjc45]

It's wearing our troop down.

[/quote]

Gee, you’d think re-enlistment rates would decline if you were right, but they haven’t, so you’re wrong.

[quote=tjc45]

Mike, looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

 [/quote]

Put your fingers back in your ears.

[/quote]

Mike, when you're blood pressure comes down to anything resembling normal go back and reread my Clarke post and try,  just try to grasp the context. As a counter terrorism expert he was successful in identifying terrorism as a primary threat. He is the one who figured out who AQ was, who their leaders were, and what idealogy was driving them. He was the one who convinced Clinton that the game had changed, paradigm shift had occured and that an entire seperate intelligence operation to track it, and monitor it was a matter of national security. And as previously noted he did manage to find OBL at least three times. Which is three more times than Bush has found him. And Clarke didn't have the entire U.S. military and U.S. intelligence community out looking for him. Clarke was able to do with few what Bush can't get done with many. Of course Clarke was unable to stop the 9/11 attacks. He is the only government offical to apologize to the american people. Maybe if Bush hadn't marginalized him things may have turned out differently. Probably not, but we'll never know, will we? But within the realm of what Clarke was suppose to do he was very successful. And compared to what Bush and his gang has done with the war on terror he was not just a success, he was an unmitigated, raging success. or maybe it's simpler to say that he suceeded in advancing our security against terrorist, where Bush has failed. Of course then again, Bush couldn't even run a baseball team without screwing it up, so, should we be surprised? Can I throw Katrina in there(Or is it Corina,as Barb Bush called it) or is that just piling on?

The article about the solder killed while protecting Iraqi looking for phantom WMDs is in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It ain't the Weekly Standard, but it's won it's share of Pulitzers. The question still stands, what did this kid die for? No diatribe, just tell me how you justify this one death.

OK Mike you win, Our troops are happy to be going back to Iraq time and time again. They're so happy that they keep re-upping. Feel better? OK, unfortunately even by agreeing with you it doesn't change the reality. Deployment one: Hoo rah lets kick some ass. Deployment two: No WMDS, no problem, lets get these folks some freedom. Deployment three: WTF, this is my third time back here, why are we even here? How many times can we send these same troops back? With Bush, we're going to find out. Mike, see me in about two or three years when the bottom falls out.

Will Rogers once said, I'd rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it.

With regard to our current president, where do you think he'd stand with Mr. Rogers?

How do you know about the planet moonbat?

Mike, I'm having fun, you having fun? Because if you're not, then we need to stop meeting like this. Tell me you're having fun and we'll continue.

Nov 2, 2005 9:22 pm

[quote=tjc45] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mike, when you're blood pressure comes down to anything resembling normal…

[/quote]

Like all people not consumed by fringe conspiracy theories, my blood pressure’s fine. Facts tend to keep the body happy and healthy. Thanks for asking.

[quote=tjc45]

… go back and reread my Clarke post and try,  just try to grasp the context. As a counter terrorism expert he was successful in identifying terrorism as a primary threat.

[/quote]

Huh? Did he figure this out before of after the first WTC bombing in 1993? <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Kobar Towers? The Embassy bombings? The USS Cole? You said he “had this figured out”. He had anything but figured it out.

All he did was read OBL’s public comments about us. The every things he’d been saying about us since before Clinton mucked up things in Somalia. Clarke didn’t “figure out” anything that Condi herself hadn’t already publicly said, as in the interview she gave in 1999 that proved she knew of AQ and OBL before Clarke ever spoke to her. This threat was common knowledge, not something Clarke had figured out and not something he, alone knew.

[quote=tjc45]

He was the one who convinced Clinton that the game had changed,..

[/quote]

See above. How many of those events occurred before he “figured it out” and just what successes can he point to after the “convinced Clinton”. That’s a mighty short list there. You'd think if it was "figured out", if Clinton was "convinced", there would have been some action, some results you could point to.

The Clintonites USED to point to the case of the milleium bomber arrested at the Canadian border as a success. As it turned out that was a lie and Sandy Berger had to slip classified documents into his pants to hide the truth from the investigation.

[quote=tjc45]

Maybe if Bush hadn't marginalized him things may have turned out differently.

[/quote]

Oh please, given Clarke’s long list of non-successes, the fact that the 9/11 attacks were planned in this country after Clarke had “figured it out”, while he was in charge of the effort and had “convinced Clinton” you must be joking to say he might have had some effect.

[quote=tjc45]

But within the realm of what Clarke was suppose to do he was very successful.

[/quote]

We’re still waiting for evidence of a single Clarke “success” (book sales aside).

[quote=tjc45]

….Bush couldn't even run a baseball team without screwing it up,…

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, not only are your partisan skirts showing, your lack of knowledge about how Bush, as GM of the Rangers massively increased the franchise’s value is evident as well.

[quote=tjc45]

 

The article about the solder killed while protecting Iraqi looking for phantom WMDs is in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

[/quote]

You show me a link where someone proves the WMD inspectors were told to “put on a good show”. Did you bother to listen to Joe Wilson’s speech? Here he is, a big critic of the war saying HE thought we’d find WMDs to include evidence of a nuke program. If even HE says we’d find them just how can you say with a straight face all the evidence proved before the war, from every intelligence agency on the planet, with the CIA director that Clinton appointed saying proving it was “a slam dunk” was all just Bush lies??????

 [quote=tjc45]

OK Mike you win, Our troops are happy to be going back to Iraq time and time again. They're so happy that they keep re-upping. Feel better?

[/quote]

The people closest to the fight, those who know the details best are volunteering to continue an effort they find worthwhile, tour after tour. There simply is no better evidence, period.

[quote=tjc45]

With Bush, we're going to find out. Mike, see me in about two or three years when the bottom falls out.

[/quote]

Another Bush-hater who can’t wait to surrender to terrorists. Absolutely amazing…. here's your big chance, given where we are right now, what would you suggest we do? Just how is it we're somehow doomed to failure at the hands of the terrorists in Iraq?

[quote=tjc45]

Mike, I'm having fun, you having fun? Because if you're not, then we need to stop meeting like this. Tell me you're having fun and we'll continue.

[/quote]

I’m having a great time, thanks. It isn’t often I get to observe a moonbat in his natural habitat…  

Nov 2, 2005 9:36 pm

[quote=SonnyClips]You don't even know what some of the terms you use mean. HMMMMMMMM, when did <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Butler liken me to a tranny. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

I'm well aware of the terms I used. You made a claim (that I inferred you were a tranny) that when called on, you can't back up. Not that that's anything new.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I don't have the burden of teaching you why insurgencies work so well against established forces and seem to be working well against the US despite the body count.

[/quote]

You have the burden of proof that you have any evidence to support that claim that we're "doomed" against an "insurgency" (I would say that's a misuse of the word) that can't hold terrain, targets the population and clearly doesn't speak for the people. I gave you a list of organizations that have failed to make the states and governments they target ungovernable.

The insurgency couldn’t even stop an election. Aside from inflicting casualties via snipers and roadside bombs, just what can they do? How is it you think they hold such power, given their series of failures? How are they different (aside from being weaker, relatively speaking) than the IRA, ETA, the Red Brigade, etc., etc., etc.?

Had they been able to stop an election, by force or by persuading people to not participate, or if they could persuade people to not join the police force or the army, if they targeted the “invaders” instead of innocent civilians, you might have a point about their power and the serious threat they would be to us and Iraqi freedom. But the fact is they can’t achieve any of those things.


[quote=SonnyClips]


When I read your posts I picture …

[/quote]

I bet what you really picture is the kids you “taught” rhetoric to that ran circles around you on the subject, or the relatives that roll their eyes at you at family events when you begin your diatribe about the “Bush crime family” and what you’ve read on the internet ….

Nov 3, 2005 3:05 am

[quote=SonnyClips]Drama Queen = Tranny

[/quote]

Huh, no...

< = =text/>

< =1.1 src=“http://oascentral.reference.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_jx.ads/dictionary.reference.com/search/[email protected],Right,Right1,BottomRight,Bottom,1!Right”>

  < = =text/>

< =1.1 src=“http://oascentral.reference.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_jx.ads/dictionary.reference.com/search/[email protected],Right,Right1,BottomRight,Bottom,1!Right1”>

< = =text/>

< = src=“http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js” =text/>

 

  < = =text/> Main Entry:   drama queen Part of Speech:   noun Definition:   any person who overreacts to a minor problem or situation
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

I don't know how you got "tranny" from drama queen...

[quote=SonnyClips]


Who is your favorite liberal? Just to see if you could possibly see from anothers perspective without being kind of cranky.

[/quote]

Poor fella, you seem to have forgotten already that I told you I once WAS a liberal. Clearly I understand the perspective, I've simply out grown it.

Paul Wellstone, Paul Simon, Paul Tongis (sp?), Joe Lieberman, Bill Bradley. I know you'll reject Lieberman as a liberal, but Buchanan and McCain don't fir my definition of conservative, so we're probably even.


 
[quote=SonnyClips]
I bet what you really picture is the kids you “taught” rhetoric to that ran circles around you on the subject, or the relatives that roll their eyes at you at family events when you begin your diatribe about the “Bush crime family” and what you’ve read on the internet ….

What are these sour grapes? I kicked your butt pal and now you come after my family.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, you "kicked butt"? You’ve got a sucking chest wound, your arms and legs are gone, and you “kicked butt”. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 And no, Sonny, I'm not going after your family, I'm sure they're long suffering. I simply can see them clear as day rolling their eyes whenever you ruin a family gathering with a hissy-fit about how Bush stole the last two elections and how he's establishing a theocracy, and every other loony conspiracy theory you’ve read on some fringe website…. All you moonbats do that.

 

Nov 3, 2005 3:14 am

[quote=SonnyClips]Drama Queen = Tranny
[/quote]

Huh, no....

1 entry found for drama queen.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Main Entry:  

drama queen

Part of Speech:  

noun

Definition:  

any person who overreacts to a minor problem or situation

Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

[quote=SonnyClips]
Who is your favorite liberal? Just to see if you could possibly see from anothers perspective without being kind of cranky.
[/quote]

Poor fella, you seem to have forgotten already that I told you I once WAS a liberal. Clearly I understand the perspective, I've simply out grown it.

Paul Wellstone, Paul Simon, Paul Tongis (sp?), Joe Lieberman, Bill Bradley. I know you'll reject Lieberman as a liberal, but Buchanan (I can't stand the guy) and McCain don't fit my definition of conservative, so we're probably even.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I bet what you really picture is the kids you “taught” rhetoric to that ran circles around you on the subject, or the relatives that roll their eyes at you at family events when you begin your diatribe about the “Bush crime family” and what you’ve read on the internet ….

What are these sour grapes? I kicked your butt pal and now you come after my family.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, you "kicked butt"? You’ve got a sucking chest wound, your arms and legs are gone, and you “kicked butt”.

And no, Sonny, I'm not going after your family, I'm sure they're long suffering. I simply can see them clear as day rolling their eyes whenever you ruin a family gathering with a hissy-fit about how Bush stole the last two elections and how he's establishing a theocracy, and every other loony conspiracy theory you’ve read on some fringe website…. All you moonbats do that.

Nov 3, 2005 5:16 am

::yawn::  you guys are getting really tiresome…

Nov 8, 2005 9:43 pm

Reading through this I couldn’t help but notice that the IRA won and recieved a country due to the efforts of Michael Collins.



The Shining Path may have been a better example.