Say Anything Blog

The Democrat Party has taken such a dispicable position on terrorism that indeed the terrorists will be dancing in the streets if not only B. Hussein gains the presidency, but any Democrat.

Obama has demanded an apology from McCain about this; we’ll see if he folds up and panders to the Dems this time.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Why should McCain apologize.  Rep. King said it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, that is Steve King, not Peter King.  Peter King is a Congressman from NYC.
DKK

Obama’s people have come out and undermined him on the idea that he would withdraw troops from Iraq. “Won’t happen,” they say, “and any promises to the contrary are niave.”

Martha and The Vandellas

Not only will they be dancing in the streets, but they will be singing and creating Obama floats.

Muslims will be flying balloons and bbq-ing in celebration of an Obama victory.

Be afraid, be very afraid.......and vote for McCain to keep you truly safe.

Terrorists want the Democrats to win. They know that they can’t win against us Republican badasses. They also know that the Democrats are a bunch of weak-kneed little bitches who will roll over for them.

Don’t blame me. I didn’t make the score. It is what it is.

Yes likwid, this is why 9/11 happened on a Republicans watch.  Right?

http://www.counterpunch.org/elkus02072007.html

According to Atwan’s analysis of al-Qaida’s “20-year plan,” the organization aimed to bring about the fall of the American empire by first provoking ­ with the September 11 attacks—Washington into irrationally invading Muslim lands in pursuit of revenge. Al-Qaida’s grand strategists calculated that the invasion would propel the umma, the Muslim community, into joining the jihad. Following the fall of the secular socialist Hussein regime, Iraq has indeed become a training ground for limitless waves of foreign jihadis.

In this context, George W. Bush was a great boon to their efforts. Not only did he invade Iraq, which did not have a thing to do with 9/11, but he did almost everything possible to isolate America from its allies.

This policy gave bin Laden ample room to target unpopular pro-American regimes from Madrid to Riyadh. Compared to the Southwest Asian battleground of Afghanistan, Iraq is a more congenial base for al-Qaida, since the language, culture, and terrain are more familiar to most Arabs. The jihadis’ strategy is to get America to throw all of its resources into fighting a losing battle against Iraq’s lethal patchwork of warring factions.

Bush’s “surge” only throws more meat to the jackals, who gain strength and popularity with each web-broadcasted beheading or roadside bomb explosion. Like Afghanistan, Iraq gives would-be jihadis watching the conflict from their computer screens the hope of destroying the military might of the West. The jihadis also hope to expand the conflict to create what Atwan calls a “Triangle of Horror” connecting Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria.

Certainly we can see now, who AQ was truly rooting for, and who played into their hands.  Right?  Right Proof?

Just because AQ interprets our actions as something positive for them, doesn’t make it so.

Why do you give the terrorists so much credit?

Right Proof?

I meant likwid...sorry.

What?  This information get in the way of your Liberal bashing???

Right Proof?

I appreciate you looking for affirmation from me!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Yes likwid, this is why 9/11 happened on a Republicans watch.  Right?

Actually, if we wish to be technical, it happened on a Democrat, George Tenet’s watch. By Tenet’s own admission, he knew about “men who were learning to fly planes without taking off or landing”, but never told the President. Or we could blame Clinton’s famous wall of seperation between CIA and FBI.

Or how about we be fair and state that there were thousands of failings on the local, state, and federal level, which reached back to the time of Bush Senior. Trying to blame the President for teh failings of law enforcement is assinine. And you’d be all over anyone who blamed a President Obama or President Hillary.

Certainly we can see now, who AQ was truly rooting for, and who played into their hands.  Right?  Right Proof?
Just because AQ interprets our actions as something positive for them, doesn’t make it so.

Actually, it’s rather stupid to not consider how they view our actions. They want us to leave Iraq, and any President who did so would be granting them a victory. So, Obama would indeed play into their hands, and would be good for them.

Really not much to dispute.

Actually, if we wish to be technical, it happened on a Democrat, George Tenet’s watch.

That is THE single dumbest thing you have said to date, that I know of Kenny. 

Bush was president at the time, done, over, get a life.  Don’t change the subject by switching the topic to a lame-brained excuses for responsibility, when we are talking about theories of what terrorists think.

If Likwids theory is true, then they wouldn’t have attacked when Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress.  Give me a break.

Or how about we be fair and state that there were thousands of failings on the local, state, and federal level, which reached back to the time of Bush Senior.

It’s obvious that you have no idea what fair IS.  Or, you wouldn’t even make this preposterous argument. (please look up preposterous)

Trying to blame the President for teh failings of law enforcement is assinine.

Um....I am not, genius.

Actually, it’s rather stupid to not consider how they view our actions.

Hear that Republicans?  You can get a Republican to say anything if you try.  You merely need to say one thing, and they will say the opposite for no reason at all, other than to disagree with a Dem, even though you said something Republicans think.  Brilliant.

So then, Kenny.  Are you saying we can get them to change their behavior by changing our own?  Yes or no?

They want us to leave Iraq, and any President who did so would be granting them a victory.

Ah, ah, ah, Kenny.  Read it again.  They wan’t a victory, but they wan’t us to stay so they can bleed us dry, like they did the Soviets.

You are just being dishonest for the sake of argument.  You have no principles pal.

By Tenet’s own admission, he knew about “men who were learning to fly planes without taking off or landing”, but never told the President.

Really?

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. 
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

That is THE single dumbest thing you have said to date, that I know of Kenny. 
Bush was president at the time, done, over, get a life.  Don’t change the subject by switching the topic to a lame-brained excuses for responsibility, when we are talking about theories of what terrorists think.

It’s not an excuse. It’s a simple fact. You’re trying to blame the President for failures on state and local levels. It’s imbecilic. It’s just as stupid as right wingers blaming Clinton for the attack on the Cole or the original WTC attack.

The 9/11 commission wrote a damn near 1000 page tome about the failures that led to 9/11. Blame was placed on the FBI, the CIA, Clinton, Bush, Bush Sr., et al.

Yet you’re like...nope! ALL BUSH! Dishonest and ridiculous.

If Likwids theory is true, then they wouldn’t have attacked when Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress.  Give me a break.

Really? Cause that’s not what he said at all. He said they can’t beat Republicans, not that no single attack could ever occur.

And don’t insult my intelligence Hannitized. If I’m calling you out, it already means you’re wrong.

Hear that Republicans?  You can get a Republican to say anything if you try.  You merely need to say one thing, and they will say the opposite for no reason at all, other than to disagree with a Dem, even though you said something Republicans think.  Brilliant.

You gotta stop this persecution complex. I disagreed with you because you were wrong, not because you’re a Democrat. You said that just because AQ viewed something as beneficial to them didn’t mean it was. I told you WHY it WOULD be beneficial to them and that it would be a PR victory for AQ over the Great Satan. But since you can’t see past partisan lines...it’s all about the D after your name. Eye roll.

So then, Kenny.  Are you saying we can get them to change their behavior by changing our own?  Yes or no?

Yes. We go after them agressively and crush them like bugs. Arab/Muslim mentalities respect strength. As OBL is famous for saying “Given a choice between a strong and a weak horse, men will always choose the strong horse.” This is why Iraq is turning around, because we became the strong horse. Obama would turn us back into the weak one.

Ah, ah, ah, Kenny.  Read it again.  They wan’t a victory, but they wan’t us to stay so they can bleed us dry, like they did the Soviets.

You are just being dishonest for the sake of argument.  You have no principles pal.

His analysis includes the crap that “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11”. Of course it didn’t. No one except for leftists ever claims it did.The invasion of Iraq was about enforcing the original US ceasefire. Since Elkus is so clueless as to the nature of the Iraq war to begin with, he has little to tell us about the nature of our enemies. His analysis is simply a provably false leftist litany of anti-war talking points: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we’re only making more terrorists by being over there, we’re playing into their hands, Saddam was a secular (see:anti-jihad) regime, etc.

OBL has constantly called the US a paper tiger. He has always seen us as a soft decadent society that, even if it engages him in battle, will flee at the first sign of conflict. A retreat from Iraq would be a huge PR victory for AQ, and Elkus doesn’t understand this.

You know who you remind me of Hannitized? You remind me of Michael Savage. You have a damn near political bi-polar disorder. One moment you’re rational and intelligent, then you fly off the handle and become a spittle flecked loon. You say we need to win in Iraq, then you talk of how we’re letting OBL win by continuing to fight.

I am always principled, H. And you’re certainly not going to make me back off of by playing the “OMGZORS, you are teh partiseeeen hacksors” card. You always take the leftist point in an argument, and I move back and forth. Forget the pot calling the kettle black...this is the pot calling the bottle of milk black.

It’s not an excuse. It’s a simple fact. You’re trying to blame the President for failures on state and local levels.

Where do I blame the President or anyone?  Provide that quote and please stop leaping to conclusions and blaming your landings on me. 

The fact that you believe I did proves three things; 1) I definitely should insult your intelligence.  2) Your reading comprehension sucks.  3) You have no idea what is going on around you.

It’s just as stupid as right wingers blaming Clinton for the attack on the Cole or the original WTC attack.

Agreed.  But the fact that you have terrible reading comprehension should not reflect on poorly me.  It should reflect on you. 

Yet you’re like...nope! ALL BUSH! Dishonest and ridiculous.

My lord Kenny....are you being this obtuse out of sheer stupidity or is it deliberate dishonesty?

that’s not what he said at all. He said they can’t beat Republicans, not that no single attack could ever occur.

He said they believe (or know) they can’t win against Republicans.  My response is if they feel they can’t win against Repubs, why would they attack when Repubs are in power?  To loose automatically?

My response can be argued, but not misinterpreted in the way that you have, you are showing yourself as a bit of a dipshit Kenny.  Sorry dude.

And don’t insult my intelligence Hannitized. If I’m calling you out, it already means you’re wrong.

Hahaha.  WHAT?  That is the second stupidest thing you have said.  On top of that it’s juvenile.  But keep digging your grave, bud.

I disagreed with you because you were wrong, not because you’re a Democrat.

Ooooohhh.  *Cough..(bullshit)...cough*

You said that just because AQ viewed something as beneficial to them didn’t mean it was.

Ok.  AQ thinks us invading Afghanistan and Iraq was good for them.  Was it, yes or no?

Yes. We go after them agressively and crush them like bugs. Arab/Muslim mentalities respect strength.

Dumbest thing ever said, number three.  If this is true, why are they stronger than ever, as an organization??  Cmon Kenny....youre setting yourself up?

This is why Iraq is turning around, because we became the strong horse. Obama would turn us back into the weak one.

Iraq is turning around because they respect strength?  How about were winning because we put more troops in?  Which is something I supported and pulling out is something I disagree with.

The invasion of Iraq was about enforcing the original US ceasefire. Since Elkus is so clueless as to the nature of the Iraq war to begin with, he has little to tell us about the nature of our enemies.

Kenny.  If stating why we went to war with Iraq “accurately” is a qualification for speaking to us about about enemies.  You just cut yourself out as a qualified individual.

Bush SOTU speech Jan 29, 2003:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct—were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Where in that opening does it say ANYTHING about the ceasefire.

You are a dishonest, moronic, history-revisionist and I am tired of dealing with liars.

Continued…

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/index.html

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s—Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Two words for you Kenny.

Ass whooping!!