Say Anything Blog

Even if that’s all McDermott and the rest were doing in Iraq, how they could observe the plight of the Iraqi children and still not want to depose Saddam’s regime is beyond me.

No doubt it is.

Somebody give these guys a medal for having the foresight that nobody else seemed to have at the time, except for a select few.

There’s a lot beyond you.

observe the plight of the Iraqi children and still not want to depose Saddam’s regime is beyond me.

Somebody give these guys a medal for having the foresight that nobody else seemed to have at the time, except for a select few.

A medal?  For doing Saddam’s bidding by advocating against a war to depose him?

And what does it say of their position on the war when Saddam was inviting them to come to his country?

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:

Useful idiots

You used one too many words.

atease

atease

Just like when Ted Kennedy tried to undermine President Reagan. Disgusting.

And what does it say of their position on the war when Saddam was inviting them to come to his country?

Maybe, as Hanni intimates, it says they, like millions of other Americans and most of the world, were trying to avert the disastrous war that resulted?

observe the plight of the Iraqi children and still not want to depose Saddam’s regime is beyond me.

I agree with Woof that it is questionable that Iraqi children and families are better offer today than they were under Saddam.

So what,bush killed 4000 in iraq.

Steve: Really??  Then Lincoln killed 600,000 and FDR killed 240,000?

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

I agree with Woof that it is questionable that Iraqi children and families are better offer today than they were under Saddam.

Thanks for shredding whatever small credibility you had here! Your ticket for the short bus back to your reality has already been punched!

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)

I agree with Woof that it is questionable that Iraqi children and families are better offer today than they were under Saddam.

That simple statement borders on partisan insanity! There is nothing else to say about something so incredibly divorced from all reality and rationality. Proof this has nothing to do with credibility but true mental illness!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

How many of you antiwar-liberal-Saddam-loyalists would have supported our own military efforts for independence against England? 

I have a feeling very, very few.  It is evident by your loyalty to Saddam’s government.

And yet, you call yourselves patriotic.  Clearly, you have little to no idea what an American is, much less a patriot.

HG.  I sort of agree with you.  During our revolutionary war, about 1/3 were patriots, 1/3 Tories and 1/3 tried to stay neutral.  I don’t know where the present day social-democrats would fall.  These three may have been used by Sadam.  He certainly knew the power to the media.  So did Stalin.

Communism is evil

And what does it say of their position on the war when Saddam was inviting them to come to his country?

Probably a lot less than it did when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand at the time he was using chemical weapons on the children.

And what does it say of their position on the war when Saddam was inviting them to come to his country?

Probably a lot less than it did when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand at the time he was using chemical weapons on the children.

Saddam invited the Democrats, people he knew to be sensitive to his murderous government and like him filled with hate for Bush. Rumsfled as a gentleman and diplomat shook Saddam’s hand as the head of state, while he knew him for the filthy puke he was, yet had to try and deal with him at an isolated moment in time. You fail to understand so much about things it is amazing, you cannot discern the difference between a handshake and an ivitation to fellow travelers.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Saddam invited the Democrats, people he knew to be sensitive to his murderous government and like him filled with hate for Bush.

Oh I see.  Translation:  Democrats = bad.

Rumsfled as a gentleman and diplomat shook Saddam’s hand as the head of state, while he knew him for the filthy puke he was, yet had to try and deal with him at an isolated moment in time.

Oh I see.  Translation:  Republicans = good.

You fail to understand so much about things it is amazing, you cannot discern the difference between a handshake and an ivitation to fellow travelers.

You know what dude?  Don’t even try it.  Because that was the poorest explanation/justification for hypocrisy I have ever seen.

Save it for somebody like Proof, who might actually believe that bile.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country’s official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, “to strengthen regional stability.” It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran’s accusations, and describing Iraq’s “almost daily” use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against “Kurdish insurgents” as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration’s response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its “efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results.” But the department noted in late November 1983 that “with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack” [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration’s priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, “Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.” It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford’s defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.’s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq’s oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran’s ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests.” Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration’s “willingness to do more” regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but “made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.” He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq’s leadership had been “extremely pleased” with the visit, and that “Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person” [Document 36 and Document 37].

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Ouch...!!

One more time, because it is so fun to point out what true excuse making looks like. 

Saddam invited the Democrats, people he knew to be sensitive to his murderous government and like him filled with hate for Bush.

Are you saying Republicans arent sensitive to his murderous government?

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran’s accusations, and describing Iraq’s “almost daily” use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against “Kurdish insurgents” as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration’s response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its “efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results.” But the department noted in late November 1983 that “with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack” [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

SNIP..

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford’s defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.’s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq’s oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran’s ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Pshaw....

“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

May I burrow your line RBB?  THANKS in advance.

“Thank you for not reading this Nieman”!

May I burrow (sic) your line

Hanna and his weak sisters!

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)

Caption:  Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Delenaire Roosevelt (D) sit down with mass-murder Josef Stalin, responsible for the deaths of some 60 million of his own citizens, to discuss the terms for giving away part of Europe to the USSR in return for peace.

Because a picture tells the full story, doesn’t it, RBB?

Let’s see....the Eighties; Cold War; Soviet Union; struggle for the Middle East; any of the history-challenged lefties know anything about the subject?  I think not.

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

RBB, you do have a picture of Reagan and Saddam sitting down together don’t you?

Because otherwise you are bitching about is the simple the fact we have any political relationships with unsavory nations. Which makes you a complete moron of course.  It was in our interests that Iraq not be defeated by Iran, and we did what was deemed necessary to prevent an even bigger catastrophe than the continued existence of Saddam’s government

A stain upon the American conscience:

% Support for Iraq:

Russia 68.9%
France 12.7%
China 11.8%
US 0.5%
Egypt 1.3%
All others 4.8%

If you look at the table of major conventional arms sales to Iraq by country, the US doesn’t even make the cut.

But that doesn’t prevent from RBB hating on his country.

But that doesn’t prevent from RBB hating on his country.

Hating America is a leftie tradition.  It’s the only way they can sell their collectivist crap.

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

He (rbb) is suffering from a bad case of Blackwater Fever, don’t you know…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

AHHHH Aunt Spelling Bea is back!

Wear ya bean poof?

“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

Let’s see....the Eighties; Cold War; Soviet Union; struggle for the Middle East; any of the history-challenged lefties know anything about the subject?  I think not.

Gee Robert, you are so bright on history.  Why don’t you tell us again why it was so important for us to ally with Iraq, then tell us that were not worried about Iran getting nukes.  Then tell me again why we needed to remove Saddam from power when he had no nukes, chemical weapons or terrorists in his government?

You talk a lot about the Cold War and what you think you know, but you failed to mention one single important fact about fighting the war we are today, against radical Islam (hint:  not Iraq) and the GWOT.

r-gumby, tell us what happened in 1953.
Tell us about Operation Ajax.
Tell us how they hate us because of our freedom.

“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

Looks like the fever is working to the further detriment of Blackwaterboob’s already poor reading comprehension; Proof you should note is not me…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

H:

Why don’t you tell us again why
it was so important for us to ally with Iraq,

then tell us that were not worried about Iran getting nukes.

Who is claiming that?

Then tell me again why we needed to remove Saddam from power when he had no nukes, chemical weapons or terrorists in his government?

He had no nukes or chemical weapons, but was trying to preserve the ability to make either.

“No terrorist in his government”?  Why is that an issue?

Iraq was a well known terrorist state who was funding terrorism on a massive scale.  That was known then as well as now, unlike your factoid about Saddam not having nuclear or chemical weapons.  To have made such an assertion as “Saddam has no chemical weapons” to almost any intelligence officer would have gotten you laughed out of the room in those days.

Robert is pretty good with history.  You, not so much.

Hey Trekkie WTF?

poof is a Spelling Bea, you are a turd.

Scroll up to see poof correcting H’s spelling.

“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

poof is a Spelling Bea

Poof?  Boob, you (as a member of the oh-so-tolerant left) aren’t using a slur for a homosexual are you?

If Rodney was gay, would that bother you?

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:

Hey RBB, still waiting for that picture of Reagan with Saddam.

I’m planning on putting right beside my picture of your Democrat hero, FDR posing with the worst mass murderer in history, Joseph Stalin.  You liberals have a lot to be proud of, especially that little partitioning of Europe thing you did.

Hey, wasn’t that Democrat hero Harry S Truman president in 1953?

FDR posing with the worst mass murderer in history, Joseph Stalin

Stalin was bad, but I always thought Mao had edged him out in terms of death and misery.

Of course, beyond a certain point, there’s not really any point in drawing distinctions now is there?

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:

poof is a flash in the pan

I couldn’t care less about your commenters sex life.

Are you saying Rod is gay?

“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

Rob:

Stalin was bad, but I always thought Mao had edged him out in terms of death and misery.

Agreed.

But RBB doesn’t seem to mind any of these dictators staying in office.  He actually seems offended we took his hero Saddam out and hung the bastard by his raunchy neck.

Carrick.  Thanks. 

FDR and Churchill discuss the terms for giving away part of Europe to the USSR in return for peace.

Communism is evil

Why he’s complaining about a Republican posing with one of the liberal’s heros is beyond me in any case.  Saddam in 1983=bad.  Saddam in 2003=good.

Chief, thanks for the reminder about Walter Duranty.  I hadn’t heard his name in a long time.

Hey C, who was president in ’53?

Yea, I thought so.

Thanks for participating.

“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

WTF?

Please link to ANYWHERE where I have said Saddam was good.

Knee jerk much?

“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

If he was bad, Boob, why were you opposed to taking him out?

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:

Don’t you guys get it? rbb is not interested in dialogue. He could care less what you think or say. He’s fascinated by his seeing his own words and name in print.

Graffiti vandals, suffering from inadequacy and a lack of self-worth, do the same thing by spraying vulgarities on other people’s property, in a vain effort to ‘be someone’.

Baiting you is at least some kind of recognition for him.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Yes, Carrick, Walter Duranty was one of the biggest liars in history.  He has a pulitzer prize hanging on the walls of the New York Times.  They celebrate liars.

Communism is evil

RBB, actually Truman was through most of January lol.

Speaking of lying scum...did the dipwad liar who posted this ever offer any defense for his lies, other than the same lie over and over again?

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)

If he was bad, Boob, why were you opposed to taking him out?

America should not be in the imperialist overlord business.

We were not attacked by Saddam.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Bush 41

“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

Sorry! Trying to hold rbb accountable for this! But he keeps running away from it!

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)

Proof,

His bad case of “Blackwater fever” seems to have further addled his already deprecated wits.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

C, who was president the other 345 days of 1953 and who authorized the coup of the democratically elected Iranian President and the installation of an American puppet government?

They hate us because of our freedom. Riiiigghht

How many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth and our judgment was ah not very many...and I think we got it right.

“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

I know, RBB.  I was kidding you, you maroon.

Carrick:  rbb accepts no kidding. Attempts at humor are a tool that he admires only when used by him at other people’s expense.  He could care less what you think or say.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Garrick:

I was kidding you, you maroon.

I used that same name in the past 24 hours and I stole it from Bugs Bunny!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Any of you have a comment on Mr. Dick’s statements from ‘94?

What about what dumbyas’ Poppy had to say?

I would not have included the commentary at the end, their own words are damning enough but perhaps this would interest some of you.

“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

0.5% of their weapons import are from the US and suddenly we’re their ally???  Not exactly.

Carrick,

Two points:

1) I used the word ally, I didn’t say they were our ally.

Ally:

1.  to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually fol. by with or to): Russia allied itself to France.
2.  to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

2) I think your argument is with robert, not me, I believe that was the point of his comment and also YOUR picture.  Stalin was an ally in WWII...was he not?

Who is claiming that?

My point exactly.  If were not worried, why don’t we keep the pressure on them instead of spreading ourselves out for an unnecessary war with Iraq?

He had no nukes or chemical weapons, but was trying to preserve the ability to make either.

And perhaps he followed rainbows to find a pot of gold?  So what?  What you described was not a threat, that couldn’t continue to be managed.  We had him pinned down and after 9/11 he wasn’t going to do a thing.

“No terrorist in his government”?  Why is that an issue?

Um, because we are supposed to be fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.  You remember that day, don’t you?

Iraq was a well known terrorist state who was funding terrorism on a massive scale.  That was known then as well as now, unlike your factoid about Saddam not having nuclear or chemical weapons.  To have made such an assertion as “Saddam has no chemical weapons” to almost any intelligence officer would have gotten you laughed out of the room in those days.

Except for the ones who were saying he didnt?  Right.....I don’t think you are in any position to talk about who is good or bad about the history of the run up to the war Carrick.

Saddam’s investment to the PA, or whomever was not our enemies at the time, nor are they really today.  We picked a fight with the wrong person, at the wrong time.  It’s pretty obvious.

What about what dumbyas’ Poppy had to say?

Um....9/11 changed everything?

er..um...i mean.....Saddam met with AQ, oh shoot, no he didn’t...well....he killed his own people RBB...er....he used to.

Oh never mind.  (fingers in ear) La.  La.  La.  La.  La.

Any of you have any comments…any comments at all about what Colin Powell said in Feb. ’01, anyone…anyone?

Any one of you have any comments about what your dream girl USS Condi said later that year…Hello anyone?

Typical.

“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

We had him pinned down and after 9/11 he wasn’t going to do a thing.

Absolutely false.  That’s the key leftie premise for attacking a President who has stood up to terrorism and has fought it successfully; it’s just another leftie lie that there are terrorists with disparate interests.  Radical Islam declared war on the rest of the world 1300 years ago.  Wake up!  Your partisan identity politics have done quite enough damage already during the Clinton admin, giving us 9/11 and at least ten other terrorist attacks on our interests.

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

ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa

“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

Thanks, bob! Contentless posts from you are much better than your lies!

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)

Hey poof, after watching Mr. Dick, what say you?…go…

“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

after watching Mr. Dick

Didn’t watch! I’m too busy cleaning up after Little dick!

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)

Radical Islam declared war on the rest of the world 1300 years ago.  Wake up!  Your partisan identity politics have done quite enough damage already during the Clinton admin, giving us 9/11 and at least ten other terrorist attacks on our interests.

Thank you Ronald Reagan for arming the Taliban and Osama Been Forgotten.  They had nothing to do with 9/11.  It’s Clintons fault.

GAG.

Thank you Ronald Reagan for arming the Taliban and Osama Been Forgotten.

Your amnesia about the Cold War is always amusing, but then lefties can’t be expected to remember anything that refutes their lies.  It was Carter who handed Iran over to the ayatollahs and who energized the jihadi movement and gave it access to international power.  Clinton was merely an enabler, as are you and all your leftie idiot pals.

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

It was Carter who handed Iran over to the ayatollahs and who energized the jihadi movement

WTF?

Tell us all about Operation Ajax, r-Gumby.
Tell us who was replaced and by whom.
Tell us about the revolution to overthrow the puppet government we installed in Iran.

They hate us because of our freedom?

No, they hate us because of you.

“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

robert108 is exactly right on this! President Jimmy Carter, in four short years:
* turned his back on the Shah [one of our strongest allies]
* arranged the return of the Ayatollah to Iran.
* armed Afghani rebels [who later morphed into the Taliban] against the Soviets.
* boycotted the Moscow Olympics, thus deepening the Cold War.
* orchestrated the so-called Peace Initiative leading to the assassination of Egypt’s president Sadat and the fall of the Began government in a weakened Israel.
* dithered for over 400 days after Irani jihadist, in apparent gratitude, siezed the US embassy in Tehran.
* and then placed so many restrictions on a rescue mission that it utterly failed and Americans died.
* So mismanaged our Middle eastern plicy that every president since has struggled to straighten out this mess.

Not bad for only four years!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Pparets, you forgot simultaneously had double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates.

He’s the only president in history to manage that.

And we can look to more if we get another socialist like Obama running our country.