Say Anything Blog

The problem is that these people are serious. They may not have the means - yet - but they certainly have the intent and the total lack of humanity that something like this would require.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

If only we could believe McCain…

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Obama needs to talk Osama out of this.

If only Osama would agree to meet without our surrender as a precondition.

The tape is a sort of a redundant to those who already know about terrorists--like us here in SAB.  All of us here know that if the terrorists got their hands on a WMD, they wouldn’t hesitate to target NYC or our nation’s capital!

But, such a thought and such an expression is “fearmongering”, and the liberals spout words like Cheney, and Bush, and then… Obama.

Tbis tape by default targets those ignorant of the islamic extremists’ intentions.

Perhaps the danger of WMDs would be less if Bush hadn’t let OBL get away in Pakistan. But he did.

Perhaps we could have prevented 9/11 if Bush had read the PDB enttitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” But he didn’t---he went fishin’ instead.

The GOP is soft on al Queda. Always has been, always will be.

The GOP is soft on al Queda. Always has been, always will be.

LOL

The GOP is soft on al Queda. Always has been, always will be.

Right.  We’re killing them, Clinton ignored them, thus enabling 9/11.  Al Qaeda grew in strength during the Clinton administration, despite their attack on the WTC in ‘93.  Clinton dropped the ball, 3000 Americans died.  Nice.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

LOL

While you’re laughing Osama bin Laden remains free, al Queda and the Taliban are back in power in Afhganistan, and global terrorism is up. What the fuck is so funny, asshole?

bob:

It’s always about Clinton with you. In your world Bush is allowed to fail because Clinton failed too.

Bush ignored the threat of al Queda until it was too late and lied us into a war against people who did NOT attack us.

Nice.

While you’re laughing Osama bin Laden remains free, al Queda and the Taliban are back in power in Afhganistan, and global terrorism is up. What the fuck is so funny, asshole?

You’re funny, you addled, Kool-Aid drinking twit, that’s who.

The Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan???

Good god, you aren’t really stupid enough to believe that are you?

and global terrorism is up.

VANCOUVER — A group of researchers from Simon Fraser University says global terrorism is on the decline, despite previous data and public perceptions that suggest otherwise.

The university’s Human Security Report Project says fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40 per cent since 2001.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA

Feeling pretty stupid right about now, aren’t you Jack.

Bush ignored the threat of al Queda until it was too late and lied us into a war against people who did NOT attack us.

You just keep parroting the same old leftie lies, “Jack”.  If Clinton had done his job in ‘93, or any of the other times terrorists struck during his administration, if he had taken OBL when offered, there would have been no 9/11, nor would there have probably been a war in Iraq.  It wouldn’t have been necessary.
BTW, Germany never attacked us, either.  Duh.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Jack,

I don’t doubt your acute familiarity with “asshole[s]”, but refering to an someone as such is no way to win an argument.  In fact, it is usually a sign of desperation.

The Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan???

Yes, they are, dumbshit.

Jesus, if it’s not spoonfed to you by Fox News it’s completely off your radar, aint it?

bob:

That’s your excuse for every failure of the Bush administration. All you do is squeal “CLINTON!” and you expect that to end the discussion.

Your CDS is no excuse for Bush’s failures.

Hey, dumbass, when Hamid Karzai is overthrown, come back and try to tell me the Taliban are ‘back in power’ in Afghanistan.

Oh, and you can retract your erroneous statement that global terrorism is up whenever you like.

If you were honest, that is.

Oh, and you can retract your erroneous statement that global terrorism is up whenever you like.

I don’t think so.

"JacK”: I know you’re not smart enough to realize this, but the failure was Clinton’s, multiple times, to deal with the terrorists like a man, or like a President.
On the other hand, President Bush has killed the terrorists, and is continuing to do so, despite the continued obstruction of you lefties.  You’re just another leftie appeaser.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Obama needs to talk Osama out of this.

Build a straw man…

If only Osama would agree to meet without our surrender as a precondition.

....then knock it down.

You must really impress yourself HG.  Because that is about the extent of it.

Hey, dumbass, when Hamid Karzai is overthrown, come back and try to tell me the Taliban are ‘back in power’ in Afghanistan.

You know you are on to something when your opponent has reached its spittle spouting pinnacle of anger.

You know you are on to something when your opponent has reached its spittle spouting pinnacle of anger.

That’s a little rich, coming from you Hannitized.

Right H. cause it isn’t like Obama said we should meet with our enemies without preconditions.  And my joking about Obama talking with Osama was intended as an argument.

/sarcasm.

The only difference between Osama and Obama is the ‘bs’.

Its a JOKE.

Sheesh.

robert108.  You nailed it. 

the failure was Clinton’s, multiple times, to deal with the terrorists like a man, or like a President.
On the other hand, President Bush has killed the terrorists, and is continuing to do so, despite the continued obstruction of you lefties

Communism is evil

On the other hand, President Bush has killed the terrorists, and is continuing to do so…

Only in your head, bob, only in your head.

Only in your head, bob, only in your head.

A rapier wit and a truly brilliant display of rhetorical repartee.  Sylvan must be so proud.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

This is documented in the book, Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson” carrier of the “nuclear football”.

Not only is Buzz a serial liar, his publisher is an anti-Clinton zealot and white supremacist.

More lying and namecalling from a divorced from reality leftie moron.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

bob:

You accuse me of namecalling and then call me names. Of course, you’re incapable of understanding the irony.

Since you cannot make an argument or back it up with evidence you just deny, deny, deny. It’s all you know how to do.

What a joke, Jack quotes that propaganda outlet, mediamatters, then expects to have a shred of credibility after the act.  What Jack posted was a series of ad hominems, whether they were all name calling or otherwise.

C:

“Ad hominem” is one of those rightwing buzzwords that you like to throw around without the first idea of what it means. When a right winger starts crying about ad hominem it’s a pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Media Matters is actually a very credible source since they always cite documented evidence to back up their stories. It’s something you might want to try someday.

Since you cannot make an argument or back it up with evidence you just deny, deny, deny. It’s all you know how to do.

For me to have to make a counter-argument, you would first have to make an argument, “Jack”.  Instead, all you do is parrot old, much-refuted leftie lies.
You have nothing.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

"Jack”: I realize you want to distract from the fact that those terrorists you love so much want to nuke the US.  Why do you hate America?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Thanks for proving my point, bob. As you sit there in the cathode-ray glow choking on your own hatred and bile, try not to cry as I hand you your rhetorical hat once again.

Jack may wish to ponder what evidence about Clinton it was that Sandy Berger was busily stealing from the National Archives during the 9/11 Commission hearings?

Or why the Clinton’s pulled out all the stops when the made-for-tv documentary movie about the Clinton’s failures before 9/11 was being made, to prevent ‘certain scenes’ from being shown?

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

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Right.  We’re killing them,......
robert108 on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

We? Who the hell is “we”. How many have you killed with your keyboard tough guy?
Quit lying you lying old geezer.

On the other hand, President Bush has killed the terrorists, and is continuing to do so,....
robert108 on May 28, 2008 at 11:16 am

There you go lying again. How many has Bush killed?
Got any numbers? I didn’t think so!
Quit lying you lying old geezer.

PP:

Your CDS adds nothing to the conversation.

I was hoping that it would add to your understanding.

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

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

PP:

No, you were hoping to change the subject. You really need some help with that CDS.

bob is, of course, beyond help.

I don’t think so.

I saw nothing new in that report. Iran is still the number one sponsor of terrorism. Syria is still sponsoring. And Chavez has stepped up his sponsorship.

None of that negates the fact that fatalities from terrorism have fallen since 2001.

Media Matters is actually a very credible source since they always cite documented evidence to back up their stories. It’s something you might want to try someday.

Media matters is a mostly irrelevant site that documemts “meanness” in conservative radios. Several times they have been caught lying about conservatives like the following:

http://www.themediareport.com/mediamatters.htm

They are indeed not a credible site.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

Jack:

“Ad hominem” is one of those rightwing buzzwords that you like to throw around without the first idea of what it means.

Nice try Jack, but I think you’ve just exposed your own ignorance of logical argument.

I know exactly what “ad hominem” means, and I have an enormous supply of examples of it, most coming from liberals like yourself, who frankly appear incapable of arguing the facts themselves.

It means “to argue towards the person”, which means to not address the original proposition, but rather to attack the person making the proposition.

When you call somebody a liar rather than address the content of his argument, that is an ad hominem.

When you call the persons publisher, who is not even a party to the argument in question, a white supremicist is an ad hominem.

When you say that I don’t know what an ad hominem is rather, that explain to us the relevancy of a particular publisher’s views on white/black relations, that is yet another ad hominem.

You’re pretty good at insults, Jack.  But you’ve established that a long time ago haven’t you?

None of your “facts” have anything to do with the proposition itself.  If it turned out the proposition was flawed or worse, these “facts” could be used to explain how that turned out to be, but none of them relate to or overturn the original proposition.

Media Matters is actually a very credible source since they always cite documented evidence to back up their stories. It’s something you might want to try someday.

LOL.  Another ad hominem.  You let them fly loose don’t you?  I have to regard you as incapable of any real reason, especially if you are defending that leftist propaganda source, Media Matters.

Next thing we’ll hear from you is how the New York Times is fair and balanced, and plays all issues down the middle, no doubt.

I know exactly what “ad hominem” means, and I have an enormous supply of examples of it, most coming from liberals like yourself, who frankly appear incapable of arguing the facts themselves.

There’s a perfect example of an “ad hominem.” You’d know that if you understood the concept---but you’ve proven pretty conclusively that you do not.

Man-o-man, arguing with you fools is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Man-o-man, arguing with you fools is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I think he just won the argument with that one. 

You’re fricken brilliant Jack.  Where do you come up with this crap?  Oh, I think I just answered my own question.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

* Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn’t respond. By MANSOOR IJAZ

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to “baby-sit” him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn’t want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden’s personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim’s bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan’s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan’s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they’d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States’ closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter- terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden’s extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights/

...for great justice

Before the 1960s it would have been terribly difficult however to generate the kind of divisive animus for America that must exist in order to pull off this version of doublethink. Take for example a Christmas Day, 1950, LIFE Magazine editorial entitled “The Blessing of God.” At the time the editorial was written, vastly outnumbered U.S. Marines were making a dramatic and courageous stand at the frozen Chosin Reservoir against communist Chinese human wave attacks in North Korea.  In this desperate situation the staff at LIFE penned the following:

God, as always, is in the hearts of all who will have Him there.  We, as a people, are indeed blessed of God.  Blessed in the justice of our cause; in that conviction we do not waver. . . . We are blessed, most of all, in ourheritage.  In a set of beliefs or habits . . . in which God looms large.  We do not need to put God at the head of our battalions.  He is in them.

This passage of the editorial is telling for several reasons.  First, what has happened to God?  Second, the word “we” is palpable here in 1950 but completely absent in our current editorial climate. Third, what happened between 1950 and 1968 to destroy the sense of “we” in America?  Some will claim that Vietnam caused this drastic change but the two situations were strikingly similar: communist aggression coming from the north, supported by the Soviets and Chinese, and an American response to that aggression.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and speak for Brother R108:

We’re killing them,......
robert108 on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

By the word we I take that to mean we Americans.

We, many of us who have served, when we think of our country, it is of the United States of America we think of, not some amorphous conglomeration of Third World states.

We who love America and identify it as against all others. 

When our forces suffer setbacks, find they are in need of support, or claim a resounding victory, they are our side and are part of the WE we refer to when thinking of our side.

A Leftist who despises America and who does not associate himself or herself with America does not and cannot fathom this—so great is their disdain for America and what she stands for.

In this way Leftists, even if born in America, have set themselves apart from Americans and in many ways, have cast aside the right to call themselves American.

Thus, I hope I am not being to bold to speak for R108 when I surmise that when he says WE, he means,
WE AMERICANS.

...for great justice

Before the 1960s it would have been terribly difficult however to generate the kind of divisive animus for America that must exist in order to pull off this version of doublethink. Take for example a Christmas Day, 1950, LIFE Magazine editorial entitled “The Blessing of God.” At the time the editorial was written, vastly outnumbered U.S. Marines were making a dramatic and courageous stand at the frozen Chosin Reservoir against communist Chinese human wave attacks in North Korea.  In this desperate situation the staff at LIFE penned the following:

God, as always, is in the hearts of all who will have Him there.  We, as a people, are indeed blessed of God.  Blessed in the justice of our cause; in that conviction we do not waver. . . . We are blessed, most of all, in ourheritage.  In a set of beliefs or habits . . . in which God looms large.  We do not need to put God at the head of our battalions.  He is in them.

This passage of the editorial is telling for several reasons.  First, what has happened to God?  Second, the word “we” is palpable here in 1950 but completely absent in our current editorial climate. Third, what happened between 1950 and 1968 to destroy the sense of “we” in America?  Some will claim that Vietnam caused this drastic change but the two situations were strikingly similar: communist aggression coming from the north, supported by the Soviets and Chinese, and an American response to that aggression.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and speak for Brother R108:

We’re killing them,......
robert108 on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

By the word we I take that to mean we Americans.

We, many of us who have served, when we think of our country, it is of the United States of America we think of, not some amorphous conglomeration of Third World states.

We who love America and identify it as against all others. 

When our forces suffer setbacks, find they are in need of support, or claim a resounding victory, they are our side and are part of the WE we refer to when thinking of our side.

A Leftist who despises America and who does not associate himself or herself with America does not and cannot fathom this—so great is their disdain for America and what she stands for.

In this way Leftists, even if born in America, have set themselves apart from Americans and in many ways, have cast aside the right to call themselves American.

Thus, I hope I am not being too bold to speak for R108 when I surmise that when he says WE, he means,
WE AMERICANS.

...for great justice

Before the 1960s it would have been terribly difficult however to generate the kind of divisive animus for America that must exist in order to pull off this version of doublethink. Take for example a Christmas Day, 1950, LIFE Magazine editorial entitled “The Blessing of God.” At the time the editorial was written, vastly outnumbered U.S. Marines were making a dramatic and courageous stand at the frozen Chosin Reservoir against communist Chinese human wave attacks in North Korea.  In this desperate situation the staff at LIFE penned the following:

God, as always, is in the hearts of all who will have Him there.  We, as a people, are indeed blessed of God.  Blessed in the justice of our cause; in that conviction we do not waver. . . . We are blessed, most of all, in ourheritage.  In a set of beliefs or habits . . . in which God looms large.  We do not need to put God at the head of our battalions.  He is in them.

This passage of the editorial is telling for several reasons.  First, what has happened to God?  Second, the word “we” is palpable here in 1950 but completely absent in our current editorial climate. Third, what happened between 1950 and 1968 to destroy the sense of “we” in America?  Some will claim that Vietnam caused this drastic change but the two situations were strikingly similar: communist aggression coming from the north, supported by the Soviets and Chinese, and an American response to that aggression.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and speak for Brother R108:

We’re killing them,......
robert108 on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

By the word we I take that to mean we Americans.

We, many of us who have served, when we think of our country, it is of the United States of America we think of, not some amorphous conglomeration of Third World states.

We who love America and identify it as against all others. 

When our forces suffer setbacks, find they are in need of support, or claim a resounding victory, they are our side and are part of the WE we refer to when thinking of our side.

A Leftist who despises America and who does not associate himself or herself with America does not and cannot fathom this—so great is their disdain for America and what she stands for.

In this way Leftists, even if born in America, have set themselves apart from Americans and in many ways, have cast aside the right to call themselves American.

Thus, I hope I am not being too bold to speak for R108 when I surmise that when he says WE, he means,
WE AMERICANS.

...for great justice

Before the 1960s it would have been terribly difficult however to generate the kind of divisive animus for America that must exist in order to pull off this version of doublethink. Take for example a Christmas Day, 1950, LIFE Magazine editorial entitled “The Blessing of God.” At the time the editorial was written, vastly outnumbered U.S. Marines were making a dramatic and courageous stand at the frozen Chosin Reservoir against communist Chinese human wave attacks in North Korea.  In this desperate situation the staff at LIFE penned the following:

God, as always, is in the hearts of all who will have Him there.  We, as a people, are indeed blessed of God.  Blessed in the justice of our cause; in that conviction we do not waver. . . . We are blessed, most of all, in ourheritage.  In a set of beliefs or habits . . . in which God looms large.  We do not need to put God at the head of our battalions.  He is in them.

This passage of the editorial is telling for several reasons.  First, what has happened to God?  Second, the word “we” is palpable here in 1950 but completely absent in our current editorial climate. Third, what happened between 1950 and 1968 to destroy the sense of “we” in America?  Some will claim that Vietnam caused this drastic change but the two situations were strikingly similar: communist aggression coming from the north, supported by the Soviets and Chinese, and an American response to that aggression.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and speak for Brother R108:

We’re killing them,......
robert108 on May 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

By the word we I take that to mean we Americans.

We, many of us who have served, when we think of our country, it is of the United States of America we think of, not some amorphous conglomeration of Third World states.

We who love America and identify it as against all others. 

When our forces suffer setbacks, find they are in need of support, or claim a resounding victory, they are our side and are part of the WE we refer to when thinking of our side.

A Leftist who despises America and who does not associate himself or herself with America does not and cannot fathom this—so great is their disdain for America and what she stands for.

In this way Leftists, even if born in America, have set themselves apart from Americans and in many ways, have cast aside the right to call themselves American.

Thus, I hope I am not being too bold to speak for R108 when I surmise that when he says WE, he means,
WE AMERICANS.

...for great justice

I volunteered to go into harms way and am glad I was accepted.  The general population has no idea.

Communism is evil

In this way Leftists, even if born in America, have set themselves apart from Americans and in many ways, have cast aside the right to call themselves American.

Too true.  In that sense they are little more than traitors.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

MZ: I would only add one word to what you have said: We real Americans, not the testicularly-challenged, America-hating, terrorist-loving lefties.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Jack, I know what an ad hominem is, but that is a different thing than a generalization from experience.

It is a fact that liberals like you think that attacking the source is the same thing as addressing the argument.  You have proved conclusively this with your own behavior, over and over on this blog.

Man-o-man, arguing with you fools is like shooting fish in a barrel.

You haven’t done anything but talk shit and everybody here, probably excluding you, knows that.  LMAO.