The Campaign For DA


A Mosaic Made Of What?

Oh, my.


Anonymous said...

I'll guess the pictures of all 4,000 dead soldiers.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I got it right without checking the story first.

I'm some kind of freakin Alfred Finestein...Oooooooh!

gern blansten said...

this is just another infantile, childish attempt to take a stab at Pres. Bush and the conservative movement. Boy, you liberals must be going insane now that the war in Iraq is going well. That's why it's never reported in the papers anymore - except for the death toll. By the way, what was the death toll racked up by DEMOCRATIC presidents Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam?
Y'all are so funny. You push and push and push and say the war is being lost, then when it's successful, you have to move on and talk about something else, like the death toll.
By the way, I posted a question the other day: Have all you liberals "gone green" by using just one or two squares of toilet paper like your liberal goddess Sheryl Crow suggested?

On another political note, it pleases me to no end to see the liberal pirahnas feeding on each other with the two democratic, presidential candidates. I'm laughing myself silly...


wordkyle said...

A work of art five years in the making.

I'm not impressed. A guy did one just like it in a single day back in 1944.

Anonymous said...

Wordbile I was looking for your picture on it you are in it you are back in the states running your mouth.

Wish you were here with me and that other pond scum Gern. It seems that those who proclaim how great it is to give MY LIFE for a cause dont have a vested intrest !!!

So either SHUT UP or SUIT UP and get over here mouth !!!

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing dead troops

Anonymous said...

Okay, in the 5 yrs we have been over there we have lost 4000 brave men and women,compared to other wars this is a small number. If you look WWI we lost 116,708 in one year, WWII we lost 407,316 in 4yrs, Korean War 54,246 in 3 years, Vietnam 58,168 in the 11 years we were there. I don't remember seeing anything in my history books at school about the discord it caused in the US. What we read was a country standing behind their men and women, not protesting to get them home. What happened to the American spirit that was here little over 7 years ago? I don't mean to make light of this, but war isn't a pretty thing and it is because of all these brave men and women we live in a nation were we are free to believe, express and worship the way we want.

wordkyle said...

Anon 1:23 - We each do our part. I like to think my small offerings here do some good.

Not to be insulting, but you did get what I was referring to, didn't you? If grasping subtleties is not your strong suit, let me know and I'll explain.

Jarhead said...


Maybe you should take your own advice...

I can picture you sitting there yelling at your computer screen. How's that working out for you? Getting anything accomplished that way?

Your seem to be worked up enough ~ perhaps you should direct some of that negative energy towards the insurgents rather than posters on a blog. Your country could use you. It would accomplish much more (your apparent goal to end the war) and I'll bet you would feel better without the weigh of all that anger on your shoulders.

Anonymous said...

I to have too much time on my hands. I am working on a mosaic of all the people that perished on 9/11. The hard part is making Clinton's nose. It keeps growing like Pinnochio.

Anonymous said...

Haha 1:44 p.m.

You've been reading some whitewashed history books its seems.

Anonymous said...

The difference between WW I and II and Vietnam and Iraq.........the reasons we went to war. The latter two based on deception.

To dissent is not showing disrespect for the troops......far from it. I deplore this mess.....the 4000 deaths, but I also slip a twenty to the GI's at the airport when I have a chance just to say thanks and have lunch on me......a guy who is grateful for their sacrafice.

Let's bring em home. Enough already

I served during Vietnam and flew in uniform several times across the US and never encountered disrespect tho the press now says some did. That would be sad.

Their commander-in-chief may be an AWOL reservist and an idiot, but that doesn't detract one bit from the sacrafice the families have endured.

Let's bring em home.

Skeptical said...

1:23 "over here",what do you mean by that,Balsora,Boonesville or something really hard like South Dallas?

gern blansten said...

Hey 1:23:

I Am doing my part! I show up for work everyday, worship where I want and thank God for the brave men and women who fight the enemy. If I had been the right age at the right time, I would have been over there fighting the evemy. However, it wasn't my job. After all, not EVERYBODY can be there. My job over here is to live a good life and salute those brave men and women.
Now go away while I take another sip of my Fresca....

oh, by the way, THNAK YOU 1:23 for solidifying my argument that says when librerals can't win an argument, they resort to name-calling. HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Silicone Alley said...

Cant we all just get along?

mzchief said...

To The Whiners & Quitters...
My brother is a Lt. Col. U.S. Army serving his first tour in northern Iraq after having served 3 tours in Afghanistan. It is common military strategy that a HUGE show of force in an engaged region means greater safety for each individual troop. That concept is why a battalion of riot police are sent in force to contain rioters rather than 1/2 the force broken up into clusters. I do not want a single troop drawn down from Iraq and endangering the lives of the remaining troops just so that Obama or Clinton can fulfill their campaign promises.

The U.S. currently has troops in South Korea 50 years after the ceasefire with North Korea. The U.S. currently has troops in several European nations 63 years after the end of WWII. I hope to Heaven the U.S. maintains a force in Iraq for as long as possible if for no other reasons than to let Iran and Syria know the U.S. is at hand if either nation starts anything. I want the U.S. to be available to defend U.S. allies in the Mid-East including Israel.

Here is a TRUTH no politician will tell you. As long as the U.S. remains in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is killing terrorists. If any of you doubt it is not better to fight the terrorists on someone else's soil take a look at the aftermath of 9/11 and WWII.

You bet I want John McCain as POTUS. It must scare the pudding out of the terrorists to know that if they mess with the U.S. a scary old man like John McCain will hunt them down until Hell freezes over.

Anonymous said...

The surge is definitely working. Any day now the Sunnies and the Shittes are going to realize that their 1,500+ year history/desire to destroy one another is not going to work. They will know that America is prepared to sacrifice any number of its own young men to defeat them.

wordkyle said...

2:11 - Each of us has the right to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. Substantiate your points of 1) Iraq war based on deception; 2) Bush was AWOL; and 3) Bush is an idiot.

Have your opinion -- you don't mean anything to me so I could care less. Pass allegations off as "facts" for your opinion, and expect to be challenged.

As for your concluding, "Bring em home," very touching.

Then what? From that point on, no country would ever dare ally themselves with us again, because it would tell them that we destroy our friends more quickly than we do our enemies. Is the inevitable fall of the Iraq government and slaughter of any Iraqis who helped the US not something to consider? Would you then approve invading Iraq again because of the death toll that your strategy caused? Would that satisfy your desire for a "moral" war?

Wouldn't the sacrifice of the 4,000 then be in vain?

Anonymous said...

Bush has the look of death on his face.

Anonymous said...

We have 26 DD214's in my family, their won't be anymore. This Government and the people who keep blindly putting democrats and republicans in office isn't worth one more drop of sweat from my family, much less any more blood. Keeping spating at each other, and ignoring the real problems. Loss of freedom, over taxation, government handouts conditioned on dictated behavior. Can't wait for that government healthcare, it'll probably work like the highway road crew.

Anonymous said...

Good gawd, you people are giving me a headache. I'm talking to you hawk idiots....gern, wordbile, jarlip, etc.

SillyAlley, sorry to burst your bubble, but we can't all just get along. The internet has provided all/most of us a way to express our opinions, whatever they may be.

It's also allowed me to see just how many shiate heads there are in the US - warmongers, pedos, corrupt investment bankers, wanna be's, but I can't forget the do-gooders......

We deserve the wrath that has come down upon us........gawd help us all...Bush, blood for oil, some of you jerks just don't get it.

I'm ready for the end of the world as we know it, because I know some of you ba$tards will not be able to sustain your over-indulgent lifestyles, and hopefully will just vanish before my very eyes.

Anonymous said...

Kudos 1:23. You are to be commended for serving your country but even more so for seeing things as they really are. Most of the Rah Rahs are too old to join and the ones that are already in have bought in to the lies that this administration continues to tell.

Anonymous said...

Actually, you frequently mean to be insulting. And not in a subtle way.

Anonymous said...

Hey, you dipshits! Let's pretend the dems get in a strangle-hold and can't choose between Clinton or Obama.

Could you imagine a Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama ticket? I read about that possibility on Drudgereport today......could be a possibility according to one SuperDelegate.

Check it just may be the answer.

Wordbile, do us all a favor and don't even bother wasting the bandwidth with your blabberings.
Oh, I've coined a new name for you, Worddenial.

Anonymous said...

You want examples of deception? OK:

We were told that the administration had no knowledge that commercial airplanes would be used in a terrorist attack prior to September 11. That was a lie.

We were told that there was a link between Iraq and the September 11 terrorist attacks. That was a lie.

We were told that Iraq posed an imminent threat. That was a lie.

We were told that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie.

We were told that Congress had access to the same pre-war intelligence as the administration. That was a lie.

We were told that mobile biological weapon facilities had been found. That was a lie.

We were told that American forces would withdraw from Iraq if their newly-elected government asked for a withdrawal. That was a lie.

We were told that Iraq opposed a withdrawal timetable. That was a lie.

Anonymous said...

Gosh,you are smart mzchief,I learn alot from reading your posts.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Do any of us trust our government anymore?

The founding fathers of this great country did, but greed made it's way into our government.

God bless America.......or should it be......

God help America.

.....or we could say what Obama's pastor said........

......he may be right after all!!

Anonymous said...

100 years from now,who'll care?

Anonymous said...

Some might say they are the lucky ones as,"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Cue the cool music and send in the helicopters with guns blazing.

Anyone ever consider how these troops that everyone is getting so upset over might have felt about their time there and their chance of dying?

Anonymous said...

THIS is exactly what the enemy wants! To divide and conquer while we rip each other to pieces in an orgy of blog violence!
Keep it up ya'll if you want to lose this war.

wordkyle said...

542- You're right. But usually it's subtle.

544- Blabberings that you can't rebut. You'd think from the way you (and others) talk about me that it would be easy.

mzchief said...

To anonymous 6:47...
I KNOW how my brother feels about killing terrorists since he VOLUNTEERED for his last two commissions in Afghanistan. Take a look at the
re-enlistment rates
and that should indicate to any INTELLIGENT person how the majority of the military feels about their mission. Just because you are a COWARD and want to cut and run do not dare to foist your cowardice on the brave men and women who risk their lives so you can piss and whine on the Interweb.

darwin on steroids said...

I lived outside the country for many years and noticed little about how it fared during that time. One assumes it will always be how he left it. I'm back and it's not. It has fallen significantly, and the divisiveness seems to be the reason.

I personally don't agree completely with either party wholeheartedly, though I do think the Democrats are capable of hastening our demise, thobeit inevitable in either case.

My observation as concerns the Iraq "war": It is not a war. If it were we would be fighting, not occupying and aiding the majority populace correct decades of mismanagement at the hands of a minority. As concerns American casualties: if you focused on the math instead of the hype on your TV, you would see the percentages to be neglibible as relates to the size, scope, and duration of the undertaking. Most of you seem to only be loudly overreacting in the name of propagating the aforementioned divisiveness.

Take heart, all great civilizations have ultimately imploded. You will be in good company, historically speaking.

Anonymous said... why doesn't the "artist" do one of all those who died in WWI or WWII who died so that we are not speaking German or Russian today. You know... the many thousands of men who GAVE US OUR FREEDDOM? The people in this "composit" volunteered to continue to fight for our freedom in this country. They knew what price they might have to pay, but they signed up anyway. You knotheads who are trivializing their deaths by saying they died for nothing are the most unpatriotic and ungrateful thugs of all!

Anonymous said...

OMG, Mzchief!!! You and I finally agree!! (The world must be coming to an end!)

HHL said...

after all this, you people are still blathering on about how awesome this Great Iraqi Adventure has turned out?


mzchief said...

To hhl...
Thanks for your meaningless two cents.

Anonymous said...

Have any of you Iraqi experts seen the Frontline 2 day account of Bush's War? If any of you did, you'd be distressed at the FACTS of how we got into this mess and how poorly it was executed after the decision was mad to go into Iraq. Disgusting! To the strange person who wanted to count American deaths in Viet Nam under Kennedy and Johnson without acknowledging the deaths under Nixon and Ford - who ultimately withdrew in defeat. And to Mzchief who thinks re-enlistment rates are important - well then explain why the military now has to bribe these young soldiers with $15,000 to $30,000 of our tax dollars to get them to re-up. And please explain why we have some 150,000 "civilian" contractors in Iraq doing similar jobs as the military but we must pay them some 5 times as much as a soldier? This war was ill-conceived with no adequate follow up plan and has resulted in a severe strain on our economy that affects us all. All because many of you have bought into the boogie man fears promoted by the Bush crew. Just pathetic.

Anonymous said...

If the Supremes had of selected Gore (ha ha) instead of Bush, and
things went exactly as they are, and Gore had invaded Iraq after a
short skirmish in Afganistan chasing the real culprits of 9/11, wonder if the "Rah Rah Kill'em all, let God sort'em out; Praise God and pass the ammunition' Fight'em over there so we don't fight'em here; Well, what else can you do when attacked; Blah Blah the terrorist win; Do this or the terrorist win; Wah Wah or the terrorist win; Terrorist alert level Red; We're all gonna die from a Terrorist attack!; Bush is
a great leader; Bush is a great Commander-In-Chief; "They" better not mess with 'Ol Bush;" Ultra-Patriotic conservative crowd would be so supportive. Or would the cons be like: "Gore should have stayed after Bin Laden; Why did Gore invade a Sovereign country and not go after the 911 terrorist?; This senseless war is bankrupting America; Gore must have been crazy to think Iraq would greet us as liberators; Yellow cake uranium hoax; Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, should have a heart to heart talk with Saudia Arabia, the real enemy; Gore is a sorry Commander-In-Chief, we need a great military leader to "GitRdun and GitTerroristontheRun"; Going to war with Iraq was one of the most
stupid things a president could do, should have stayed in Afganistan and done what Russia could not do and conquer them and the Taliban."
Doubtful the War Mongering Conservatives would be supportive of any Democrat President if the situation was identical and nothing changed except the political party. The Right shoe would be on the Wrong foot, as usual.

RPM said...

Wordbile and Jughead, you guys just solidified my opinion that neither of you have a freakin' clue.

I'm willing to bet neither of you watched Frontline tonight and saw the real reason for the situation we are saddled with in Iraq.

1:23 Salute to you for your service. Keep your head down, stay safe and return home soon.

wordkyle said...

619- Two points: 1) Substantiate your assertions. For example, you're saying that the Bush administration knew about the WTC attacks in advance, right? Also, who said there was a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks? 2) There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

Jarhead said...

I believe everything I see on TV. I especially form opinions on things by watching one specific TV show. When someone from the TV box tells me something, I fully believe it and there's no room for interpretation.

I further believe the Family Guy is an actual person that lives in Rhode Island.

By only believing what I see on TV, I am able to pick only shows that fit my belief system, therefore I know that I'm right about everything.

If I know nothing about a topic, I'll set my DVR to record a show about it, watch it and then consider myself totally informed. Then I will go forth and spew the rhetoric to the masses. God forbid I use more than one source on a subject or consider an alternative point of view. If someone has a point of view different from what I learned on the TV box, then I'll just call them names or tell them they don't have a clue. That'll show 'em.

Hmmm... I think I'll move to Chico...

wordkyle said...

1056 - Wha-?

I always enjoy the "Supreme Court chose Bush" introduction to an argument. It's a convenient disregrd of oh, say, the United States Constitution. For those interested, here's a primer on Florida 2000.

rpm - I'm glad that we disagree. I would hate to have the same opinion as someone who believes he's getting the whole story from Frontline and PBS.

Realdeal said...

1:23 ain't servin nothin but maybe a Mcrib now and then. Big fat faker.

Anonymous said...

Yeah,all those poor draftees had no idea what they were getting into.

Anonymous said...

McCain's son just returned from Iraq.

SadAmerican said...

Good or bad,right or wrong doesn't matter anymore,does it?

Anonymous said...

The positive 'ripple effect from these wars is an unbelievably good military. I don't think people truly understand how good our military is,even people who believe we, "Have the best military in the world". This is true of course,but should be strengthened by saying one of the best EVER. You'd have to go back to WWII US and German and then back to Roman armies and grasp how good they were to understand how good our military is. We have captains and majors with MUCH more combat experience than most generals and troops with years of multi theater combat and combat ops. No matter what anybody says we have the best technology and equipment in the world as well and yes it DOES get to the troops.
I know everybody worries about our ability to expand the fight and defend against other enemies,but don't, we can handle it and our threats know that.
Won't say I look forward to war with Iran but if it comes we'll destroy them.
Just be proud to be an American and remember those men and women were too. They died doing something they loved and not one was drafted.

mzchief said...

To Jarhead...
You do know you need to let "Jethro & Cletus" know you are being facetious.

Anonymous said...

What I clearly said is that the Bush administration claimed they had no prior warning that planes might be used in a terrorist attack against the U.S prior to September 11. That was a lie.
In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Condoleezza Rice stated: “I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.”
Dr. Rice admitted privately to the 9-11 panel that she had “misspoken” when she said there were no prior warnings, but then proceeded to repeat this claim in public.
In fact, the warnings received were sufficient for Attorney General Ashcroft to begin traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines because of what the Justice Department called “a threat assessment.” The Justice Department has yet to release this “threat assessment.”
Interestingly, Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner into the summit, prompting officials to close the airspace over Genoa and station anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport.
According to Sibel Edmonds, a translator with the FBI, “it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September.”
According to Bush, “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” Bush reiterated this comment at an April 1, 2002 press conference. “There was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.”
In fact, Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which specifically mentioned Bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden would launch an attack against the US in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.”
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6 briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.

I’m astounded that you don’t feel that any link was suggested by this administration between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Certainly Dick Cheney has repeatedly made such a claim. When questioned about why no link had been established between al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney made the following statement: “Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq.” This, despite the Senate Intelligence Committee’s prior report which states: “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information (that Vice President Cheney) has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.” In addition, in his appeal to Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, President Bush submitted the following: “I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Silicone Alley said...

Can we start a poll on who actually took the time to read 12:09 response?

mzchief said...

To Silicone Alley...
I quit reading 12:09's rant after the first sentence when they first made reference to a factual event and I immediately noticed there were no links to substantiate 12:09's referenced events and quoted remarks.

Anonymous said...

I did Silly. Your refusal to read it, or perhaps your inability to comprehend it, makes you a part of the problem. Idiot.

Anonymous said...

good idea Silicone,whew!

Anonymous said...

just let me know which quotes, references and events you would like substantiation for.

Anonymous said...

Three words, mzchief:

Anonymous said...

mzchief, you once again are full of crap. Not only do you use a Fox News story as a "source," but the "facts" given are wrong. The re-enlistment numbers given also include "extensions" which are an Army euphemism for Stop Loss. Meaning that the enlistment is extended involuntarily. The solider doesn't have a choice, yet the Army chose to use these Stop Loss numbers as proof that more soliders are re-enlisting. They're not, the Army is doing it for them. Take a look at the other numbers, especially the loss in Captains. The experienced officers are leaving, despite sometime $30,000 bonuses. Its the enlisted that can't leave.

wordkyle said...

1209 - 1) Rice "misspoke" in that there were reports from 1998 and 1999 about the possiblity of planes as bombs. She had originally said "no one could have imagined," and clarified that someone had reported it years earlier, during the Clinton administration.

From Rice's testimony: "..this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.

"Part of the problem is that you have thousands of pieces of information, car bombs and this method and that method, and you have to depend to a certain degree on the intelligence agencies to sort, to tell you what is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative.
"I can only assume or believe
that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing
was speculative."

2) You quote a speech by Bush in which he does not claim that Iraq caused 9/11, but that Iraq is a part of the larger war on terror. Which is what he's said all along.

You should use something other than Liberal websites for your info.

actual reader of posts said...

mzchief and ditto mzchiefs, isn't it convenient that when someone takes the time to make valid points, rather than responding to what they have written, you completely dismiss it because it is too long and/or not properly linked?

That's called being LAZY.

mzchief, please spare us your retort about how smart you are; what all you have read; what high grades you had; how thin you are, what a great BMI you have, how tough you had it growing up, how perfect your family is and all the other puffing that you reguarly subject us to.

12:09, no facts, quotes, videos, books, reports, hearings, or otherwise will make any difference to wordkyle. His mind is made up and anything contrary to his already settled views will be diminished or ignored. After months of reading his many posts it is my opinion that he is not open to any view but his own and he will only seek out information that conforms with his existing interpretations. His rants, although full of sound and fury, signify nothing.

Anonymous said...

So mzchief, if I link a quote to someplace on the Internets it makes it true. Genius!

Anonymous said...

"..this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst."

"somebody in our midst"?
I'll say.

You (and Rice) chose to ignore the existence of the memo which Bush received on August 6, 2001 (not in 1998, not in 1999, not "years before") which mentioned the possible use of airplanes in a terrorist attack against the U.S. As mentioned earlier, the title of the memo was "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S."
Condoleeza Rice (and Bush) lied when she said there had been no indication of the use of airplanes; that seems pretty clear.

Bush chose to invoke the September 11 attacks in his appeal for an invasion of Iraq. You're playing games with semantics here. You're also ignoring Cheney's repeated attempts to link September 11 with Iraq.

I'll assume that since you didn't challenge any of the other points, you also agree that we have all been repeatedly lied to.

mzchief said...

To Actual Reader...
Either 12:09 RECALLED all of those events or found them at some VALID site. I would like to have the opportunity to make certain the quotes were in their entirety and not misinterpreted by 12:09. I would also like to have the opportunity to determine if the sight from which the quotes were taken was a VALID site and not someone's opinion stated on someone else's blog.

Oh and since YOU have been following along so well on the home game, you are absolutely correct there is no need for me to re-inform you of how smart I am; what all I have read; what high grades I had; how thin I am, what a great BMI I have, how tough I had it growing up, how perfect my family is, how brilliant my son is and how incredibly successful is my husband, especially since your jealousy of me is eating you alive.

Hey! Get off your arse and maybe you too can be thin and have an excellent BMI. I am certain there really is not much you can do about emulating the other aspects of my AWESOME life.

You do know, I would RATHER have people like you hate me than like me, right?

mzchief said...

To anonymous 4:31...
I am CERTAIN you believe that all it would take would be to read something on the "Internets" for it to be true but I require a slightly higher means of validating a source than your method. Clearly, you TOO have been following along on the home game because I am a "genius."

mzchief said...

To anonymous 3:56...
As a rule I cite my sources with little or NO regard as to whether or not the majority of the gits on this site approve.

Anonymous said...

"If someone has a point of view different from what I learned....then I'll just call them names or tell them they don't have a clue. That'll show 'em."

Isn't that what you've been doing all along?

wordkyle said...

414 umm...wrong. But I understand your frustration. You guys are used to people rolling over when you scream at them. Having to face real opposition throws you off.

Nothing to be ashamed of.

To get back on topic: the major difference between WWII and Iraq (politically) is that at the beginning of WWII the Republicans opposed Roosevelt on the war -- until the war started. Then they put all their effort into helping our soldiers win.

In contrast, the modern Democrats approved of the Iraq war at first (when it could benefit them politically,) but when fighting started they began to oppose it, and have done so every day since. Democrats have chosen politics over helping the soldiers win.

How much has the Democrat undermining of the war effort contributed to the mosaic?

Anonymous said...

Instead of mzchief responding to the rebuttal that her sources are flat out wrong, she give her Antoinette response. Proving once again she is full of hot air, and collapses like a holed balloon when called on it. Makes the same noises, too.

Anonymous said...

Bush was not selected by the Supremes? He was elected by the recounts the Republican bussed in thugs stopped?

Kingfish said...

You locksteppers are the just like the drunk dude at the bar, that despite the warnings of your friends, you still insist upon picking up the middle aged woman with a halter top and cameltoe cutoff shorts.

Rose Colored glasses anyone?

Anonymous said...

Hannity Parrot...where did you get your brown mustache? Chocolate Milk?

Anonymous said...

hey kingfish, you and al gore havin a nice delusion. hope you got protection. i heard he might not be clean.

wordkyle said...

Oh, 603, I worry about you. The Aug 6 memo part regarding aircraft:

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

"Nevertheless, 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."

That's it. That's the extent of your "proof." It does not mention using aircraft in a terrorist attack. When mentioning hijacking at all, it categorizes it as a blackmail threat (which is consistent with hijackings for the last thirty years.)

Re-read what Condoleezza Rice actually said about "aircraft as missiles (or bombs.)" You misquote nearly everyone involved to try to make your point.

President Bush - the leading voice for his administration, wouldn't you say? - never said that Saddam Hussein pulled the trigger on 9/11. But Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press a few days after 9/11 that we didn't have evidence that Iraq was connected to 9/11. Subsequently he discussed various reports that did suggest a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, because such reports existed, from different sources.

Stick with one point, and if it's like your others, I'll rebut it. It's not worth wasting everyone else's bandwidth to clean up everything you puke up.

Anonymous said...

What about the ones of us that like middle aged hotties in halters and cutoffs? Just cause they (or we'uns) are middle aged, does not mean we/they are not Hotties!

Anonymous said...

Were drugs or alcohol involved?

Anonymous said...

And I'm a bit worried about your comprehension abilities.

You yourself quoted from the August 6 memo:
"preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks".

I think that is pretty clear. You do remember how the U.S. was ATTACKED on September 11, don't you? HIGHJACKED AIRPLANES.

From Bush's SOTU address, January 28, 2003:

"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al Qaeda secretly and without fingerprints. He can provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists or help them develop their own. BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained."

I think that is pretty clear. You do comprehend the attempted link here between September 11 and Saddam Hussein, don't you?

I caught your sly attempt to qualify that "Bush....never said that Saddam Hussein pulled the trigger on 9-11". Does that sort of slight of hand work for you in real life? What I said and which you tried to dodge, is that there was no link between Iraq and 9-11 despite the attempts of Bush and his administration to establish one (see above).

Oh, and by the way. Dick Cheney continued to trumpet a link between al Qaeda long after it was established that none existed. Further false justification for this war:

From the Boston Globe, June 16, 2004:
In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein "a patron of terrorism" and said "he had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
However, a former top weapons inspector said yesterday he and other investigators have not found evidence of a Hussein-Al Qaeda link.
"At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there," said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."
"Cheney's speech is evidence-free," Kay said. "It is an assertion, but doesn't say why we should believe this now."

From BBC News, April 6, 2007:
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has repeated his assertion that the al-Qaeda network had links with Iraq before the US-led invasion of 2003. Mr Cheney told a US radio show: "They were present before we invaded Iraq." Hours earlier, a declassified Pentagon report said information obtained from Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein had confirmed they had no strong ties.
The belief that Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda were working together was an important element in the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq.
Mr Cheney, in an interview with conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, insisted there had been a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda terror group.
The newly declassified Pentagon report was based on interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two of his aides, as well as documents seized in Iraq. The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, had pushed for its full release after it was released in summary form in February.
In a statement on Thursday, he said the document showed why a defense department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon pre-war intelligence work had been "inappropriate". The report into former Pentagon policy chief Douglas Feith's handling of intelligence on Iraq was prepared by the defense department's top watchdog, Inspector General Thomas Gimble. Under repeated questioning by Mr Levin in February, Mr Gimble said the conclusions reached in reports by Mr Feith were not fully supported by the available intelligence. In particular, his conclusion there was a "mature and symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda could not be justified on the basis of the available intelligence. In addition, an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and a leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, never took place.

Oh, and just for your amusement:

wordkyle said...

Well, 601, with the benefit of hindsight, you come to the only conclusions possible (for you) from that memo -- 1) an attack the likes of which had never happened, 2) from words that follow the words "not been able to corroborate" and which classified hijackings as some of the "more sensational" (uncorroborated) threats.

Seven years after the fact, you argue that Rice et al should have had total recall of every word on every piece of paper that ever crossed their desk. And more, that each and every threat should have been treated as credible.

The Aug 6 memo does NOT say "terrorists plan to use planes as missiles." If the idea were credible, that wuold have been stated explicitly.

Rather than torture the eyes of readers of this blog with another very, very long post, I will point them to here for a list of source documents on possible Iraq/al-Qaeda ties.

One quote: "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

This quote is from the indictment that the Clinton Justice Department brought against Osama bin Laden in 1998.

wordkyle said...

I forgot the coda: There's a differnce between being wrong and lying.

Anonymous said...

Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program ?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational ? They have 5-100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Forc e consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers ?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158% ?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?


Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades. tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves three major purposes of the extreme liberal news media in the USA/Canada:

1. It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support from our allies, and:

2. It is intended to discourage American citizens and erode their support for the war.

3. It is intended to help the Democratic Party gain more power in the next elections.

Anonymous said...

Since you offer a rather flaccid response to my comment and virtually no refutation of the facts outlined in this and previous comments (while outright ignoring the bulk of them) I can only assume you have exhausted all possible excuses for this administration.

But by all means, just believe that instead of outright lying and blantant manipulation (despite the overwhelming evidence) they have merely been "wrong".

Many, many, many, many times.

wordkyle said...

Well, 1247, you see the world through Liberal-colored glasses. Anything less than perfection by the Bush administration you call a "lie." You've offered the same old tired stuff with the Liberal interpretation, made with leaps and lapses of logic and after-the-fact expertise.

Condoleezza Rice didn't lie.

Bush never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Cheney never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

An illustration of my point: I don't think you are lying in your posts...but you're wrong. Using your interpretation of your own argument, you would be lying.

Has the war in Iraq gone perfectly? Of course not. But war never goes perfectly.

Was it reasonable and prudent to believe in 2003 that Iraq had WMD, and was likely to hand them over to terrorists who would use them against the US?


Anonymous said...

Word must be on the Bush Payroll. Or maybe trying for a reporter job at Fakes News.

wordkyle said...

Hardly. There should have been better planning for Iraq after Saddam's downfall. We should have gone in with more troops sooner. All kinds of things should have been done better in Iraq -- and they're all easy to suggest after the fact.

On the other hand, the Democrats made it harder for the military to act in the most efficient manner because of the damage the Dems and the media were doing politically here at home.

A recent study at Harvard indicated that perception of weakened resolve -- such as public statements made by Democrats since right after they voted to authorize force in Iraq -- emboldens terrorists and causes a spike in attacks.

So again, how much did the Democrats contribute to that mosaic?

Anonymous said...

wordkyle continues to attribute false positions to others then claims those other folks are wrong! Of course they would be if, in fact, his false attributions were correct. Fortunately, the rest of the nation and world have seen through these charlatans and CHANGE is coming!