| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2006 05:36:18 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
Bush keeps revising war justification
TOM RAUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S.
is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to
history-of-civilization stakes now.
Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using
what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or
from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.
But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the
war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the
justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive
"struggle between good and evil."
Republicans seized on North Korea's reported nuclear test last week as
further evidence that the need for strong U.S. leadership extends beyond
Iraq.
Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie
the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against
terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.
"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East,
with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or
used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference
last week in the Rose Garden.
When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war
justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.
After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to
spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists
in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America
safer," themes Bush pounds today.
"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a
California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."
Vice President ***** Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the
civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.
Except for the weapons of mass destruction argument, there is some validity
in each of Bush's shifting rationales, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign
policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who initially supported the war
effort.
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it
should be."
Andrew Card, Bush's first chief of staff, said Bush's evolving rhetoric,
including his insistence that Iraq is a crucial part of the fight against
terrorism, is part of an attempt to put the war in better perspective for
Americans.
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining
the stakes, Card said in an interview. "We never said it was going to be
easy. The president always told us it would be long and tough."
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror
has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of
the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
Bush at first sought to explain increasing insurgent and sectarian violence
as a lead-up to Iraqi elections. But elections came and went, and a
democratically elected government took over, and the sectarian violence
increased.
Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has
likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and
communism. He has called Iraq the "central front" in a global fight against
radical jihadists.
Having jettisoned most of the earlier, upbeat claims of progress, Bush these
days emphasizes consequences of setting even a limited withdrawal timetable:
abandonment of the Iraqi people, destabilizing the Middle East and
emboldening terrorists around the world.
The more ominous and determined his words, the more skeptical the American
public appears, polls show, both on the war itself and over whether it is
part of the larger fight against terrorism, as the administration insists.
Bush's approval rating, reflected by AP-Ipsos polls, has slid from the mid
60s at the outset of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to the high 30s
now. There were light jumps upward after the December 2003 capture of
Saddam, Bush's re-election in November 2004 and each of three series of
aggressive speeches over the past year. Those gains tended to vanish
quickly.
With the war intruding on the fall elections, both parties have stepped up
their rhetoric.
Republicans, who are also reeling from the congressional page scandal, are
casting Democrats as seeking to "cut and run" and appease terrorists.
Democrats accuse Bush of failed leadership with his "stay the course"
strategy. They cite a government intelligence assessment suggesting the Iraq
war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a book by journalist Bob
Woodward that portrays Bush as intransigent in his defense of the Iraq war
and his advisers as bitterly divided.
Democrats say Iraq has become a distraction from the war against terrorism -
not a central front. But they are divided among themselves on what strategy
to pursue.
Republicans, too, increasingly are growing divided as U.S. casualties rise.
"I struggle with the fact that President Bush said, `As the Iraqis stand up,
we will stand down.' But the fact is, this has not happened," said Rep.
Christopher Shays, R-Conn., a war supporter turned war skeptic.
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John
Warner of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was
"drifting sideways." He urged consideration of a "change of course" if the
Iraq government fails to restore order over the next two or three months.
More than 2,750 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning
of the war, most of them since Bush's May 2003 "mission accomplished"
aircraft carrier speech. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.
Recent events have been dispiriting.
The United States now has about 141,000 troops in Iraq, up from about
127,000 in July. Some military experts have suggested at least one
additional U.S. division, or around 20,000 troops, is needed in western Iraq
alone.
Dan Benjamin, a former Middle East specialist with the National Security
Council in the Clinton administration, said the administration is
overemphasizing the nature of the threat in an effort to bolster support.
"I think the administration has oversold the case that Iraq could become a
jihadist state," said Benjamin, now with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. "If the U.S. were to leave Iraq tomorrow, the result
would be a bloodbath in which Sunnis and Shiites fight it out. But the
jihadists would not be able to seek power."
Not all of Bush's rhetorical flourishes have had the intended consequences.
When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian
violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent appearances.
Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and
dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House
disputed.
For a while last summer, Bush depicted the war as one against "Islamic
fascism," borrowing a phrase from conservative commentators. The strategy
backfired, further fanning anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.
The "fascism" phrase abruptly disappeared from Bush's speeches, reportedly
after he was talked out of it by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidant now with the State Department.
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president.
But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use
`violent extremist,'" she said.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
16 Oct 2006 02:49:32 AM |
|
|
In article <4vWdnXBH_adCKq_YnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Bush keeps revising war justification
TOM RAUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S.
is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to
history-of-civilization stakes now.
<snips>
Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has
likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and
communism. He has called Iraq the "central front" in a global fight against
radical jihadists.
This comparison is just so ludicrous and Bush keeps making it. The
Nazis, Japanese, Italians, and Russians represented modern highly
organized industrialized counties, with large populations, and powerful
armies, navies, and air corps. Al Quaeda and the other terrorist groups
are military gnats compared to them. They are lightly armed, and
relatively few in number. Their only real weapon is sneak attacks on
civilian populations, while horrendous, cause only minor casualties
compared to the millions killed in WW2.
They can hurt us, but there is no way that they can militarily defeat
us. They lack the numbers and the weapons. But they can inflict great
pain on us when we try to take them on on their own 'turf' as in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Instead of conjuring up images of great military powers, we should treat
them for what they are, criminal gangs. Instead of wasting the lives of
thousand of our soldiers, we should be working with police and other
internal security and intelligence agencies around the world to
interrupt their plans and capture their leaders.
If Bush wants to be a "war president" he can buy a computer game and
pretend he's FDR.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
16 Oct 2006 11:28:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:49:32 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
They can hurt us, but there is no way that they can militarily defeat
us. They lack the numbers and the weapons.
By the same token there's no way we can defeat them - because there is
no "them". It's whoever gets a pint of gasoline and a bottle, or an
unexploded shell and a little stupidity. After we get them all
there'll be just as many of them left. the more of them we defeat the
more of them we create. Bush & Co aren't too good at figuring that
out.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
16 Oct 2006 11:47:44 PM |
|
|
In article <0lc7j2tjsmo7sbond6g55od3mrjia2a84j@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:49:32 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
They can hurt us, but there is no way that they can militarily defeat
us. They lack the numbers and the weapons.
By the same token there's no way we can defeat them - because there is
no "them". It's whoever gets a pint of gasoline and a bottle, or an
unexploded shell and a little stupidity. After we get them all
there'll be just as many of them left. the more of them we defeat the
more of them we create. Bush & Co aren't too good at figuring that
out.
That's the point. We are trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. By
invading countries, all we are doing is making the populace angry and
more likely to join the terrorists. If you bomb someone's house and kill
his wife and kids, what do you expect him to do? Welcome you with
flowers and sweets?
Bush and his cronies will never get it.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
20 Oct 2006 10:40:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:47:44 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <0lc7j2tjsmo7sbond6g55od3mrjia2a84j@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:49:32 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
They can hurt us, but there is no way that they can militarily defeat
us. They lack the numbers and the weapons.
By the same token there's no way we can defeat them - because there is
no "them". It's whoever gets a pint of gasoline and a bottle, or an
unexploded shell and a little stupidity. After we get them all
there'll be just as many of them left. the more of them we defeat the
more of them we create. Bush & Co aren't too good at figuring that
out.
That's the point. We are trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. By
invading countries, all we are doing is making the populace angry and
more likely to join the terrorists. If you bomb someone's house and kill
his wife and kids, what do you expect him to do? Welcome you with
flowers and sweets?
Bush and his cronies will never get it.
Oh, they 'get it.' That's why they've taken the route they have from
the start. Their plan is working as designed.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
17 Oct 2006 07:52:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:47:44 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
That's the point. We are trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. By
invading countries, all we are doing is making the populace angry and
more likely to join the terrorists. If you bomb someone's house and kill
his wife and kids, what do you expect him to do? Welcome you with
flowers and sweets?
Bush and his cronies will never get it.
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
17 Oct 2006 11:34:25 PM |
|
|
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:47:44 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
That's the point. We are trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. By
invading countries, all we are doing is making the populace angry and
more likely to join the terrorists. If you bomb someone's house and kill
his wife and kids, what do you expect him to do? Welcome you with
flowers and sweets?
Bush and his cronies will never get it.
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
17 Oct 2006 11:35:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:34:25 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
<jhachmann-F2239A.21342517102006@news.giganews.com>:
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:47:44 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
That's the point. We are trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. By
invading countries, all we are doing is making the populace angry and
more likely to join the terrorists. If you bomb someone's house and kill
his wife and kids, what do you expect him to do? Welcome you with
flowers and sweets?
Bush and his cronies will never get it.
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
Let us help you fill out your ballot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
18 Oct 2006 03:01:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:35:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Let us help you fill out your ballot.
"There's no need for you to go to the polls. We know how you want to
vote. We'll do it for you. We've already programmed the voting
machines."
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
19 Oct 2006 12:19:46 AM |
|
|
In article <eu1dj25fjr6j56c29iom1hatmc7nr3m59s@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:35:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Let us help you fill out your ballot.
"There's no need for you to go to the polls. We know how you want to
vote. We'll do it for you. We've already programmed the voting
machines."
Look Ma! No hands voting!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
20 Oct 2006 10:41:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:19:46 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <eu1dj25fjr6j56c29iom1hatmc7nr3m59s@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:35:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Let us help you fill out your ballot.
"There's no need for you to go to the polls. We know how you want to
vote. We'll do it for you. We've already programmed the voting
machines."
Look Ma! No hands voting!
Soviet style voting.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tapio Erola" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
18 Oct 2006 04:06:47 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> writes:
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
"We have to go forth and crush every worldview that doesn't believe
in tolerance and free speech," -- David Brin
--
Tapio Erola
There are no mysteries, only unsolved puzzles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
19 Oct 2006 12:18:43 AM |
|
|
In article <m3fydm9emw.fsf@localhost.localdomain>,
Tapio Erola <txr@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> writes:
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
"We have to go forth and crush every worldview that doesn't believe
in tolerance and free speech," -- David Brin
Then occupy their countries to ensure that they remain free.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
20 Oct 2006 10:42:10 AM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2006 12:06:47 +0300, Tapio Erola <txr@localhost.localdomain>
wrote in alt.atheism
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> writes:
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
"We have to go forth and crush every worldview that doesn't believe
in tolerance and free speech," -- David Brin
The very definition of irony.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
20 Oct 2006 04:55:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:42:10 -0700, in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
<0irhj2d2drfivho6120ak3617m1abeghou@4ax.com>:
On 18 Oct 2006 12:06:47 +0300, Tapio Erola <txr@localhost.localdomain>
wrote in alt.atheism
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> writes:
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
"We have to go forth and crush every worldview that doesn't believe
in tolerance and free speech," -- David Brin
The very definition of irony.
Or the Bush Administration (for their own special definitions of
tolerance and free speech)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
22 Oct 2006 07:22:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:55:21 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:42:10 -0700, in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
<0irhj2d2drfivho6120ak3617m1abeghou@4ax.com>:
On 18 Oct 2006 12:06:47 +0300, Tapio Erola <txr@localhost.localdomain>
wrote in alt.atheism
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> writes:
In article <5fk9j2l8k7bqstk0r0ujk162e8c7tavt1r@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
We're 'Murkins. If we give you democracy you'll thank us. Or else.
Be free or we'll kill you.
"We have to go forth and crush every worldview that doesn't believe
in tolerance and free speech," -- David Brin
The very definition of irony.
Or the Bush Administration (for their own special definitions of
tolerance and free speech)
True.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
18 Oct 2006 04:50:07 PM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
Bush keeps revising war justification
TOM RAUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S.
is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to
history-of-civilization stakes now.
....snip fro brevity...
Again, I say that the Democrats shouldn't say a word (they'd screw it
up) and just show clips of Shrub et al's changing story
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
20 Oct 2006 10:30:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:36:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Bush keeps revising war justification
TOM RAUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S.
is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to
history-of-civilization stakes now.
[]
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it
should be."
It was lost before the first shot was fired.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
15 Oct 2006 09:52:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:36:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a
California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."
A struggle between civilization against Bush.
Vice President ***** Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the
civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.
And he's heading straight to the sewer with them. So who's going to
apply the brakes and take control of the wheel? (Who gave these
irresponsible kids the keys to the car anyway?)
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it
should be."
It started "not headed the way it should be" the day we declared that
it was over.
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining
the stakes, Card said in an interview.
When do they get to the part about Halliburton not making enough money
yet?
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror
has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of
the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
"It's critical that we succeed in making as many enemies as we can
while we're in Iraq, so that we can keep the war going forever if
that's what we decide to do."
Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up.
Over 100,000 Iraqis have stood up and ... we've increased the number
of US troops there. I guess they're all "standing down".
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John
Warner of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was
"drifting sideways."
A new euphemism for "we're losing".
When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian
violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent appearances.
He's sending people to their deaths for "a comma"? That's got to be a
new low in contempt, stupidity, nastiness, total disregard for human
life ... all the qualities his god is so well known for.
Come on, let's call a jihad a jihad. It's the forces of the
apocalypse against the Islamic Fascists. And whoever wins we all
lose.
Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and
dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House
disputed.
They'd dispute that water is wet if their argument needed dry water.
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president.
But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use
`violent extremist,'" she said.
When referring to Bush, I gather.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
16 Oct 2006 02:07:34 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ahr5j2d8u1s5a0vdk14nmt61uhr700kufq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:36:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a
California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."
A struggle between civilization against Bush.
Well, he is expecting the Apocalypse at any
moment. He just wants to help speed it along.
Then, he can get rup ...er...raptured. Or,
something like that.
Vice President ***** Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the
civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.
Either that or he'll shoot the entire civilized world in
the face. By accident, of course.
And he's heading straight to the sewer with them. So who's going to
apply the brakes and take control of the wheel? (Who gave these
irresponsible kids the keys to the car anyway?)
The Supreme Court and Diebold.
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way
it
should be."
It started "not headed the way it should be" the day we declared that
it was over.
The Boss has declared victory over the Hill People...
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in
explaining
the stakes, Card said in an interview.
When do they get to the part about Halliburton not making enough money
yet?
When they show how death taxes hurt the little people.
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror
has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part
of
the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
"It's critical that we succeed in making as many enemies as we can
while we're in Iraq, so that we can keep the war going forever if
that's what we decide to do."
Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up.
Bush is full of excrement.
Over 100,000 Iraqis have stood up and ... we've increased the number
of US troops there. I guess they're all "standing down".
Bush is also responsible for decreasing the number of
Iraqi civilians by over 600,000.
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John
Warner of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was
"drifting sideways."
A new euphemism for "we're losing".
He was afraid to be more obvious.
When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian
violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent
appearances.
Pretty good for someone who is always in a walking coma.
He's sending people to their deaths for "a comma"? That's got to be a
new low in contempt, stupidity, nastiness, total disregard for human
life ... all the qualities his god is so well known for.
For Bush, 'comma' is another word for 'get as much money
as you can, no matter the cost in cannon fodder, for my
rich buddies'.
Come on, let's call a jihad a jihad. It's the forces of the
apocalypse against the Islamic Fascists. And whoever wins we all
lose.
You'd better vote next month. From what I'm hearing,
even the Diebold machines won't be able to outvote
the anti-Bush voters. If the Republicans win, there
will be riots.
Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and
dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House
disputed.
They'd dispute that water is wet if their argument needed dry water.
Good one.
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the
president.
But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use
`violent extremist,'" she said.
When referring to Bush, I gather.
No doubt.
Welcome back, Al!
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will
understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
20 Oct 2006 10:33:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:07:34 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ahr5j2d8u1s5a0vdk14nmt61uhr700kufq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:36:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a
California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."
A struggle between civilization against Bush.
[]
Come on, let's call a jihad a jihad. It's the forces of the
apocalypse against the Islamic Fascists. And whoever wins we all
lose.
You'd better vote next month. From what I'm hearing,
even the Diebold machines won't be able to outvote
the anti-Bush voters. If the Republicans win, there
will be riots.
And armed troops will be on hand to mow them down with live ammo.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
16 Oct 2006 10:55:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:07:34 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
You'd better vote next month. From what I'm hearing,
even the Diebold machines won't be able to outvote
the anti-Bush voters. If the Republicans win, there
will be riots.
Diebold machines? We're reactionary - we're still using lever
machines. (Maybe for the last time, though.)
Welcome back, Al!
Thanks. :)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
26 Oct 2006 12:45:11 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:36:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a
California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."
A struggle between civilization against Bush.
Vice President ***** Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the
civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.
And he's heading straight to the sewer with them. So who's going to
apply the brakes and take control of the wheel? (Who gave these
irresponsible kids the keys to the car anyway?)
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it
should be."
who is O'Hanlon?
It started "not headed the way it should be" the day we declared that
it was over.
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining
the stakes, Card said in an interview.
Card?
When do they get to the part about Halliburton not making enough money
yet?
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror
has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of
the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
"It's critical that we succeed in making as many enemies as we can
while we're in Iraq, so that we can keep the war going forever if
that's what we decide to do."
Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up.
Over 100,000 Iraqis have stood up and ... we've increased the number
of US troops there. I guess they're all "standing down".
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John
Warner of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was
"drifting sideways."
A new euphemism for "we're losing".
When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian
violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent appearances.
He's sending people to their deaths for "a comma"? That's got to be a
new low in contempt, stupidity, nastiness, total disregard for human
life ... all the qualities his god is so well known for.
Come on, let's call a jihad a jihad. It's the forces of the
apocalypse against the Islamic Fascists. And whoever wins we all
lose.
Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and
dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House
disputed.
They'd dispute that water is wet if their argument needed dry water.
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president.
But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use
`violent extremist,'" she said.
When referring to Bush, I gather.
Hughes? my god i am ignorant! help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
26 Oct 2006 10:39:38 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:45:11 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it
should be."
who is O'Hanlon?
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining
the stakes, Card said in an interview.
Card?
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president.
But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use
`violent extremist,'" she said.
Hughes? my god i am ignorant! help.
Read the whole thread.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Keeps Revising War Justification |
26 Oct 2006 11:28:14 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:45:11 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The
problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is
that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is
taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it
should be."
who is O'Hanlon?
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining
the stakes, Card said in an interview.
Card?
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president.
But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use
`violent extremist,'" she said.
Hughes? my god i am ignorant! help.
Read the whole thread.
i read as much as i could in other words as was downloaded. i am
woefully ignorant of the big players in the civil government.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
