| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2007 05:30:06 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
Another reason why Pete Stark should receive a commendation.
The moron in the White House first jokes about WMD being hidden
under his desk. Now, he thinks that WWIII is funny.
World War III Is Going To Be Hilarious
by Bob Cesca
Posted October 17, 2007 | 07:12 PM (EST)
The Huffington Post
Your president giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding
[grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling]
ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end
giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny *****. For the record, here's his
expression while saying the words "World War Three":
To the rest of the known world, however, World War III a scary thing. It's
just below abortion and above rape on the list of the all time unfunniest
topics.
Let's break it down.
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally and preemptively
attack anyway, based on the lie that Iran is a nuclear threat.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval rating, won't stop
the White House because of, 1) The Fear, and 2) because Congress has allowed
the president and vice president to seize unprecedented power which almost
entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution (among other things).
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot might bring
Russia in on the Iranian side.
5. And there you go. Knee slapping boners all around. Milk just came out of
my nose.
They're marketing Iran with more psychotic voracity than Michelle Malkin
attacking an injured baby -- and no one can stop them.
As near as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be a governing body or
citizen group who can stop them from carrying this out. Congress won't and,
honestly, they can't. Last night's Frontline episode, "Cheney's Law,"
underscored what we've all been worried about: Congress has been rendered
ineffectual against the current power madness of the executive.
For example, has Congress clamped down on the president's rampant use of
torture? Sure. (Torture is number five on the unfunny syllabus.) The
Republican controlled Congress did this, but the president rendered the law
pointless with a signing statement.
Ah yes. Torture. Not to digress too far into this thing, but you know how
the president can look us in the eye and say, "we don't torture," as he did
in today's press conference? He can say this with impunity because the
administration has authored its own definition of torture which is so narrow
that anything else -- anything you and I would consider to be torture --
isn't.
If it don't cause organ failure, it ain't torture, Stretchy
McStretch-o-rama-funny-pants. In a sense, the president isn't lying when he
says "we don't torture." It depends on what your definition of torture is.
This excuse, of course, is the same excuse future enemies will use when they
torture... us.
Republican cowards who demand security at the expense of liberty/honor/law
have facilitated the Bush executive branch with extraordinary power. Now
we're trapped in the shadow of the White House's unprecedented strength, and
there doesn't appear to be any conceivable way to stop these people. If
Cheney wrangles the military hardware to attack Iran, the air strikes will
commence with lightning zealotry. Bet on it. Congress can try to stop him,
but they don't have the power any more. According to the Bush
administration, Article II is Article II and the Commander in Chief rules.
It's as simple as that. Just try telling him he's wrong on this. You could
be the most conservative wingnut ever and you'd lose that debate -- not for
a lack of rational arguments either.
Is it any wonder why we occasionally succumb to outrage fatigue: that
deflated, windless sense of numbing futility we feel when confronted with
the illogical and the absurd? We've only begun to dig into the upper strata
of lawlessness this regime has perpetrated over the last seven years. And
now, in this desperate dying twilight of their existence -- now that they're
gravely unpopular and on their way out the door -- reckless and without
anything to lose -- why shouldn't they do all the crazy ***** they've talked
about? Bomb Tehran? Yeah, that'll be awesome and hilarious. More war means
more war powers. If you thought the administration's war powers were crazy
huge, just imagine their World War powers. Score!
The president always says that history will vindicate him. 15 months from
now, he'll be done. Pretending to be a cowboy down there -- raising
melanomas in the harsh Crawford sunshine, laughing at the third hilarious
war he started all by himself.
Once he's done, by his twisted reasoning, it's someone else's problem. By
"someone else" he naturally means "everyone else."
Just like so many powerful men, he appears to be able to switch off his
conscience (if one exists in the first place). It's the same switch that
allows him to say "we don't torture," or to smirk and laugh while discussing
Iraq casualties and World War III. "Everyone else" won't include him because
he'll always be safe. He'll always have Crawford and the twins; his fake
accent and his delusional view of history; his nicknames and his eh-eh-eh
laugh.
The rest of us -- unless we can find a way to stop this Iran drumbeat --
won't be laughing so much.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 01:24:39 AM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever
developed one, they'd be smart enough to know
(despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad) that using
it would invite their own destruction a thousand times
over. Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
This is just one big turd of a rationalization.
I mean, besides the fact that to simply projects ones own
thoughts on to Iran -- yeah, like that makes sense -- it
ignores the obvious example of Pakistan.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons are no threat to anybody but
India, and they're smart enough to know that if they start
firing them at India that India is going to level them... right?
So there's no threat, right? Well, except that Pakistan
began exporting the information & technology to produce
nuclear weapons to everyone with the money to buy it. No
questions asked.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally
and preemptively attack anyway, based on the lie that
Iran is a nuclear threat.
Simple fact is, the nuclear weapons are going to be used.
Period.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval
rating, won't stop the White House because of, 1) The
Fear, and 2) because Congress has allowed the president
and vice president to seize unprecedented power which
almost entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution
(among other things).
This is just crazy. In the first place, I don't believe that Bush
has any intention of attacking Iran. Secondly, remember all
those lies Bush told to get us into Iraq? They're not lies in
the case of Iran. They're all true. Supporting terrorists... the
WMD programs... brutally crushing any opposition... it's all
true. Heck, even the attempt to buy Nigerian yellow cake is
absolutely true, in the case on IRAN.
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot
might bring Russia in on the Iranian side.
This I doubt. Russia has a great deal to gain from an invasion
of Iran. Russia's star is already rising, the wealth pouring in
with the increase in energy costs. Iran is second only to
Russia in Natural Gas reserves. Take Iran down -- even for a
little while -- and the cash will be flooding Russia.
More than likely Russia just wants to power-broker a new
Iran. Russia has historically considered Iran to be their
back yard -- having invaded no less than five times over the
last 100 years or so. Most recently, back during WWII, they
invaded along with a smaller British force. Back then, they
set up a couple of independent states inside of Iran.
My guess is, like then, they'll want to do the same. They'll
want to see a few "Break away Republics." If for no other
reason, it'll enhance their security. It'll provide a buffer between
themselves and "Persia," one or more greatful states that
owe their existence to Russia....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 02:19:11 AM |
|
|
In article <cZOdnX2iM-1xsoTanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Another reason why Pete Stark should receive a commendation.
The moron in the White House first jokes about WMD being hidden
under his desk. Now, he thinks that WWIII is funny.
Shouldn't that be WWIII in your header?
World War III Is Going To Be Hilarious
by Bob Cesca
Posted October 17, 2007 | 07:12 PM (EST)
The Huffington Post
Your president giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding
[grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling]
ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end
giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny *****. For the record, here's his
expression while saying the words "World War Three":
To the rest of the known world, however, World War III a scary thing. It's
just below abortion and above rape on the list of the all time unfunniest
topics.
Let's break it down.
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
I agree. And the same with N. Korea. They would have to be complete
idiots to use a nuke if they had one. I think that they are using all
this talk about developing nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip so they
can get treaties from the US and EU.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally and preemptively
attack anyway, based on the lie that Iran is a nuclear threat.
Like Saddam had all those WMDs. Iran has lots of oil. They also have
access to the Caspian sea and all the oil there. Iran could provide the
most direct route for a pipeline from the Caspian to the Persian gulf. I
smell Halliuburton.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval rating, won't stop
the White House because of, 1) The Fear, and 2) because Congress has allowed
the president and vice president to seize unprecedented power which almost
entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution (among other things).
Congress is hopeless. The Dems are scare to death that the Neocon spin
machine will accuse them of being 'weak' on terrorism and spoil their
chances for the next election. Never mind that the majority of the
American people are against the war.
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot might bring
Russia in on the Iranian side.
It may be worse. That meeting was more than Russia and Iran It was a
meeting of all of the Caspian Sea countries Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and
Turkmenistan were there too. A mutual defense pact?
These countries have a lot of oil and gas. Bush wants it. Pooty-Poot
says "Not so fast!"
5. And there you go. Knee slapping boners all around. Milk just came out of
my nose.
They're marketing Iran with more psychotic voracity than Michelle Malkin
attacking an injured baby -- and no one can stop them.
That's a frightening image.
As near as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be a governing body or
citizen group who can stop them from carrying this out. Congress won't and,
honestly, they can't. Last night's Frontline episode, "Cheney's Law,"
underscored what we've all been worried about: Congress has been rendered
ineffectual against the current power madness of the executive.
I taped that Frontline, I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.
For example, has Congress clamped down on the president's rampant use of
torture? Sure. (Torture is number five on the unfunny syllabus.) The
Republican controlled Congress did this, but the president rendered the law
pointless with a signing statement.
Ah yes. Torture. Not to digress too far into this thing, but you know how
the president can look us in the eye and say, "we don't torture," as he did
in today's press conference? He can say this with impunity because the
administration has authored its own definition of torture which is so narrow
that anything else -- anything you and I would consider to be torture --
isn't.
If it don't cause organ failure, it ain't torture, Stretchy
McStretch-o-rama-funny-pants. In a sense, the president isn't lying when he
says "we don't torture." It depends on what your definition of torture is.
Yeah. And it depends what the definition of "is" is.
This excuse, of course, is the same excuse future enemies will use when they
torture... us.
Yep.
Republican cowards who demand security at the expense of liberty/honor/law
have facilitated the Bush executive branch with extraordinary power. Now
we're trapped in the shadow of the White House's unprecedented strength, and
there doesn't appear to be any conceivable way to stop these people. If
Cheney wrangles the military hardware to attack Iran, the air strikes will
commence with lightning zealotry. Bet on it. Congress can try to stop him,
but they don't have the power any more. According to the Bush
administration, Article II is Article II and the Commander in Chief rules.
It's as simple as that. Just try telling him he's wrong on this. You could
be the most conservative wingnut ever and you'd lose that debate -- not for
a lack of rational arguments either.
I think Congress could just refuse to fund his military adventures but
they won't.
Is it any wonder why we occasionally succumb to outrage fatigue: that
deflated, windless sense of numbing futility we feel when confronted with
the illogical and the absurd? We've only begun to dig into the upper strata
of lawlessness this regime has perpetrated over the last seven years. And
now, in this desperate dying twilight of their existence -- now that they're
gravely unpopular and on their way out the door -- reckless and without
anything to lose -- why shouldn't they do all the crazy ***** they've talked
about? Bomb Tehran? Yeah, that'll be awesome and hilarious. More war means
more war powers. If you thought the administration's war powers were crazy
huge, just imagine their World War powers. Score!
Bring us closer to Amageddon too, in his warped mind.
The president always says that history will vindicate him. 15 months from
now, he'll be done. Pretending to be a cowboy down there -- raising
melanomas in the harsh Crawford sunshine, laughing at the third hilarious
war he started all by himself.
Once he's done, by his twisted reasoning, it's someone else's problem. By
"someone else" he naturally means "everyone else."
Just like so many powerful men, he appears to be able to switch off his
conscience (if one exists in the first place). It's the same switch that
allows him to say "we don't torture," or to smirk and laugh while discussing
Iraq casualties and World War III. "Everyone else" won't include him because
he'll always be safe. He'll always have Crawford and the twins; his fake
accent and his delusional view of history; his nicknames and his eh-eh-eh
laugh.
I read that he's going to sell Crawford and move to Dallas. No more
cowboy act needed.
The rest of us -- unless we can find a way to stop this Iran drumbeat --
won't be laughing so much.
Indeed.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 02:26:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:19:11 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <cZOdnX2iM-1xsoTanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Another reason why Pete Stark should receive a commendation.
The moron in the White House first jokes about WMD being hidden
under his desk. Now, he thinks that WWIII is funny.
Shouldn't that be WWIII in your header?
Well, I suppose we can safely conclude that if Bush thinks WWIII is
hilarious, then WWII was mildly amusing...
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
21 Oct 2007 01:27:06 AM |
|
|
In article <4abjh31dif6blk9at2ridj3on3l7ohlqo5@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:19:11 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <cZOdnX2iM-1xsoTanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Another reason why Pete Stark should receive a commendation.
The moron in the White House first jokes about WMD being hidden
under his desk. Now, he thinks that WWIII is funny.
Shouldn't that be WWIII in your header?
Well, I suppose we can safely conclude that if Bush thinks WWIII is
hilarious, then WWII was mildly amusing...
Since he was shot down over the Pacific, I don't know if his dad would
agree. Bush fils probably believes that WW2 was started by Iran.
[snip]
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
19 Oct 2007 06:13:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:30:06 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> in
<cZOdnX2iM-1xsoTanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com> wrote:
Another reason why Pete Stark should receive a commendation.
The moron in the White House first jokes about WMD being hidden
under his desk. Now, he thinks that WWIII is funny.
World War III Is Going To Be Hilarious
by Bob Cesca
Posted October 17, 2007 | 07:12 PM (EST)
The Huffington Post
Your president giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding
[grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling]
ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end
giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny *****. For the record, here's his
expression while saying the words "World War Three":
He seems to smile/grin when he does a particular kind of lie. He is
showing us that he knows he is fooling us.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 01:11:35 PM |
|
|
On Oct 19, 6:30 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
"Smart enough to know" better? I think this is na=EFve on your part.
Iran has shown a propensity for irrational action. For one thing
there does not seem to be a single, ruling body. Instead there are
several big-shot Mullahs/Ayatollahs/religious idiots-in-charge. These
guys each run their own little armies of zealots, like the Republican
Guard. That is why those British sailors were kidnapped. Despite
what I think of him, I doubt that Ahmadinejad would have pulled that
stunt. (Still, note that, once it was done, he went along. He is not
in charge.) I could easily imagine one of these addlepated old men
attacking Israel and, by digging them in too deep, forcing Iran to use
a nuclear weapon. Support from Russia makes this ~more~ likely, not
less. It gives them backbone and false confidence. So you cannot say
that there is ~no~ Iranian nuclear threat.
However, I believe the rhetoric about a nuclear Iran is just an excuse
to ***** with them. Which I approve of. I despise the Bush
"administration", but I despise the Iranian regime of mysticism,
tyranny, terror and jihad more. America will recover from Bush (we
recovered from Reagan) but will the world recover from Iran? They are
leading the drive to the next dark ages, just as Christian zealots led
the last one.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 08:42:21 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193335895.825247.57670@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 6:30 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
I didn't write the above paragraph. Please get your
attributes straight. However, I do agree with most
of it.
"Smart enough to know" better? I think this is naïve on your part.
Iran has shown a propensity for irrational action. For one thing
there does not seem to be a single, ruling body. Instead there are
several big-shot Mullahs/Ayatollahs/religious idiots-in-charge. These
guys each run their own little armies of zealots, like the Republican
Guard. That is why those British sailors were kidnapped. Despite
what I think of him, I doubt that Ahmadinejad would have pulled that
stunt. (Still, note that, once it was done, he went along. He is not
in charge.) I could easily imagine one of these addlepated old men
attacking Israel and, by digging them in too deep, forcing Iran to use
a nuclear weapon. Support from Russia makes this ~more~ likely, not
less. It gives them backbone and false confidence. So you cannot say
that there is ~no~ Iranian nuclear threat.
However, I believe the rhetoric about a nuclear Iran is just an excuse
to ***** with them. Which I approve of. I despise the Bush
"administration", but I despise the Iranian regime of mysticism,
tyranny, terror and jihad more. America will recover from Bush (we
recovered from Reagan) but will the world recover from Iran? They are
leading the drive to the next dark ages, just as Christian zealots led
the last one.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 03:51:42 PM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 2:11 pm, jwk <jwkinrale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:30 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
"Smart enough to know" better? I think this is na=EFve on your part.
Iran has shown a propensity for irrational action. For one thing
there does not seem to be a single, ruling body. Instead there are
several big-shot Mullahs/Ayatollahs/religious idiots-in-charge. These
guys each run their own little armies of zealots, like the Republican
Guard. =20
And why do you think the Mullahs are eager to die for Allah? They are
wealthy guys with luxury homes and all kinds of perks. I suspect that
they want to live, not to die. The idiot young jihadis they control
are another matter.
That is why those British sailors were kidnapped. Despite
what I think of him, I doubt that Ahmadinejad would have pulled that
stunt. (Still, note that, once it was done, he went along. He is not
in charge.) =20
I suspect you are right about that.
I could easily imagine one of these addlepated old men
attacking Israel and, by digging them in too deep, forcing Iran to use
a nuclear weapon. =20
And how could Iran conventionally attack Israel? They can only fight
Israel through their Hezbollah proxies. Iran's air force is
hopelessly outclassed by Israel's. As for a land attack, look at a
map. Iran has no direct land access to Israel. Only the US, Russia,
and Britain and perhaps France have their militaries configured in a
way that they can efficiently transport men and equipment anywhere in
the world. Iran does not. They would need the active cooperation of
a country that neighbors Israel.
Support from Russia makes this ~more~ likely, not
less. It gives them backbone and false confidence. So you cannot say
that there is ~no~ Iranian nuclear threat.
If the Iranians are stupid enough to take Russia's "support" seriously
they are hoplessly lost to reality. Russia's "support" is based on
economic interests and on a desire to thumb their nose at Uncle Sam,
but I doubt very much Russia has the slightest interest in getting
involved in a Middle East war.
However, I believe the rhetoric about a nuclear Iran is just an excuse
to ***** with them. Which I approve of. =20
What kind of fucking are you referring to? Military? Economic?
Our ability to ***** with Iran is quite limited. Bush and co are NOT
going to do a military strike on Iran for the simple reason that Iraq
would immediately go down the toilet. ALL Shias in Iraq, including
those who are not particularly pro-Iranian, would IMMEDIATELY turn
against us. There would be riots from one end of Iraq to the other
and President Maliki would have no alternative but to publically
demand that American troops leave Iraq. And all this would happen on
Bush's watch.
Economically we can try to twist Iran's nuts, but it is debatable if
that is the wisest action for us to take. By analogy, our embargo of
Cuba has always given Castro a plausible excuse for the poor
performace of the Cuban economy (the big gringo bullies are waging
economic war against us). The same dynamic probably works in Iran.
Our belligerence may actually be strengthening the internal position
of the mullahs and ayatollahs.
I despise the Bush
"administration", but I despise the Iranian regime of mysticism,
tyranny, terror and jihad more.
I despise it too. But it is not so easy to figure out effective and
desirable action we can take against the Iranian regime.
America will recover from Bush (we
recovered from Reagan) but will the world recover from Iran? They are
leading the drive to the next dark ages, just as Christian zealots led
the last one.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 02:24:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:11:35 -0700, jwk <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com>
wrote:
recovered from Reagan) but will the world recover from Iran? They are
leading the drive to the next dark ages, just as Christian zealots led
the last one.
During which only the Moslems (and to a MUCH lesser extent, the Irish)
retained any of the old knowledge.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war
on terror."
- George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept.
6, 2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 12:28:42 AM |
|
|
On Oct 19, 6:30 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Your president giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding
[grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling]
ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end
giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny *****. For the record, here's his
expression while saying the words "World War Three":
To the rest of the known world, however, World War III a scary thing. It's
just below abortion and above rape on the list of the all time unfunniest
topics.
Let's break it down.
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
That is probably true.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally and preemptively
attack anyway, based on the lie that Iran is a nuclear threat.
That I don't believe. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but here's why I
don't believe it: EVEN Bush and Cheney are probably smart enough to
realize that if we attack Iran we will lose ALL residual support we
have among Iraqi Shias. Even the Shias who are not pro-Iranian would
completely turn against us. President Maliki would be under
extraordinary pressure to publically demand that our troops leave
Iraq. There is simply no way to attack Iran without guaranteeing that
Iraq degenerates into total chaos. Bush is still deluding himself
that Iraq can be a smashing success and he would do nothing to
jeapordize that.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval rating, won't stop
the White House because of, 1) The Fear, and 2) because Congress has allowed
the president and vice president to seize unprecedented power which almost
entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution (among other things).
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot might bring
Russia in on the Iranian side.
That seems ridiculous to me. Putin can criticize the US all he wants,
but I find it very hard to believe that he would militarily intervene
on Iran's side. There is no possible way to construe any benefit to
Putin by militarily quarreling with the US. If you just mean that he
would diplomatically intervene on Iran's side, that's probably true.
The rest of us -- unless we can find a way to stop this Iran drumbeat --
won't be laughing so much.
I hope to hell I'm right about this instead of you, but consider what
I wrote above. I THINK (and certainly hope) that this talk of "doing"
Iran is bluster and will not come to pass. Surely you agree with my
point that it would completely scotch Bush's "master plan" to turn
Iraq into a happy pro-Western democracy. (LOL)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 12:58:46 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1192858122.159003.299460@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 6:30 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Your president giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding
[grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin
giggling]
ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end
giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny *****. For the record, here's his
expression while saying the words "World War Three":
To the rest of the known world, however, World War III a scary thing.
It's
just below abortion and above rape on the list of the all time unfunniest
topics.
Let's break it down.
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one,
they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad)
that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over.
Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
That is probably true.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally and
preemptively
attack anyway, based on the lie that Iran is a nuclear threat.
That I don't believe. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but here's why I
don't believe it: EVEN Bush and Cheney are probably smart enough to
realize that if we attack Iran we will lose ALL residual support we
have among Iraqi Shias. Even the Shias who are not pro-Iranian would
completely turn against us. President Maliki would be under
extraordinary pressure to publically demand that our troops leave
Iraq. There is simply no way to attack Iran without guaranteeing that
Iraq degenerates into total chaos. Bush is still deluding himself
that Iraq can be a smashing success and he would do nothing to
jeapordize that.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval rating, won't
stop
the White House because of, 1) The Fear, and 2) because Congress has
allowed
the president and vice president to seize unprecedented power which
almost
entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution (among other things).
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot might bring
Russia in on the Iranian side.
That seems ridiculous to me. Putin can criticize the US all he wants,
but I find it very hard to believe that he would militarily intervene
on Iran's side. There is no possible way to construe any benefit to
Putin by militarily quarreling with the US. If you just mean that he
would diplomatically intervene on Iran's side, that's probably true.
The rest of us -- unless we can find a way to stop this Iran drumbeat --
won't be laughing so much.
I hope to hell I'm right about this instead of you, but consider what
I wrote above. I THINK (and certainly hope) that this talk of "doing"
Iran is bluster and will not come to pass. Surely you agree with my
point that it would completely scotch Bush's "master plan" to turn
Iraq into a happy pro-Western democracy. (LOL)
Bush wanted only two things out of Iraq - revenge for his father's
attempted murder and oil profits for his already rich friends. That
is it. He doesn't care if every Iraqi in the world drops dead right
this minute, as long as he controls their oil. The man is a fool - a
selfish, unrealistic fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 01:46:29 AM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Bush wanted only two things out of Iraq - revenge for
his father's attempted murder and oil profits for his
already rich friends.
I don't believe that for a second.
Dubya's invasion is nothing more than the completion
of his dad's work. Poppy didn't take down Saddam,
but he left in place large No-Fly zones which effectively
enforced autonomy for large parts of Iraq. Hindsight is
no gift, but it's pretty clear at this point that the intention
had always been to undermine Saddam. The no-fly
zone provided safe areas for any rebellions to form, and
the U.S. patrols effectively amounted to "Air Support."
That didn't work so they switched to plan-B.
We know it isn't all about Dubya and what he wanted,
because the Republicans were going Chicken Hawk
crazy for war with Iraq back in 1998, before Dubya first
stole office.
Google the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 01:36:46 AM |
|
|
On Oct 20, 1:58 am, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
Bush wanted only two things out of Iraq - revenge for his father's
attempted murder and oil profits for his already rich friends. That
is it. He doesn't care if every Iraqi in the world drops dead right
this minute, as long as he controls their oil. The man is a fool - a
selfish, unrealistic fool.
My point is that he cannot control their oil if Iraq turns more
chaotic than it already is and attacking Iran is definitely counter-
indicated. Of course he doesn't care much (if at all) for the well-
being of Iraqis, but he DOES care that the Iraq war is not perceived
as a humiliating defeat for the US for which he would personally be
responsible. That is why I think the talk of attacking Iran is
bluster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 01:54:33 AM |
|
|
Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
My point is that he cannot control their oil if Iraq turns
more chaotic than it already is and attacking Iran is
definitely counter-indicated.
Look, we might as well all admit that Iran is building
nuclear weapons, and eventually those weapons are
going to be used. It's going to happen.
Our "Best Case Scenario" here is that Iran only shares
the technology with other rogue states...
Anyhow, Bush doesn't care. Why would he? Iran is
building nuclear weapons, sure, ultimately it will lead
to the use of nuclear weapons, yes, but all Bush
sees is an excuse for keeping the troops inside Iraq.
"Look! Look! Big scary Iran! What better place to keep
large numbers of troops than right next to Iran, where
we can keep them in check!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
20 Oct 2007 10:26:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:54:33 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
My point is that he cannot control their oil if Iraq turns
more chaotic than it already is and attacking Iran is
definitely counter-indicated.
Look, we might as well all admit that Iran is building
nuclear weapons
Despite the EVIDENCE that it isn't.
Anyhow, Bush doesn't care. Why would he? Iran is
building nuclear weapons, sure, ultimately it will lead
to the use of nuclear weapons, yes, but all Bush
sees is an excuse for keeping the troops inside Iraq.
Troops he doesn't give a damn about.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 11:23:52 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Look, we might as well all admit that Iran is building
nuclear weapons
Despite the EVIDENCE that it isn't.
Huh? What planet are you on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 10:41:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1193329432.766540.16980
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, JTEM said...
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Look, we might as well all admit that Iran is building
nuclear weapons
Despite the EVIDENCE that it isn't.
Huh? What planet are you on?
The planet where your bombastic reaction doesn't count
as evidence?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 11:38:34 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
The planet where your bombastic reaction doesn't count
as evidence?
That's irony, isn't it? I can tell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 11:11:18 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.218b2c0dfe498c7698ab9c@
216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark said...
In article <1193329432.766540.16980
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, JTEM said...
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Look, we might as well all admit that Iran is building
nuclear weapons
Despite the EVIDENCE that it isn't.
Huh? What planet are you on?
The planet where your bombastic reaction doesn't count
as evidence?
;-) <-- There was supposta to be a smiley after that
question.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 11:42:31 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
;-) <-- There was supposta to be a smiley after that
question.
a smiley? Feh! This is usenet. If anyone takes it too
seriously they'll wind up as whacked out as "Fred."
Come on, is there anything someone could say to
us at this point which could be worse than anything
we've been called before?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 01:51:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:23:52 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Look, we might as well all admit that Iran is building
nuclear weapons
Despite the EVIDENCE that it isn't.
Huh? What planet are you on?
The one on which inspectors who were actually there found no evidence
that Iran is building nuclear weapons.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably
giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 02:21:44 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
The one on which inspectors who were actually
there found no evidence that Iran is building
nuclear weapons.
I can I see those reports? I've read reports -- I've
posted cites to reports -- which talked about
unaccounted for materials and Iran's refusal to
grant access to certain areas.
Here's a cite that paints a rather rosy picture, and
yet still talks about Iran's clandestine dealings with
the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb... a man who
saw it as his life's mission to arm all of Islam with
nuclear weapons:
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,476/
If there's one point no sane person can deny, it's
that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program,
and has had one for a very long time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 02:55:43 PM |
|
|
On 25 okt, 21:21, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
The one on which inspectors who were actually
there found no evidence that Iran is building
nuclear weapons.
I can I see those reports? I've read reports -- I've
posted cites to reports -- which talked about
unaccounted for materials and Iran's refusal to
grant access to certain areas.
Here's a cite that paints a rather rosy picture, and
yet still talks about Iran's clandestine dealings with
the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb... a man who
saw it as his life's mission to arm all of Islam with
nuclear weapons:
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,476/
If there's one point no sane person can deny, it's
that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program,
and has had one for a very long time.
Sure and all the evidence will magically dissappear after the US has
invaded another country for supposedly having what the US has plenty
of!
I think I will put my opinion on hold till then,
and hope it never happens.
Petre van Velzen
October 207
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
25 Oct 2007 03:34:12 PM |
|
|
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
Sure and all the evidence will magically dissappear after
the US has invaded another country for supposedly
having what the US has plenty of!
If Bush said breathing is good you people would sufficate
yourselves.
I'd say that you're easily manipulated, but the truth is
that you were easily manipulated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
27 Oct 2007 11:14:01 AM |
|
|
On 25 okt, 22:34, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
Sure and all the evidence will magically dissappear after
the US has invaded another country for supposedly
having what the US has plenty of!
If Bush said breathing is good you people would sufficate
yourselves.
I'd say that you're easily manipulated, but the truth is
that you were easily manipulated.
I just do not think it would be advicable to the USA to start military
actions against Iran. If actually trust George Bush to realize the
hazards. Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and it's president is not
a vile dictator (if anything he is the ayatollas' strawman) and the
people are ALL shia.
I do not particulary like the ayatollas, but I do not think there is
sufficient reason for over a hunderdthousand Iranians and several
thousands of American troops to die for.
And nobody is going to manipulate me into taking death less serious!
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
28 Oct 2007 01:07:24 AM |
|
|
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
I just do not think it would be advicable to the USA to
start military actions against Iran. If actually trust
George Bush to realize the hazards.
I truly believe -- and have many times (over the years)
said -- that Bush isn't going to attack Iran.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
29 Oct 2007 01:40:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:07:24 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
I truly believe -- and have many times (over the years)
said -- that Bush isn't going to attack Iran.
Bush isn't going to do anything (other than drool, trip over simple
words, look like a drug-crazed idiot) - it's his handlers we have to
worry about.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
27 Oct 2007 11:32:38 AM |
|
|
On Oct 27, 12:14 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 25 okt, 22:34, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
Sure and all the evidence will magically dissappear after
the US has invaded another country for supposedly
having what the US has plenty of!
If Bush said breathing is good you people would sufficate
yourselves.
I'd say that you're easily manipulated, but the truth is
that you were easily manipulated.
I just do not think it would be advicable to the USA to start military
actions against Iran. If actually trust George Bush to realize the
hazards. Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and it's president is not
a vile dictator (if anything he is the ayatollas' strawman) and the
people are ALL shia.
I do not particulary like the ayatollas, but I do not think there is
sufficient reason for over a hunderdthousand Iranians and several
thousands of American troops to die for.
And nobody is going to manipulate me into taking death less serious!
There is another obvious point that the media tends not to
mention. Any military action against Iran would guarantee that Iraq
would descend into complete chaos. The US would lose ALL residual
support that we have from the majority Shias in Iraq. There would be
riots from one end of Iraq to the other and President Maliki would
have no alternative but to publically demand that American troops
leave Iraq.
Even someone as stupid and lost to reality as our beloved
President probably realizes this. Bush will do nothing to make Iraq
turn out so badly on his own watch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
27 Oct 2007 02:00:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:32:38 -0700, Mike <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote:
There is another obvious point that the media tends not to
mention. Any military action against Iran would guarantee that Iraq
would descend into complete chaos.
Would we notice that small a change?
The US would lose ALL residual
support that we have from the majority Shias in Iraq.
We don't. We have some support from some Shia at some times. The
ones who support us keep changing, so we have some support from all
Shia at some time. Lincoln was dead on.
There would be riots from one end of Iraq to the other
Like now, but all at once?
and President Maliki would
have no alternative but to publically demand that American troops
leave Iraq.
He did, a while ago.
Even someone as stupid and lost to reality as our beloved
President probably realizes this.
I doubt that he "realizes" anything at this point - or that he has for
a long time.
Bush will do nothing
Which isn't a change, unless you consider reading a story to a class
of young children "doing something".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Thinks WWII is Hilarious |
27 Oct 2007 01:56:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:14:01 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
If actually trust George Bush to realize
That's two errors in 7 words, Peter. You trust him and you give him
credit for being able to think.
Imagine a ventriloquist's dummy (I don't know the Dutch word). Now
imagine one that's so advanced that it operates without the
ventriloquist needing to be immediately present, but still merely
repeats the words it's been given. That's Bush.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by
bolts of lightning."
- Calvin & Hobbes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
