Misdirection is the most fundamental of stage magic arts. When you want to accomplish something that you don’t want the audience to see or understand, you distract their attention elsewhere.
It was something that GWB thoroughly mastered in his first four years. Using misdirection to draw the public’s attention away from his failure to find bin Laden, he and his Neocons used Iraq in what Jon Stewart correctly referred to as “Operation: Re-elect Bush.” To draw the public’s attention away from the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US, he managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked. Misdirection. He waved his right hand widely and sweepingly and drew America’s attention away from his true motivations neatly tucked in his other hand. And it worked.
But now we’re into bad misdirection. Because his recent speech could have been delivered a year ago, as if the ongoing war (it’s not an insurgency; it’s a war. Let’s call it what it is) hadn’t happened. As if dead Americans weren’t piling up like cordwood, and weren’t going to be doing so for the foreseeable future. Now the problem is that instead of being distracted by the deftly moving right hand, people are starting to say, “Wait…what’s he got in his left hand?” Bush’s response? A speech that basically shouts, “Look at my right hand! See? Right hand, over here! Look at it, look at it!” His attempts to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again, at a time when more and more Americans are starting to realize that there is no link, are more pathetically obvious than ever before. His manipulation of a shell-shocked America and his naked politicizing of the terrorist strike at the WTC by using it to support a long-standing Neocon war initiative remains one of the most ugly moments in recent presidential history. I think it ironic that Democrats get slammed for invoking Nazi Germany while Bush and his pals continue to invoke 9/11 to support everything from a flag burning amendment to an unnecessary war.
The absolute lowpoint was the following:
“Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq.”
Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hëll has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won’t take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we’ll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that’s right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.
Bush will always have his apologists, of course. Those who embrace the oldest rationalization of all, namely that the ends justifies the means. Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants. But the trickery is becoming more obvious, the misdirection more obvious, and the curtain more frayed.
Most people can quote Lincoln saying “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” But what is less known is the sentence right before that: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
Presto.
PAD
• 
Hmm, a Clark v. McCain race would be interesting. We could have two experienced and principled individuals seriously debating the issues facing the country without resorting to slanderous accusations about what each of them were doing 40 years ago or trying to paint each other as a dangerous radical that wants to destroy America from within.
The media would hate it.
Peter David: The absolute lowpoint was the following: “Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq.” Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hëll has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won’t take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we’ll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that’s right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.
Luigi Novi: I noticed that right as he said it. I noticed that if someone were to criticize him for alleging again that Iraq was involved in 9/11, an apologist could say that Bush didn’t say that, but merely that Iraq was a front in the war, thus evading the issue with vagueness. Similarly questionable was his citing bin Laden’s words, which does not, of course, prove that Iraq was connected to 9/11, but merely shows that bin Laden is responding to the war the Bush has brought to Iraq.
K-Nuck. What about George Voinovich?
I don’t think Saddam is the only dicator since Pol Pot to compare to Hitler. There have been others, starting with Milosovic, Qaddafi, Idi Amin, whoever was in charge of the genocide in Rowanda, etc.
The question though is, is it the job of the United States to decide which rulers are worthy to remain in power and which ones should be deposed? Furthermore, is it worth the price we’re paying in lives and resources to do it? I say no to both.
Side note: I read today that experts are predicting gas will creep up to $3.00 a gallon soon. Gee, if we’re going to go to war over oil, you’d think we should be getting a break at the pump by now. Maybe ExxonMobile will cut us in after the summer vacation season.
BB: If these áššhëádš don’t like him, then I figure he’s someone I might like.
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/ad_targeting_voinovich/
I’d vote for Arnold Vinick. Now, granted, he’s a fictional candidate. Then again…aren’t they all?
Seriously, I’d likewise consider either Powell or McCain, depending upon who the Democratic candidate was.
PAD
I’d have to think long and hard about supporting Powell.
While Powell did compromise himself by submitting to a badly planned out war, you have to keep in mind that he wasn’t one of Bush II’s military advisors. He was the Secretary of State and his job was purely diplomatic. Now, granted his efforts in that regard were stymied by things like Rummy sneering at “old Europe” but he did his best at a job that neocons have nothing but contempt for and tried to undermine at every turn. And he had the integrity to leave when it was clear that no one there was listening to him anyway.
I believe that if he were sitting in Oval Office, he’d be free to run things based on his personal convictions rather than just go along with the “agenda.”
Jordan D. White
I would also say that McCain looks like the best shot for winning my liberal vote as far as the republicans go.
Which is amusing because he’s the closest thing to a true conservative we have left.
/dámņ Neo-cons ruining it for everyone
http://www.dembloggers.com/
Wes Clark in his first appearance as a Fox analyst. And he does quite well.
Jordan: It seems that you are making the assumption that Democrats think true conservatism is a bad thing. I, for one, do not. McCain, Voinovich, Hagel, Lugar: all Goldwater Republicans, and all men I would vote for, given the opportunity.
Okay, PAD, now that you have your rant out of your system, if you were sworn in as President of the United States tomorrow, what would YOU do about Iraq?
PAD: “…Iraq was not a threat to the US.”
Long before the war started, America was maintaining a “no-fly” zone in Iraq that was being challenged repeatedly by Sadaam. Please explain to me how someone shooting missles at American pilots in American planes is not a threat. Do you hate our pilots that much?
PAD: “[Bush] managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”
Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror.
PAD: “ ‘Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: ‘This Third World War is raging’ in Iraq.” Am I the only one who finds this a hoot?”
Yes. The whole war is just a gosh darn laugh riot!
PAD: “Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants.”
If you are referring to Rove’s recent speech, he mentioned LIBERALS, not Democrats. Are you admitting you are a liberal?
PAD: Most people can quote Lincoln: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.’ Presto.”
This post, and others made by you, contain lies — so I agree. You’ll never regain the respect and esteem of those who read the lies you post here. Abrakadabra.
P.S. BUSH SUCKS
“Foregoing the frontrunners on the Democratic side, would there be any Republican you’d consider voting for for president in 2008?”
McCain, in a heartbeat.
As for Karl Rove – did anyone else enjoy the “American Dad!” take on him as much as I did?
PAD: was is a coincidence that you and Priest basically posted the same article about an hour apart? 😉
I could vote McCain. Maybe even Warner (we have two)from here in VA (it’s about time we show all you other states, again, what makes a great Pres.)
Bill, I see the point you’re making with the above points but would have to disagree. I don’t think that the wording in that resolution really shows anything other then what Bush wanted in print at the time. I would point out from that time:
1) There was a lot of debate about the wording and the scope of power being given to Bush under this thing and a few others on the floor.
2) The first response of the Bush team, the R’s that strongly supported it and of the conservative press (Fox, Rush, Savage, Etc.) was to attack the patriotism “in a time of war” of anyone who questioned it or objected to any part of what Bush wanted.
I would think that the quote you posted shows not that we had solid facts about Iraq, al Qaida and 9/11 but rather we had a large number of political cowards in office at the time. They should have stuck to their guns at the time and not caved to the threat of voter backlash. Many more of them would have a better leg to stand on now had they done so.
I loved Bush’s “frontline” comment. How the hëll does a mind like that work?
“The mess I made that wasn’t a mess before of the nature that I made it now justifies why we needed to go in and make the mess in the first place to stop the mess we didn’t have when I said we had the mess to clean up to prevent the mess that was ther but really wasn’t.”
You can’t agrue with Bush. Back him into a corner and he just changes the concept of his entire POV on a dime. Doesn’t seem to matter that it often is at odds with the POV he held seconds before.
Torture Questions?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm
Jason wrote:
> I wonder how soon there’s going to come a
> time when a Republican leader might be
> able to unite the country again. Foregoing
> the frontrunners on the Democratic side,
> would there be any Republican you’d
> consider voting for for president in 2008?
Arnold Vinick.
Thank you, Peter. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Allright, who farted?
Oh, my mistake. It’s just more bûllšhìŧ from X-ray.
Ah. I was wondering how long it would take X-Ray to show up. (I lost…I had him showing up by response #20…who had #63 in the pool?)
I did! I did!
Ok, actually, I didn’t. I had him in the 40’s, but I figured it was worth a shot.
Allright, who farted?
Oh, my mistake. It’s just more bûllšhìŧ from X-ray.
This time his post was decent and a little less derogatory. Anyone care to debate his points and see if his responses continue in this vein?
“PAD: “…Iraq was not a threat to the US.”
Long before the war started, America was maintaining a “no-fly” zone in Iraq that was being challenged repeatedly by Sadaam. Please explain to me how someone shooting missles at American pilots in American planes is not a threat. Do you hate our pilots that much?”
Huh. Iraqi nationals shooting at planes that they feel are violating their national airspace. Hard to figure that one. And was that a threat to America? No. It was a threat to the pilots.
There, I took the easy one.
How the hëll does a mind like that work?
I dunno, but I’m sure medical experts are just as stumped. 😉
“If you are referring to Rove’s recent speech, he mentioned LIBERALS, not Democrats. Are you admitting you are a liberal?”
Most liberals are Democrats, and many Democrats are Liberal. Many people consider them almost interchangeable. And what in heaven’s name is wrong with being liberal?
“Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror.”
Mr. David agrees. Bush never has come right out and said it. He has insinuated it though. Many times. And one of the worst traits of humanity is that we tend to believe insinuations. It is morally deplorable to insinuate that Iraq was helping the terrorists. There is no link, and to hint at one is simply attempting to mislead the people. Presidents who try that don’t do so hot. ever hear of Nixon?
On another note, I compliment you on your polite response, and actually adressing issues. If all of your posts are like the first two-thirds of this one (well maybe a little more polite) you will soon be a welcome member of this little community.
Anyone want the ones on Osama or PAD?
Seriously, I’d likewise consider either Powell or McCain, depending upon who the Democratic candidate was.
I voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000. However, there’s no way he’ll win the nomination in 2008. He’s alienated the base of the party by being part of the “Gang of 14” that kept the “nuclear option” from being used on judicial nominations. He’s alienated the libertarian wing of the party with his spearheading campaign finance reform. It’s earned him a great reputation for being the “maverick”, but he’s got trust issues with both sides of the party.
Also, given PAD’s passion for free speech issues, I’m surprised he’d support McCain for much of anything. 🙂
I think a lot of McCain’s appeal to Democrats comes from the fact that, while I may disagree with him on some political issues, he’s offering up real arguments rather than vague assertions to back his positions. There’s a recognizable strength of character to him, something sorely lacking in Bush II (anyone notice how, during the majority of his speech earlier this week, he had this look on his face that said “I know I’m feeding you bûllšhìŧ, but would you please believe it, anyway? Pretty please?” Man, how I’d love to play him in a poker game…).
McCain’s record, strength of character, and the notion that he wouldn’t rush to mudslinging as quickly as the rest of the Republican noms of 2000 did are some of the reasons I cast my ballot for him, before ‘coronation politics’ gave the nom to Bush II. It’s a shame this nation continually slaps away any attempt to front a genuine ‘uniter’ of a candidate, preferring to remain insular and polarized.
“Huh. Iraqi nationals shooting at planes that they feel are violating their national airspace. Hard to figure that one.
Huh. Violating a treaty they signed at the end of the first Gulf War. Hard to figure that one.
And was that a threat to America? No. It was a threat to the pilots.”
Exactly! It was THEIR fault for flying in those stupid planes with our stupid flag on them!
By the way, all you McCain lovers, if he ever WAS elected, you’d discover to your horror that he’s just as conservative as Bush, who he supported in the last election. Wow, your big hero McCain must be really stupid to have supported the evil Bush-Hitler.
As we all know ….
BUSH SUCKS.
“Exactly! It was THEIR fault for flying in those stupid planes with our stupid flag on them!”
Not the point. It wasn’t a threat to America. It was a threat to the pilots.
Bush never has come right out and said it. He has insinuated it though. Many times … There is no link, and to hint at one is simply attempting to mislead the people.
If you’re done making up stuff, here’s what Bush actually said, and years ago:
“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.”
— Geogre W. Bush, September 18, 2003
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html
(I’ll be waiting for you all to apologize.)
What is it with conservatives and so-called “liberal lies”? They’re so concerned with lying that they mistake statements of opinion and belief as lies. How exactly does Peter lie, I wonder?
“Not the point. It wasn’t a threat to America. It was a threat to the pilots.”
——–
A threat to American pilots flying American planes on an American mission (even if you personally don’t approve of that mission) IS a threat to America.
Please come back when you understand how the defense system of this country works.
How exactly does Peter lie, I wonder?
I’ll explain it again….
PAD said: “…Iraq was not a threat to the US.”
Yet long before the war started, America was maintaining a “no-fly” zone in Iraq that was being challenged repeatedly by Sadaam. Shooting missles at American pilots in American planes IS a threat. Therein lies the lie.
PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”
But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.
Understand now?
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/
Havent read everyone’s posts but i will try to hit the highlights.
Who would I vote for
McCain,Powell (with reservations ).My ideal candidate David Palmer from 24.The man takes no crap,is educated,well spoken ,thinks before he acts and can help save the world in 24 hours.
Ya know I would even consider Lex Luthor,I mean hey stem cell research would be funded under him and probably perfected.
While Bush may or may not have connected 9/11 and Iraq it was definitely implied and Cheney kept doing his “we know stuff you dont that we cant reveal so you cant prove us wrong “tactic.
Question :Why is it we dont care about Osama anymore??More to the point what was that about a week ago where we know where he is but dont want to go into Pakistan to get him because we dont want to upset them???I mean what happened to wanted dead or alive Pardner?
“Okay, PAD, now that you have your rant out of your system, if you were sworn in as President of the United States tomorrow, what would YOU do about Iraq?”
Gather an assortment of the best non-Neocon minds the country has to offer, sit down in a large room with them, and say, “Give me the best scenario as to how to get America the hëll out of there within twelve months.”
PAD
Owsley…sorry, Priest…posted the same concept? I had no idea. Who posted it first?
PAD
PS–Guys…why bother responding to the sucker?
>sigh
while i’m sure it won’t take me long to regret responding to the troll…
PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”
But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.
I fail to see where PAD said that Bush said that. PAD said that Bush mentioned “9/11” and “Saddam” many times in the same breath…but nowhere (that I can find) does he say that Bush ever said the two were directly linked.
So sorry, I don’t understand now. Would you care to show the actual quote where Peter explicitly stated that Bush said that? Or would you just like to go ahead and attack me?
whoops…there should have been 2 italicized lines in my post above.
for the sake of clarity:
PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”
But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.
I fail to see where PAD said that Bush said that. PAD said that Bush mentioned “9/11” and “Saddam” many times in the same breath…but nowhere (that I can find) does he say that Bush ever said the two were directly linked.
So sorry, I don’t understand now. Would you care to show the actual quote where Peter explicitly stated that Bush said that? Or would you just like to go ahead and attack me?
Hillary will get her ášš handed to her. I have nothing but admiration for her, but the level of hatred directed at her by most of the right (and a chunk of middle America) is unbelievable. That, and her continued insistence that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea will hurt her on the left. Badly.
I really disagree, at least with the latter argument. Hillary is beloved by most of those on the left–it’s no accident that she can raise more money in a weekend than most candidates can raise in a month. How can she be beaten? By someone being MORE to the left than she is perceived to be? By being a Lieberman type? Barring something unforeseen, I don’t see how the nomination can be denied her, assuming she runs.
I also think that she is not at all as unelectable as you do but an awful lot of democrats i know think she is so I may be wrong about that…but I don’t see much evidence to support it. It just seems to be a feeling they have. It may well be that this will work to her advantage, set the expectations low so that when she polls better than expected she will get a huge boost.
Update: Rick Santorum still hasn’t apologized for comparing the filibuster to Hitler’s invasion of France.
Didn’t we already go over this? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-20-filibuster_x.htm?csp=34. He apologized back in May.
Stop saying that about Santorum. I think he’s an idiot and would prefer not to keep defending him. The guy says something stupid every 3 or 4 days, there should be plenty of legit material to use.
Personally, I would like to see General Wesley Clark run. I think he would stand a decent chance of getting some red votes.
I didn’t think he was too impressive last time but he is pretty smart and may well have learned a lot from the experience. Possible VP candidate with Hillary? Might negate the “a woman candidate is soft on defense” issue (although Hillary all by herself should negate that idea).
Also, as for him shipping them out of the country, we’re supposed to believe that he stockpiled these weapons to use against us, and then shipped them away when we massed on his borders to invade.
Not that I think the scenario likely but we ARE talking about the military genius who shipped much of his air force to his hated enemy Iran and buried some of the rest (rendering them useless). Hannibal he ain’t.
I find some of the support for McCain and Powell surprising. If Bush truly “lied” about Iraq it was Powell who was usually the mouthpiece. And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he’d be just considered another “Neocon”.
“Priest…posted the same concept? I had no idea. Who posted it first?”
The timestamp on Priest’s article is 12:16 PM, but I don’t know if that’s relevant to my timezone (EDT) or his (MDT?). All I know is that they both hit my RSS reader at the same time. 😉
So, let me get this straight, X-Ray: it makes more sense for American soldiers to be killed every day, almost 1800 now, as a result of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, then it does to have occasional shots fired at jets flying in the no-fly zone in Iraq? When the terrorists who attacked the US were in Afghanistan? Bush’s dad, who is a lot smarter than G. W. Bush, declined to go into Iraq even though there was just as much reason to do so as now. The reason the elder Bush didn’t go into Iraq is that he didn’t see a way out. Bush Jr., a failure at everything until he was elected governor, just wanted to one-up daddy.
A few highlights (or lowlights) covering the names of the adminastration people who spun to create a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Plus a few extra Bush lies thrown in to round out the meal.
CBS Evening News September 4, 2002. David Martin reported:
“Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.” According to CBS, a Pentagon aide’s notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the “best info fast” to “judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL.” (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding that the administration’s response “go massive…sweep it all up, things related and not.”
November 1, 2002:
“After first exaggerating and then downplaying allegations of a supposed partnership between al Qaeda and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Bush and other administration officials–including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer–are again claiming that there is a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. But, intelligence officials have not yet found any proof to back these allegations, despite efforts to do so, according to the Washington Post. Former CIA agents say that there is no evidence a “partnership” emerged from known contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi officials in the 1990s. Bush has also tried to galvanize support for a war against Iraq by charging that Hussein’s government offered medical treatment to a senior al-Qaeda leader. However, intercepted telephone communications “did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.””
Washington Post Monday 29 September
“Cheney brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney described Iraq as “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
Cheney’s staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s speech to the United Nations in February.”
When Bush announced the end of hostilities in Iraq in his May 1 photo op aboard the USS Lincoln, he said of the defeated Iraqi regime: “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.” While a Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden connection was one of the administration’s early justifications for going to war, it has produced no evidence to demonstrate any true links existed.
June 15, 2003 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press: Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks.
From the transcript:
CLARK: “There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.”
RUSSERT: “By who? Who did that?”
CLARK: “Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.”
“For Bush, Facts Are Malleable” (10/22/02)
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank noted two dubious Bush claims about Iraq: his citing of a United Nations International Atomic Energy report alleging that Iraq was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon; and that Iraq maintained a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used, in Bush’s words, “for missions targeting the United States.”
These assertions they were dubious, if not outrigt wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to even come close to reaching the United States and that there was no such report by the IAEA.
Bush had Powell and others play heavily on the disclosure of Iraq’s pre-war unconventional weapons programs by defector Hussein Kamel to support the claim that Iraq was just floating in WMDs. Funny, but he failed to tell anyone to point out that Kamel had also said that all those weapons had been destroyed.
Bushes Pre-War (by days) speach:
George W. Bush, March 17:
“Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”
March 18, New York Times:
“Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out” by Michael Gordon.
“Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today.”
Bush lies. And in Texas, they tell ’em bigger.
Here’s Bush’s statements about timetables:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Very different from what he says today. You know what this means?
HE’S A FLIP-FLOPPER !!!
“And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he’d be just considered another ‘Neocon’.”
Except that neo-cons are called that because they are anything but “conservative”. Their worldview and plans tend to be radical indeed, calling for massive government intervention in private lives, and the use of the US military to engender social change overseas (you know, exactly the sort of thing Clinton was excoriated for in Kosovo). In what wise, for instance, could the invasion of Iraq be considered conservative? It was a radical rethinking of what our armed forces should do – a proper conservative would have used them only to attack someone who had attacked our nation first (remember Afghanistan, and the Taliban “government”‘s endorsement of that bin Laden fella?).
I don’t know that I’d agree with much of McCain’s personal philosophies, but at least I could be pretty sure he wouldn’t want to amend the Constitution to enshrine his particular prejudices in unassailable law…
“A threat to American pilots flying American planes on an American mission (even if you personally don’t approve of that mission) IS a threat to America.”
Few problems with that statement:
1) This was actually a joint NATO mission involving the US, France and the UK (WHAT?!?!?! FRANCE?!?!?!? Those froggy bášŧárd traitors!).
2) Military missions over hostile territory involve an assumption of getting fûçkìņg shot at. It’s a no-fly zone, not a no-shoot zone. The no-fly zone was intended to protect the Kurds from Iraqi airstrikes, not to prevent the Iraqi military from protecting what they felt was their sovereign territory.
Get back to me when you understand the concept of a military.
Bush lies. And in Texas, they tell ’em bigger.
The CBS Evening News and NY Times are proven liars (Jayson Blair/Rathergate), and “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem,” then they cannot be believed ever again! Right? Or does that only apply to the evil Bush-Hitler?
If he’s such a LAIR, then why not post a Bush “lie” that’s NOT based on “reporting” from the untrustworthy CBS Evening News and NY Times?
This was actually a joint NATO mission involving the US, France and the UK
So what?
Military missions over hostile territory involve an assumption of getting fûçkìņg shot at.
Just because they involve an “assumption of getting fûçkìņg shot” doesn’t mean we should simply accept it when our planes ARE attacked. It’s called fighting back.
Get back to me when you understand the concept of anything.
PAD: “Gather an assortment of the best non-Neocon minds the country has to offer, sit down in a large room with them, and say, “Give me the best scenario as to how to get America the hëll out of there within twelve months.”
———
Like most current Democrats, Peter David has no solutions of his own whatsoever.
All he knows is that the other side SUCKS!
No matter what they’re doing, they just SUCK!
Classic. Also funny.
‘Just because they involve an “assumption of getting fûçkìņg shot” doesn’t mean we should simply accept it when our planes ARE attacked. It’s called fighting back.’
Ah. Kind of like what the Iraqi’s were doing, no?
You’re fun, X-Ray. Kind of like a puppy. That likes to get kicked.