RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

cyberdude611 -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:10:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

At this point, the only win available to us, is to get out and not leave a greater mess than the one we have already created.

 
A lovely thought and one I once agreed with but Bush has made such a giant mess I don't see any hope.  Now, how do you define not leaving a greater mess?  Leaving an alienated Shia majority in charge alienated from both the Sunni and Western worlds provides a massive victory to Iran and I don't see any way around it, so leaving now isn't going to make things much worse than "later"
 
quote:

  one step at a time, events are playing out, as we should not just assume that those doing these bombing attacks and now chemical attacks, have unlimited resources.


They don't?  Bush didn't bother sending enough troops or planning well enough to prevent the looting of Saddams massive arsenals, they have an unlimited supply of explosives.  What they don't have can be supplied by Iran and Syria over massive borders we don't have the troops to patrol. 

quote:

We will have to pay whatever price needs paid, or just forget looking at ourselves in the mirror.


Can you tell me at what amount of dead young men and women, wearing a uniform you would never wear, that you are willing to "pay" so you can look yourself in the mirror?  What level of taxes are you willing to pay to support this war?  What level of debt are you willing to pass on as future taxes to your children?  All so you can "look at yourself in the mirror".

I predicted this mess before we invaded, it isn't a mirror I have to look into.  The people who hold that mirror are the Republicans who supported this war without question, who listened to the idiocy spouted by this administration tying Saddam to AQ, saying Iraq had no history of ethnic violence, that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction, and that we would be greeting as liberators by crowds throwing flowers.  THOSE people get to look in that bloodstained mirror, not I.




Bush never himself tied Saddam to Al-Queda. He stated that Saddam supports terrorism, which is true, Saddam publically admitted he supported terrorists. But Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with Al-Queda or 9/11. Now, were some others saying it? Perhaps. Several members of the media as well as some senators were saying it. But also other countries were saying it. The Czech Republic for example claimed that Iraqi officials were meeting with the 9/11 hijackers a few months before 9/11. The Russians claimed Saddam wanted to sell WMDs to terrorists in order to use them on US soil.

It was also the Italians that first made the claim that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger. The British intel claimed they confirmed it. So the CIA didn't even bother to check it out for themselves..

So the Bush admin and the CIA were not the only ones wrong on this issue.



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:12:44 PM)

Thanks for the info, I had to go to work that day and didn't see the documentary on Nickelodeon that you saw.

Ron



caitlyn -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:22:07 PM)

Well, the attack based nature of your response was highly predicatable ... you are nothing else, if not predictable. Fortunately, I care little for insults, being relatively sure you say them for your own edification. You asked for viewpoints, and they were provided.
 
All fair enough. Under your logic, why don't we just let the soldiers in the field decide if they go or stay. What right do we have to make that decision for them? For all we know, they might feel that leaving now, throws away the contribution of those that have already paid the ultimate price.



lockedaway -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:28:09 PM)

Bush has made a greater mess????  If I recall correctly, Clinton did NOTHING.  Clinton's mid east policy was "apres moi, le deluge."

The war was fought incorrectly, history reveals that plainly.  We never fought a total war like we did against Japan and, thefore, we never had a completely subdued populace.  There was no such thing as a Japanese redoubt or Janpanese insurgents.  (Read "Ebracing Defeat" by John Dower)  The "more boots on the ground" policy has been working but let's be honest, the American public doesn't have the stomach for a protracted conflict and that is/has been/will be our downfall. 

Our only option is to fight Al Qaeda where we find them, worldwide but as a people, we probably don't have to courage or fortitude to do that.  Pulling out now will create a power void which will greatly benefit Iran and Islamo-facist movements all over the world .  Not too mention, anyone who thinks that another 9-11 style attack wouldn't be greatly encouraged by our withdrawal is much more than merely naive.

People ask, "How long are we supposed to stay in Iraq?"  The answer is easy.  How long did we stay in the Phillipines??  How long did we stay in Korea (we are still there)?  How long did we stay in Japan (we are still there)?  How long did we stay in West Germany (recently decommissioned)?  The answer is "As long as we need to."  



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:31:56 PM)

Nope, oil and water.

the reason that clinton didnt go into Iraq was there was nothing to go there for.

I am for total war on terrorists.  Hell I buy in all the way. So why are we fucking around in Iraq? 

Get it? Got it? Good!


 



Real0ne -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:47:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
A "Neo-con" would be a person from the Cheney / Perle / Wolfowitz / Rumsfeld clique who believe in a new American century, wherein the United States uses it's military superiority and wealth to establish a global hegemony with the United States at the helm.


Agreed!  

In fact i would take it one step further and extend that to include the rothschilds, bilderberger, morgan, rockefeller, lehman, harriman,  and those connected to the web of international/federal banking as well since they all support one world government and have visions of the new world century that is nearly identical to pnac.  

Since american politics, both domestic and foreign as a whole, leans heavily toward these ideals there is no reason for me to remotely believe america is at the helm and acting on its obligation to protect and retain our sovereignity both in person and as a nation, which is the core design and intention of our governmental infrastructure, but rather nothing more than on the end of a leash acting as the strong arm of globalization, the new buzz word that has replaced the NWO phrase since NWO is starting to get bad press especially on the internet.

Its not only just my clueless opinion as some would like to infer:

Congressman John R. Rarick, deeply concerned over the growing influence of the CFR, has been one of the members in Congress making a concerted effort to expose the organization.

Rarick warns:      

"The Council on Foreign Relations --dedicated to one world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication media-should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. constitution and our free-enterprise system.
    

"Yet the Nation's "right -to-know-machinery " --the news media--usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members, and their activities. And I find that few university students and graduates have even heard of the Council of Foreign Relations.........

"The CFR is "THE ESTABLISHMENT! Not only does it have the influence and power in key decision making positions at the highest levels of. government to apply pressure from above but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one world dictatorship. THE ART OF GLOBAL POLITICS BY GUNTHER K. RUSSBACHER       http://www.whale.to/b/cfr_q.html
 


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
A sort of twisted "manifest destiny."  Wherein we will send in the military to establish countries (under the guise of naming them democracies) which promote American goals.


Again i would add; while raping and holding their economies hostage to:

Those corporations who build/rebuild the infrastructure, (oil wells, pipe lines, etc.),  who got loans from (bankers) to do so

Those who rebuild their countries after we bomb the hell out of them, again who got (loans from the bankers) to accomplish that.

Meanwhile running the deficit sky hi to pay for the invasion in the first place, (again with a loan from the bankers), that we the american taxpayer ultimately pay close to 70% of that bill that the corporation(s) and a very few get to take any "real" advantage of. 

All because they can write loans by simply putting a number on the book and printing up some cash!!!!    What a deal!!  Free money from free money!!!

All bank monies flow to the international banking and i have posted its owners several times. (sometimes people just refer to them as the illuminati or the "super" powerful/money elite and a host of other labels)

Its a monumental ponzi scam of unimaginable proportion re:

THE SHADOW OF POWER : THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE AMERICAN DECLINE,

by James Perloff

From the Back Cover:
Does America have a hidden oligarchy? Is U.S. foreign policy run by a closed shop? What is the Council on Foreign Relations? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House. But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for? Why do the major media avoid discussing it? What has been its impact on America's past - and what is it planning for the future? These questions and more are answered by James Perloff in The Shadows of Power.
http://www.moneyfiles.org/bankcartel5.html

Oh and of course for convenience sake we cannot forget to add wiki which does provide us with one very important connection that i have verified and since misplaced the resource:

Its mission is promoting understanding of foreign policy and America’s role in the world. Meetings are convened at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members debate major foreign-policy issues. It has "a think tank" that employs prominent scholars in international affairs and it commissions subsequent books and reports.
A central aim of the Council, it states, is to "find and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders".
It established "Independent Task Forces" in 1995, which encourage policy debate. Comprised of experts with diverse backgrounds and expertise, these task forces seek consensus in making policy recommendations on critical issues; to date, the Council has convened more than fifty.[1]

The internal "think tank" is the The David Rockefeller Studies Program, which grants fellowships and whose programs are described as being integral to the goal of contributing to the ongoing debate on foreign policy; fellows in this program research and write on the most important challenges facing the United States and the world.[2]

[edit] History

The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of distinguished scholars, tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Through 1917-18, this academic band, a prominent member of whom was Wilson's closest adviser Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered discreetly at 155th Street and Broadway in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Foreign_Relations

Certain names just mysteriously continue to pop up over and over, but it is only freak coincidence i am sure.

That connection being: Wilson and his clan are the traitors who pushed through 16th, "supposedly". It yet has been proven in the historical records to be official,  but it just happens to be the turning point of this nation where we all are expected to pay unapportioned taxes for whatever the feds want it for.

Of course just like all the events of 911, within the reign of the bush clan, it was merely coincidence, sort of like the creation of homeland security and losing virtually all our inalienable rights is just a coincidence as well.  Just like the major changes this country went through with the creation of every "policing organization" like the CIA, FBI, NSA, FEMA, not to forget the IRS etc.  And who is in the middle of it, sponsoring it, pushing it or otherwise supporting it in every case?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
You, me, our children, etc., are going to be forced to repay that cretin's compulsive borrowing to go play in the sand.

Joke is on us!  As can be seen from the money cycle i described above that we the cowardly american people are paying for our own demise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
While you state that you support our war, I have yet to see you actually define what this war is actually intended to accomplish.  The only thing I see this war accomplishing is a complete destabilization of an oil-rich region of the globe.  The loss of any American prestige on the planet.  The raping of our economy.


The greater the destabilization the more money a certain few can make. 

Wars = loans upon loans.

arms building (on both sides) = loans to both sides
defit (on both sides) = loans to both sides
infrastructure (on both sides) = loans to both sides
rebuilding (on both sides) = loans to both sides (which includes our side as we are loaned all our money from the federal reserve corp.)

Interest upon interest and then when a country is broke and crumbles under its own weight its time to pay the creditors who cut further war funds to the country in default, or funds as a whole, (crash of 29 was manufactured exactly in this manner for those who do not know), in support of the creditors who now move into their new homes and claim ther new lands as a result of the collection action.

Welcome to the blessings of the CFR, wilson, taft, rooseveldt, the bush boyz.
 
Meanwhile those on the top that is the elite, could care less because they are not affected by government control regardless of the governments design because they have the means to work around and manipulate it to their liking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
You are absolutely right, it is evolution in action.  When the New World Order means that the United States is a bankrupt shell, and 1/3 of the planet is combined under Islam, will you still be a die hard Monkeyboy's war supporter?

I am happy to hear you are willing to end up roadkill on the highway of Evolution.

Sinergy


Road Kill, never heard it put better!

 



domiguy -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 1:48:44 PM)

quote:

cyberdude611

Bush never himself tied Saddam to Al-Queda.



It must suck to believe everything this guy says (Pres. Bush)...When are you going to wise up?


SanFrancisco Chronicle

Bush insists on Iraq-al Qaeda linkDavid E. Sanger, Robin Toner, New York Times
Friday, June 18, 2004

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on Thursday that Saddam Hussein's deposed regime had a long history of ties to al Qaeda despite a report by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and the terrorist network.
Bush, responding to a reporter's question about the report after a White House Cabinet meeting, said: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with Osama bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
Bush said he had called Hussein a threat "because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations."


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/

"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021107-7.html
 
THE PRESIDENT: No. I think that -- I think that if you would read the full -- I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it to you, I know George Tenet well. I meet with him every single day. He sees Saddam Hussein as a threat. I don't know what the context of that quote is. I'm telling you, the guy knows what I know, that he is a problem and we must deal with him.
And, you know, it's like people say, oh, we must leave Saddam alone; otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us. Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with what he has, he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda. In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint. That is a threat. And we're going to deal with it.



Poor Cyberdude....and the rest of you believers who support someone that will look right into your  face and lie....I remember a guy named Clinton doing that...If I recall some people took exception to that.....Probably not anyone out here, but if I remember  correctly, for some reason, some people had a problem with it..I did.

When will we demand more from our leaders....Doesn't this piss you off?



Real0ne -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 2:19:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

cyberdude611

Bush never himself tied Saddam to Al-Queda.



It must suck to believe everything this guy says (Pres. Bush)...When are you going to wise up?





SanFrancisco Chronicle


Bush insists on Iraq-al Qaeda linkDavid E. Sanger, Robin Toner, New York Times
Friday, June 18, 2004

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on Thursday that Saddam Hussein's deposed regime had a long history of ties to al Qaeda despite a report by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and the terrorist network.
Bush, responding to a reporter's question about the report after a White House Cabinet meeting, said: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with Osama bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
Bush said he had called Hussein a threat "because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations."


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/

"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021107-7.html
 
THE PRESIDENT: No. I think that -- I think that if you would read the full -- I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it to you, I know George Tenet well. I meet with him every single day. He sees Saddam Hussein as a threat. I don't know what the context of that quote is. I'm telling you, the guy knows what I know, that he is a problem and we must deal with him.
And, you know, it's like people say, oh, we must leave Saddam alone; otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us. Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with what he has, he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda. In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint. That is a threat. And we're going to deal with it.


its funny in a very sad way but after researching the "bush-bin laden" connection a person can pretty much insert "republicrat"  or "todays government" in place of hussien or terrorists and it literally describes whats going on today from the inside in terms of the threat to our core values in this country.  just realized that.  its like they are talking about themselves and pointing the finger at everyone else...  cant think of the psychological term for that just off the cuff...

Oh and that is bipartisan btw the dems just approach it differently.



Sinergy -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 3:15:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You seem to have a serious problem in following logical trains of thought, and sometimes make statements that aren't even tangentially related to my comments or that illustrate that you have totally failed to understand what was said.



Perhaps the problem is not my lack of understanding of something you consider a logical train of thought.  The problem might result from my unwillingness to follow a line of reasoning which, while it makes sense to you, does not make much sense when viewed in terms of the historical context of the Middle East.  Your posts seem predicated on the idea that the Iraq war was somehow a good thing, or is winnable, and you tend to provide talking points from various biased sources to support your beliefs.

Monkeyboy seems to think the Iraq war is a good thing.  Clinton did a study of what would happen if we invaded Iraq.  The conclusions they came up with is that we would

a) become embroiled in a conflict where we are forced to shore up a weak government that was willing to do the bidding of the US.  This government by it's very nature would be unable to sustain its existence any longer than about 5 minutes after the US packs up and goes home.  Gee, this actually happened.  Monkeyboy has had how many years, how much more money paid, how many troop re-ups, how many increase in forces, and we are no nearer a solution today than we were 4 years ago.  I would be interested in hearing factual information which disputes that this actually happened as Clinton et al, predicted, as I have not been able to find any myself.

b) The US would be unable to afford to maintain our military presence there, unless we borrowed extensively from China or Saudi Arabia or whoever to support our military.  Please provide some sort of empirical evidence to prove we are not raping our economy to support an idiotic war, and I would be happy to change my opinion.

c) The war would completely destabilize the region in question, resulting in the overthrow of Jordan, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, and most of the other pro-US, moderate Arab states.  They would then be replaced by fundamentalist hard-line regime(s) with both an axe to grind against the West, as well as a lack of interest in building social structures for their populations.  A perfect example of this was the problems we had in Iran in the 1970s.  If you would be so kind as to provide contradictory, reasoned, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, I am willing to read it.

d) destroy any prestige the US might have once had on the planet.  Everything I have read that was not written or spoken by US sources seems to indicate that the US is widely reviled, feared, and hated over most of the planet.  Feel free to disabuse me of this notion.

e) With the destabilization of the middle east, fuel prices would skyrocket as OPEC curtailed their oil production.  As I recall, Saudi Arabia cut oil production within 2 days of the United States invading Iraq.  I dont know about you, but I recall gasoline being about $1.20 a gallon when Clinton was president and I paid $3.40 a gallon the other day.  I hope you give thanks every day to the Simian In Chief for what he has done to make your life easier.

Nothing you have provided to support your logical conclusion that we should be at war contradicts any of those 5 statements.  What you seem to think is that despite the truth of these 5 statements, the Iraq war is a good thing.  Such true-believerism is simply fascinating to watch, although I think it is unfortunate that the red states decided to elect a true believer to be King.

If you would be willing to provide any sort of cogent reasoning, supported by factual information, it might be interesting to have a discussion with you.   As it is, if I want to listen to in articulate, illogical, unreasoned, or incorrect talking points spouted by a right-wing talking head, I can turn on Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

Sinergy

p.s. On a related note, not even Congress or the Senate are willing to listen to Monkeyboy's idiotic blatherings any more.  I suspect that he wont actually veto the bill to bring everybody home by next July.  If he does, anybody who doesnt vote to overthrow the veto will be looking for work the next time they come up for reelection.

p.p.s.  On an unrelated note, people who continually spout off how intelligent, honest, upstanding, morale, logical, or whatever tend to make me wonder why exactly they feel the need to convince me of it.  Seems to me it would be self-evident.  Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.



Sinergy -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 3:23:31 PM)

 
Hello A/all,

Since we are talking about things the Neo-cons have done to make the world a better place, I wanted to point out an issue with the Panama Canal.

The United States gave Panama back their canal, and we ended up invading Panama when Noriega was negotiating with China to increase the size of the canal to allow their cargo ships to go through.

When Monkeyboy invaded Iraq, China and Panama signed an agreement to allow China to do the modifications to the canal, and Monkeyboy had no people to invade Panama to prevent it.

A vast amount of cargo flowing into our ports, being railed across the country, etc., is destined for Europe.  The Chinese pay the US money to do this for them, as it is cheaper than the alternative.

While it will not be an issue for about 10-15 years, this will have a dramatically negative impact on the US economy.

Sinergy

p.s. please do not take this post to mean I am all for the United States invading Panama, simply pointing out one more example of the Neo-cons acting without thinking about the consequences of their actions.



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 3:25:36 PM)

Not that any of Sinergy's points are any reason not to invade, but you have to have KU, since you are simply imposing a will on a people, for no apparent reason.  At a very base level you have to have a little buy in from everyone.

Ron



Mercnbeth -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 3:57:48 PM)

quote:

Clinton did a study of what would happen if we invaded Iraq.
Since Mrs Senator Hilliary Clinton voted FOR invading Iraq she also either didn't think it accurate or appropriate. But wait, I seem to remember some sort of "tragedy" occurring in the building where I used to have an office. Maybe, had that occurred under his administration, President Clinton and his wife would have been on the same page regarding a plan of action.

By the time this Bill gets to the President's desk he just may sign it. Why? The troop withdrawal provision ranks up there with the old Russian wheat harvest projections. It has absolutely nothing to do with what will occur in the future. 
quote:

The president made his comments a day after the Senate voted 50 to 48 to reject a Republican effort to strip any withdrawal date from a military spending bill. That legislation will move forward with a nonbinding goal of beginning a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of the measure, with a complete pullout by March 31, 2008. Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/28/news/congress.php 
The frauds and hypocrites didn't even vote to remove the troops under any mandated timetable. The PORK was all binding. Withdrawal of the troops  - specifically NON-Binding.

I would hope he veto it not for any troop withdrawal timetable, but to disappoint all the Senators and Congressmen who accepted the bribes of PORK to vote for it.

This vote had absolutely nothing to do with the troops other than to use them as pawns in a political process. As an elected official, who's re-election vote was confirmed by the actions of the House and Senate? Regarding an override? It took about $460 Million in Pork for this Bill to generate a simple majority of support. How much do you anticipate it will cost to pay for votes to override a veto?

Are you fooled, blind to reality, or just chose to rationalize a false reality?



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:03:08 PM)

quote:

Since Mrs Senator Hilliary Clinton voted FOR invading Iraq she also either didn't think it accurate or appropriate.


No, it was simply an election thing....who ain't going to back the leader of the free world to get them goddamn WMD poised at us?

Boy, wouldn't her face have been red?

LOL,
Ron




Mercnbeth -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:07:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

Since Mrs Senator Hilliary Clinton voted FOR invading Iraq she also either didn't think it accurate or appropriate.


No, it was simply an election thing....who ain't going to back the leader of the free world to get them goddamn WMD poised at us?

Boy, wouldn't her face have been red?

LOL,
Ron


Ron,
I also assume they didn't share any "pillow talk".

But you're correct, what's a little integrity when re-election to the Senate is at stake?



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:10:53 PM)

Merc, (cause that has gotta be you)

The 48 laws of power----Robert Greene

one often does what is not in their best interest in the quest for power. They do power. Jefferson is a misnomer in that family, there is no search for the greater good.

Ron



Mercnbeth -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:16:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Merc, (cause that has gotta be you)
The 48 laws of power----Robert Greene
one often does what is not in their best interest in the quest for power. They do power. Jefferson is a misnomer in that family, there is no search for the greater good.
Ron


Ron,
How lucky it is for "them" that they have "us"; and that "us" doesn't know who we are?



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:44:42 PM)

this juxtaposition in space time has always inveigeled ways to have the rich get richer and the poor get kids.

Ron



Sinergy -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:54:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Clinton did a study of what would happen if we invaded Iraq.
Since Mrs Senator Hilliary Clinton voted FOR invading Iraq she also either didn't think it accurate or appropriate. But wait, I seem to remember some sort of "tragedy" occurring in the building where I used to have an office. Maybe, had that occurred under his administration, President Clinton and his wife would have been on the same page regarding a plan of action.



I dont like Hillary.  I did not really care for Clinton.  I was married a long time to somebody and we rarely agreed on much of anything.  Being married does not necessarily equate to political agreement.

Neither of the points you bring up are evidence that a study done by dozens of high level staffers and experts on US foreign policy and the Middle East is flawed.

If you can provide evidence to suggest otherwise, I would love to hear it.

quote:



Are you fooled, blind to reality, or just chose to rationalize a false reality?



As I stated, I dont think this bill will do anything except further alienate the Cretin In Chief from the US public, and seal the coffins of the Republican party and the political careers of anybody who doesnt vote to overturn the veto.

Next election we will have a majority of Democrats, and a host of secondary parties which include the Greens, the Libertarians, various Independents, the Republican's, and a set of people I will refer to as the Fiscally-Irresponsible, Jingoistic, and Fundamentalist Millenialist party.  I dont mind.  They spent years trying to tear down the president that oversaw the largest economic expansion in the history of the United States.  Payback is a bitch.

What is amusing after the last issue of Rolling Stone is that I honestly believe the Democratic party are the only thing that can destroy their hopes of taking control again.

Sinergy

p.s.  First thing they should all do, shoot all the consultants.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 4:59:27 PM)

Merc,

Nobody voted to invade Iraq, they voted to grant the President the option of military action.  They did so based on what are now clearly known to be administration fabrications regarding nuclear and chemical weapons programs as well as imaginary connections to AQ.  Anyone who voted against or question our path at the time was called at best a dangerous fool and more often a traitor that would leave America defenseless.  The fact that many politicians caved in that sort of environment doesn't much bother me although I do respect greatly those who didn't.



mnottertail -> RE: Neocons better STFU and get to work! (3/29/2007 5:00:08 PM)

Ah Ha, but lets consider the consequence of the RealPolitiK

until it goes thru channels, and is worked out in committee --- before he 'Vito's" it....
he is running short money---------

Somebody has to give, to compromise to do anything, otherwise------HEY, not a war, guys see what FHKY is laying on you for law------

not many places he can rob on this whore unless directly from military budget, which means planes don't get built, tanks are out of gas and there is no sugar on the table at the mess-----

But another thousand points of light.

anyone care to translate?

Ron



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125