Zero terrorism is a bit much, but self-sufficiency, political stability, and adequate economic and humanitarian conditions seem like reasonable goals.

7/31/2007 4:29:05 PM

Quote :

" but mostly its because this section is too often a Blame Bush party...he's got plenty of faults...he has made plenty of mistakes...but the general consensus around here seems to be that he's the worst president ever the worst person in the history of the world, that the iraq war is the most unjust thing in the history of mankind ...that everything he does is illegal, that he has taken every single one of your rights and that basically everything is so horrible."

I'll credit you TreeTwista10 for keeping arguments in TSB honest, for playing devil's advocate, and for reminding us that President Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that's befallen the country in the past seven years...

These good intentions, however, do not license you to counter with the simplistic, dogmatic, partisan talking points you so commonly flood TSB with. You furthermore have no right to call such things "valid arguments." We don't hate you for disagreeing with the mainstream. We're annoyed by you because you're responding as irrationally as those you're arguing against.

Which, by the way, is precisely why so many of us don't particularly like our President. He hated the way terrorists were treating our country, so what did he do? He attacked... with a shaky-at-best rationale for doing it. He got the Patriot Act passed to reduce individual liberty. He called the terrorists the enemy, and anyone who criticized him were in turn terrorist sympathizers and allies.

Sounds oddly familiar doesn't it? Weird as it may seem, some of us criticize Bush for perfectly valid reasons. Some of us Bush bashers have put a considerable amount of thought into it.... and have concluded that our President is indeed doing a rather shitty job.


And... sad to say... I might just have to say that I agree with your mock statement:

Quote :

"but the general consensus around here seems to be that he's the worst president ever"

Seriously, who's worse? Clinton was definitely better, despite what Hannity and Limbaugh might say. Bush Sr. attacked the correct country with a REAL coalition. Reagan might as well be the GOP diety. Carter, for all his faults, had a recession and the Iran-Contra Affair to deal with. Gerald Ford wasn't even elected, so I won't hold any of his faults against him.

Nixon maybe? And that's only because he was a liar AND got caught...


You can go back further if you like, but Bush's track record doesn't hold up against a lot of past presidents. Granted, history may portray him in a different light years from now, but right now... he's definitely in the running for worst ever.

7/31/2007 10:39:10 PM

John Burns of The New York Times on Iraq:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vCAVkFwxyuk

7/31/2007 11:42:49 PM

^ interesting.

8/1/2007 12:28:22 AM

^ Um. . .thanks. . .I guess. You do realize Burns' position is that the Bush administration showed poor judgment--not that they were evildoers controlled by corporate interests?

8/1/2007 12:38:40 AM

Quote :

"some of us criticize Bush for perfectly valid reasons"

thats fine and its also encouraged...and there are a number of people like yourself who do it in a somewhat constructive way...however there still seems to be some type of majority group who does participate in the shallow "blame bush for everything" type tactics...and believe it or not, they generally tend to make just as radical and crazy of arguments for their side as I am perceived to always do...seriously I dont fuck with people who are legitimately discussing things...if I do on occasion I apologize but in general I only make a strong argument against ("troll") some opinions that seem way too one-sided

Quote :

"Seriously, who's worse? Clinton was definitely better, despite what Hannity and Limbaugh might say. Bush Sr. attacked the correct country with a REAL coalition. Reagan might as well be the GOP diety. Carter, for all his faults, had a recession and the Iran-Contra Affair to deal with. Gerald Ford wasn't even elected, so I won't hold any of his faults against him. "

i dont really know who i think is the best president ever and honestly i dont know how any of us could know either...sure we are titled to our opinions...we can disagree, strongly if we choose, with plenty of the current president's policies...but i also strongly believe that ANY president wont be fully (under)appreciated until a couple decades down the line...i just think theres such a large group of people on TWW TSB who like to point their fingers at bush in blame for anything...sometimes a legit gripe...but often a misguided partisan or blind criticism and i'm only attempting to point out that basically "it's not all on bush"

8/1/2007 1:14:23 AM

^ Yes, it's the "T-Dub liberal cabal," as joe_schmoe has referred to it. I was unaware that they plotted in secret, though--nice of him to admit it. And I agree with nearly everything you posted.

I have two main points on this one: (1) The media and many others often refer to a number of things as "the best/worst in history"--whether those things actually are the best or worst in history seems to be irrelevant. And (2) though I disagree with Bush on a number of issues, I think that it is just too early to judge the Bush presidency as a whole--despite the fact that some historians are clamoring to do so now. I think that a bit of distance from any presidency allows it and the officeholder to be seen in a clearer light.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:48:36 AM

Judging by Bush's approval ratings, I can easily see him going down as one of the worst presidents in history.

8/1/2007 2:11:23 AM

Quote :

"You do realize Burns' position is that the Bush administration showed poor judgment"

yeah, i realize that. its an interesting and well-considered opinion, worth considering.

but John Burns isn't the final authority on Iraq, or US foreign policy. he certainly doesn't have any special access to the Bush administration.

i dont think George Bush, on a personal level, is intentionally evil. i do think he's hopelessly incompetent and arrogant. and i think the advisors he surrounds himself with, the PNAC folks for instance, are incredibly evil, corrupt, and immoral.

there were a number of interests pulling us into iraq, and the war profiteers are a real and powerful force.

Quote :

"Bush's approval ratings"

"worst president" goes far beyond subjective approval ratings



[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2007 2:13:16 AM

He's at least better than any one-term president who lost reelection.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 2:28 AM. Reason : Bush Sr. can get an asterisk because of Perot]

8/1/2007 2:18:40 AM

Quote :

""Bush's approval ratings" "worst president" goes far beyond subjective approval ratings "

I agree, but if I were talking to someone IRL and they said "nuh uh, Bush is one of the best presidents ever" and I said "then why are his approval ratings so low?" that would convince them at least to STFU which would be my goal.

8/1/2007 2:37:58 AM

Here's an interesting question: had we never invaded Iraq, would Bush still be in contention for worst president ever in anybody's opinion? It's hard to imagine, being that Iraq has been a huge part of his presidency. I'm sure his aproval ratings would be somewhat higher, although it's hard to say how much. I geuss one would have to base it on his performance involving other issues. The man was elected for a second term so he had to be doing something people liked.

8/1/2007 4:50:46 AM

An interesting read that suggests that the war may be turning in our favor.

Quote :

"A Turn For The Better In Iraq? War In Iraq: It's quite likely that, as you read this, U.S. troops under the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus are winning the war against terrorism in Iraq. And no, it isn't just war-crazed neocons who think so. The possibility that the U.S. is winning this war -- and not losing, as Democrats would have it -- was raised in the pages of no less than the New York Times just this week. In a long, thoughtful op-ed following an eight-day trip to Iraq, Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote about the progress there -- and what's at stake. Remember: Brookings generally is a liberal -- not conservative -- think tank, though neither O'Hanlon nor Pollack is in any sense a doctrinaire leftist. That said, the two have been to Iraq before and are no great fans of President Bush. But the changes they saw this time were, in their words, "significant." "Here is the important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," the Mideast experts wrote in Monday's Times. "As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administrations' miserable handling of Iraq," they continued, "we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." This is quite a difference from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent nonsensical comment that "the escalation has failed to produce the intended results." In fact, the "escalation," as Reid calls it, was only accomplished a little more than a month ago. The addition of 28,500 troops as part of what has generally become known as the "surge" has had a major impact on the ground in Iraq. We're not arguing here that there are no problems in Iraq, no bitterness, no hatred. Or that terrorist acts are now a thing of the past. No, we're arguing that the course of events seems to have turned decisively in our favor. If we keep our troops on mission, we might be able to produce within a year or two a stable government in Iraq that will be able to defend itself from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is the desired outcome -- one that will leave in place a government that will not support terrorists against the U.S., unlike the previous regime in Iraq headed by Saddam Hussein. "Today, morale is high," O'Hanlon and Pollack report. "Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services (OTCBB:BICV) -- electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation -- to the people." Assessments other than O'Hanlon's and Pollack's also note progress on the ground. The Associated Press reports that the U.S. death toll in Iraq in July was at its lowest since November 2006. Isn't that a sign the surge is working? The public may even be starting to get it. A New York Times poll in May found only 35% of Americans said the U.S. "did the right thing" in taking action against Iraq. In July, it rose to 42% -- not yet a majority, but a major improvement. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are having a hard time getting rid of all the arms that have been handed in or captured, according to USA Today. The U.S., the paper says, has confiscated more weapons so far this year than it did all of last year. "I don't want to paint a rosy picture," Gen. Petraeus told the national daily, but "we feel as if we have momentum, tactical momentum." This is backed up by New York Times reporter John Burns, never accused of being a shill for anyone on Iraq. He told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday "there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference." There's more. Muslim-American Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, hardly a Bush buddy, recently returned from Iraq on a trip organized by California Democrat Jerry McNerney. Ellison said he saw signs of success, and gave credit to Petraeus' strategy: "What they're doing is respecting people, giving the people some control over their own lives." Likewise, McNerney, who has supported troop withdrawal, said post-trip he now thinks in terms of being "flexible" on the issue. That's progress -- military and political. This war can be won. It just takes the right strategy and enough will to carry it out. Maybe we can muster both after all. "

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-18565289.htm

8/1/2007 7:13:02 AM

Quote :

"Here's an interesting question: had we never invaded Iraq, would Bush still be in contention for worst president ever in anybody's opinion? It's hard to imagine, being that Iraq has been a huge part of his presidency. I'm sure his aproval ratings would be somewhat higher, although it's hard to say how much. I geuss one would have to base it on his performance involving other issues. The man was elected for a second term so he had to be doing something people liked."

Both times, he was elected just barely. I wouldn't take that as a mandate for doing anything particularly well. Anyway, if we had never invaded Iraq, Bush would have had a harder time getting reelected, not easier. People weren't as war weary back then, so they didn't want to change horses midstream

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 9:18 AM. Reason : sd]

8/1/2007 9:17:18 AM

^ That sounds like equivocation to me.

8/1/2007 10:56:54 AM

Quote :

"Both times, he was elected just barely."

incorrect

8/1/2007 1:03:59 PM

^ In 2000, yes he barely won the electoral college (actually losing the popular vote by 560,000 votes), but in 2004 he won by 3 million votes...so not necessarily wrong on both counts

8/1/2007 1:16:55 PM

^^ Both elections came down to the very last state. In the 1st election he lost the popular vote. If that isn't "barely winning" then, seriously, what is?

Quote :

"however there still seems to be some type of majority group who does participate in the shallow "blame bush for everything" type tactics...and believe it or not, they generally tend to make just as radical and crazy of arguments for their side as I am perceived to always do..."

The solution to crazy is not more crazy.

Quote :

"[The article] suggests that the war may be turning in our favor."

God I hope so. Anyone honestly hoping our troops don't succeed either an exceptional political hack blinded by Bush hate or a complete moron. As bad as it's been, I hope and pray every day we get things figured out... because then we can finally bring our troops home.

At this point, however, I believe that if the military does succeed in stabilizing in Iraq, it will be in spite of George Bush's leadership, and not a result of it.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : f]

8/1/2007 1:21:22 PM

The place is cursed and doomed:

Quote :

"Sunni bloc quits as bombs kill over 70 BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The main Sunni Arab political bloc quit the Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday, plunging the government into crisis on a day when suicide bombers killed more than 70 people with massive strikes in the capital."

NOW WHAT BITCHES???

8/1/2007 1:40:19 PM

does this suprise you...I mean the fuckers over there just went on a month long vacation. If they don't want to lead, find someone who will

8/1/2007 1:48:09 PM

^^ Could you cheer for America's defeat more loudly?

8/1/2007 1:57:11 PM

Yeah, this guy wants the US to fail....rather odd

8/1/2007 2:05:09 PM

this is depressing.

it was pure arrogance and ignorance to think that we could go into Iraq and mold their society and their thousand-year ethnic/sectarian differences into conforming with our idea of what constitutes a good government.

I want Iraq to succeed, I want our soldiers deaths to have meant something, and I want the hundred thousand or so dead Iraqis to have not died in vain.

But I'm really afraid we're all gonna pay for this blunder, George Bush's personal war of choice, for a long time.

8/1/2007 2:21:47 PM

^ indeed, couldn't agree more...

8/1/2007 2:36:59 PM

Quote :

"^^ Could you cheer for America's defeat more loudly? "

Quote :

"Yeah, this guy wants the US to fail....rather odd"

Could you 2 be any more stupid, or at least, assume even more about people you don't know??? Yeah, I want the US "mission" (which no one knows what it was/is) to fail, in turn leading to more deaths of civilians, in turn leading to an anarchic country, in turn leading to increased terrorism around the world (we have seen this effect for 3 years now), in turn leading to the US attacking more countries, and then repetition of the whole cycle again and again!

Quote :

"it was pure arrogance and ignorance to think that we could go into Iraq and mold their society and their thousand-year ethnic/sectarian differences into conforming with our idea of what constitutes a good government. I want Iraq to succeed, I want our soldiers deaths to have meant something, and I want the hundred thousand or so dead Iraqis to have not died in vain. But I'm really afraid we're all gonna pay for this blunder, George Bush's personal war of choice, for a long time."

Exactly.

8/1/2007 2:56:06 PM

The news item mentioned by OEP is actually filled with some very discussion worthy tidbits.

http://tinyurl.com/3d3r6z

#1 Someone mentioned soldier deaths down as proof of the surge working. Chew on this ->

Quote :

"The Iraqi government said 1,653 civilians were killed in July, a third more than the previous month, despite a fall in the number of deaths among U.S. troops."

#2 The title says Sunni bloc quits, which gives me the impression the Sunni's are giving up on the government, but I don't think that is the case per se

Quote :

"The Sunni Front's deputy president, Tareq al-Hashemi, will remain in office for now, as will Sunni Arab Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim. The Front's 44 members also remain in the 275-seat parliament, which is on recess until September."

So, perhaps the 'bloc' is referring to a couple of members that are boycotting. Either way, the language is misleading.
#3

Quote :

""The surge has done what we wanted it to do in terms of bringing down the violence," said the U.S. embassy's Reeker. "The hardest part is taking advantage of these security gains to move the political process forward.""

Relatively misleading if you ask me. How is "violence" being measured? Certainly not by the number of dead Iraqis.

We all realize democracy is tough and the Iraqi's seem to be taking their sweet time. But how long do we give them? Benchmarks are a good idea, but it seems like no one is interested in setting them, and then following through with the repercussions when they aren't met.

At this point, if we are going to insist on staying there, then we need to go into their government and start making decisions for them. If they balk at that, fuck em.

8/1/2007 3:02:59 PM

i dislike how the US gets the blame for a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians...when the dead Iraqi civilians were killed by insurgents/terrorists, and not by the US armed forces

8/1/2007 3:19:06 PM

For clarification, this is what's on BBC's website:

Quote :

"In other developments, the main Sunni Arab political bloc in Iraq, the Iraqi Accordance Front, has said it is withdrawing from the government. The group, which has six cabinet ministers, said the Shia-led administration had failed to meet a list of demands, including one urging tough action against Shia militias. The Sunni leaders had also demanded a bigger say in security matters. And Iraqi officials say more than 1,600 civilians were killed in July - an increase of about a third from the previous month. The figure is also higher than the number of civilian deaths in February, when the US launched its so-called surge, which involved sending thousands more troops to Baghdad. The US military says American casualties fell last month to their lowest level this year. "

8/1/2007 3:32:39 PM

Quote :

"The group, which has six cabinet ministers, said the Shia-led administration had failed to meet a list of demands, including one urging tough action against Shia militias."

This is just stupid. Why not urge tough action against militias of any sort. It's like someone mentioned above, these deep rooted religious difference have yet to be resolved, and it isn't going to happen any time soon. Let us assume we strong arm their government into getting over their differences somehow. Laws are passed, their government moves forward with laws and oil sharing. They don't like it, but if they want our support they have to take it. Then we leave, and all the differences come pouring out again. The infighting in their government starts back up, the Shiias being in the majority start getting corrupt and usurping power away from the Sunnis, and it all crumbles again. I don't see how we can achieve success in regards to this topic.

8/1/2007 3:46:14 PM

Quote :

"Shia-led administration had failed to meet a list of demands, including one urging tough action against Shia militias"

what about the sunni suicide bombers, who constitute the majority of suicide bombers? they can roam and explode freely?

fucking hate this bullshit.

8/1/2007 3:58:19 PM

Quote :

"i dislike how the US gets the blame for a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians...when the dead Iraqi civilians were killed by insurgents/terrorists, and not by the US armed forces"

i dislike how people think that even though (1) we invaded a sovereign country who posed no threat to us, (2) we broke their entire infrastructure and government apparatus, (3) we allowed terrorists supporting an islamofascist agenda to pour across previously secure borders, (4) we caused the collapse of a previously self-supporting economy ...

... that somehow we aren't responsible for "a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians"

i dislike the fact that the rest of the world judges Americans as being the arrogant and ignorant buffoons that we appear to be, due to fuckheaded comments like these from a large number of my fellow countrymen.





[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2007 6:35:44 PM

Quote :

"(3) we allowed terrorists supporting an islamofascist agenda to pour across previously secure borders"

iraq had secure borders? hahahahahahaha thats a good one

but overall you still seem to be on the "the US military is there so anything bad is their fault" tip...you continue to not blame the psychopathic suicidal bombers for the suicide bombings, but you instead blame the US who are there with the intention of preventing the bombers!

Quote :

"i dislike the fact that the rest of the world judges Americans as being the arrogant and ignorant buffoons that we appear to be, due to fuckheaded comments like these from a large number of my fellow countrymen."

even if you happen to actually care what the rest of the world thinks, when is the last time the rest of the world liked us? have they liked us in the last 50 years? you can be goddamned sure they disliked us long before Bush was elected

8/1/2007 6:37:46 PM

look here, dumbass:

you point out to me any instance where Saddam Hussein's secular and largely westernized government had any problem with Islamic extremists or terrorists. His military and police forces kept the country secure.

Admittedly there were serious human rights problems, but far less than we already overlook in China, N. Korea, or any number of African countries on a daily basis.

but we've turned a fully-functioning country that had human rights abuses into an international tragedy with 100,000 + dead, many more permanently injured, AND AT LEAST 2 MILLION and counting as REFUGEES and INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS.

this is not the military's fault.

the military did their job (destroying the iraqi army), and their currently doing a job that they arent equipped or trained to do as well as can be expected (restore peace and rebuild an infrastructure).

the problem is the stupid, shortsighted fools who sent the military there in the first place, on this illegal "fishing expedition" looking for non-existent WMDs dreamed up by by neocon proponents of the "Policy for the New American Century". is it any wonder that a major foriegn policy initiative there is to PRIVATIZE THEi IRAQI NATIONAL OIL FIELDS?












[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2007 6:41:32 PM

look here, dumbass

iraq has never had secure borders...quit spreading lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie just because you love hating on Bush and the United States in general

Quote :

"that somehow we aren't responsible for "a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians"

do you ever take a moment...catch your breath...and look at what you're claiming? what you're basically saying is that its not the KILLERS faults that they KILL PEOPLE

There are TERRORISTS BLOWING UP CIVILIANS...THE UNITED STATES IS TRYING TO STOP THEM...BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T BLAME THE KILLERS FOR KILLING...ITS CLEARLY NOT THEIR FAULT

8/1/2007 6:42:53 PM

I think you need to come to terms really quickly about what fault means and what responsibility means.

Because it's pretty easy to fault killers for killing, and hold the guy that handed the killer the gun when he asked for it responsible (if only partly) for the death.

8/1/2007 6:49:48 PM

Quote :

"twista : what you're basically saying is that its not the KILLERS faults that they KILL PEOPLE"

dude, just shut the fuck up. thats not what im saying at all. thats what you WISH i was saying.

of course the terrorists are to blame for the terror they cause. but this is not zero-sum blame. our culpability lies in the fact that WE enabled and empowered the terrorsists to thrive and operate in a space where they had no power prior to our arriving and fucking everything up.

our culpability is rooted in the ignorance and arrogance of this administration who seems to think its their job to tear down and rebuild sovereign nations as they see fit.




[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 6:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2007 6:53:23 PM

Quote :

"Twista : iraq has never had secure borders...quit spreading lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie just because you love hating on Bush and the United States in general"

instead of typing "hahahahahahah" and "LOLOLOL" responses, perhaps you might address this with some intelligent reply:

Quote :

"schmoe : you point out to me any instance where Saddam Hussein's secular and largely westernized government had any problem with Islamic extremists or terrorists. His military and police forces kept the country secure."

anyhow, sorry to disappoint you, but i don't hate the US. Im proud to have served in the US Navy during Gulf I. I think our military is (with only a few exceptions) an impressive and respectable institution. Now what have YOU done besides run your mouth?.

anyhow, I really don't even want to hate on Bush. I never voted for him, but when he came to office in 2001, I was optimistic. And after the 9/11 attacks, i really trusted what he was saying and appearing to be doing. I was supportive of the decision to attack Afghanistan, even though I beleived we still hadn't exhausted all our options to retrieve Osama Bin Laden.

Osama bin who?

I mean what the fuck? the Bush administration has been the WORST FUCKING EVER. I didnt start out hating this guy. I started out liking him. But he's fucked up twenty goddamn ways to Sunday, and blames everyone else but him or his loyal henchmen who are consistently getting into one mess after another. That you can defend this bunch of clowns and criminals is astounding.

8/1/2007 7:11:22 PM

Quote :

"dude, just shut the fuck up. thats not what im saying at all. thats what you WISH i was saying. of course the terrorists are to blame for the terror they cause. but this is not zero-sum blame"

hmmm now where would i have gotten the idea that it was zero sum blame from you towards the US?

Quote :

"i dislike how people think that even though (1) we invaded a sovereign country who posed no threat to us, (2) we broke their entire infrastructure and government apparatus, (3) we allowed terrorists supporting an islamofascist agenda to pour across previously secure borders, (4) we caused the collapse of a previously self-supporting economy ... ... that somehow we aren't responsible for "a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians""

you want it both ways...dont blame me for calling you out on it

8/1/2007 7:41:09 PM

you were one of those LD children, weren't you?

8/1/2007 7:55:46 PM

instead of typing "hahahahahahah" and "LOLOLOL" responses, perhaps you might address this with some intelligent reply

8/1/2007 8:09:26 PM

i've already made a dozen points which you seem incapable of addressing, and instead try to devolve this into a "oh, you hate America" and "oh, you think terrorists aren't responsible for killing" circlejerk

so no, i'm sorry, i'm just not impressed with your lame attempts at sophistry. Blind Hate might be coming back, though. perhaps you can start another flamewar with him.

8/1/2007 8:19:22 PM

that might get some TWW publicity in between you and boone tagteaming hooksaw on the daily

8/1/2007 8:45:22 PM

This:

Quote :

"you want it both ways...dont blame me for calling you out on it"

In response to this:

Quote :

""i dislike how people think that even though (1) we invaded a sovereign country who posed no threat to us, (2) we broke their entire infrastructure and government apparatus, (3) we allowed terrorists supporting an islamofascist agenda to pour across previously secure borders, (4) we caused the collapse of a previously self-supporting economy ... ... that somehow we aren't responsible for "a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians"""

...is quite possibly the dumbest fucking thing I've read on TWW yet. Did you even read what he wrote? Or do I have to draw it out in crayon for you, as usual?. He's saying that people need to accept the fact that we tore Iraq into pieces AND, as a result, we're responsible for any resulting chaos while putting it back together. The terrorists are in Iraw because the US, a country they hate, is ALSO in Iraq.

The logic really isn't all that hard to comprehend...

I'm done trying to rationalize your lame attempts at calling out Bush bashers, TreeTwista10. You're equally if not more irrational than those you're arguing against. You consistently bring nothing constructive to the discussion. You, in short, are 10x worse than the brigade of liberals you claim to be valiantly fighting....

So, shut the fuck up and go find some fucking common sense, since it is grossly apparant that you have none.


[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:00 PM. Reason :
[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 10:59 PM. Reason : sef]]

8/1/2007 10:57:23 PM

Quote :

"you point out to me any instance where Saddam Hussein's secular and largely westernized government had any problem with Islamic extremists or terrorists. His military and police forces kept the country secure."

joe_schmoe

Let's examine the abovementioned quotation, shall we?

Bill Clinton, 1998 State of the Union Address

Quote :

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

Yes, Saddam did have terrorist connections.
By Christopher Hitchens

Quote :

"The two cases in point are Abdul Rahman Yasin, a crucial member of the team that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, currently the leader of a very deadly and ruthless group known as Monotheism and Jihad, operating in central Iraq."

http://slate.com/id/2108636/

US jets attack Iraqi fighters

Quote :

"American warplanes have clashed with Iraqi fighter jets in the no-fly zone over southern Iraq."

Quote :

"Last week, US planes fired on ground missile batteries in both zones after they said missiles had been fired at them from the ground. The latest incident was the third in less than a week involving US warplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. BBC Washington Correspondent Philippa Thomas said it was the most serious since the US and UK bombed Iraq in December in Operation Desert Fox."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/latest_news/249167.stm

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush

Quote :

"U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a 'firm and commensurate' response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April. The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said [emphasis added]. Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: 'We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people.'"

Quote :

"'It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president,' Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 'As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans,' Clinton said [emphasis added]."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Wrong on all points as usual, schmoe.

Quote :

"You, in short, are 10x worse than the brigade of liberals you claim to be valiantly fighting...."

Erios

That is abso-fucking-lutely not true.



[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 11:15:27 PM

Quote :

"That is abso-fucking-lutely not true."

Reread your last post. Done? Good. Now consider the last time TreeTwista10 had a post remotely as organized, coherent, and thought-provoking....

....




..........






::crickets chirping::








.......................








I rest my case.

8/1/2007 11:51:23 PM

Quote :

"The terrorists are in Iraw because the US, a country they hate, is ALSO in Iraq"

So the US's occupation in Iraq is bringing terrorists into Iraq to carry out terrorist attacks. Since the US invaded Iraq its the US's responsibility for any chaotic violence.

Well why were the terrorists in the US who carried out the 9/11 attacks? By your logic the terrorists who carried out 9/11 are America's responsibility

Quote :

"consider the last time TreeTwista10 had a post remotely as organized, coherent, and thought-provoking"

i must have been provoking your thoughts earlier on the page when you were seeming to agree with me

Quote :

"I'll credit you TreeTwista10 for keeping arguments in TSB honest, for playing devil's advocate, and for reminding us that President Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that's befallen the country in the past seven years..."

yet then you say

Quote :

"You consistently bring nothing constructive to the discussion"

just like joe_schmoe you're talking out of both sides of your mouth then getting pissed off when I call you out on it

8/1/2007 11:53:52 PM

^^ Um. . .I had to logout for just a few minutes to make it to Food Lion before they closed at midnight. I'm not here to defend TreeTwista10--he can do that quite well on his own--but I'll do it anyway.

I think that most of you simply find his posts objectionable, meaning that you disagree. So what? Just because you disagree, it doesn't make you right or him a "retard" or some such. And, Erios, your post about TreeTwista10 being "10x worse than the brigade of liberals" here is exaggeration and you know it. I challenge you to go back and read some of the left-wing moonbats' TSB posts and see if you still feel the same way.

PS: And owning joe_schmoe is no big deal--I do it routinely. I'm sure that he's somewhere on the Left Coast right now Googling furiously.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 12:36:28 AM

1st off:

Quote :

"And owning joe_schmoe is no big deal--I do it routinely."

Don't flatter yourself.

2nd off, playing devil's advocate does not necessarily imply that you're adding something "constructive" to the conversation. TreeTwista10's presence in TSB encourages me to sharpen my arguments to avoid giving him flame bait. Otherwise the thread turns into a shouting war and the issue is lost. But that's all TreeTwista10 is good for: flaming. He consistently antagonizes the more extreme liberals out here and instigates pages upon pages of useless bickering.

TreeTwista10 claims that he's fighting the liberal bias on TSB. That's fine, but do it like GrumpyGOP or even hooksaw. I look forward to reviewing his long previous post, even if I disagree with it.

That's what makes TreeTwista10 10x worse than the extreme liberals out here. He's lighting a fire and blaming it on the forest being too dry....

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 7:00 AM. Reason : sd]

8/2/2007 6:59:29 AM

Quote :

"Well why were the terrorists in the US who carried out the 9/11 attacks? By your logic the terrorists who carried out 9/11 are America's responsibility"

I'm reasonably certain that Joe's statement and your 'logical' progression are far different. I'd even go so far as to say that your logic is broken in this regard.

Quote :

"Let's examine the abovementioned quotation, shall we?"

Quote :

"Wrong on all points as usual, schmoe."

Umm, not so fast muldoon. I think that you may want to re-examine the original quote that you were responding to because your 'evidence' refuting Joe's statement aren't even connected. Not even one of your excerpts address any problems that the Hussein regime had with extremists or terrorists.

8/2/2007 7:23:28 AM

^^and 3rd off, boldfacing phrases does not make them true

funny too how I go from "just as irrational" as the people I'm arguing against in your first post on this page to "10x worse" by the end of the page...but apparently to you the only requirements for a good post are some boldfaced phrases (yelling) and making sure to use the user tags a lot to really make your text stand out, regardless of how worthless the content is

Quote :

"Otherwise the thread turns into a shouting war"

thanks for not perpetuating that by boldfacing everything...oh wait

and I must not be encouraging you enough to sharpen your skills to avoid giving me flamebait cause your last post was pathetic

8/2/2007 8:46:57 AM