Like Kryptonite To Stupid
» Breaking News
Crystal Gunns/Louisa C. Tuck: School Pressured To Fire Porn Star Turned Lunch Lady
Amber Lynn [Breaking Beauty]
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
Oh boy do I fell safe with this failed president in charge.
President Bush said Monday that with the right intelligence U.S. and Pakistan governments can take out al-Qaida leaders, and wouldn’t say whether he would consult first with Pakistan before ordering U.S. forces to act on their own.
"With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done," Bush said.
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Isn’t amazing how totally wrong the Repub party has been on confronting our terrorist enemies?
When Bin Laden declared war on us in August 1996, President Clinton took him seriously and launched an attack on Bin Laden two years later.
How did the Repub party respond to President Clinton’s actions? By claiming it was “Wag the dog” and by claiming that Clinton was making the terrorist threat up, that it didn’t exist.
Now, fast-forward eight years. Where is the Repub party on getting Bin Laden? The Repubs are saying “we can’t get Bin Laden because he’s hiding in Pakistan, and even though we can invade Iraq, we can’t do the same in Pakistan.
BTW, Clinton had 4 years to get Bin Laden, Bush has now had 7 years of failure.
I’m launching a “pre-emptive” attack on the ignorant 25%ERS® who would try to refute my comment.
Look at all this Repub support Clinton got when he attacked Bin Laden:
—————
Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: “The suspicion some people have about the president’s motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment,” Armey said in a statement. “After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: “It is obvious that they’re (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it,” Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, “Whether he knows it or not, that’s exactly what he’s doing.”
GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, “While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.”
Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: “The foregoing, the premise of the recent film ‘Wag the Dog,’ might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo …
“Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm’s way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political ‘viability’ — is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions.”
GOP activist Paul Weyrich: “Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton’s decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote ‘is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.’”
Wall Street Journal editorial: “It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment.”
Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: “I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time,” Lott said in a statement. “Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
Rep. Gerald Solomon: “‘Never underestimate a desperate president,’ said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). ‘What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?’”
Rep. Tillie Folwer: “‘It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,’ said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). ‘I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.’”
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: “First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a ‘wag the dog’ public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the ‘life is truer than fiction’ movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to ‘move on’ from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.”
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: “President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response … with his own wrongdoing … Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa.”
Wall Street Journal editorial: “Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation’s affairs, and should be impeached.”
There goes Oxycon again: conflating Al Qaida with Saddam Hussein.
Hey none of this matters. President Obama will take the progressive step of starting WWW III when he nukes Pakistan to get them terrorists - someplace in the tribal frontier. They’ll nuke us back and its Katie bar the door! Armageddon is good!
And Oxy, Not so fast my friend(C/R Lee Corso). You didn’t preempt dog crap. First off you also conflated Iraq with Pakistan. The latter is much bigger, nuke capable and run by a friend of the US (who, true, can’t police the tribal areas). None of this is applicable to Saddam’s Iraq. But nice try, for pure verbosity you rival flame.
Losers.
Bush and the people who still support him.
Dugger and farris don’t want America to catch bin Laden. They are terrorist appeasers that hate America.
Dugger and farris don’t want America to catch bin Laden. They are terrorist appeasers that hate America.
I’ve been saying that for a while now, and I have NEVER seen them deny it.
Nothing could have helped Osama bin Laden more than Bush’s decision to embrace the Iraq tar baby. 3000 American lives and one million Iraqi lives and counting were wrapped up in a gift box to Osama, plain and simple, and marked “To Osama, From George.”
I’ve been saying that for a while now, and I have NEVER seen them deny it.
Yeah, me too. Isn’t that curious?
President Obama will take the progressive step of starting WWW III when he nukes Pakistan to get them terrorists - someplace in the tribal frontier. They’ll nuke us back and its Katie bar the door! Armageddon is good!
Only in your warporn fantasies, duggs. You are the only one here who has suggested nukes and a balls to the wall invasion of Pakistan.
No, I’m sorry, that’s wrong. Farris is too.
Why do you guys hate America?
Yeah, Dugger and Farris are right, Pakistan is a complete different baby from Iraq. Pakistan actually has WMDs and terrorists.
Of course, Pakistan was more cooperative with US military objectives against Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters prior to the Iraq invasion. Given the choice between taking out AL Qaeda or invading Iraq for no good reason it seems Republicans like to choose Red Herring for dinner.
“President Obama will take the progressive step of starting WWW III when he nukes Pakistan to get them terrorists - someplace in the tribal frontier.”
Wow, that’s all you could come up with, eh? Nevermind that the guy YOU voted for actually DID start a war - and with a country that, unlike Pakistan, actually didn’t have WMDs.
And I suppose I could spend some time explaining that Obama has no intention of nuking Pakistan - and since Republitards have been aching to nuke IRAN, I can’t see why you’d have a problem with it if he did - but what difference would it make to a troll?
All you have are your lies. That’s it.
“Why do you guys hate America?”
Dugger and SaveFarris hate America because they have no respect for Americans. They hold the American people in contempt - for all kinds of reasons. But it starts there. Disrespect grows into contempt which grows into hate.
That’s why they advocate taking away civil liberties. They simply do not believe that Americans deserve them.
Oh I forgot. Obama while tolerating genocide ellewhere is not going to “ball to the wall” invade Pakistan. He going to do a lesser invasion?! Against moving, blend-in targets in an unpoliced mountainous rural area with a unsympathetic countryside? That’ll work.
Or is he going to justs end in one CIA James Bond type and take out Obama. Val Plame maybe. Boy, you guys are on top of all of this.
Duhh, why not go in and kill a bunch of dem terorists?
I’ve been saying that for a while now, and I have NEVER seen them deny it.
I didn’t realize I had to respond personally to every unfounded, hysterical, fact-free rumor you baby-molesting, solicalist, ripping-the-tag-off-of-mattresses guy. (Kidding!)
Anyway, I had more important things to do last night. Like installing my new 42″ plasma. Gotta have Priorities!!!
In Afghan now maybe 5 million children’s going to school, but the doubt is whether at least 5 million people will left in Iraq at the time of war ends…
house insurance derbyshire
Of course all you ‘brave, brave Sir Robin’ progressives now advocating invading Pakistan understand Pakistan allows overflights into Afghanistan so that we can fight the war there (Iran doesn’t) and that if Obama invades that country, we will substantially damage the Afghan effort - in addition to starting a war with nuke capable- Pakistan. Jeus, who’s thinking this crap up for you guys. Don’t you know Murtha is out of his money-grubbing gourd? Get somebody who understands geo-politics. Hillary is a helluva lot more schooled on this than obama.
“Against moving, blend-in targets in an unpoliced mountainous rural area with a unsympathetic countryside? That’ll work.”
And what part of this is also not an argument against invading Iraq? We face everything you just described with the exception of a mountainous terrain In Iraq. But you support and supported our invasion ot Iraq. Regardless of how our presence there would have impacted Iranian influence in the region, upset tribal and religious tensions, inflamed the muslim world — including the nuts in the Pakistani mountains you’re so concerned about NOT upsetting. Seriously Dugger, the idea that we shouldn’t invade Pakistan because we’d end up bogged down fighting a protracted military conflict in a politically unstable and dangerous region is exactly why many people opposed the war in Iraq.
“And what part of this is also not an argument against invading Iraq?’
Precisely my point, frame. Thank you. Pakistan will be like Iraq, only six times worse. (What in the h*ll was Obama or his handlers thinking or drinking?)
And I didn’t support the Iraq action. You mistake my lack of hate of W or my ridcule of all the war conspiracy theories (OOOH. Bush lied! Its all about oil!! )as support for Iraq. Even now, I can’t say whether Iraq is or will be a success or failure. OTOH, we are there. And that is a reality that must be dealt with carefully.
You didn’t support the invasion of Iraq but you fully support our staying there now just because we’re there? Okay. Whatever.
At the same time, you say that you cannot say whether Iraq is or will be a success or failure. And yet you are emphatically convinced that invading Pakistan will be “six times worse” than Iraq. But Dugger, you mean a worse success? Or do you mean worse in that you will feel six times more ambiguous about the outcome?
All of that, however, is beside the point as if we did invade pakistan, you would fully support staying until we get the job done, right? You would argue that, well, we’re there now and we have to deal with that reality, let’s not argue about how we got there.
I’m sure that’s exactly what you would say.
Essentially, you are the worst sort of blow with the wind, whatever my leaders tell me i support kind of idiot. You have no real convictions of any kind do you?
frame
Its not that hard. I don’t know if it was right to go into iraq. I kinda think not, but I fully admit there are things I don’t know about the invasion (classified) and yes I might just be wrong (as is true of you and everyone else). You say ‘blow with wind’ but if you were to check back on my posts - this has been my position since day one. With 20-20 hindsight, once we were in, seems to me we should have toppled that statue and then pulled out and told the Iraqis its all yours. But now its a lot more complex and I’m not sure pulling out precipitously is a good idea (I know you feel otherwise and we have beat it to death). My pre military degree is in history and I tend to look at longer term effects. We don’t/can’t know the effects, long term, of Iraq. There are good possibilities and bad possibilities.
“We don’t/can’t know the effects, long term, of Iraq. There are good possibilities and bad possibilities.”
But any military intervention in Pakistan is absolutely the worst idea evah and anyone who suggests it is obviously unserious and maybe unhinged. Yup. Right-o. Could you just try to be a little more consistent in your idiocy?
And if Osama were in Iran? Still hands-off, boys? They are a sovereign nation,after all, and bigger than Iraq. what if he were in Darfur or some other buttfuck place? Can it be Osama killingz tieme?
“With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done,” Bush said.
How about with the fake kind?
But any military intervention in Pakistan is absolutely the worst idea evah and anyone who suggests it is obviously unserious and maybe unhinged. Yup. Right-o. Could you just try to be a little more consistent in your idiocy?
No. if pakistan asked us to and we had actionable intelligence that it was worthwhile, it could make sense. Neither of those are on the table, so it is anyhing but good sense.
Do you support military intervention in Pakistan?
Whaaaa…? I don’t remember being invited in by the Iraqis and how’d all that ‘actionable intelligence’ turn out?
And for the record, i would support limited engagement with pakistani support but nothing even close to an invasion.
You know dugger, Bush refused to make pakistani cooperation a condition of intervention, he sort of stopped short on that one …
All that said, how come you don’t agree with this statement:
“We don’t/can’t know the effects, long term, of invading Pakistan. There are good possibilities and bad possibilities.”
I didn’t realize I had to respond personally to every unfounded, hysterical, fact-free rumor you baby-molesting, solicalist, ripping-the-tag-off-of-mattresses guy. (Kidding!)
…coming from a guy that ridicules liberals for “not denouncing Stalin”. Color me unimpressed.
Well I tend to agree with Pakistani cooperation - but then that wouldn’t be an invasion - would it. Helping an ally.
And I’m not tied to Bush’s policies. He could be just as wrong as Obama.
“We don’t/can’t know the effects, long term, of invading Pakistan. There are good possibilities and bad possibilities.”
In a way yes. But the key is Pakistan is a much, much more serious proposition than Iraq.
Just because an invasion might have good or bad consequences, doesn’t mean you should do it and it doesn’t necessarily follow that the good and bad are equally balanced. At best, I’m saying of Iraq that is possible some long term good can come from it. But, mostly I doubt it. And if it was day one, knowing only what I know now, I wouldn’t do it - Iraq. But I could be wrong - short sighted- and the Neocons right.
“But the key is Pakistan is a much, much more serious proposition than Iraq.”
Oh? Could you please tell that to the families of 3,000 plus dead US soldiers?
As to the rest of your equivocation, suggestion that anything is possible at any time and so no policy could ever possibly be judged by mere mortals, is just lame. But i guess that’s what hackery gets you.
Hey, it is a little lame, but thats been my position from day one. But then I’m just an observer and can afford the luxury of seeing both sides. The Pres and Congress had to act one way or the other. It is interesting to me to remember th rpros and cons of the Iraq argument at onset, then hear the Democrats and some Repubs backtarck on her own decisons, and now see a sieable segment of the left talk blithely about invading Pakistan.