The problem starts with the commander-in-chief
Terrorists killed more than 14,500 people in 11,000 attacks across the globe last year, the U.S. State Department said in its annual report on terrorism.
Fifty-six of those killed were Americans, the report said. Three thousand of the deaths were attributable to 360 suicide bombings. There were 25,000 people wounded and 35,000 people kidnapped, the report said.
More Americans have died as a result of terrorism under George W. Bush than any other President in American history.
Do you even read the articles you link to?
Had Linclon declared a War on Civility?
More Americans died as a result of civil war under Abraham Lincoln than any other President in American history.
No, but we got one anyway.
I did. I take it you’re looking at the analysis that they have less central organization as a bright spot. I fail to see how having a thousand tiny terrorist cells, acting autonomously, spread throughout the world, is a bright spot.
I also lament the idea that “We must not let the terrorists have Iraq” is the new battle cry in the GWOT or GSAVE or whatever acronym it has now.
The terrorists would never have had the opportunity to have Iraq if we hadn’t destabilized it so thoroughly.
Good thing we’re not talking about civil war, then, huh?
Is it just me, or is anyone else waiting for some talking head to come out and blame Clinton for this?
To: Pedro, PhD
Re: Statute of Limitations on Blaming Clinton
Dear Sir/Madam:
We regret to inform you that the Statute of Limitations on blaming the nation’s ills on William Jefferson Clinton has expired, as it has been six years since he has been out in office. A corollary to Godwin’s Law is being formulated as we speak.
As such, all arguments that rely on any variation of “It’s Clinton’s fault!” are now null and void. We advise you to change your straw men accordingly; Mexicans are currently the scapegoat of choice for the discerning wingnut.
Also be advised that the six year statute of limitations will also apply to the current inhabitant of the White House, who will be blamed for the nation’s problems until 2014.
Very Best Regards,
Godwin’s Law Amendment Committee
Uh, we’re at war with Islam?
Thanks for putting that right out front, Frank.
Is it Gender Bender Friday already?
H*ll, I can do a better job than this comic-bookery.
That don’t stop you from clocking in here everyday, does it?
More Americans have died as a result of terrorism under George W. Bush than any other President in American history.
Maybe you don’t remember, but Oliver posted the same thing a few months ago. The foolishness and mean - spiritedness, and pettiness of the post was noted then, and are noted now.
I might add that if it was true a few months ago, and President Bush is still President, then it would have to be true now.
Of course, if you liberals are lucky, and take Congress and the White House, we can look for that record to be toppled in short order.
But he did start it Frank. Well, check that. Maybe he didn’t start it, but he didn’t disregard it either. Clinton took action when it was warranted (I’ll wait for the whole 2 cruise missles and a tent meme), Bush breezed over it on his way to Baghdad.
I’m still unsure of how 56 Americans dying means we’re losing the GWOT. Tragic yes, but have you absolutly NO perspective?
You missed this part.
`Al-Qaeda is not the organization it was four years ago’
And of course this is all gimmickry. How many deaths after the sneak attack?
Or Roosevelt ‘allowed’ as many terrorist casualties roughly at Pearl Harbor (remember, we were not at war - sneak attack).
Are there no honest grounds you can criticize the president on. H*ll, I can do a better job than this comic-bookery.
Dugger, Mr Goose says he’ll have what Mr Gander is having
joey,
it is just you.
Dugger
BGA: History will show what a crappy President Clinton was…
Was he “to blame” for 9/11?
Not exactly…
But for not taking sufficient action, soon enough (provided Islam doesn’t win in the end, and rewrite history — the victor’s perogative), Clinton will join Carter, Ford and Reagan in history as the Presidents who lacked the foresight and / or the gumption to start this thing a long time before 9/12/01.
that is no more ridiculous than blaming it on bush….
long time reader, first time poster…
not to sound like a jerk, but 56 out of 14,500? That seems relatively low, isn’t that something like 0.3% (math’s isn’t my forte). Wouldn’t that make Bush relatively successful in the GWOT?
Clinton will join Carter, Ford and Reagan
Frank, why start with Ford? I think George Washington should be blamed for his lack of foresight. I mean, he could have turned Mecca into glass right after Yorktown.
Or Lincoln, who famously said, “A nation divided cannot stand.” Notice anything missing? That’s right: “And the Islamowhatsitthingie will not stand either, or my name isn’t Honest Abe. Huuzzah!”
Remember Frank, break the Prozac in two.
I started with Ford, because he was the first of the…
Who am I kidding?
I’m trying to explain something to a clown, for cripes’ sakes!
No, no, come on, Frank. Don’t leave us hangin’ like that. You started with Ford because what?
But you didn’t mention Bush I and his dealings with Saddam during Iran-Contra. Why is that? Is it because he and Rumsfeld and Baker helped to enable the modern al-Queida we see today, directly and indirectly?
We need to make and use bigger/more bombs and just kill everyone in the world that we hate and just get it over with.
I m trying to explain something to a clown, for cripes sakes!
Why do I get an image of Frank in floppy shoes, red nose and frizzy wig when he says that?
Wilbur: A full length mirror, perhaps?
Thanks for putting that right out front, Frank.
Always glad to turn the lights on when people are bumping into things in the dark…
Sorry to harp on it, but HOLY SHIT WAS THAT A DUMB COMMENT! I’m now convinced he is not an RNC plant, but rather just a petulant 14 year old.
drpedro Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
that is no more ridiculous than blaming it on bush& .
Pedro,
Except that Bush started a war that, regardless of how you feel about it, one must admit created the vacuum which was filled by most of those terrorist attacks. Are you saying that someone else started the war?
Now apologize for lying a while back about the US finding Saddam’s WMD.
MJB you remain….an idiot.
“Bush started a war….one must admit created a vacuum which was filled by most of those terrorist attacks.”
I have not seen a more asinine statement in a long time.
That is like saying “The american cancer society started a war on cancer that created a vacuum that was filled by…cancer.”
I thank god every day that leftist morons like you lost the last two presidential elections….
Dr P: The last two? Don’t forget the next two.
Crud. Make that 9/11 in the first point. Dang fumblefingers…
J.
OK, I am left with a few conclusions from this thread so far:
1) Al Qaeda did not exist prior to January 20, 2001, or had no plans to attack the US before that date, or only started planning 0/11 on that date.
2) Bill Clinton’s administration is off-limits for criticism, as too much time has passed, but Bush 41 is still fair game, 13 years after it ended.
3) Every single one of those 14,500 people’s deaths are George Bush’s fault, and therefore the ones who actually planned and carried out the killings are blameless.
4) Even those terrorist attacks with no clear connection to the US, like the Jordan hotel bombings, the struggle in the Philippines, and others, are still George W. Bush’s fault.
5) Everything will stop being George Bush’s fault some time in 2014.
6) The easiest way to persuade the American people that they are doing something wrong is to kill about five dozen of them, total, in seven different countries (Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, the UK, Indonesia, Israel). One need not even specifically target Americans in these attacks for this strategy to work.
Have I got it right?
J.
“That is like saying The american cancer society started a war on cancer that created a vacuum that was filled by& cancer.
pedro,
not at all. wow.
Jay
I don’t think any administration is off limits, historically speaking. If we are going to use arm-chair diplomacy, then why not?
I also don’t think 9/11 or al-qaeda is all W.’ s fault. It is the fault of ignorance, intolerance and radicalism and wholey at the hands of al-Qaeda and those who support it. George W. Bush may have started the GWOT in afganistan, but got distracted by his own dreams of glory and history and wanting to finish the job his father did not. (yes, i’m speculating, what of it?)
And yes, perspective-wise, it is clear that terrorist organizations are not solely targeting Americans or American interests. They have their own sick and twisted agenda that we may never fully understand.
I’m also of the opinion that, like the war on drugs, there will never be a resolution or victory.
ay
I don’t think any administration is off limits, historically speaking. If we are going to use arm-chair diplomacy, then why not?
I also don’t think 9/11 or al-qaeda is all W.’ s fault. It is the fault of ignorance, intolerance and radicalism and wholey at the hands of al-Qaeda and those who support it. George W. Bush may have started the GWOT in afganistan, but got distracted by his own dreams of glory and history and wanting to finish the job his father did not. (yes, i’m speculating, what of it?)
And yes, perspective-wise, it is clear that terrorist organizations are not solely targeting Americans or American interests. They have their own sick and twisted agenda that we may never fully understand.
I’m also of the opinion that, like the war on drugs, there will never be a resolution or victory.
I keep trying to post, but it ain’t working…
I’m also of the opinion that, like the war on drugs, there will never be a clear resolution or victory.
Jay
I don’t think any administration is off limits, historically speaking. If we are going to use arm-chair diplomacy, then why should it be?
Perhaps not, duros. But it certainly can be lost.
J.
JayTea
I don’t think any administration is off limits, historically speaking. There is always room for criticism, right?
I also don’t think 9/11 or al-qaeda is all W.’ s fault. It is the fault of ignorance, intolerance and radicalism and wholey at the hands of al-Qaeda and those who support it. George W. Bush may have started the GWOT in afganistan, but got distracted by his own dreams of glory and history and wanting to finish the job his father did not. (yes, i’m speculating, what of it?)
And yes, perspective-wise, it is clear that terrorist organizations are not solely targeting Americans or American interests. They have their own sick and twisted agenda that we may never fully understand.
I’m also of the opinion that, like the war on drugs, there will never be a resolution or victory.
And yes, perspective-wise, it is clear that terrorist organizations are not solely targeting Americans or American interests. They have their own sick and twisted agenda that we may never fully understand.
I’m also of the opinion that, like the war on drugs, there will never be a resolution or victory.
Personally, I don’t think this is a war that can be won.
Man, all those years of watching wingnut TV and listening to wingnut radio have taught O-Dub the formula. He’s mastered it, and it’s great fun to see someone on the left (center, really, he’s no lefitst) actually using these tools. He’s like the Bill O’Reilly of the left, except he openly admits to thoroughly enjoying looking at and fantasising about hot models and actresses. Good on him.
The forumla is simple: throw out some fact or factoid, use it to make a completely unconnected or just barely-connected attack your opponent, and watch their heads explode! O’Really just pulls these things out of his ass; at least O-Dub supplies links. To do this right, you have to be convinced that you are right and that the facts (at least the fact at hand) is really tangential to that.
I think they drill people in this technique in “wingnut think-tank school”. Like that Christian fundamentalist guy who appeared opposite Sam Seder last December, and accused Seder of being a Nazi. Itty-bitty peices of Seder;s skull flew everywhere, the screen was splattered with blood, brains scattered all over the studio… Seder completely lost it, and the fundamentalist wingnut just sat there with the most amazingly smug, pompous little grin on his face, like a kid who just won a round of “insult wars”. Gotcha!
Whenever you wingnuts take the bait, it puts that same little smug smile on my face. I imagine our host sitting there at home, chuckling to himself as he watches the wingnuts come out of the woodwork everytime he tosses one of these little gems out there.
Heh.
I also don’t think 9/11 or al-qaeda is all W.’ s fault. It is the fault of ignorance, intolerance and radicalism and wholey at the hands of al-Qaeda and those who support it. George W. Bush may have started the GWOT in afganistan, but got distracted by his own dreams of glory and history and wanting to finish the job his father did not. (yes, i’m speculating, what of it?)
In more ways than one JayTea.
Was it 2 or 3 days after 9/11 that GW announced we would have a worldwide crusade against terror? He had to publicly renounce that usage but……
Here’s a definition of crusade;
Since the 17th century, the term “crusade” has carried a connotation in the West of being a righteous campaign, usually to “root out evil”, or to fight for a just cause. In a non-historical common or theological use, “crusade” has come to have a much broader emphatic or religious meaning substantially removed from ‘armed struggle.’
In a broader sense, “crusade” can be used, always in a rhetorical and metaphorical sense, to identify as righteous any war that is given a religious justification.
Ok wingnuts, all together now (sitting on our fat asses bathed in the ghostly monitor’s light.) You know the tune!
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
At the sign of triumph Islam s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
Refrain…..
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Great world you’re bringing us into………
The reason (perhaps not the only reason) Bush backed off on the “Crusade” usage, was because the Arab mind (and, by extension, the people conquered by Islam) is history - obsessed. As Edward T. Hall pointed out, any Arab’s formal speech will begin with hundreds of years of historical background.
As you may know, most Americans think “history” is what happened since they were born.
For the average American, “The Crusades” were the stuff of movies. For the people of the Middle East, the Crusades were yesterday.
Frank D- This is the stupidest defense of a position I’ve read in a while. I guess you could call it the willful ignorance defense but I don’t think it would stand up in 8th grade debate class let alone real world politics. The defense it self doesn’t work because the same folks you say ignore history don’t listen to the President anyway. What a crock. The real reason that he ‘backed off’ is that crusade implies a war against all the Muslims in the world. As you may or may not know the Bush family has a long history of close and continuing cooperation with the Saudi royal family and the monarchical rulers of the Emirates, ie. Dubai (see ‘backed off’ ports deal), etc., who last time I looked were Muslim. You really should review your posts before putting forth such facile points.
Thanks for your input…
I’ll file it under, “Nothing said…”
If the Bush family has such “close ties” with Dubai, then why would he “back off” the “ports deal”?
You might also want to consider what this sentence, “The real reason that he backed off …” has to do with this sentence, “As you may or may not know… ”
You really should review your posts before you make a complete ass of yourself.
It is quite tragic to realize that the bulk of what passes here for comment is empty apologetics and drivel from a collection of notes laboriously written down with a dull pencil while wanking off to Plush Rimjob. You know little of Roosevelt and Lincoln. Your cut and paste tripe is straight from League of the South. Any statement that starts with, “I heard that . . . is empty and vacuous. You are wall taggers with no art. You are grunting bonobos.
The emperor is slipping into further darkness while the dark lords around him quietly slip off to insert stingray spines into their reproductives so that they may whirl and divine the blood splatters.
This is a dangerous presidency. It heads a corrosive administration given to its own narrow ends. These narrow ends are not the stuff we have had much experience with. Retro militarism and march to empire has never had a whiff of a chance in the long arc of history.
You had a Constitution that is now considered a mere piece of paper, Weasels. You had a fine Army that you allowed to be picked apart and placed as a burnt offering by your proto-temple culture.
The bathtub in which you were prepared to drown the Republic, is now looming before you in the form of the November 2006 midterms. It is written in the Book of Lantern Bearer 1, 15, that an androgynous makeup mule will lead them into the depths of perdition.
Let us now bid fare-thee-well to the Glory Hole wing and remnant of a once reasonably sane Republican Party.
Up the Constitution! Up the Bill of Rights! Up the Great Union of free people. .
Lantern Bearer
“Perhaps not, duros. But it certainly can be lost.”
Meaing what exactly, Jay?
Frame, it means you aren’t clapping hard enough.
whoa, Whoa, WHOA, Lantern Bearer! Careful, careful with the non-everything-the-Bush-administration-is-doing-is-absolutely-right thoughts. You don’t want to be challenged to visit Frank_D in New York to be reminded what a punk you are, do you?
Geez Frank, I guess I really got under your skin, so sorry. The reason GW backed off the port deal is guys like the congressman from New York, Pete King, Elephant Party, who led a charge in the loyalist wing of congress against the deal. The Donkey’s didn’t even have to put any effort into shooting that one down. As to your second question, the relation is too self evident for me to reiterate.
“the relation is too self evident for me to reiterate” = I didn’t know what I was talking about. I cobbled together a few cliches, assumig the left wing groundlings would eat it up.
So sorry.
Lanternbearer sounds Semanticleo changed his user ID. All metaphor, no meaning.
Roni, as usual, is a horse’s ass. BTW, how’s your sister Ricea, and your brother Beefa?
Hell, Oliver says were losing the war on terror. But since no one has given me a reasonable picture of what “winning” the war on terror would look like (democracies as far as they eye could see, I gather, or at least, as far as Cheney can throw a barrell of oil) I have even less of a sense of what “losing” it would mean.
“Frame, it means you aren t clapping hard enough.”
Ya, I ought to be ashamed of myself.
But seriously, Jay says we can lose the “war on terror” but what exactly does it mean to “lose” the war on terror? What would that even entail?
Winning the war on terror can mean two things
1. Where the threat of terror is just a nuisance.
2. Where every potential terrorist has been murdered.
Kerry was mocked for #1, but it is clear that #2 is not possible. Not that Mr. “I don’t think much about him” is trying to fight either.
“1. Where the threat of terror is just a nuisance.”
Ya, but a nuisance for who? Us? the Iraqis? The Isrealis? The Indonesians? Who? And if we “lose” the war on terror what happens? What does that world look like?
Frank- are you telling me you never saw the video clip of the Saudi Crown Prince and GW walking across the White House lawn holding hands? That wasn’t a cliche, that was an actual real time historical example of “a long history of close and continuing cooperation with the Saudi royal family and the monarchical rulers of the Emirates, ie. Dubai.” Self evident reiteration ahoy……. PS. You didn’t answer my Pete King point about Bush losing the support of the majority of his own party over the Dubai ports deal. Cat got your tongue… err, fingers?
As you may or may not know the Bush family has a long history of close and continuing cooperation with the Saudi royal family [emphasis added to enhance Impor’s {lack of} reading comprehension skills - fd] and the monarchical rulers of the Emirates, ie. Dubai (see backed off ports deal), etc., who last time I looked were Muslim.
a) I didn’t deny that there was a cooperation between Bush (and about 6 other Presidents) to Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, can you recall an administration — since the “Oil Era” — that hasn’t had close ties to Saudi Arabia. They were our allies in WWI, before they were even called “Saudi” Arabia.
b) That has nothing to with Dubai.
c) Now, since you are either unable or unwilling to reiterate the “obvious relationship” you referred to, I guess we’ll never know the connection between the “close ties with the Arabs” and the failure to close the Dubai deal. Since you can’t connect the two, I suspect there is none, which was the case before you made your nonsensical comment.
See, the difference between you and me is that I can explain myself.
Frank-Here we go, read slowly and think about the words. Put very simply they tried to make the Dubai ports deal because of the long standing close ties. They failed to close the deal, ie. ‘backed off’, because of lack of support in their own party. Capiche?
attempted Dubai Port Deal=close ties
“backed off” Dubai Port Deal=no Republican (majority legislative party) support
PS. I’m trying to be as obvious as possible but I’m afraid this will have to be my last go at it. If this doesn’t make sense to you I’m sorry, its as simple as I can make it.
You’re clever idea falls apart when one realizes that Dubai is not Saudi Arabia…
Capisca?
Frank, 1st the possessive is written as your, though it is pronounced the same as you’re, which is a conjunction of you and are. 2nd the subjects of the sentence you quote, Saudi Royal family and Dubai are joined by the word “and” because they are both physically proximate, governmentally similar and historically friendly to the Bush family, hence the relation. 3rd the only true thing you’ve said in this long exchange has been “Dubai is not Saudi Arabia& ” Verstehen Schatzie?
Impor: It is better to keep silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
“hence the relation”?
hence (hns) pron. adv.
1. For this reason; therefore: handmade and hence expensive.
2. From this source: They grew up in the Sudan; hence their interest in Nubian art.
I guess they all look alike, eh, fool?
The only true thing you ve said in this long exchange has been that the possessive of you is spelled “your.”
Saudi Arabia & Dubai, both have despotic Muslim royal families
Saudi Arabia & Dubai, both share a border, ie. proximity
Saudi Arabia & Dubai, both historically friendly to the Bush family
therefore, ie. hence, the relation, ie. no crusade…
Take you’re own advice!
Saudi Arabia and Dubai have been American allies for years.
Your idea that this is why Bush backed off of the use of the word “crusade” is as much speculation as is mine.
Why don’t you admit it. You’ll have plenty of opportunities to harass me in the future.