T1B

Reuters reporter Caren Bohan made a common mistake in this report on Bush's speech in Salt Lake City yesterday, using the word "critics" instead of "I" or "Reuters".

Bohan makes the mistake twice:

In a speech to a convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush again linked the Iraq war with efforts to protect the United States from another September 11-style attack — a link critics say is an attempt to shift the justification for war.

Not only are these "critics" never identified, the statement is total lie. The justification for war was always to prevent another 9/11-style attack — specifically one that might occur if Saddam provided WMDs to terrorists. When was it about anything else?

Oh, and by the way Reuters, that "September 11-style attack" was a terrorist attack.

Then there's this paragraph:

Critics accuse Bush of shifting his argument for war when he invokes the issue of terrorism to argue for staying the course in Iraq. They point out that a commission investigating the hijacked plane attacks of September 11, 2001, found no operational ties between those attacks and deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government.

Again, these anonymous critics are not identified, most likely because "critics" is shorthand for "me". Also, this reporter, like the "critics" who make this argument, has no concept of the bigger picture.

But, considering Reuters reporters can't even use the word "terrorism" unless describing someone else's remarks, I'm not surprised one would miss the bigger picture.

Obviously you didn't let go of the ether mask last night. Get a fucking life.

Didn't take long for you to respond...and yet I'm the one who neds to get a life, eh?

Bwaahahahaaaa!!

How bad does it suck that your sympathies for the ant-American media are exposed day in and day out?

DrDetroit wrote:Didn't take long for you to respond...and yet I'm the one who neds to get a life, eh?

Bwaahahahaaaa!!

How bad does it suck that your sympathies for the ant-American media are exposed day in and day out?

Those ant Americans must be damn glad they have a media.

Actually, those of us who don't blame America for all of the world's ills are extremely happy that there are media outlets that do not subscribe to that philosophy.

BSmack wrote:Those ant Americans must be damn glad they have a media.

"Damned straight! What's it to ya, bub?!?"

Not only are these "critics" never identified, the statement is total lie. The justification for war was always to prevent another 9/11-style attack — specifically one that might occur if Saddam provided WMDs to terrorists. When was it about anything else?

Perhaps because there is a significant contingent of people aka "critics" who see it as exactly that - the war in iraq is not killing any of the members of hidden cells here in the US, the type of insurgents being killed over there would hardly be making a trip here to do the same thing, and Osama bin laden is still alive and NOT in iraq.

So in essence the statement is correct.

Bushice:

Perhaps because there is a significant contingent of people aka "critics" who see it as exactly that - the war in iraq is not killing any of the members of hidden cells here in the US,

Of course not and the military deployment to Iraq never intended to. This is an anti-war argument, how?

the type of insurgents being killed over there would hardly be making a trip here to do the same thing,

And you know this how? Are you telling us that you know who those being killed are? How so?

And, precisely because many of those who are fighting in Iraq are coming from elsewhere, why would they not be likely to commit terrorism against the US either here at home or attacking our bases, embassies, etc., elsewhere? Was there not an Iraqi just last week who was involved in firing rockets at a US naval vessel in Jordan?

and Osama bin laden is still alive and NOT in iraq.

The primary intent of the war in Iraq was not to kill bin Laden.

This is a good faith argument against the war in Iraq?

STFU, already...BOOM goes your tiny head.

mvscal wrote:How do you know he isn't in Iraq?

because he isn't a moron.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:How do you know he isn't in Iraq?

because he isn't a moron.

Now, a clever man would wouldn't hide under our noses, because he would know that only a great fool would not look for him under their nose. We are not great fools, so we can clearly not choose to look in Iraq. But he must have known we were not great fools, he would have counted on it, so he can clearly choose to hide out in front our noses .....

excellent.

DrDetroit wrote:Bushice:

Perhaps because there is a significant contingent of people aka "critics" who see it as exactly that - the war in iraq is not killing any of the members of hidden cells here in the US,

Of course not and the military deployment to Iraq never intended to. This is an anti-war argument, how?

That the war in Iraq is NOT protecting us from terrorists hidden here, never will.

the type of insurgents being killed over there would hardly be making a trip here to do the same thing,

And you know this how? Are you telling us that you know who those being killed are? How so?

It has been widely reported they are coordinated smaller groups of local men, primarily sunnis who are unhappy with the direction the new government is heading in.

And, precisely because many of those who are fighting in Iraq are coming from elsewhere, why would they not be likely to commit terrorism against the US either here at home or attacking our bases, embassies, etc., elsewhere? Was there not an Iraqi just last week who was involved in firing rockets at a US naval vessel in Jordan?

How are they supposed to get here? Walk? It's less than 500 miles from Baghdad to Jordan and the two countries share a common border. Anyone from that region could there there in a matter of a few days. Bad argument.

and Osama bin laden is still alive and NOT in iraq.

The primary intent of the war in Iraq was not to kill bin Laden.

Yes. Bush made that a lower priority a couple of years ago, for some unknown reason.

This is a good faith argument against the war in Iraq?

We are doing little to nothing to root out terrorists here, we are not capturing the people coordinating attacks elsewhere. Iraq is a quagmire. As soon as we do leave, civil war will break out because that is what happens in a divided society that uses violence as a means to an end.

So don't give me that crap about the IRaq war being a success and try and convinvce me it will accomplish the goal of wiping out terrorism here by fighting over there. There will eventually be an incident here somewhere because not enough is being done to prevent it.

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:How are they supposed to get here? Walk?

We have these things called 'airplanes' and they have this thing called 'money'. You take this 'money' and go to a place called an 'airport'.
An 'airport' is where they keep lots of 'airplanes', but that isn't important right now. You give the people at the 'airport' some 'money' and they give you a 'ticket'. Using this 'ticket', one can then board an 'airplane' and travel to your destination of choice.

And we have these things called "Visas" and "passports" as well as neato gadgets like security checkpoints and searches. Should the insurgents we are speaking of come to here from there with no reason I'd hope suspicions would be raised.

I think RPGs are not allow on planes. I'm pretty sure.

Bushice:

That the war in Iraq is NOT protecting us from terrorists hidden here, never will.

No shit, idiot. Again, as I noted yesterday when you first ran this line...this was never the intent of the war in Iraq, fool.

It has been widely reported they are coordinated smaller groups of local men, primarily sunnis who are unhappy with the direction the new government is heading in.

Here you go again trying to tell us that the insurgents are locals. :roll:

How are they supposed to get here? Walk? It's less than 500 miles from Baghdad to Jordan and the two countries share a common border. Anyone from that region could there there in a matter of a few days. Bad argument.

Damn, ignore the obvious point?

Your assertion is that those fighting in Iraq hardly would be coming here. First, you do not know who these insurgents are. You still believe that there are merely locals. Second, knowing that wave after wave of insurgents are coming into Iraq from neighboring countries it's not a stretch to believe that if they are willing to travel to Iraq to fight us that they would also be willing to travel elsewhere to attack the US whether it is to Jordan to attack US naval vessels or elsewhere to attack embassies, etc.

Yes. Bush made that a lower priority a couple of years ago, for some unknown reason.

Not for unknown reason, idiot. You just don't agree with the war in Iraq so you'll attempt to argue that the mission strategy re: bin laden is flawed despite not knowing what it is nor offering some alternative.

We are doing little to nothing to root out terrorists here, we are not capturing the people coordinating attacks elsewhere.

We're not, eh? The FBI, ATF, CIA, DIA, NSA, DoJ, TSA, etc., are all doing nothing, eh? Nothing at all...

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Dumbshit, just because they might not be doing what you believe..err..what Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton..think they ought to be doing doesn't mean that nothing is being done.

Iraq is a quagmire.

Yeah, yah, blah, blah. Afghanistan was also a "quagmire" 30 days into it. Iraq was a "quagmire" according to you idiots literally four days into it. Sorry, but seeing your other arguments, you calling Iraq a "quagmire" means literally nothing.

As soon as we do leave, civil war will break out because that is what happens in a divided society that uses violence as a means to an end.

If you say so...

So don't give me that crap about the IRaq war being a success and try and convinvce me it will accomplish the goal of wiping out terrorism here by fighting over there.

1) I didn't call Iraq a "success." It's a work in progress. However, it's certainly not the "quagmire" that you calling it and it certainly is not a failure.

2) No one ever said that the war in Iraq would root out terrorists already here. However, that we are grinding terrorists down there is certainly a better alternative to doing here in the states, wouldn't you agree?

There will eventually be an incident here somewhere because not enough is being done to prevent it.

You cannot prevent 100% of the attempts, idiot. So, of course, there will be another incident, but not because enough is being done. We are human. Humans are infallible, idiot, we make mistakes.

But your nonsense that nothing is being done stateside is just bogus rubbish that demonstrates that you have no good faith argument and will rely on hyperbole and rhetoric to whine that Bush sucks. At least when I hammer Bush it's reasonable, valid criticism.

DrDetroit wrote:

As soon as we do leave, civil war will break out because that is what happens in a divided society that uses violence as a means to an end.

If you say so...

Actually, it's already begun:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00231.html

So don't give me that crap about the IRaq war being a success and try and convinvce me it will accomplish the goal of wiping out terrorism here by fighting over there.

2) No one ever said that the war in Iraq would root out terrorists already here. However, that we are grinding terrorists down there is certainly a better alternative to doing here in the states, wouldn't you agree?

No. As of last January, estimates of the number of insurgents in Iraq were hovering near 200,000.

There will eventually be an incident here somewhere because not enough is being done to prevent it.

You cannot prevent 100% of the attempts, idiot. So, of course, there will be another incident, but not because enough is being done. We are human. Humans are infallible, idiot, we make mistakes.

But your nonsense that nothing is being done stateside is just bogus rubbish that demonstrates that you have no good faith argument and will rely on hyperbole and rhetoric to whine that Bush sucks. At least when I hammer Bush it's reasonable, valid criticism.

Why do you lie? I did not say "Nothing" is being done, I said "Not enough"

Our borders are porous, our screening procedures laughable, and neither Bush nor congress have adequately addressed the problem. That is a gateway to disaster.

Bushice:

We are doing little to nothing to root out terrorists here

Okay, you didn't say the administration was doing nothing... :roll:

No. As of last January, estimates of the number of insurgents in Iraq were hovering near 200,000.

Whose estimate? That's about 5 times the highest number I've heard floating around. Common sense should tell you that that number is off. Not only would it be impossible to hide 200,000 fighters in any setting, you'd think with a number like that they'd be able to muster more than an attack or two per day.

saw it in a number of places. Here is one article on it:

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35545

true, but sympathizers can cause a whole lot of trouble.

true, but sympathizers can cause a whole lot of trouble.

Only if they're aiding the cause they support.

It figures that 200,000 number is artificially inflated. Hell, every cause has its supporters. Pat Robertson is a nutty kook who has more supporters/sympathizers than that.

But he doesn't kill Marines - yet.