Thursday, 23 March 2006

Three Years On: Bush Gets Confused by All The Terror Out There

No wonder Bush is going through an anti-media phase (can someone tell me if it's run by liberals, homosexuals or Jews?) because they keep recording his words for posterity and when he contradicts himself, they keep bringing it up and calling him a liar.

On the 20th March, whilst Bush was in Cleveland, he said the following:

"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein."

I beg your pardon?

Let's rewind to three years ago:

"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

I'll leave it to this video and Keith Olbermann:

"Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein, two sentences later, separated by six words. In a moment Craig Crawford joins me to discuss the fundamental remaining question. Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?"


  1. Classic Bush picture -- it says it all. I'm surprised how many people actually believe his bullshit. Short memories, very short memories....

  2. You haven't shown a contradiction in your selection of quotes. Neither quote states that Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. He NEVER said that. The press and MSM have tried to report him to say it soon after the main combat action ended. That was when liberals wanted everything in Iraq intantaneously better. They blamed Bush for misleading them, which he didn't.

    So, your memory is good Daniel, you just attribute the quote or expectation to the wrong person.

  3. Yes I have, read the post again, Bush and cohorts always implicated Saddam in 9/11 and now Bush is denying they ever said that.

    You are blind to the truth.

  4. And while we're on this matter, how come the majority of the US public, when polled, thinks there was a connection?

    Because it was pushed as such but those in power in the soundbites contained in the video and other misues of the media.

    Bush quote: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. ... There's numerous contacts between the two" -- President George W. Bush, June 18, 2004

    "In 125 separate appearances, they (Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice) made 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda" -- Report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff

    Or how about "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11." - North Carolina Representative Robin Hayes, Republican, vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, interviewed on CNN, June 29, 2005

    The list goes on, stop defendng the indifensable, it only expose your right-wing bias.

  5. I like how UL snuck back in anonymously and brought up the Blair affair. Real logical.


    Cessation of contact emphasised. Subject is dangerously stupid.


  6. I don't recall Bush saying there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. I just remember that after the attack, everyone was freaked out, Bush decided to go to war with Iraq and an assload of people supported this by covering their homes, cars and lapels with American flags. I don't recall many people questioning why we declared war on Iraq or what relevence this had with 9/11. It just seemed like the herd thought "Muslim', "al-Qaeda", "terrorist", and "Middle East" meant the same thing. I remember a mentality of, "Let's bomb the shit out of them 'cause they're a bunch of savages!" I remember people whom I believed were more enlightened saying, "Well, wouldn't you have tried to stop Hitler?" when the news hit about Saddam being taken into custody.

    Like I said, I never heard Bush say there was a connection and I only heard people question it when I brought it up first.

  7. It's clear you don't understand what a contradiction is. I should have known a few months ago when you tried to convince me the law of non-contradiction was false! For those other than yourself who reads this site, here's the quotes you posted as contradictory:

    "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was A DIRECT CONNECTION between September 11th and Saddam Hussein." (all caps mine)

    "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF AL-QAIDA." (all caps mine)

    In reality, these two statements do NOT contradict. They talk about TWO DIFFERENT THINGS: direct 9/11 connection, protecting members of Al-Qaida. You are equivocating on the direct. If Al-qaida planned 9/11, are you saying Bush asserted Hussein plotted with them?

    Seeing now that contradictions matter to you, you must have dropped that silly belief that someone disproved the law of non-contradiction. That is a good sign. Now all you need to do is understand what it means.

  8. Col.dr:

    First, I don't sneak nor do I need to. It's against my nature. I come here and voice my opinion freely, though it's hotly disputed. That's fine. Your statement is completely asinine. I'll let you figure out why. I don't want to waste my little gray cells explaining the obvious.

    Oh, and you'll notice a bright blue underlined "underground logician" on top of this comment.

  9. If the col dr was a real doctor, he would not be giving psychiatric diagnoses based solely on comments in a blog. If he was a real colonel he would understand the tactical situation unfolding. Though maybe he does, and will shoot me for blabbing.

    They talk about "the base" run by sammy bin laden (let's not make them more exotic and glamorous by using their arabic names rendered in a latin alphabet). They talk about "the base" planning operations years in advance. This one has been too.

    Appear weak when you are strong. (sun tzu - the art of war). So dubya does his thing, either looking like an idiot, or a crazy person. The crazy person is for North Korea. They have 5 nukes against 10,000. They don't want to give crazy george a mulligan. Besides, we didn't put Jong in power. The russians and chinese did, and they will take him out when necessary.

    The idiot persona is for the real objective in all this, Iran. Let them think the responses to 9-11 are knee jerk reactions and that we have no idea what is going on.

    There is much speculation today that 9-11 was an inside job. The buildings collapsing straight down at free fall speeds, like they would in a controlled demolition. The fires of burning jet fuel (kerosene) that is well below the melting point of structural steel. It would take much more than 45 minutes of the temperatures involved to even weaken the buildings, let alone cause them to drop like elevators. The military stand down orders due to confusion over hijacking practice drills being carried out at the same time on the same day, complete with multiple simulated radar blips on air controllers' screens. Normally you will have a USAF escort within 7 minutes of being tracked as off course in or near US airspace.

    Whether there were factions within the US goverernment and military infrastructure that orchestrated this, or it was a true fifth column infiltration is not clear. But it was of sufficient scope to require the resources of a government. The immediate removal of debris from the WTC site could be covering up government involvement, or quite possibly covering up another government's involvement so we do not have to respond immediately against them.

    Iran is believed to have numerous sleeper agents around the world and many in the US. The only way to stop sleeper agents is to destroy the headquarters. Suicide terrorists are willing to die, sometimes out of religious fervor, but more often because the alternative is for their families to be killed, usually in horrible gruesome ways. There were televised beheadings in Iraq to remind them of this. The leadership must be prevented from issuing scorched earth orders to activate these agents, or at least it must be delayed until they are no longer seen as firmly in power and capable of carrying out their threats to agents' families. By the time Hitler would have issued such orders to his sleepers, the tide of the war had turned and they simply did not act.

    In 1979 Iran took hostages, and there was no way to get at them to get them out. No forward bases. The situation on 9-12 was not much better. Russia is now friendly, as are its former states bordering Iran, but the approach over the mountains is not easy. No way to quickly mount an attack without giving sleepers ample time.

    What do Afghanistan and Iraq have in common? Each has about 600 miles of poorly defended land border with Iran. 400 and 200 miles respectively from Teheran. Easy cruise missile distance. We made friends with Pakistan as well, completing the encirclement.

    The media is doing its job as always, portraying the Iraq quagmire, total disarray in the military, demoralized troops, talk of withdrawal, bad polls. Meanwhile the miltary has become familiar with operation in-theatre, got used to all the little details of living in the climate, and had several cycles of resupply and troop rotation.

    Yes, they are ready. I would not sleep well with 100,000 troops a day's drive away. They can redeploy on short notice from there. That fact is probably already having an effect on the sleeper agents here. If it looks like the theo-dictatorship will topple, it is less likely they will carry out their terror orders, at least they may delay if activation is attempted.

    What will be the excuse? Will it be Iranian troops caught crossing the border in numbers? Discovery of material or equipment in Iran that has no purpose other than enriching uranium to weapons grade?

    I think it may be George "I never actually said it was Saddam" finally revealing the smoking gun about 9-11. It was Iran. We're in position now. Decapitate the leadership quickly. Stop the agents here from deploying bugs, gas and radioisotopes.

  10. Lemme get this straight, anon--that clever ol' coot Geedubya invaded a sovereign country, spent a half a trillion dollars, killed tens of thousands of people, including thousands of Americans, brought a country into civil war, alienated four-fifths of the world, and increased the number of terrorists in the world so that he could invade and entirely different country?

    Wow--what a clever, and insightful preznit we have! Great plan!

    A reminder: Iran's government three years ago had been turning more moderate, and was making overtures towards reconciliation with the world. After 9/11, it condmned the actions of al-Qaida, and was showing signs of wanting to help. We responded by surrounding the country with troops, and calling them evil.

    If you treat someone like a criminal, they will eventually act like a criminal.


  11. I was going to say what Balloon Pirate said, but as I scrolled down I saw that it was done, so I won't except to offer a virtual nod in the affirmative.

    Much of Bush's political success (the only kind he's known) lies with his use of plausible deniability. Cheney has made the connection much more explicitly than Bush ever has. Bush remains vague. The message gets out and Bush can deny he ever said it. His denial seems plausible to the many people who don't pay close attention and most people don't buy it when anyone calls Bush a liar. It's genius. Evil - pure unadulterated evil - genius.

  12. I don't know which is more disturbing:
    the refusal of a President to admit his own error and acknowledge his contradicting statements, or
    the people rushing to his defense here and elsewhere.

  13. I like how UL snuck back on your blog as "bud," his latent homosexual alter-ego, to question my impeccable credentials.

    I laugh at the wounded puppy worried that outing him on your blog is somehow arrogant on my over-qualififed part.

    I roar and fall on the floor laughing at his "idea" that attacking Afghanistan and Iraq are tactical emplacements against Iran. Everyone from Hammurabi, to Alexander, to Subuktagin to Pollock knew it was the key to military domination of Asia. Iran has only one thing of value--oil. The fact it is a focal point of revenge for the easy embarrassment of the American government twenty-seven years ago just riles their ignorant farmer shitkicker blood and makes them want the oil more.

    Since the military are "supposed" to be under political control, one would assume, should "bud's" logic (which as I previously proved is ignorant self-promotion of delusional imaginings), there exist valid political reasons for the wholesale destruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Development of the tactical situation in Afghanistan was completed by Canadian forces in 2004, during operations in the Tora Bora region. After a group of 2,500 Canadian soldiers saved an American force 10X larger, which had gotten bogged down by goat herders with small arms in the mountains, our national troops then chased the remainder of Al Qaeda operatives into Pakistan.

    American political interference prevented us from achieving "mission accomplished," by preventing our troops from giving chase and exterminating Al Qaeda's Afghani operation.


    Al Qaeda now operates from Pakistan and performs terrorist operations against Canadian troops in Kandahar from there. Let's remember Pakistan is AMERICA'S "KEY" ALLY NATION IN THE WAR ON TERROR.

    Giving aid, comfort, or protection to "the enemy" in this war on terror puts "you" with the terrorists. As GWB said so bluntly five years ago, "Either you are with 'us,' or you are with the terrorists."

    American protection of Al Qaeda operations, by restricting the far-superior Canadian forces from eliminating "the enemy" thus puts them "with the terrorists." Which is nothing new for America.

    Should "bud" be correct that these separate operations are shams in a larger tactical move against Iran, then we can officially rule the World Trade Center attacks a "Gleiwitz." This, of course, is where the fake attack against a radio mast, by Germans posing as Polish troops, kicked off World War II.

    As the New Reich seems so intent on pushing ever further until Russia and China engage in a completely legitimate war of defense, and are pre-empting the mistake their Fuehrer and spiritual god-man made by not securing Mid-East oil fields prior to attacking the Soviet Union, it then, under bud's "underground logic" (hyperpatriotic nonsense) becomes clear that America wants to rule the world.

    Tears for Fears was right, then.

    It would be tempting for a military genius such as myself to see only the illegal destruction of three innocent nations as America's only objective. The truth, however is more disturbing. Rather than a new empire, the United States is in the employ of their Arabian masters, lending out their inefficient thuggery to provide Saudi Arabia with a better advantage in the new Middle East marketplace.

    Apart from the American penchant for killing babies and stealing, it should be pointed out that they are not stupid enough to trigger a war with the vastly-superior Sino-Russian forces, who would perform so much of a desert-mopping operation, should war break out. It is therefore tactically possible that the current criminal invasions of the innocent nations are wars of piracy, looting, and filthy gain.

    Contrary to "bud's" warped "logic," real strategists such as myself look at people like George S. Patton, Naopoleon Bonaparte, and Lieutenant James Fitzgibbons, who routed the Americans attempting to invade Canada 200 years ago for examples of military genius.

    Simply pouring in a gross amount of troops, and expending a gross amount of arms against undefended civilians, then getting one's asses kicked by indigenous insurgent forces is typically Nazi, and tends to result in ass-kickings like Vietnam and Haiti.

    So, without having needed to defent my majestic, enormously-important abilities as both a professional and a genius, I again shit on the Grand Strategy arguments, by stating that, if they are true, America is even more guilty of planning wars of aggression (death penalty at Nuremburg), crimes against humanity (death penalty at Nuremburg), breach of the peace (life imprisonment at Nuremburg), breach of good faith (prison sentence at Nuremburg).

    Therefore, the American nation should surrender itself to the Hague and await trial.

  14. And Iranian troops are not only going to pour across the border, but America's preening and protection of it's precious Al Qaeda attack dog is going to ensure that superior Sino-Russian technology and equipment streams in through them, along with superior training, to form the North Iraqi Army.

    Then, Americans get to pay trillions of dollars in taxes in a war designed to fail, and make Lockheed Martin et. al. rich, rich as Nazis!

    You heard it from the genius Col. Dr. first, folks. The "insurgents" are being allowed to attack soft targets and operate like the US-backed Viet Mihn and their post-US successors, the Viet Cong. Soon, it will become "necessary" for a professional army to be present, if only to avoid the great embarrassment of admitting the Americans really don't give a shit about their own troops, and spend them like pennies.

  15. I don't beleive Bish did know about 9/11. He's too stupid to be trusted with info like that. Don't you all remember the expression on his face that day when he arrived in New York? He's waaaaay too dumb to act well.

    I do think the administration knew, though. Homeland Security was developed so quickly and the American people didn't question it.

    I think Dubya knows he'd not so bright and is trying hard to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, the stupidity is combined with a complete and utter lack of human compassion.

  16. And it won't be called the NIA, because the Naval Intelligence Agency would get confused when they begin receiving reports of evil NIA forces attacking women and children.

    I mean, how could you tell the two apart, except one group is using homemade napalm, and the other group dials in 100 cruise missiles from some ship a few hundred miles away?

    It'll have some fancy title which terrifies the limp-lobed tax batteries watching Fox News and CNN. What a fucking joke, except the only people laughing are the shareholders.

  17. I so do find all this global political dribble a woeful waste of time. I'm off to surf for some porn and have a wank. I suggest y'all do the same instead of wanking words impotently onto the screen.

    G'night John-boy...

  18. They are called "semantic truths and essential lies." What $hrubco does is called mirror. Here is an example, my words - "We must never forget the lessons learned on 9/11. We must never again allow those who wish us harm to have the weapons to do so. Saddam Hussein posesses weapons of mass distruction. Saddam Hussein must be removed." Simple but that was the method/theme.

    Here is a quote - On 9/25/02, Bush said "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." Clearly, if Saddam was not involved in 9/11 and al Qaeda was, that would be a clear way to distinguish them.

    What about Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney? On Meet the Press on 9/14/03, Cheney said Iraq was the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

    I could go on and on, but the reality is that only the isane, UL I'm talking to you, are still defending this administration. Those of us in the reality based community have won this debate time and time again. Thankfully the America Sheeple are beginning to come around.

  19. Cranky:

    In your world, saying that something is so makes it so. So be it, man. I'll tip-toe out and try not to wake you up.

  20. UL, you is such an attention whore. We used to call your kind "natty" back in the day, but now, Doris, you're just a tired old cigarette.

    Too bad you didn't have ISP in the '50s. Something tells me you and Roy Cohn would have made a pair.

  21. "appear weak when you are strong" (Sun Tzu).


    The world's largest, most outlandishly military beating the shit out of kids and goats...this is appearing weak?


    What a nation of saps. It's this kind of goombah shit people hear on Saturday morning television that makes the inevitable fall of the New Reich that more sweet to contemplate.

  22. Saturday morning cartoons. Funny I was just thinking about that. I was thinking about "Wile E. Coyote (genius)". I keep hoping to see some intelligent discussion of my comment, and what does the self described genius provide? Precious little insight. But abundant abuse.

    First comment there's the labelling as being homosexual, and of being UL's latent homosexual alter-ego, who is worried at being outed, continuing with the usual why america is bad stuff, and a bit of name dropping. A couple more comments, predicting Iran's entry and about forming a new armed force in northern iraq, that was getting mildly interesting, the idea to abuse ratio was above empty. Then another comment with more more gay accusation. Accusations of being an attention whore, and this on the fourth comment responding to my first. Then a fifth comment lifting my comments out of context and more sarcasm and abuse.

    I expected better. I am not UL. I am the same bud from the past week's posts on this blog. It is unimportant to me if you believe it. You can take your blue pill "and believe what ever you want to believe".

    The post for this thread was describing bush implying iraq was involved in 9-11, then saying he never said that. I agree with commenters saying he never actually said that. That is not "defending the administration". I expressed the view that they wanted to create exactly the situation they are in now.

    I think bush is influenced by his father, and sees parallels to WWII. He believes that history will vindicate his actions. We read about WWII leaders, the story that comes to mind is Churchill supposedly allowing coventry to be bombed to protect the fact that they had broken the German codes. It is said they did not actually have specific information about coventry and just let it happen, but it illustrates bush and cheney's view that the government may do things that do not make sense at the time, but that "if you knew what they knew" you would do the same.

    If you want to defeat your adversary you have to understand them. More than you are attempting with your superficial pronouncements of whoever as being a nazi, gay, crazy, evil and whatever other adjectives you wish to employ.

    They do believe there are sleeper agents with wmd's in the cities. Whether that is true is not too relevant, considering that it could be, and the fact that they believe it.

    Get your risk board out and put a modern map on it. Put the armies on land and carriers there. No it wasn't planned exactly as it is unfolding? Appear weak with all the media reporting the quagmire, we'll never win. Appear weak with people like yourself saying so, the iranians will wipe them out with the russians and chinese. Do you like helping the neocons? Or is it that russia and china are the players in the armagedden you say you want to sweetly contemplate? After the revolution you can be commissar of the land and purge anyone who disagrees with you. Yes, Tears for Fears had it right about you, too.

    Iran has oil. So does Iraq. That is not important in the ways you think. It's not the oil. It's the money from selling it. Recall the bank of baghdad heist? The biggest bank robbery ever. A billion dollars. That's just a month's revenue for these governments. There is plenty to fund organized terror. And if you don't think they do, well, you keep taking the blue pill.

    I also believe that preparing for war often prevents it. Problem is it is dangerous. The extreme pressure on Iran right now may bring about a change of government from within. Though the leader was elected, his platform was better living conditions internally, nothing like his international pronouncements. Much of the real power is with the theo-dictators. They are dangerous. You do not have to believe that, but do you know of any religious extremists that are not? Religious extremists are dangerous as dictators of nations because they can always find a passage in the scriptures to justify anything they do and therefore say it is what God wants.

  23. UL - it's not me saying it. It's your warlord preznit and his handler. Their words not mine. Nice try at luring me and Daniel back to your shit hole. It is quite devoid of substance without us.

  24. Yanky:

    Please, I'm not that important to have my own president. I'll share him with you. As to you're "sharing" his words with me, I am aware of what he says; you just put a nice spin on things that distort it. However, because of your superior brains, and also since you are so OBVIOUSLY impartial and objective, I should consider everything you say.

    As to coming to my shit hole, don't come unless you want to use whatever logic you learned that is so superior to mine. Funny, your vitriol you verbalize must be all show. If you truly despise me as you insinuate, you would have destroyed my arguments with your superior logic. You didn't do that, which tells me that either you don't want to or YOU CAN'T.

    I opt for the latter, which means the second one.

  25. Yanky:

    I have another thought. When are you going to share the numerous words of Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Daschle, Sec. Albeight, Kerry, etc. on the evils of Saddam Hussein and the need to eliminate him or his government? Hmmmm? I mean a man of your intelligence can find all sorts of documentation of liberal Democratic saber rattling against Saddam. Google it and since you are sooooooooo open to new ideas, may learn something.

    I think you hate Bush, and the enlightened puke you're trying to feed us as reality is just your puke. If you're so sick of Bush, go in the corner with Col dr. and puke your guts out. I'm sure the col won't mind, he's getting hungry sitting there with his dunce cap on thinking of how he can get noticed again. I'm sure you both can concoct something. Al the ingredients are coming out of your stomach.

  26. Sad. You wonder how the other world leaders deal with him. Do they get up on the morning of their meetings, moaning to their significant others: "Oh gawd. I almost forgot. I've gotta meet with George today. Well, at least I'll have time to think over my new budgetary plan and consider the effects of global warming while he natters on."

  27. Sweet Jesus...

    BE WARNED! Do not use my blog as a forum for your prejudice or hatred please, if things overstep the line their will be deletion of comments.

    Denise: the implication is in the language, we have to accept that, that is politics, that is how you acheive the confusion that Bush has acheived in the facts I posted in the comment and also explored by Cranky in his comments.

    UL: you are so entrenched in your right-wing dogma that you do not see that there is an implict connection in these statements, please read the facts I posted in my comments and the other facts here by BP and Cranky. Your final post, in it's use of Democrat figures, it another final example of your destructive, us against them mentality that will lead nowhere. Also, one of your posts where you insult the Col.Dr has been removed.

    Bud: you are talking madness when it comes to this hairbrained plot of Iraq being a prep for Iran, BP has destroyed this but thanks for putting it out there...

    Jess: yes, the people rushing to Bush's aid is very disturbing indeed.

    Col.Dr: I can assure you that Bud is not UL but I understand why you thought as much but please carry on sharing your thoughts.

    Cranky: I agree with your final comment, UL is staging an invasion of my blog and also yours, all stemming from his homophobia rebuttal. He is an attention whore and continues to be blinded by his faith and ignore evidence he is presented with, he is a lost cause, which is shame.

  28. ...I should add that we have other idiots in the government as well. But, as a leader, Bush needs to stand for something more.

  29. Oh, gee, thanks, Daniel! You sure know how to run a clean site! Wouldn't want any attention whores like me or "us versus them" diatribes. You just want the truth as anybody sees it, except conservatives, right?

    There's a word for what you do that you libs say we conservatives do: CENSURESHIP. Yup, that's what you "opened-minded" libs do. If you don't have an argument, you eliminate it. It goes away and you don't have to worry about it. That's what "political correctness," "diversity" and "multi-culturalism" is all about.

    Thanks also for protecting col dr. from the mean ol UL. Poor baby, likes to dish it out but can't take it. Same for you, Daniel. You may delete this, if you will, but the ideas never die. They will haunt you at every moment. You'll have to drink yourself into a stupor to hide from it.

    Good luck!

  30. You're right UL I can't beat you at logic, whatever that means. It's your game you set the rules. Anything you don't like you shout "fallacy" or "it's a sin." What's the point in that?

    In a real debate you use evidence to support your position. Does it matter that Democrats said things about Saddam? Not really, they are/were wrong too if they used implicit or direct characterization of him and 911. How does that support your point or weaken mine? The point I made was that $hrubco used a form of plausible deniability based in semantic technicality to accurately claim that he never directly said Saddam was responsible for 911 while implying the same. Infact he used a very effective rethorical technique called mirroring to make a connection in the mind of the audience between 911 and Saddam.

    My challenge to you. Debate the point. $hrubco made a very aggressive campaign to have Americans mentally connect and even think there was a link between 911 and Saddam Hussein.

  31. Yeah, I'll answer your charge of President Bush's "plausible deniability based on a semantic technicality." It's really simple. If you don't want another 9/11 type of attack, we need to get the terrorists before they get us. Saddam harbors terrorists which fits in the mandate.

    So I agree with the FACT that he made an association with 9/11 and Saddam harboring terrorists. Big deal. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, EH? 9/11 should be ALL THE INCENTIVE WE NEED to find terrorists who want to do similar things to our citizens. He NEVER said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Oh, if you're looking for documentation, your a bigger ignoramus than I thought. It's absurd to require documentation on something that was never documented. If your complaint is that Bush persuaded us by using 9/11 to inspire us to go after Saddam, tough shit.

    You made the damn assertion, the burden of proof is on you, big logic boy. Find where Bush said "Saddam planned 9/11; Saddam caused 9/11; 9/11 began in the mind of the evile dictator Saddam Hussein, Saddam killed 3000 if our innocent people." Find it.

    You won't, not in the real world. You'll only find it in the twisted world of the Daily Kos.

  32. Oh, and if anyone cares, the New York Sun has an article of Democratic Senator Bob Kerry saying there is evidence of Saddam's collaboration with terrorists.



  33. Thank you Daniel, for leaving UL's latest comments intact.

    I was going to comment that removing his "go sit in the corner" comments to col dr was not appropriate, considering that the col dr was gay baiting and his specific comments there were not really less deserving of deletion. Usually the best thing is to allow the offending comments to remain. The "go sit in the corner" series of his comments did more to make him look like an idiot than anything else. I respect your decisions in these matters, but hope you leave his current crap there.

    Even though he is sort of on the same side of the issue as me, and his behavior makes my position look worse through "guilt by association", he has prevented intelligent discussion of my premise. BP started, and it got lost in the ensuing fray.

    Look, UL's shouting now. I have responded to him in the other threads I have seen him in, where he has admitted to a lack of candor. That to me is a lack of sincerity.

    I hope he goes away. I have censured him. No need to censor him.

  34. Bud:

    Lousy job censuring. Uh, and that was a sincere statement!

  35. UL: as stated at the bottom of the St. Patricks day thread

    You have previously stated that there is no candor in your statements. That is a lack of frankness in your statements.

    Then I shall make my first statements to you that do not try to give you the benefit of the doubt. That does not say "I think" or "I believe", those condescending things you abhor so much.

    You are insincere.

    You have no business commenting insincerely here.

    You are a troll with nothing useful to say.

    Go away.

  36. UL: this is getting tiresome and out of hand, you have posted 7 comments in a day now all with a hysterical tone and if you persist in this pissing in wind, not only are your trousers going to get wet but you're going to end up with your comments deleted, why? Because you are not only now trolling on my blog but also indulging in flame wars and using this as a forum to post your non-evidence based beliefs on the issue of Bush. Be warned and stay within the rules.

    And as much as I agree with Bud that the more you post here the more you expose yourself and your ideology as flawed, I think this goal was achieved some time ago, it is like watching a car crash.

    As for the deleted comment (funny, I second guessed your response exactly and should've put it out there before you did, you predictable right-winger) it offered and added nothing to the arguement, it was purely an insult and thus deleted. Censorship would have been if you presented an idea and I deleted it.

    The fact you see "political correctness," "diversity" and "multi-culturalism" as negative things speaks volumes (and proves Bud's point) and is so utterly alien to me, so now to add to your homophobia you are clearly so prejudiced on matters of race also. You are not a good man. You are, as I have proven, a bigot.

    Cranky laid down a challenge that you ignored and skipped over by dismissing the 9/11 and focusing on the terrorists, which Saddam had no contact with. It is common knowledge that Saddam ran a a secular Iraq and had limited dealings with any terrorist groups, certainly he hated America but he did not harbour terrorists and I have read the article you mentioned and it convinces not one jot, the body of evidence is in favour of Saddam not only have no involvement in 9/11 but no involvement in terrorist acts in the wider world. So to repeat Cranky's question in the hope you'll answer it: $hrubco made a very aggressive campaign to have Americans mentally connect and even think there was a link between 911 and Saddam Hussein.

    Bud: I agree that UL is destoying this debate and that he is exposing himself with each post but a line has to be drawn somewhere and we are approaching that line. But thanks for your involvement.

  37. I made him hysterical. UL has lost this argument but refuses to admit it to himself. He cowers at a real challenge, one that is outside of his dogmatic realm of self defined logic. Plato and Socrates would be ashmaed to have him using their names.

    Very Sad - Can you believe there is an American University that would admit this mental defective into a graduate program. I guess they can only get the nutjobs into these theology programs anyway.

  38. Okay, you don't want me commenting much. That's fine. Once is adequate for me. I have NO need to comment here. And you can have the last word on your blogsite, or Yankee, or col dr., who's still in the corner I think. I hope you will honor my site with the same restraint.

    So long.

  39. I didn't say I didn't want you commenting here.

    Why do you not read what anyone says?


  40. Because he already has his mind made up before he even starts to read. He reads until the trigger to respond engages and the he unloads his predetermined rant.

    He and the rest of his "braintrust" are having a codependent pity party over there claiming that you and I are insulting them anonymously.

    How sad.

  41. Okay, putting UL and "bud's" paranoid latent baloney aside, the invasion of Iraq is a war crime.

    Continuance of the illegal war in Iraq is a war crime.

    Support for the criminals is a war crime, and according to their rules, which they preached to high heaven after they attacked their own Pentagon and the WTC, support for them is worthy of the death penalty.

    So don't come crying to me when the people the criminals are murdering finally do strike back. I have no pity on any person who finds themselves at the end of that barrel.

    Obviously UL is too much of a pussy to say what he means, and has to hide behind a quasi persona. It doesn't matter, because it's not about winning against UL or "bud." There's no contest, and none was entered. Sure, they're jealous that I'm the Col. Dr., but that's their problem.

    It comes down to a reiteration of the basic fact. Iraq is a war crime, and anyone involved is a criminal worthy of death.

  42. Can't resist throwing in the gay references can you, "col dr"? Or am I wrong that "latent" refers to latent homosexuals. What is "latent baloney" then? Something to do with hide the salami?

    Reduce your own baloney level and you might find people will take a real interest in what you say. They might disagree with you though, or not show the proper reverence for yourself, but often this is honest disagreement and could be treated in a civil manner. I happen to believe that under all the bluster, you may have useful views, probably a lot more than is likely to exist under UL's bluster, but that is just my opinion.

    I have a question for you.

    Could you cite for us some wars that are not illegal? Could you cite for us some wars that are not war crimes?

    I ask this to determine if you think there are any legal non criminal wars. Your call for the death penalty to all involved in the iraq war demands it. You repeatedly express that you are waiting for the world wide revolution in which all these wrongs will be righted. You threaten those who disagree with you now, with death in the purge trials which will occur after the revolution. I have made myself a bigger target for your vendetta in that future, by registering myself in this blogger system.

    You mistakenly believe that by loudly denouncing the current empire that you will be spared in the next, and maybe given a high position in the new regime. This is the sort of thinking of student "communists" and "anti-imperialists" found on any college campus. Don't be so sure. The leaders of the new regime will see you as having been subversive in this one, and so are likely to be subversive in the next. Don't be too sure you will be given a position of authority after the revolution.

    So, could you tell us which wars are/were legal and not criminal, in your opinion, and why?

  43. yank,

    Actually, I defended you. Drop by and read it again. And, I also agreed with you re: Michele Malkin. Read that again.