What a shocker

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AP: Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought
By JIM KRANE

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.

The officials told The Associated Press the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.

That number is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at the insurgency's core. And some insurgents are highly specialized - one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers.

Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, the insurgency is believed to include dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams.


The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.


``We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here,'' said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.


The military official, who has logged thousands of miles driving around Iraq to meet with insurgents or their representatives, said a skillful Iraqi government could co-opt some of the guerrillas and reconcile with the leaders instead of fighting them.


``I generally like a lot of these guys,'' he said. ``We know who the key people are in all the different cities, and generally how they operate. The problem is getting actionable information so you can either attack them, arrest them or engage them.''


Even as Iraqi leaders wrangle over the contentious issue of offering a broad amnesty to guerrilla fighters, the new Iraqi military and intelligence corps have begun gathering and sharing information on the insurgents with the U.S. military, providing a sharper picture of a complex insurgency.


``Nobody knows about Iraqis and all the subtleties in culture, appearance, religion and so forth better than Iraqis themselves,'' said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Daniel Baggio, a military spokesman at Multinational Corps headquarters in Baghdad. ``We're very optimistic about the Iraqis' use of their own human intelligence to help root out these insurgents.''


The intelligence boost has allowed American pilots to bomb suspected insurgent safe houses over the past two weeks, with Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi saying Iraqis supplied information for at least one of those airstrikes. But the better view of the insurgency also contradicts much of the popular wisdom about it.


Estimates of the insurgents' manpower tend to be too low. Last week, a former coalition official said 4,000 to 5,000 Baathists form the core of the insurgency, with other attacks committed by a couple hundred supporters of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and hundreds of other foreign fighters.


Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the figure of 5,000 insurgents ``was never more than a wag and is now clearly ridiculous.''


``Part-timers are difficult to count, but almost all insurgent movements depend on cadres that are part-time and that can blend back into the population,'' he said.


U.S. military analysts disagree over the size of the insurgency, with estimates running as high as 20,000 fighters when part-timers are added.


Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the higher numbers squared with his findings in a study of the insurgency completed in Iraq.


One hint that the number is larger is the sheer volume of suspected insurgents - 22,000 - who have cycled through U.S.-run prisons. Most have been released. And in April alone, U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 people, the military official said, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen fighting under the banner of a radical cleric.


There has been no letup in attacks. On Thursday, insurgents detonated a car bomb and then attacked a military headquarters in Samarra, a center of resistance in the Sunni Triangle 60 miles north of the capital, killing five U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi guardsman.


Guerrilla leaders come from various corners of Saddam's Baath Party, including lawyers' groups, prominent families and especially from his Military Bureau, an internal security arm used to purge enemies. They've formed dozens of cells.


U.S. military documents obtained by AP show a guerrilla band mounting attacks in Baghdad that consists of two leaders, four sub-leaders and 30 members, broken down by activity. There is a pair of financiers, two cells of car bomb-builders, an assassin, separate teams launching mortar and rocket attacks, and others handling roadside bombs and ambushes.


Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners - usually al-Zarqawi.


The official said many car bombings bore the ``tradecraft'' of Saddam's former secret police and were aimed at intimidating Iraq's new security services.


Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.


Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.


Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops.


``Too much U.S. analysis is fixated on terms like 'jihadist,' just as it almost mindlessly tries to tie everything to (Osama) bin Laden,'' Cordesman said. ``Every public opinion poll in Iraq ... supports the nationalist character of what is happening.''


Many guerrillas are motivated by Islam in the same way religion motivates American soldiers, who also tend to pray more when they're at war, the U.S. military official said.


He said he met Tuesday with four tribal sheiks from Ramadi who ``made very clear'' that they had no desire for an Islamic state, even though mosques are used as insurgent sanctuaries and funding centers.


``'We're not a bunch of Talibans,''' he paraphrased the sheiks as saying.


At the orders of Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander of Mideast operations, Army analysts looked closely for evidence that Iraq's insurgency was adopting extreme Islamist goals, the official said. Analysts learned that ridding Iraq of U.S. troops was the motivator for most insurgents, not the formation of an Islamic state.


The officer said Iraq's insurgents have a big advantage over guerrillas elsewhere: plenty of arms, money, and training. Iraq's lack of a national identity card system - and guerrillas' refusal to plan attacks by easily intercepted telephone calls - makes them difficult to track.


``They have learned a great deal over the last year, and with far more continuity than the rotating U.S. forces and Iraqi security forces,'' Cordesman said of the guerrillas. ``They have learned to react very quickly and in ways our sensors and standard tactics cannot easily deal with.''
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
More Shocking news....

KERRY PASSES UP TERROR BRIEFING: 'I JUST HAVEN'T HAD TIME'
Fri Jul 09 2004 09:23:56 ET

Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.

"I just haven't had time," Kerry explained in an interview.

Kerry made the startling comments on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
This is REALLY shocking:

Tom Ridge: We have solid information that Al-Queda wants to attack us. We have no idea about the date, time, method or location but we felt the right thing to do was to try to scare the shit out of everybody and inform the nation that Osama still doesn't like us.
 

madjack sr

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 30, 2003
92
0
0
Matt I told jack A guy from LA Sent me a great hat,,, like a baseball hat,, As you probably know ,I wear them all the time. Anyway,, it was a Army hat, and , i love it ,, I didnt know who the hell , he was,, so i asked Jack and neighter did he.???? Well , I think he found out ( box in one ) do you know him ??? If so let me know who he is ,, i want too thank him,, thanks Matt Jack sr
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,474
144
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yet another shocker--Kerry and Edwards trying to convince the public they are moderates to try and pick up the moderate and independent voters.

Edwards better be the smooth talker Kerry hopes to pull that off.
Haskell and crew couldn't pull it off here and Eddies smooth as silk :)


Some facts from Mr Haskell's brother, Bill O'Reilly ;)


"The Kerry-Edwards ticket is the most liberal ever. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." According to the liberal lobbying group, Americans for Democratic Action (search), John Kerry has a lifetime liberal rating of 92 percent and John Edwards stands at 81 percent. These ratings are based upon their voting records in the Senate.

By contrast, Al Gore's liberal rating was just 65 percent. Thus, the Kerry-Edwards ticket becomes the most liberal in American history, passing Mondale-Ferraro (search) in 1984.

The Gallup (search) poll people recently studied ideology in the USA and found out that only 19 percent of Americans consider themselves liberal. By contrast, 41 percent say they're conservative"
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Yup I see they offered to give Kerry this update on Wednesday. Good deal he was on his way to Florida. Then we all get the briefing and find it offers nothing new anyway. Just more B S to cover there buddies Ken Lay getting arrested. And of course to slow those poll numbers down that Kerry and Mr Ed are getting. Guy asked me yesterday what I thought of Edwards. I said not a great deal need to listen to him more. However I can tell you anyone even a idiot would be better then Cheney. I found out he was a republican because he said I could go to hell. I told him I planned on it. Said I would see him there.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Dick Cheney, President Bush and his father are flying on Air Force One. Dick looks at Dubya, chuckles and says, "You know, I could throw a $100.00 bill out the window right now and make one person very happy."

Dubya shrugs his shoulders and says, "Well, I could throw ten $10.00 bills out the window and make 10 people very happy." George Bush Senior says, "Of course then, I could throw one-hundred $1.00 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy."

The pilot rolls her eyes, looks at all of them and says, "I could throw all of you out the window and make the whole country happy."
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
I sort of thought something like this would happen:


WASHINGTON - Military payroll records that could more fully document President Bush (news - web sites)'s whereabouts during his service in the Texas Air National Guard were inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon (news - web sites).


AP Photo



Latest headlines:
? Bush Rallies Supporters in Pennsylvania
AP - 7 minutes ago

? Concert for Kerry-Edwards Brings in $7.5M
AP - 15 minutes ago

? Questions Linger on Election and Cheney
AP - 31 minutes ago






In a letter responding to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press, the Defense Department said that microfilm containing the pertinent National Guard payroll records was damaged and could not be salvaged. The damaged material included payroll records for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972.


"President Bush's payroll records for those two quarters were among the records destroyed," wrote C.Y. Talbott, of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information and Security Review section. "Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."


In February, the White House released some payroll and medical records from Bush's Vietnam-era service to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard.


Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973, much of the time as a pilot, but never went to Vietnam or flew in combat. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential candidate, is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and some Democrats have questioned whether Bush showed up for temporary Guard duty in Alabama while working on a political campaign during a one-year period from May 1972 to May 1973.


Bush had asked to be able to transfer temporarily from the Texas Guard to an Alabama base during that time so he could work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. Reports differ on how long he was actually in Alabama, but it's generally believed that he returned to his Texas unit after the November 1972 election. The White House says Bush went back to Alabama again after that.


The Pentagon letter was sent in response to an April lawsuit filed by the AP under the federal Freedom of Information Act. That law requires government agencies to make public information not specifically exempted for disclosure.


The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said.


This process resulted in "the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records," including Bush's, the letter said.


Trying to calm the political unrest, the White House on Feb. 13 released Bush's Vietnam-era military records to counter suggestions he shirked his duty. But there was no new evidence given at that time to show that he was in Alabama during the period when Democrats questioned whether he performed his service obligation.


The records showed that Bush, a pilot, was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination. His last flight exam was on May 15, 1971. There were no new documents, during that February release, to shed any light on Bush's service in Alabama.
 

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
This is like watching a tennis match

This is like watching a tennis match

These political threads are like watching a tennis match.

Good article, but don't forget about Jordanian Zarqawi or the Iranian Intel Agents captured not long ago.

Kosar- I think this is where the 'Kerry Liberal' rating is from:

Kerry Is Senate's Biggest Leftist, Rating Shows
Melanie Hunter, CNSNews.com
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004
Based on its ratings of congressional votes, the National Journal has pronounced John Kerry the most liberal senator in 2003, more liberal than his fellow senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. National Journal gave Kerry a composite score of 96.5 out of 100, based on how he voted on a range of issues, but acknowledging that Kerry missed a good number of votes while he was out campaigning. National Journal said Sen. John Edwards had a composite liberal score of 94.5, making him number four on the most-liberal list.
The Bush-Cheney campaign is making Kerry's very liberal voting record an issue, prompting Kerry to respond that Republicans are attacking his patriotism.

djv-
ABC News: But Enron's political contributions are so extensive that finding a team of congressional investigators who hasn't received Enron money is nearly impossible, according to various campaign finance analysts. The sheer number of individual contributions may hamper, and ultimately scuttle efforts to determine whether the contributions influenced legislation.

"Enron was one of the largest most active political players in Washington," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the watchdog Center for Public Integrity."They spread money all over Washington over the past decade," and spent "millions for both parties," he said.

Even if, Bush was not alone:

Mozambique:
The Clinton administration threatened to cut Mozambique?s aid in 1995 if the world?s poorest country did not award a pipeline contract to Enron.

India:
In 1994, the Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India. President Clinton took an interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his former chief of staff, Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, then a presidential adviser, to monitor the proposal. Mr. McLarty - who later became a paid Enron director - spoke with Mr. Lay on several occasions about the plant. In 1996, four days before India granted approval for Enron's project, the Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party.

Bush administration lobbied the Indian government on behalf of Enron to settle a dispute involving the power plant. Including calls from Vice President Cheney to an Indian official, the administration?s efforts intensified just as Enron?s financial condition became dire. In fact, President Bush?s National Security Council led a ?working group? to help Enron resolve its problems in India.

Also, In 2000, the Houston Astros inaugurated their new Enron Field, which was financed with $180 million in public tax dollars and $100 million from Enron. In return, Enron landed tax breaks and a $200 million contract to power the stadium.

All of the above is not unusual for large corporations and politicians. Enron did all of it's cooking of it's books durring the Clinton/Democrat' Administration .Enron was not investigated durring the Clinton/Democrat Administration.

Bush gets into office and withing the first 6 months, Enron is under Investigation.

The Bush Govt. Investigated, Busted, and Prosocuted Enron.

Not only Enron, but Bush's Gov. has busted and prosecuted many of the Big Companies that cooked their books durring the Clinton

I found out he was a republican because he said I could go to hell. He didn't have BO & a boat trailer did he?
 
Last edited:

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
PAKISTAN FOR BUSH.
July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

Post date: 07.07.04
Issue date: 07.19.04
ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.



he Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform.

But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole."

Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line.

Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters.

But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can."

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
chanman quote:"These political threads are like watching a tennis match."


that's funny !!



chanman,

these political threads are no different than what's going on in washington.

each side's candidate can do no wrong.

and the other side's candidate can do nothing right.


i realized awile ago that these posts have become pointless, since nobody's going to change the other side's mind.

thank god that football season will start shortly.


carry on guys (lol).
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Chanman,

After extensive research using scientific methods, i've come up with 'clueless, evil dumbass' ratings for Cheney and Bush of 99% and 97% respectively.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,474
144
63
Bowling Green Ky
Good one Kosar :)

MC I am inclined to agree with you on missing military records looking suspsious.Initially thought they might have been destroyed in the archives fire in St Louis with thousands of others but in seeing where they claim they were lost that scenerio was ruled out.

DVJ on your quote

"Just more B S to cover there buddies Ken Lay getting arrested."

Whichs of Ken Lays buddies were you referring to, The rebs with the energy connection or The Kerrys in which Ken Lay was on Kerrys wife board of directors and was frequent quest at their/her house--even 9 months after scandal broke??
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
I think GW should pardon Ken Lay if he gets convicted...and then find a way to get Lay's assets back so that Lay can give it to the Republican party......

Would the dem's be in an uproar about this? Would DJV cry about this?

lmao.....of course....

Well...imagine if there were this guy....lets call him Rich....err....Mark Rich...and you will see the above played out exactly.....

WHere is the outrage????????
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
DTB - You beat me to it with the facts about the Kerry clan and Ken Lay. Of course, Kerry continues tp run around screaming about the evils of outsourcing jobs while his wife's company outsources more than 50% of its jobs. Those jobs help pay for that 5 million dollar jet he uses. But that being said, it is clear, even to a former Bush supporter, that "W" is either corrupt, stupid or more likely both.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Once again the good doctor resorts to attacking Clinton to try to defend one of the Bush Boys faults. It was wrong for Clinton to do what he did. Now, back to the Bush Boy and his base of the haves and the have mores.
 

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
And now from Brand X

And now from Brand X

July 09, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
Civilization vs. Trivia
Sometimes life’s choices are simple.
Victor Davis Hanson

Last week, the carnivore Saddam Hussein faced the world in the docket. There was none of the usual Middle East barbarity. The mass murderer was not hooded and then beheaded on tape, in the manner of al Qaeda. Civilization has come to Iraq.

Nor was the destroyer of Iraqi dissidents hitched — Saudi-style — to a Humvee and dragged to pieces through the streets of Baghdad. The pillager of Kuwait did not lose a limb on the precepts of a sharia-inspired fatwa. A young Saddam-like Baathist assassin did not break in and shoot the desecrator of the Mesopotamian marshlands in the back of the head. And a West Bank-like mob did not lynch the torturer of dissidents in the public square. Even al Jazeera, an enthusiast of the usual barbarity, was wondering what the heck was going on in its own neck of the medieval woods.

Surely, the slow emergence of real civilization in Iraq is one of the seminal events in the history of an Arab and Muslim Middle East that has had no prior record of either consensual government or an independent judiciary. Unlike Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, a global criminal is facing his victims in a legitimate court administered by the beginnings of a free republican government. The more Washington, D.C., insiders insist that the transfer of power was a meaningless construct, the more we are beginning to see the future shape of an autonomous, free, and civilized Iraq. Don't listen to cynical American reporters and played-out professors who laugh at the idea of civilization. Watch instead how dictators and monarchs in the region recoil at it all. After all, such autocrats have lots to worry about: 70 percent of the world is democratic; excluding Israel, 0 percent of the Middle East is.

In response to the historic events of the week, one columnist for the New York Times decried George Bush's pronunciation of "Eye-rack." Another pundit trumped that profundity by whining that Bush had written "Let Freedom Reign," rather than "Ring" — a verb that, had Mr. Bush employed it, she would most likely have denounced as a hackneyed clich?.

At a time when tens of thousands are risking their lives to end the barbarism that has spawned a quarter century of worldwide terror, the New York Times wishes us to know that its columnists can properly pronounce Iraq and really do remember that freedom "rings" more often than "reigns."

Meanwhile, an even smugger Billy Crystal was introducing the billionaire John Kerry at a millionaires' banquet in L.A. with similar gravitas — comparing 9/11 to the president's SAT scores. Oh yes, 3,000 incinerated on September 11 add up to the president's combined SAT score. Analyze that: comparing charred corpses to multiple-choice tests taken by high-school seniors.

The message of this out-of-touch, spoiled idiotocracy seems to be something like, "How embarrassing for us to have an inarticulate president who has freed Iraq and inaugurated democracy in Saddam's place." Are all these people crazy and ignorant of history — or do they simply want a free civilized Iraq and the American soldiers who brought it about to fail?

Do the trivialists want Saddam and the Taliban back in power? Does a Mr. Allawi repulse them? Do they wish 10,000 American troops back in Saudi Arabia? Perhaps they want Libya to resume its work on nukes? Do they care whether Dr. Khan returns to his lab? Or do they think it is child's play to hike back through the Dark Ages into the Pakistani borderlands looking for bin Laden? And is it all that easy to have prevented another 9/11 attack for almost three years now of constant vigilance? Perhaps they would like to deal with the corrupt, duplicitous, and tottering Saudi Royal family, which just happens to sit on 25 percent of the world's oil reserves — without whose daily production the economies of Japan, Korea, and China would almost immediately grind to a halt.

Only belatedly has John Kerry grasped that his shrill supporters are often not just trivial but stark-raving mad. If he doesn't quickly jump into some Levis, shoot off a shotgun, and start hanging out in Ohio, he will lose this election and do so badly.

The war that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards once caricatured as a fiasco and amoral is now, for all its tragedies, emerging in some sort of historical perspective as a long-overdue liberation. At some point, one must choose: Saddam in chains or Saddam in power. And the former does not happen with rhetoric, but only through risk, occasional heartbreak, and the courage of the U.S. military. If Iyad Allawi and his brave government succeed — and they just may — the United States will have done more for world freedom and civilization than the fall of the Berlin Wall — and against far greater odds. Deanism is dead. Moorism is a fatal contagion that will ruin anyone it infects.

Kerry is only now starting to grasp that a year from now Iraq more likely will not be Vietnam, but maybe the most radical development of our time — and that all the Left's harping is becoming more and more irrelevant. Witness his talk of security and his newfound embrace of the post-9/11 effort as a war rather than a DA's indictment. It is not a good idea to plan on winning in November by expecting us to lose now in Iraq.

So John Kerry is starting to get it that the conventional ignorance of Michael Moore, the New York Times, and George Soros is already anachronistic. You can see that well enough when a grandee like Tom Brokaw, Christiane Amanpour, or a Nightline flunky starts in with the usual cheap, cynical hits against Iraq reformers — only to be stunned mid-sentence, like deer in the headlights, with the sense that they are berating noble and sincere men and women — far better folk than themselves — who at risk to their lives are crafting something entirely new in the Middle East.

There is a great divide unfolding between the engine of history and the dumbfounded spectators who are apparently furious at what is going on before their eyes. Mr. Bush's flight suit, Abu Ghraib, claims of "no al Qaeda-Saddam ties," Joe Wilson, and still more come and go while millions a world away inch toward consensual government and civilization.

For over a year now, we have witnessed a level of invective not seen since the summer of 1964 — much of it the result of a dying 60's generation's last gasps of lost self-importance. Instead of the "innocent" Rosenbergs and "framed" Alger Hiss we now get the whisk-the-bin-Laden-family-out-of-the-country conspiracy. Michael Moore is a poor substitute for the upfront buffoonery of Abbie Hoffman.

The oil pipeline in Afghanistan that we allegedly went to war over doesn't exist. Brave Americans died to rout al Qaeda, end the fascist Taliban, and free Afghanistan for a good and legitimate man like a Hamid Karzai to oversee elections. It was politically unwise and idealistic — not smart and cynical — for Mr. Bush to gamble his presidency on getting rid of fascists in Iraq. There really was a tie between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein — just as Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton once believed and Mr. Putin and Mr. Allawi now remind us. The United States really did plan to put Iraqi oil under Iraqi democratic supervision for the first time in the country's history. And it did.

This war — like all wars — is a terrible thing; but far, far worse are the mass murder of 3,000 innocents and the explosion of a city block in Manhattan, a ghoulish Islamic fascism and unfettered global terrorism, and 30 years of unchecked Baathist mass murder. So for myself, I prefer to be on the side of people like the Kurds, Elie Wiesel, Hamid Karzai, and Iyad Allawi rather than the idiotocrats like Jacques Chirac, Ralph (the Israelis are "puppeteers") Nader, Michael Moore, and Billy Crystal.

Sometimes life's choices really are that simple.


P.S.- good to see StevieD & Ferdville.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top