Crap Throwing Monkey

Planes have windows.

Yeah, you're right. I didn't see the plane. Karl Rove brainwashed me.

Sensible logic. The occupation removed the Sunni minority from power. Attacking the Shi'ia majority - who, in a democratic process, are likely to wield far more power than they did - works to discredit the new government and thus the occupation that put it in place. And it's not just about getting the US out of Iraq - the easiest way to do that would be to STOP blowing things up. It's about the Sunni minority feeling disenfranchised, marginalized...and holding an 800-year old grudge against the Shi'ia for helping the Mongols sack Baghdad. The Shi'ia are not infrequently seen as traitors to true Islam (which, as far as I can tell, is "Arab" Islam in this case); I've read statements saying that the Shi'ia are "again selling out" to a foreign power, "just like" they did to the Mongols. Yeah, it may not make sense to us, as Americans. But we have a 200 year old country. What the !@#$ do we know about holding an 800-year old grudge?

No, it's still about resisting the occupation. Much of the "anti-Muslim" violence is against the Shi'ia...who are seen largely as puppets of the occupation.

But what if it goes to Shelton! No one would EVER expect that play to go to Shelton! It never goes to Shelton! It's brilliant! Oh, the things I won't miss about the Donahoe era... The most underrated play, BTW, was the Butch Rolle short-yardage touchdown play. How come no one ever defended that?

I wouldn't. International Basket Weaving is too damned corrupt. And those pansy-ass Italian basket weavers are always diving...

I think he meant "Why was the road closed?" Although considering the general dopiness of the source of the question, your interpretation may be correct.

No, I'm the one behind him that's saying "Big deal...I could do that too, if I felt like it..."

Doesn't matter if it was or not. The perception will be that it was.

Well...yeah, but I only have a small cameo...

Condi's statement is nonsense as evidence; there's no clear context vis-a-vis WMDs or conventional weapons (personally...I think she was referring to conventional forces. Had it been a statement referring to WMD capability, she would have used just that word "capability". She didn't. It may seem like a very thin justification...but if you look at all the statements made on the subject, the administration is at least reasonably consistent in its verbage.) Powell's is...interesting. It also goes against everyone's conventional wisdom at the time. I refer you to Wacka's bull sh-- post several days previous in which he unoriginally quoted a slew of Democrats - more importantly, a pretty representative sample of not just Democrats, but elected officials in general - contradicting Powell. Which doesn't make Powell's statement any less interesting...it just demonstrates how much people dishonestly pick and choose their supporting statements in this debate.

Not this bull sh-- again. I lived next to the Pentagon. On 9/11 I saw the plane outside my bedroom window. It was NOT a cruise missile.

I can live with that rule.

But that was different...that was BF arguing cooking with a CIA-trained chef. It's tough to find better comedy than that.

9/11 happened, and this policy was formulated, which resulted in a complete change of the policy towards Iraq. Note that it also resulted in a change of policy towards Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea...none of which anyone pays attention to. If people would, then how the administration formulates policy would be much clearer...which is the real argument here. Changing our foreign policy after 9/11 was not being weaselly...far from it, it was as logical a step as Roosevelt abandoning the trappings of his faux-isolationist policy after Pearl Harbor. The drastic change of policy across extraordinary events isn't inconsistent...it's natural, even necessary. This administration, however, has never been one to support Constitutional protections or separation of powers, before or after 9/11, except when such Constitutional powers suited it. On that single matter alone - failing to uphold his oath of office to defend the Constitution - I would have voted against Bush in 2004...except that Kerry's record on Constitutional matters was actually worse.

Yeah, you're too busy casting aspersions...

There's a very easy explanation. Wacka's a moron.

Holy Christ. Suddenly, I find the Ducks' uniforms appealing. That logo looks like someone's really bad rug.

Oh, gee...tough call...I don't know...

Why can't this happen to people like Ricky Williams, for whom a brain aneurysm isn't a serious injury?

No, he's always been against the Constitution. He's just weasely.

I particularly liked PastaJoe's contribution. One of his finer posts. Now let's really send this thread straight to the crapper and pick on Simon...

And you can point to a coherent Democratic Party platform that belies his observation? Didn't think so.

Well...they planned on having an agenda. You've got to start somewhere...

Uhhhh...yeah. Personally, I think she's rather plain. She's got money...but when it comes to looks, I married better...and the wife's not even home yet.