molson_golden2002

1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. Yes, you are militant anti-liberal, and that makes you a partisan, as they are a very definate faction in America. A knee jerk, ignorant group of angry idiots. And Shoes don't poop

And he didn't smoke. He got really drunk once in his life and swore never to do it again. I think he woke up on a road somewhere after getting completely blitzo

Stories 'like' what exactly? What is this story 'like' that you posted? How is that so different from some of things I have posted?

LOL, ya you did use Mr. Clinton Mr. non-partisan Partisan, and there is a reason for it. You also said before you hate Liberals. Real non-partisan there! You are a fraud

Two points: 1) This thread itself shows the inanity of the "Global War on Terror" idea. It ignores that local conditions drive violence much more than any global situation. FYI, Pakistan and India have been at daggers drawn for many years, and in open conflict on several occasions, since Great Britain carved up the countries on the map--sound familure? In other words, this has nothing to do with the United States 2) RK, what do you think we are doing in Baghdad today? It's pretty nice of us putting our soldiers in harms way to try and make these people live together and play nice, isn't it?

Blah, blah, blah. The basic gest of this clap trap is that Republicans are patriot and Democrats are not. Total BS. You are too stupid to see the truth. I was arguing that the Republicans have screwed thingfs up so bad that they deserve to be out of power. From that you go off on some wild tangent of meaningless crap.

He made a political blunder, that's all

Hey, its the partisan non-partisan guy! You remeber, the same one who said Cheney's cuts [Republican cuts] to the military were good, but the same ones continued by Clinton [Democrat] were bad.

Is reading natural?

Hitler had a picture of Henry Ford hanging in his office

Ya, he said it was correct, alright: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...OPN50021707.htm The Feith channel How Pentagon hijacked intelligence for war At the time in 2002, the public face of the Bush administration was still talking as if it was doing everything possible to avoid a war with Iraq. In reality, plans for an invasion were so solid by August of that year -- seven months before the invasion and months before the administration went to the United Nations to make the case for war -- that Pentagon planners already had a slide show about what Iraq would look like post-invasion, in 2006: It would be democratic. It would be stable. It would be a staunch American ally. And no more than 5,000 American troops would be stationed there. (You can see the slideshow at George Washington University's National Security Archive, nsarchive.org.) Armed with rosy myths like that, Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense at the time -- and a chief architect of the invasion -- could make the case to President Bush that attacking Saddam Hussein would be easy and rewarding. But there were still many in the intelligence community, and indeed dissenting generals within the Pentagon, who saw things differently. Analysts within the State Department and the CIA were skeptical about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Their views never made it to the president's ears, which Vice President Dick Cheney waxed with gate-keeping of his own. What views he did let through were those of Douglas Feith, an aide to Rumsfeld and the person chiefly responsible for coordinating policy between national security agencies. Feith was in charge of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. It was created by Rumsfeld to blunt and if necessary contradict intelligence assessments by the CIA. As an inspector general's report put it last week, the office "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers." In other words, Feith's group cooked up intelligence, especially regarding a link between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime through a July 2002 memo entitled, "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case." Cheney publicly and repeatedly pointed to those links in the run-up to war. The president alluded to them. Yet within the intelligence community the links had been debunked, and have subsequently been proved bogus. The inspector general's report did not go so far as to say that laws were broken. It merely called the workings of Feith's office "inappropriate." The response, by Feith and other former Pentagon officials, was to plead innocence about any wrongdoing, because everything done by that office was legal, having been done at Rumsfeld's directive. Strictly speaking, yes. A secretary of defense has all the authority to create an intelligence office of his own (the Pentagon has more intelligence branches that any other government agency). But Feith's office was created with a mission that even then had questionable intentions. As the Guardian, the British newspaper, reported in July 2003, the Office of Special Plans was set up "to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney." The approach directly clashed with the way the intelligence community is designed to work. That mission was set out by Ronald Reagan in a 1981 executive order: "All reasonable and lawful means must be used to ensure that the United States will receive the best intelligence available," the order stated, while maximum emphasis should be given to fostering analytical competition among appropriate elements of the intelligence community. "All agencies and departments should seek to ensure full and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the United States intelligence effort." That's not how Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush understood intelligence. They can claim that specific laws weren't broken. They can't claim that Reagan's executive order wasn't flouted. Nor can they claim that their approach didn't lead to a catastrophic outcome -- exactly the sort of outcome Reagan's order is designed to prevent.

It was "natural?" I'm sure you want to believe that but its simply not true. Bush used the horrible events of 9-11 to push this ill begotten war. It wasn't "natural" like a flower springing to life in a field, it was a deliberate act of deception. Just like claiming drone aircraft were going to cross the Atlantic and spray us all with biological weapons, or any number of the other terrifying mushroom cloud claims that were made. They thought this was all going to be a piece of cake [like Panama or Gulf War I that Bush watched on TV] and all would end well with them as the heroes.

This from the "Special Place in Hell" section of Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/825372.html Mitt Romney, blood libel, and that old time Jew hate By Bradley Burston It may just be a bad dream. Or it may be the future. In the space of a week, we have had a professor from an Orthodox-oriented Israeli university argue that some medieval blood libels against the Jews were based in fact. We have had Muslim clerics declaring that the Jewish Temples of antiquity never existed, that there is no evidence that they ever did, that the Jews' insistence that they did was "the greatest fraud crime in history," that the Western Wall is a Muslim site, that the Jews' reverence for it - and for Jerusalem - is a relatively recent and politically-motivated phenomenon. Advertisement Not coincidentally, we have had Egyptian legislator Mohammed el-Katatny of President Hosni Mubarak's ruling party informing parliament "That cursed Israel is trying to destroy al-Aqsa mosque," and that "Nothing will work with Israel except for a nuclear bomb that wipes it out of existence." And now we have Mitt Romney. On Tuesday, the former governor of Massachusetts is set to formally launch his campaign for the Republican nomination for the presidency. He has chosen as the venue a museum which bills itself as America's Greatest History Attraction, the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Named for America's greatest anti-Semite. Named for a man revered by Adolf Hitler, who awarded him the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Named for the U.S. publisher of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and "The International Jew: the World's foremost problem." Perhaps unfortunately, perhaps inevitably, the first to take Romney to task for the decision was the National Jewish Democratic Council. The council's executive director Ira Forman said the group was "deeply troubled by Governor Romney's choice of locations to announce his presidential campaign." "Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life," Forman continued. "Yet he chooses to kick [off] his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe." According to Forman, Romney's "embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford's legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney's words or his understanding of basic American history." Petty? Maybe Partisan? Certainly. Or maybe these things are just becoming second nature. After all, the Romney campaign says it's sticking by its decision, and that the campaign kickoff will continue as planned. "Governor Romney believes our country needs to put innovation at the forefront if we are to ensure a stronger, safer and more prosperous America," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said. "The Ford Museum embodies that bold, innovative spirit." There's something bold and innovative about that old-time Jew hate as well. When it comes back, after being gone so long, its adherents have that feeling of freshness, of renewal. What's next? Accusations of bubonic plague?

What a re-write of history! "Major combat operations are now over" You have your head so far up Bush's butt you can't think for yourself

Keeping this Republican party out of power is good for America. Check back with me when Dems have Legislature and Executive branch, I'll probably be singing a different tune, but until then...

I went to Washington and marched against the war. I called my representatives and argued with anyone that would listen that this was an incredibly stupid idea. But Saddam attacked us on 9-11 was the basic sh-- people spewed back at me. How did the 'liberal' news media cover the antiwar movement? 20 fat dudes showed up to protest we 100k that protested the war and they got equal coverage on the bottom of the front page of the newspapers the day after. And yes, I totally agree that the American people should have thought more about this, but Bush did a fantastic job of selling the war. We were all going to die if we didn't invade, Saddam was behind 9-11, Saddam had ties to al-Quida, so blindly we went off to war. And don't talk to me about that stupid iraq resolution, thats another story entirely

WTF happened to this thread?

What are you crying about? Politics are great. I bet the Iraqis would like to have a little more politics and a little less of what they got. Democrats just got most of the Republicans down on record as voting for the surge. That might be importnat here in the future. I'd say the fewer GOP votes the better

Though I opposed this, things are looking good so far. Hope it continues to go well and that the Iraqis can take over soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/mi...l?th&emc=th BAGHDAD, Feb. 16 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told President Bush on Friday that the increased effort to provide security in Baghdad had gone exceedingly well so far, Mr. Maliki’s office said in a statement. The two spoke via video link and, according the statement, Mr. Maliki said, “The security plan has been a dazzling success during its first days.” Across Baghdad, there were signs of the heightened troop presence, as cars were searched at new checkpoints and raids resulted in the arrest of at least 35 people, according to Iraqi officials. Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division in Baghdad, told reporters on Friday that there had been a substantial reduction in violence in the past 48 hours, which he attributed both to the increased troop presence and the decision by Sunni and Shiite militants to keep a low profile. “They’re watching us carefully,” he said. “There’s an air of suspense throughout the city. We believe, there’s no question about it, that many of these extremists are laying low and watching to see what it is we do and how we do it. How long that will last, we don’t know.” American military officers also disputed Iraqi reports that the commander of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded in recent fighting, saying they have seen no evidence to support the claim.

It's his shooting hand, so it might take longer.

If he stays healthy its a great pick up, short term. If, if, if.... I wonder if Nashville will sell out if they reach the finals?

Are you two clowns part of some cult with that avatar? Two Bushbots you are. This may be too complicated for you, which is why Bush got away with it, counting on usless imbiciles like you two, but he set up a seperate "intelligence" gathering unit that came to the "conclusion" that Saddam very well may have been involved. Not one of the 16 real intelligence agencies agreed with that assessmenmt. Cheney said reapeatidly Iraqi officials met with al-Quida agents right before 9-11. And Bush's speeches before the attack basically went like this: 'Saddam, WMD, 9-11, Saddam, WMD, 9-11" Over and over again. Americans, you know the ones that watch American Idol too much, saw that and believed Saddam did 9-11. It was clever and it worked

LOL, you still won't post a Bush quote saying it would take more than that amount of time, yet I have posted quotes from Administrtaion officials saying it would be easy. This war was sold as a cakewalk. Mission accomplished speaks for itself. You are simply living in fantasy land

I like that, you even sign your name "Stupid." And your post is beyond moronic. Because Bush kept quiet, you know he knew it was going to be a long war/occupation, all other evidence not withstanding. Your arguments come simply from emotion. You want to believe something so you do. So the media is evil in your view for butting in on your fantasy world. You are so completely out there, you are now asking me to look through archives of this site to somehow back up your idiotic claims. And why in the hell does it matter what people in here thought, anyway? How does that prove your point about Bush? Are you guys meeting with the old Decider himself? Molson

Hey stupid, got that Bush quote on how this will be a long bloody occupation? You can post it and say "Mission Accomplished" if you like. Or maybe the media just didn't cover him saying that, you know, just to make them look bad! HA HA HA