Comments Posted By Citizen DeWayne
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 31 Comments

WHAT THE LEFT REALLY WANTS FROM HADITHA

Picking up where Tano left off,

A thought experiment:

Take all of the remarks Rick has made using the words left and liberal and replace them with the word Jew.

What do you get?

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 2.06.2006 @ 07:17

From the Time article:

"There's no doubt that the Marines allegedly involved in doing this--they lied about it," said Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and former Marine who was briefed two weeks ago by Marine Corps officials... "They certainly tried to cover it up."..."This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," said Kline. "This is going to be an ugly story."

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 1.06.2006 @ 23:20

TALKING TO IRAN A NECESSARY EVIL

Bolton: ‘This is Put Up or Shut Up Time For Iran,’ Unilateral Military Action Is ‘On The Table’
Yesterday on Fox’s Your World with Neil Cuvuto, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton explicitly said that unilateral military action against Iran was “on the table.” Bolton diplomatically added, “This is put up or shut up time for Iran."

These guys have no diplomatic skills what so ever, their just a bunch of bullies.

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 1.06.2006 @ 22:28

I heard an interesting observation today. It was in an interview with Tom Oliphant and he was complaining about the excessive mischaracterization of Condolezza Rice's Iran announcement yesterday. He said the offer made to the Iran 'was not an offer they couldn't refuse, but rather an offer to refuse.'

I was kind of proud for making a very similar call last night in my last two grafs of post #27, because I think Oliphant has one of the sharpest minds in the business.

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 1.06.2006 @ 21:48

No more tough talk, you heard the president the other night, he is trying to talk more sophisticated now. Blair and Bush looked like two beaten dogs repeating their hackneyed position that 'we did the right thing' attacking Iraq, which is getting pretty hard to swallow.

One has to keep in mind that this is not the same White House that existed when Sy Hersh wrote his article. Josh Bolton is a realist, he never drank the Kool Aid. I'm sensing a seismic shift in the White House, a humbling of sorts, a realizing that they weren't as smart as they thought they were. As limited as Bush's brain might be even he must see what a mess he has made in Iraq and it is causing him to loose his nerve.

There is no realistic military option with Iran and they know it. At least not one that won't spin the region into war and drive the price of oil though the roof.

“To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,” Rice says in her prepared text. “We hope that in the coming days, the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal.”

What a load of crap that is. "Our commitment to a diplomatic solution?" What the hell is she talking about? The Bush administration up until now wouldn't give the Iranian government the time of day. "...As soon as Iran fully...suspends its enrichment...activities." That's her idea of diplomacy? Do what we want and we'll negotiate with you. Yeah right.

"No options have been taken of the table." That sounds like more red meat for the rightwing nut jobs of the supreme "Watchers Council." What Iran wants is what everybody wants: respect. Until the U.S. shows a little respect their not budging. I predict the U.S. will drop the enrichment condition and begin talks anyway. The future of Iraq depends on it.

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 1.06.2006 @ 00:59

THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

Dear Apologist,

Thank you for taking the time to critique my post Swatting Flies. I found your observations and analysis very helpful. My lack of writing skills may have caused some confusion and for that I apologize.

I want to say right up front that, I do not think Bush in any way had forehand knowledge of or participation in the events that led up to 9-11. Nor did I say in any of my posts that he did. If you got that impression it was your own fantasy.

I was not offering my post as supporting evidence of that notion. Rather, I went outside the topic of Rick’s “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and offered my own alternative theory of want transpired during the first 8 months of the Bush administration regarding the lead up to 9-11. Actually, Swatting Flies is an article I wrote over a year ago after hearing the remarks of Codolezza Rice during her 9-11 commission testimony. Especially the swatting flies remark.

I’ll try to abbreviate my response to your comments.

Re: pre-9-11 terrorist attacks

You said: These attacks weren’t minor by any definition.

A: I said they were relatively minor. I should have said compared to 9-11 they were relatively minor.

Re: the puzzle

The puzzle is; why did the president ignore terrorism for the first 8 months of his administration?

You seem to think I’m saying the puzzle is the meaning of the “swatting flies”.

Re: the meaning of “tired of swatting at flies”

You have to admit it is a strange choice of words to describe the president’s anti-terrorism policy. Anyhow, my best guess as to what he meant was “Clinton’s occasional ineffective Cruise Missile.”

I don’t know, what do you think “he was tired of swatting at flies” means?

Re: Bush coming into office with designs on Iraq

You said: So the Bush administration is making plans for an invasion and post war planning is in it’s very early – hypothetical – stages. (Then you give a list of reasons as to why this would make sense.)

A: You’ve conceded my point that they were focused on Iraq from the beginning. Something the administration denies to this day.

You also seem to be conflating routine military planning with what was the focus of the National Security Counsel in the White House. This is an important point.

Re: Neocon utopian plan for the Middle East

You said: Utopian plan? Democracy is the answer Islamic terrorist activity? Lemme do your comprehending for you here and we’ll see if we can get you up to speed.

A. I got word utopian to describe the neocons Middle East policy from Pat Buchanan: hardly a moonbat liberal.

I understand the basic neocon theory about modernizing the Middle East, the reverse domino effect, and your long description of “comprehending” for me is close enough to be the neocon plan. And, in 15-20 years no more jihadis. Which is basically what I said in a somewhat irreverent way.

But that’s all gone, there is no neocon plan anymore, no spreading democracy, no happy Iraqi. The Iraq war has devolved into such a disaster that the best we can hope for is a C- or D result. Which means we can pullout of Iraq without having it turn into a regional war.

You said: This was not dreamed up on the campaign trail in 1999.

A. Right on! It was dreamed up in the mid-90’s by a group of intellectual elite New York Jews. (I couldn’t pass that one up.)

Re: the Bush plan was to sit and wait for the next nuisance terrorist attack

You said: There’s no evidence for this assertion.

A. Your right, there is no evidence for this assertion. Neither is there any evidence that the Bush administration did any meaningful anti-terror work in their first 8 months, or even took it seriously for that matter.

This was an editorial deduction I made in order to try to solve the puzzle. It wasn’t meant a piece of hard journalism. But I have to say it was a fairly easy assumption to make.

What’s your answer to why Bush did nothing during his first 8 months about terrorism?

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 25.05.2006 @ 22:52

The point is that 65% of Americans believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11 back in 2003. Which ties in with Rick's original post:
“...45%, indicated they were more likely to agree “that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.”

= BDS

No one said it point blank and certainly not liberals. If anything the majority of those 35% that answered no to the poll question were mostly liberals.

I'm saying the administration fostered the notion in order to garner support for the war they wanted.

Your making a fine distinction that obvilously most Americans were not sharp enough to make. We're talking about public opinion here not reality.

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 24.05.2006 @ 17:35

"He didn’t go on TV and say “Hussein didn’t have anything to do with 9-11”, so that means he meant that Hussein DID have something to do with 9-11?"

Actually Bush deny that very thing. It happened during a photo op of a cabinet meeting. Some reporter shouted a question like, "Did Saddam (or Iraq) have anything to do with 911? Bush answered in the din of camera shutters, "No." It lasted a couple of news cycles. So we know he knew Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

While I'm sure we won't be able to find Bush saying Iraq was involved directly in 911, there are plenty of examples of him saying '911 and Saddam' in the same sentence, as if there were some connection.

Cheney was blatant about making the connection saying, "It has been pretty well established" that there was a meeting between 911 terrorists and Iraq. Just recently he was caught on the record lying about the first lie, denying that he ever said.

You can't argue if you are devoid of facts.

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 24.05.2006 @ 13:57

Scrapiron,

The point is that for the 8 months they were in office before 911 they did nothing on the terrorism from, zip, nada, zero. As a matter of fact in the 911 commission testimony the acting director of the FBI said that Ashcroft told him that he 'did not want to hear about terrorism anymore.'

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 24.05.2006 @ 12:05

Swatting Flies; the Missing Piece

The well-documented fact that President Bush ignored warnings of terror attacks in the US early in his presidency, beginning with President Clinton telling him that Al Qaeda terrorists would be his number one problem is puzzling. How could this “war president,” protector of freedom, keeper of America’s security, been so negligent? Condoleeza Rice attempted to provide the answer to the puzzle. During her testimony to the 911 commission, she explained that the president wanted a broader plan to deal with terrorism and that he was “tired of swatting at flies.” (In spite of the fact that he had never swatted at anything.)

The rationale was, unfortunately, that while the president was developing his broader plan for dealing with terrorism and before it could completed the 911 attack occurred. There is no evidence, however, that any broader plan was being developed. It is understandable that the White House would want to explain away the lapse in security that led to 911 and show they really were on top of the terrorism issue. The explanation does not stand the test of logic and the puzzle remains unanswered. What really makes this puzzle intriguing is the idea that, while one could see how the President was just incompetent and did not have his eye on the ball, it was unfathomable how his entire staff would let this oversight stand.

Accepting Ms. Rice’s testimony that the president said, “he was tired of swatting at flies,” as a truthful statement, most Americans would dismiss this as just one of the goofy things the President says that doesn’t make sense. Or, as we have become accustom to do, we would get out our “W” decoder ring that compensates for the Presidents actual words and translates them into his intended meaning. We decipher that he must be referring to Clinton’s occasional ineffective Cruise Missile. Even though the President’s meaning is understood the puzzle remains.

Looking at some of the other pieces of the puzzle may give us a clue to the answer. Character assassinated Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neil tells us that from day one the Bush Administration was planning for post war Iraq. Despite the fact that he is a disgruntle, crazy, old man, for conversation sake let’s say what he said was true. In that case, the administration would have had to decide before they took office that they were going to go after Iraq as the way to deal with terrorism. Buying into Wolfowitz’s utopian plan for spreading democracy in the Middle East as the answer to the problem of Islamic terrorist activity and would constitute a “broader plan.” Not to mention the plan would also provided intellectual cover for less noble motives such as oil, or rectifying a father’s shortcomings.

Without making any judgment on the neocon world vision, let’s lay that piece on the table. Now the question of what to do about the nasty flies buzzing around the heads of the incoming administration in the form of relatively minor terrorist attacks against US targets, i.e. the USS Cole, Nairobi Embassy, etc. now needs to be dealt with.

Faced with reality that it is nearly impossible to protect all U.S. targets and/or assets around the world, the Bush plan was to sit and wait for the next nuisance terrorist attack, which in turn would become the impetus to put their plan into action.

I don’t think they ever dreamed the next terrorist attack would be so devastating that it would bring the country to it’s knees. It’s just another example of what incompetence gets you.

The rest of the puzzle pieces fall into place from here.

Comment Posted By Citizen DeWayne On 23.05.2006 @ 23:51


 


Next page »


Pages (4) : [1] 2 3 4


«« Back To Stats Page