Comments Posted By Inspector Callahan
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments
THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Sorry DeWayne, I'm not letting you get away with this:
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.
Because rubes like you and me believe it, right? No? Then what was the point of even bringing this up? Bush went after Saddam because of 9-11. 9-11 was the reason the Iraq war happened. Neither of these statements means Saddam caused 9-11. If the media spun it this way, then they're at fault. NOT President Bush.
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.
Sorry, this doesn't hold either. It WAS pretty well established, as was rehashed on this board, and just about every other blog out there. Once again, it doesn't mean Saddam caused 9-11.
This whole argument smacks of typical liberal elitism. You think because the phrases "Saddam", and "9-11" are in the same statement, that we need smart guys like you to tell us the proper context. If you don't believe it, what makes you think everyone else does believe it? Right, because you're smarter.
You can’t argue if you are devoid of facts.
And this sentence takes the cake as a textbook example of projection.
Please, send in the next bunch. I'm getting bored.
TV (Harry)
Comment Posted By Inspector Callahan On 24.05.2006 @ 14:23
but they didn’t go out of their way to quash that misperception either.
Excuse me? That's your answer? 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?
Holy cripes. It was your comrades on the left who started this rumour (lie) in the first place. How is it President Bush's responsibility to quash it?
Jebus. How can you even argue with this kind of thinking?
TV (Harry)
Comment Posted By Inspector Callahan On 24.05.2006 @ 12:41
We have also seen polls that show some very large number of Americans beleived that Saddam was behind 9/11, and that was shamelessly exploited and perpetuated by your boys.
What an absolute steaming pile. Please refer to me to ONE INSTANCE of President Bush, or one of his staff/underlings/etc., EVER saying that Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.
I'll wait.
TV (Harry)
Comment Posted By Inspector Callahan On 24.05.2006 @ 12:23
ONE MAN'S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MAN'S...MURDEROUS THUG
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. I guess we should have handed the Shah over to the mullahs in '79, since the Shah, at least according to a lot of Muslims at the time, "had a lot of nasty tricks up his sleeve".
The problem with realpolitik is that we have to stab former allies in the back, and often. And then people wonder why we're not trusted. It sounds like you want to carry this policy on. Basically, "we don't need you anymore, go pound sand."
If we take this route with regards to Iraq, we ought to jump ship there as well, since Saddam is no longer an issue. THEN let's see if anyone takes us seriously again.
TV (Harry)
Comment Posted By Inspector Callahan On 11.05.2005 @ 12:11
After reading this post and comments, I can only say, "It's good to be back home."
I've been a regular poster at BQ's site for some time, and after being vilified, I don't feel as comfortable over there. There are others - Right-Thinking, John Cole, Andrew Sullivan (as if he was ever conservative anyway), etc.
I ask myself, "What is it about this issue that has the libertarians in such a tizzy?" Then I read the above, and I can only add another ironic "Amen".
(Cool spell-check gadget, by the way!)
TV (Harry)
Comment Posted By Inspector Callahan On 29.03.2005 @ 15:09
