Reuters is reporting that Saddam Hussein has been hanged.

[LAK]

It is a fact that Pres Bush is a "big, criminal fraud"??  What court has convicted him?  What charges has he faced?
As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side?  Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea.  You don't care either.  You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view.  That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial.  Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation.  ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all.  It is laughable.

George W Bush is a fraud in his presentation of himself as a political figure and his active role in the current agenda along with people like his fellow comrade Tony Blair. He is no conservative, he is a global socialist. I have covered all this indepth on this forum, and where applicable on THR and also TFL.

George is not from Texas, he was born into the northeastern oligarchy like his fraternal brother and relative John Kerry. If the issues involved were not so serious and critical I would find your ignorance, or pretense of ignorance - whichever one it is - absolutely hilarious.

If you want to play dumb go right ahead, but I am not going to repeaat what has already been thoroughly covered in a great many threads spanning dozens of specific issues around him and all his cronies.

Me "leftwing"? You are suffering amnesia again. And his partner in crime Tony Blair is as socialist as it gets. If we can not secure our own borders and nation there is not a snowball's chance of "winning" a so-called "war on terror" in a hundred foreign countries.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[LAK]

fistful,

The islamic fruitcakes are spread all over europe in great numbers, in south america, africa, china, the philipines, indonesia, burma, india, pakistan and every other 'stan on the map. Going into Iraq on the pretense of having any significant effect on these people  is like jumping all over one nest of fire ants, in one yard, in one neighborhood.

Take a trip to and spend a couple of weeks in Birmingham or London in the UK these days as just a couple of examples.

If we want to rid ourselves of these people they need to be all driven out of europe and north america. One, twos, dozens, hundreds, thousands at a time.

-------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[The Rabbi]

It is a fact that Pres Bush is a "big, criminal fraud"??  What court has convicted him?  What charges has he faced?
As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side?  Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea.  You don't care either.  You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view.  That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial.  Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation.  ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all.  It is laughable.

George W Bush is a fraud in his presentation of himself as a political figure and his active role in the current agenda along with people like his fellow comrade Tony Blair. He is no conservative, he is a global socialist. I have covered all this indepth on this forum, and where applicable on THR and also TFL.

George is not from Texas, he was born into the northeastern oligarchy like his fraternal brother and relative John Kerry. If the issues involved were not so serious and critical I would find your ignorance, or pretense of ignorance - whichever one it is - absolutely hilarious.

If you want to play dumb go right ahead, but I am not going to repeaat what has already been thoroughly covered in a great many threads spanning dozens of specific issues around him and all his cronies.

Me "leftwing"? You are suffering amnesia again. And his partner in crime Tony Blair is as socialist as it gets. If we can not secure our own borders and nation there is not a snowball's chance of "winning" a so-called "war on terror" in a hundred foreign countries.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

So Pres Bush's "criminal fraud" consists of passing himself off as being from Texas when in fact he was born in the North east?  You'll have to do better than that to pass the laugh test.  The rest of the post is equally well considered.

[Perd Hapley]

Going into Iraq on the pretense of having any significant effect on these people  is like jumping all over one nest of fire ants, in one yard, in one neighborhood.

What do you not understand about taking the initiative, setting the timetable, and so on? 

He is no conservative, he is a global socialist.

Just so I understand, you're saying that Bush is a liar or a fraud because his conservatism is not as pronounced as yours, mine, or John Q. RepublicanBase?  That does not compute. 

[LAK]

Rabbi,

George Bush has literally sold this country out in so many ways it is pitful, and shameful. If you want to play dumb continue to do so.

Fistful

What do you not understand about taking the initiative, setting the timetable, and so on?

Initiative, timetable? On dealing with a literally innumerable number of dangerous lunatics spread all over the earth in perhaps forty or fifty or more foreign countries? Get real.

Let's start with timetable. Just what is the timetable for this venture? Ten years per country? A hundred per continent? Who is going to foot the bill for this "war" that never ends? Are we going to start cloning soldiers to fill the ranks worldwide?

Just so I understand, you're saying that Bush is a liar or a fraud because his conservatism is not as pronounced as yours, mine, or John Q. RepublicanBase?  That does not compute.

Not as pronounced? Good grief man. If you do not really know, do a search on TFL, THR and this forum using my user name, and keywords Bush conservative global etc. Then come back and tell me this is a matter "not as prounounced as [mine]".

--------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi,

George Bush has literally sold this country out in so many ways it is pitful, and shameful. If you want to play dumb continue to do so.

He literally sold this country?  To whom did he sell it?  Did he take seller's terms?  Where is the bill of sale?  What was the consideration?
LAK, you say you are giving facts.  If you cannot recognize the difference between facts and gaseous rhetoric then you have no business posting here. So far all you have exhibited is gaseous rhetoric of a particularly empty kind.
You haven't provided a single fact (other than George Bush was not born in Texas).  You have sloshed out left-wing swill (or is it right-wing swill?  I'm not sure there's a difference) and countered every question or argument with more of the same.  This just won't do.

[Perd Hapley]

LAK, much as I love to argue every fine point to the ground, and beat every dead horse, even I can get tired of arguing when there is no communicating.  When I think of some way to make myself understood, I'll get back to you. 

[Ezekiel]

The rabbit hole continues...
--------------------------------------
BUSH WORKS TO SELL TROOP BUILDUP PLAN

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago

The Bush administration worked Thursday to persuade a skeptical Congress and American public to accept President Bush's troop buildup plan as the last best chance for reversing Iraq's slide. "We cannot afford to fail," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The plan that Bush unveiled the night before in a prime-time address to the nation headed straight into a political gale in Congress, with Democrats, some Republicans and an organized anti-war movement lined up against it.

Bush's new strategy increases U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500 and demands greater cooperation from the Iraqi government.

Lawmakers were quick to pounce as Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials headed to Capitol Hill and Bush planned to visit Fort Benning, Ga. to sell the plan.

Before her testimony at a congressional hearing, Rice defended the buildup on morning television news shows. "The most important message is ... the enormous stakes we have in Iraq, that in fact we cannot afford to fail," she told CBS' "The Early Show."

She said that Bush considered many options "but believes that this is the best. First, we have to give it the best chance to work and we need the support of Congress, of the American people," Rice said.

Democratic opponents also made the rounds of morning shows. "We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told CBS that since the new Democratic-led Congress convened last week, "questions are now being asked of this administration that haven't been asked for almost four years."

[Perd Hapley]

That's right.  It really doesn't matter what Bush does.  If he brings the troops home without accomplishing the mission, he will never hear the end of how he wasted our time, talent, troops and treasure in Iraq.  If he decides to send in a few more soldiers, he's "escalating the conflict" and/or "expanding the mission."  What nonsense. 

Or, he could let our troops be more agressive in hitting the bad guys.  Then, even if Iraq suddenly became a green and peaceful vacation spot, we'd hear the moaning of Ezekiel and friends that we're "no better than the enemy," and "forcing our way of life on the Iraqis."  Blah, blah, blah. 

[Ezekiel]

I thought you were done with re-hashing? 

"It is difficult to imagine how Iraq can end as a success -- as an enterprise in which the benefits exceed the costs." -- George Will

I look forward to Sen. Biden's hearings on Iraq, beginning this week.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, good, you're letting us know who tells you what to think.  Hope you enjoy watching your heros run off at the mouth at how they would have done a better job in Iraq.  And you'll probably believe it.  I hope you enjoy hearing them shred every detail of everything we've done there, knowing that the enemy is enjoying it as much as you are.  And when America fades into the background with every other leftist, statist democracy as the world goes to hell, we'll know who to thank.  People like yourself. 

[Ezekiel]

Hope you enjoy watching your heros run off at the mouth at how they would have done a better job in Iraq.

(sigh)  Not even close.

It will merely be nice to perceive that some actual thought has gone into the matter, as opposed to the ill-conceived and poorly-executed quagmire we're now in.

As for every detail being shreddred, such only occurs when details deserve to be done so.  Besides, we're not telling the "enemy" anything that they didn't know first: our planning and execution has been a raging cluster from Day One.  (No big secrets there.)

When America fades, it will not be due to people who query, it will be due to those who blindly follow.

"Thanks."

[Perd Hapley]

Happy perceiving, then.  If it helps you to think that the hearings will be anything more than political grandstanding, then sit down with a big bucket of popcorn.  If you want to go on believing that all options for Iraq haven't been thought through by people more intelligent and better-informed than you, then I suppose you can be fooled by such things.

As for every detail being shreddred, such only occurs when details deserve to be done so.

  Huh?  So you accuse the Bush administration of one huge blunder after another, but you expect another bunch of politicians to exercise perfect judgement?  Politicians who need to score points with their base by beating up the President?  Politicians from the party that has no guts and no brains for foreign policy?

Besides, we're not telling the "enemy" anything that they didn't know first: our planning and execution has been a raging cluster from Day One.  (No big secrets there.)

And that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about our Commander-in-Chief being flogged by our own Congress in the middle of a life-and-death war with terrorists.  Do you remember what bin Laden said about the strong horse and the weak horse?  What kind of horse does this make us look like?  They don't have to do this.  They can question the President's policies.  They can strongly suggest alternative strategies.  They can do all kinds of things without arranging a circus to publish to the world that American foriegn policy is a bumbling failure or an oil scam. 

When America fades, it will not be due to people who query, it will be due to those who blindly follow.

Query?  When will you start to query?  You are doing a perfect job of parroting the major media outlets.  When will you begin to think for yourself about this matter? 

[The Rabbi]

Uh oh.  The Q-word.  This was a "quagmire" from Day 1 only in the leftist media.  In fact the military took down Saddam's regime well ahead of their own schedule.
But it is easy to sit back and criticize (which is why Dem politicos do it).  It is harder to offer substantive alternatives (which is why they haven't).
Cutting and running is not an alternative.  So what is the Democratic plan?  Our Rep Jim Cooper said on the radio this morning, "there is no Democratic plan."  At least he was honest.  I think the Democratic plan is to criticize and hobble any efforts by the Admininstration and then use the resulting failures to gain power in 2008.
Zeke, you need to stop masturbating your  intellect and let it mate with something stronger.

[280plus]

I think the Democratic plan is to criticize and hobble any efforts by the Admininstration and then use the resulting failures to gain power in 2008

Thank you...

And to what end, I mean, besides gaining power? I just wanna bang my head. 

[Ezekiel]

I believe the answer is "to cease our ongoing involvement in the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam."

Quite simple, actually.

[Perd Hapley]

The Democrats aren't likely to pull us out any time soon (even if they could) and they don't support the "surge."  Looks like their plan is "stay the course." 

[Ron]

I believe the answer is "to cease our ongoing involvement in the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam."

It isn't a blunder and to be honest with you neither was Vietnam.

Poorly run military/police actions, open to debate.

Blunders, nope, both worthwhile demonstrations of our Military superiority and domination of those who choose to engage us.

Sometimes it is worth showing your opponent that even if we don't win neither will they. Even when we "lose" so do our opponents. I know it is verboten for us to speak about death counts. It still remains that to fight the US to a standstill requires an unbelievable amount of casualties.

[Perd Hapley]

LAK,

RE: Bush's conservatism or lack thereof. 

Maybe it would help if I acknowledged that Bush is a flaming moderate.  I've said that before.  Seems kind of obvious to me.  Does that mean he's lying when he presents himself as a conservative?  No.  He probably thinks of himself that way. 

[Perd Hapley]

Give up, Ron.

Ezekiel will not change his mind until Mr. Media tells him to.  The greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam?  How about failing to nab bin Laden during the nineties, or failing to stop the build-up of terrorism, generally?  Huge blunder - much bigger than some "pointless quagmire."  I'm sure we could think of more. 

Heck, didn't we "create" Hussein and Osama bin Laden since Vietnam?  At least the war detractors always tell us so.  How about the WMD that we allegedly gave Hussein? (I don't know if we did or not - makes little difference.)

[LAK]

Fistful,

Great. Whenever you're ready. I am happy to debate someone who at least does not play dumb.

---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Perd Hapley]

OK.  Did you see reply #93? 

[LAK]

RE:93 woops, no.

Naaah, I would have to say far worse than a moderate. This country is no less socialist than when he took office.

First term around, the excuse coming from everyone on his behalf was "He is biding his time, he is being savvy and doesn't want to ruin his chance of a second term", or "if he were to [pick one] do that he would not stand a chance of re-election". Etc.

My opinion of what he is and stands for is unchanged from before he was elected. Now that he is halfway through his second and last term, there are no more excuses. The "republican" majority in Congress is gone - and proved pretty meaningless in any case.

To say, "well, if the democrats had held the WH and Congress just think what [such and such] might have been the case" etc is equally lame. It is as if the republican party, it's leadership, and frontline in office simply exist to "save us by not doing what the democrats would have done" and nothing else. And in reality nothing is what they did.

If Bush had been a consevative there is much he had a duty to do. As a "moderate" he might have been expected to soften the edges on some things alittle; but again, he has not even made a scratch on the socialist elements in the Federal gov. All the departments are still there, all the programs that I know of, the institutional racketeers are still fleecing us.

No, moderate is not really even close.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Perd Hapley]

Moderate?  Socialist?  There's a difference?

You think moderate means he would try to change the status quo?  Why?  Moderate means he's really not intending to do anything impressive.  So far, I'm not sure he has.  His response to 9/11 hasn't exactly been a sweeping change in current policy.  Unfortunately.  His education bill, immigration "reform," drug benefit policies, have been less-than-conservative, but less-than-fully-leftist.  He DID cut taxes, appoint some decent judges, and even made a feint at pushing Social Security reform. 

Why would I say he's a moderate?  Compared to the Republicans in the Senate, he's Pat freaking Buchanan.   

[LAK]

You think moderate means he would try to change the status quo?  Why?  Moderate means he's really not intending to do anything impressive.  So far, I'm not sure he has.  His response to 9/11 hasn't exactly been a sweeping change in current policy.  Unfortunately.  His education bill, immigration "reform," drug benefit policies, have been less-than-conservative, but less-than-fully-leftist.  He DID cut taxes, appoint some decent judges, and even made a feint at pushing Social Security reform

George Bush has never had any intention of changing the status quo, because the status quo has a global socialist agenda, and George, like his father and others before them are key players to this end. It is of an ideology that is hostile to to our constitutionally based system of government, and a national leader can not be indifferent to this and claim to be acting in our interests at the same time.

No, his actions since 9/11 have certainly not been any sweeping change of policy; William Clinton previously attacked and effectively overthrew a sovereign country without a declaration of a state of war by Congress. George has spent much more in terms of our blood and money, but otherwise nothing new there. He has been a key figure in an expansion of our interference in the middle east and now into central asia.

George has taken this path on the other issues as a part of his role in the changing of the perception of what these things represent to many people. That somehow one can embrace socialism by degree - and yet not be a socialist. There is no middle path with socialism; it is an immoral and destructive ideology. You are either for it or against it. Like robbery and a number of other crimes against persons on a national scale.

The latter is not new either, as many so-called conservatives have embraced this idiocy and wittingly or unwittingly driven this progression leftward and much of it's acceptence.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org