Al-Qaeda's Zawahiri mocks US bill

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush lied. Stamping your feet and saying "no he didn't" doesn't change the facts.

See ET's point above. He's pointed this out before and its gone unanswered / unaddressed - every single time. An Inconvenient Truth perhaps.....?

I just love the way this has been twisted into "Bush lied". He didn't lie at all.

One name: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

Look it up. This thug was more trustworthy to Bush than the DIA. Either that or Bush lied his fcuking ####### off to get his war. Take your pick. Your boy looks extremely bad either way.

You can slap the Bushies with facts all you want. They'll just keep ignoring the truth to be able to keep admiring a crook.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush lied. Stamping your feet and saying "no he didn't" doesn't change the facts.

See ET's point above. He's pointed this out before and its gone unanswered / unaddressed - every single time. An Inconvenient Truth perhaps.....?

I just love the way this has been twisted into "Bush lied". He didn't lie at all.

One name: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

Look it up. This thug was more trustworthy to Bush than the DIA. Either that or Bush lied his fcuking ####### off to get his war. Take your pick. Your boy looks extremely bad either way.

You can slap the Bushies with facts all you want. They'll just keep ignoring the truth to be able to keep admiring a crook.

There seems to be a big problem with doublespeak on this issue – about what was and wasn’t claimed, when and by whom. A side-effect perhaps of having access to all this information via New Media – not least the use of bloggers as authoritative sources of “truth” is particularly problematic. The other issue of course is the lack of basic knowledge about that part of the world. Terrorism has become an umbrella term – (and not a very useful one) used to simplify the issues and lump disparate countries and groups together as though they are one and the same. Its always funny to hear people lump OBL and SH together as though they are best buds, but the reality is somewhat different. There are competing ideologies in MENA, just as there are in the US.

I wasn’t living in the US in 2003 but from the news coverage I saw, the rationale for the war changed week to week. At least it did on the British end – Blair couldn’t sell “regime change” on its own merits, and I’m not convinced GWB did either (though after the WTC collapsed) no doubt many USC’s favoured the more ‘direct approach’. But its inaccurate to say that support for this thing was unanimous. It wasn’t – Blair was hauled over the coals by MPs and not least the general public – including mass demonstrations in the city of London, and indeed across the country (Europe had similar large scale protests too). There were debates and massive attention on every news network – and from what I saw Blair went ahead in direct opposition to majority public opinion. Public confidence in his leadership took a massive hit from that, from which it never really recovered – same as with GWB.

As I remember (and we can go back and look at specific articles and sources) – to confirm this, a very specific case was made about the threat directly posed to this country by WMD, and a separate but related claim that Iraq was somehow linked to the Sept 11th attacks. Those are the two biggest issues for me (and I suspect a lot of other critics) and all the evidence that was subsequently produced was in direct response to those initial claims.

Only when those stories were proven false, or at best “problematic” did we begin to celebrate this as some sort of “liberation campaign” – which was frankly an easy-sell as a backup plan after the fact – “Ignore what we told you. Because what’s important is that all these people are now free”.

Reading the news today – I came across at least two high profile and embarrassing stories about “friendly fire” in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder how much longer people will continue to defend this stuff.

[rclouse 0]

Been looking for this one:

Just for you Gary.

/imageshack hotlinked

[peezey 0]

They would rather play to their base

I should flipping hope so. They were elected for a reason. We employ them. Therefore, they play by our rules, as much as we can get them to.

Edited May 10, 2007 by peezey

[almaty 19]

They would rather play to their base

I should flipping hope so. They were elected for a reason. We employ them. Therefore, they play by our rules, as much as we can get them to.

amen, and that is 100% truth.,.they are elected by states and districts/unexcept the presidnet and v-p..they are OUR voice on the national government/policies ...............

[Oath 0]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Oath

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Iraqis wants us there? Last I read, upwards of 2/3 of Iraqi's either condone attacks on US forces or at least feel those are justified. How you derive a majority support of our presence from that I simply do not know.

[Oath 0]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Iraqis wants us there? Last I read, upwards of 2/3 of Iraqi's either condone attacks on US forces or at least feel those are justified. How you derive a majority support of our presence from that I simply do not know.

Exactly the same place that you arrive at the majority don't want the help, the media, and that my friend is the problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Iraqis wants us there? Last I read, upwards of 2/3 of Iraqi's either condone attacks on US forces or at least feel those are justified. How you derive a majority support of our presence from that I simply do not know.

Exactly the same place that you arrive at the majority don't want the help, the media, and that my friend is the problem.

What paper are you reading?

[Oath 0]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Iraqis wants us there? Last I read, upwards of 2/3 of Iraqi's either condone attacks on US forces or at least feel those are justified. How you derive a majority support of our presence from that I simply do not know.

Exactly the same place that you arrive at the majority don't want the help, the media, and that my friend is the problem.

What paper are you reading?

British ones

[almaty 19]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Iraqis wants us there? Last I read, upwards of 2/3 of Iraqi's either condone attacks on US forces or at least feel those are justified. How you derive a majority support of our presence from that I simply do not know.

Exactly the same place that you arrive at the majority don't want the help, the media, and that my friend is the problem.

What paper are you reading?

the limbaugh report

[Oath 0]

The point is, we're fed our information through biased sources, and given that we cannot really claim to know what goes on there unless we've been or have a trustworthy source even then we can't claim that this is the honest truth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The point is, we're fed our information through biased sources, and given that we cannot really claim to know what goes on there unless we've been or have a trustworthy source even then we can't claim that this is the honest truth.

If I choose between the vast majority of the media here and overseas or this here government propaganda machine and it's outlets, I tend to trust the former over the latter.

[Oath 0]

The point is, we're fed our information through biased sources, and given that we cannot really claim to know what goes on there unless we've been or have a trustworthy source even then we can't claim that this is the honest truth.

If I choose between the vast majority of the media here and overseas or this here government propaganda machine and it's outlets, I tend to trust the former over the latter.

How can you tell which media is biased and which isn't? If we all had that foresight then President Bush would be screwed eh.

[metta 0]

I honestly do not understand why this is even an argument.

Putting aside the Liberal and Republican bullcrap, we entered their country and blew the ####### out of it, as a so called civilized nation we as a people have a responsibility to restore said country, but the people of that country have to want our help, otherwise they will continue to destroy whatever we do. I firmly belive that the majority of Iraq and Afghanistan want our help, I could be wrong, but the minority are always the loudest and most well connected.

Imagine us being occupied by the People's Republic of China and somehow stoked the tensions along racial and sectarian fault lines. Do you think the majority of Americans will opt for cooperating with whatever puppet regime that is in place so that we can go back to our normal lives guzzling beer and eyes glued of ESPN?

tghink about it!