New and Improved Version of 'Bush Did It"

[PatekPhilippe]

Rummy buggered Iraq, forgot afghanistan, and is famous for "Known unknowns".

You really want to take that guy seriously?

Honestly..

Welcome to the board, Alvin.

Curious that you inadvertantly used the word 'Honestly..'

Now, I understand that to you this is a mere cliche, meaning 'Isn't my point just brilliant, you know, that Rumsfeld did things that I disagree with, so he has no right to speak, and if he is correct, we should ignore him anyway.'

But just for a moment, let's hypothesize that you were a thinking human being who has the ability to judge the truth, no matter the source... a bit of a stretch, huh?

But just go with it for a moment.

What is the effect that you fear vis-a-vis the respect folks have for a President who would tell any lie to strengthen his own position, or, as the OP states, use the new and improved version of 'Bush did it.'?

And here is the irony that said thinking human being would be aware of:

If the President was not such a small person, and did not fear giving his predecessor some credit, he could have pointed to the same kind of surge he was speaking in support of for Afghanistan, and pointed to its successin Iraq!

Funny, huh?

Short answer? - No.

This gentleman had his chance to actually test his theories regarding world affairs, and he buggered it up royally. History, and this is the history written by the victors, showed him to be 180 degrees away from the truth. Therefor one should not take his view on the subject of troop increses as anything less than idiotic.

Quit while you're behind....you have just been handed your ass....on a paper plate.

 

[Alvin]

Isn't it refreshing to have a President who can read.....

Name one President who couldn't read.

I ment at an adult level.

 

[rdean]

You have to hand it to Republicans. They are really easy to laugh at. If they say in a "satiric" tone, "Bush did it", then, in their tiny minds, it's somehow means, wink, wink, that Bush can either be excused or that he didn't really "do it". Besides, Obama owns it now. Somehow, in their minds, all the disasters are now Obama's as if he somehow created them.

The truth is, Bush wasn't really the problem. He was the "symptom".

The Republican Party has been subjugated by the Religious Right. Kooks, one and all. They have a litany of disaster and dangerous ignorant ideology.

The fact that a formally mainstream political party could push "magical creation" as a viable alternative to "science" profoundly demonstrates that these people truly live in an alternative universe.

It's no wonder that a group that would push such an over the top, destructive and ridiculous concept in spite of the startling amount of contrary physical and scientific evidence amply proves, beyond a doubt, that they will never believe anything other than what they want to believe. This is a political party that has turned it back on reason. The list of Republican disasters over the last 10 years is endless.

Is it any wonder they refuse even the tiniest bit of responsibility? Instead of a shred of introspection, they shift the blame for their massive ideological failure to those they feel, "refuse to understand". You can almost hear them crying, "It's not us, we're right, it's them who refuse to see "our" truth".

They are so blinded, they see Iraq in one of two ways. Either a "stunning success in democracy" or "ungrateful" for what we did to them.

Based on your post, it is not Republicans that bother you rather it is those "dangerous" Christians. Hatred is such a wasteful way to go through life.

The Republican Party used to be a "political" party. Now it's the "Christian" Party.

I admit, Christians scare me. All religious do. They would do anything if they believed it's what their "God" would want. Anything at all.

Tell me. What about the Iraqi Christians? What do you know about them?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Isn't it refreshing to have a President who can read.....

Name one President who couldn't read.

I ment at an adult level.

you may want to take an english class or 2 yourself before shooting your mouth off.

 

[Alvin]

Is freedom not essentialy a Liberal point of view?

Freedom is not a point of view.

But, it seems to me then whenever I see my personal liberties encroached upon, the assault seems to come, more often than not, from the left in the name of "the common good". Individuality is all too often sacrificed by the left for the "collective"

The "collective" includes you.

[/quote]This is not freedom. Freedom also means the freedom to fuck up and be stuck with the mess and not DEMAND that your neighbors bail you out.[/QUOTE]

And you are free to do that in any way you like. Unfortunatly in the real world there are very few consequences which effect you alone.

And btw, why do so many people here shout?

 

[Alvin]

Name one President who couldn't read.

I ment at an adult level.

you may want to take an english class or 2 yourself before shooting your mouth off.

Typo.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I ment at an adult level.

you may want to take an english class or 2 yourself before shooting your mouth off.

Typo.

Ah yes...typo....a lack of proofreading will get you every time.....

 

[amrchaos]

I do not know about any one else, but if it came to defense matters, what is wrong with asking Robert Gates flat out.

Gates is a Republican, he is competent, and he has the stomach to work with the Socialists for the Good of the nation.

 

[Alvin]

you may want to take an english class or 2 yourself before shooting your mouth off.

Typo.

Ah yes...typo....a lack of proofreading will get you every time.....

Nope, it's these darn laptops. What idiot makes a keybord that can only be used by munchkins? And proof reading is for people with too much time on their hands.
I fuck up, I admit it..

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Hey Alvin,

I visited your fair city back in July. I Effin' LOVE Ireland. What a beautiful country! Wish I had more than a week there. Welcome to the crazy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In his speech last night, President Obama claimed that he was coming to the rescue of embattled American troops in Aghanistan, unlike the naughty and oblivious Bush Administration:

'In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ '

Upon hearing this, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chanted something about "pants on fire," including phrases such as

"does a disservice to the truth"

" a bald misstatement"

and went on to suggest a verification process:

" I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

Did President 'Hope and Change" fib?

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Rumsfeld denies Obama claim - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

There is absolutely no doubt that staffing levels in Afghanistan were VERY minimal during the Bush Administration. More than half of the troops in Afghanistan today were deployed under the Obama administration and that doesn't even count the upcoming surge.

So, DID staffing requests go unanswered or "under-answered?" Do you know the answer to that? If not - claiming Obama lied is extremely irresponsible. So please provide a link to back up your claim or the dishonestly belongs to you.

 

[geauxtohell]

GotohellLiebtard,

It's wonderful to hear a stone cold LIEBTARD's OPINION.

Conclusion: THE OPPOSITE MUST BE TRUE.

SURPRISE......the conclusion is correct.

Wow. That was brilliant.

I thought they outlawed lobotomies?

 

[geauxtohell]

He reminds me of rhet2 on crack.

:

At least Rhet is literate.

A GANG OF LIEBTARDS CHORTLING OVER THEIR OWN FAULTY "LITERACY" AND THE IMPUGNING OF A MANIFESTLY LOGICALLY ACCURATE, AND NOT "CIRCULAR REASONING" - TYPE OF STATEMENT MADE BY ME.

If these Liebtard FOOLS knew about the fundamentals of LOGIC 101, they'd realize that just because something comes around full circle......that does not mean that this AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCES an ERROR IN LOGIC.

Let me explain this to Article 15, that 1/2-wit Semi-Criminal (using his self-confessed Avatar):

If A =B=C........then C = A is NOT called an ERROR in LOGIC just because the following is TRUE: A = B = C= A.....i.e., the proposition comes around "full circle".

An example of "CIRCULAR REASONING" or Faulty Logic is the following FAULTY PROOF using "Circular Reasoning":

An Apple is a Chair......because an Apple is chair.

Assuming that these Liebtard Morons understood the above.....which is strongly open to doubt......I proceed.

My statement which Article 15, the POLITICAL IDIOT, as well as the IDIOT with respect to LOGIC, derides as "CIRCULAR REASONING" (i.e. "faulty logic") is NOT "FAULTY LOGIC" at all.

Stating this in terms these LIEBTARD POLITICAL IDIOTS and LOGICALLY UNTUTORED MORONS CAN UNDERSTAND, I will use the CURRENT SCENARIO the DEMS are facing by juxtaposing the IDENTICALLY SIMILAR SCENARIO THE REPUBS FACED UNDER BUSH:

My statement which is an ACCURATE STATEMENT OF FACT, and which is LOGICAL and does NOT violate the tenets of CORRECT LOGIC:

"The Democrats turned the American people (unjustifiably) against Bush which in turn paralyzed the Republicans which gave the Democrats de facto power over the country."

The EQUALLY CORRECT STATEMENT OF FACT and ALSO LOGICALLY CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE IDENTICAL DILEMMA FACING THE MARXIST Obami Salami:

"The Republicans (this time justifiably) turned the American people against Obami Salami which in turn paralyzed the Democrats which gave the Republicans de facto power over the country.

The TRUTH of this last paragraph is admittedly NOT IN ITS FINAL STAGE. It is ACCURATE only in terms of it being a "frozen picture" capturing the TRUTH of Obami Salami's INABILITY to pass his MARXIST Healthcare, etc., thus giving the Republicans de facto power over the country.....in this "time frozen picture".

THE HISTORICAL TRUTH of the last paragraph will be presaged by the results of the 2010 Congressional elections.......and the Presidential Election of 2012 where the Marxist Obami Salami will munch the proverbial tumbleweed.

Please note: the purpose of the above exercise was to EXPOSE the LIBTARDS' (plural form) LACK OF LOGIC and the KNOWLEDGE OF SAME ...... NOT the accuracy of the PREDICTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH of that assertion. Although I am also confidant of the PREDICTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH which only time will tell.

Article 15:

Then again, like Rhet, I stop reading at about one paragraph in when it becomes too stupid to follow.

 

[geauxtohell]

The "Mission Accomplished" incident was in 2003.

Half the Dems were against the war from the jump. The rest turned after the Adminstration's prewar predictions turned out to be way off base.

And we haven't even gotten to the phantom WMD yet.

Article 15,

I've had it with you.

You are either TOO STOOOOOPPPPIIDDDD for me to waste my time on.

Or, you are deliberately feigning UNBELIEVABLE TONS OF GROSS IGNORANCE !!!!

Sometimes I can't control myself and I keep responding to rock solid Liebtard Idiots like you....but I think you made me reach my limit.

For the LAST TIME:

OF COURSE, the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" Declaration by Bush was in 2003......shortly after Bush's MINDBOGGLING TWENTY TWO DAY ANNIHILATION OF THE BAGHDAD PSYCHO's FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD !!!!!

It is a HISTORICAL FACT......easily checked out in the Libraries across the Nation that Clinton, and approx 99% of the CONGRESSIONAL DEMS (BOTH HOUSES) ARE ON RECORD CLAMOURING FOR THE BAGHDAD MONSTER'S HEAD.

Bush, using his judgment, agreed with the Dems, and USING THEIR IDENTICAL RHETORIC.....practically WORD FOR WORD.....(including their verbiage re the danger of Saddam's WMDs).....launched the invasion.....WITH THE BACKING OF CLINTON and approx 99% OF THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMS.

This is PARTIALLY DOCUMENTED by Political Chic's PARTIAL LIST of the DEM LUMINARIES such as Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, The Chappaquidick Murderer, the Pathological Liar Kerry etc., etc., etc., ALL 99% of that Congressional Dem SLIME BACKED BUSH !!!!


As a matter of fact, and I have to give credit to Clinton: this sex-crazed psychopath supported Bush's decision even though the overwhelming majority of the Dems turned out to be HYPOCRITICAL and TREACHEROUS POS that did the 180 and stabbed Bush and America in the back by inciting the IRAQI QUAGMIRE..... BEFORE.....I REPEAT .....BEFORE the 2004 upcoming elections......and the FOLLOWING ELECTIONS clobbering the Repubs and making Bush a POLITICAL CORPSE......and STILL used the IRAQI SCAM in denigrating McCain with it, in the Presidential Election.

I am not going to repeat the rest which is in my posts.

But, if you are TOO STOOOOOPPPPIIIIDDD. Or, you are just screwing around and want to remain IGNORANT.....that's fine with me.

Now fuck off.....or blather to yourself and those stupid and ignorant Liebtard idiots.

I have come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with me.

Why the hell do I bother with idiots and despicable scum like the Liebtards when it is a hopeless endeavor ????

RUN AWAY!!!!!!

FLEE!!!!!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg[/ame]

 

[amrchaos]

In his speech last night, President Obama claimed that he was coming to the rescue of embattled American troops in Aghanistan, unlike the naughty and oblivious Bush Administration:

'In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ '

Upon hearing this, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chanted something about "pants on fire," including phrases such as

"does a disservice to the truth"

" a bald misstatement"

and went on to suggest a verification process:

" I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

Did President 'Hope and Change" fib?

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Rumsfeld denies Obama claim - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

There is absolutely no doubt that staffing levels in Afghanistan were VERY minimal during the Bush Administration. More than half of the troops in Afghanistan today were deployed under the Obama administration and that doesn't even count the upcoming surge.

So, DID staffing requests go unanswered or "under-answered?" Do you know the answer to that? If not - claiming Obama lied is extremely irresponsible. So please provide a link to back up your claim or the dishonestly belongs to you.

Good luck, nodog.

The whole arguement circling Obama and afganistan is about politics. From both sides of the aisle. Easy to see what the Democrat ageneda is, but the Republican agenda is of a much more desperate nature.

The easiest way to understand the rights political position is to ask "how do you attract normally right wing Americans BACK to the Republican party after 8 years of GWB and nonsensical policies."

Once you are able to get into that type of mind frame, you would understand much more deeply what is behind the GOP latest BS.

The road map I see is pretty standard.

1)Declare that all democrats are Socialist/communist/statists--hate the Socialists/communists/statists!

2)Espouse the greatness of Conservative values. Equate conservatism to Americanism

3)Denounce Republicans that agree with or cross the aisle in favor the Socialist/Communists/Statists

4)Celebrate new faces that do not cross the aisle and denounce the Socialist/Communists/Statists

5)Educate the public to this fact:the republican party is the last salvation for conservatism in America--denounce any third party or attempts to form a third party using conservatism.

6)Win elections as Republicans with "conservative mandate"



The problem with this is that history repeats itself
7)Repeat madness that kick the party out of office for years.

We are only seeing the GOP beginning the conservativism is Republicanism step.

 

[geauxtohell]

And General Petraeus admitted the surge may not have been necessary.

The surge was necessary to keep the American people from storming the White House with pitchforks and torches.

It was a political delaying movement.

The real difference came when Gates and Petreaus took over. It was a leadership issue, not a troop quantity issue.

False claim from start to finish on your part.

If you say it, it must be true....

Never mind that Al Anbar was turning around long before a single surge troop had their boot on the ground.

 

[Alvin]

We are only seeing the GOP beginning the conservativism is Republicanism step.

You been hiding in a cellar since the "Contract on America"

 

[geauxtohell]

[
The whole arguement circling Obama and afganistan is about politics. From both sides of the aisle. Easy to see what the Democrat ageneda is, but the Republican agenda is of a much more desperate nature.

War is always about politics.

Read Clauswitz.

 

[rdean]

He reminds me of rhet2 on crack.

:

At least Rhet is literate.

A GANG OF LIEBTARDS CHORTLING OVER THEIR OWN FAULTY "LITERACY" AND THE IMPUGNING OF A MANIFESTLY LOGICALLY ACCURATE, AND NOT "CIRCULAR REASONING" - TYPE OF STATEMENT MADE BY ME.

If these Liebtard FOOLS knew about the fundamentals of LOGIC 101, they'd realize that just because something comes around full circle......that does not mean that this AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCES an ERROR IN LOGIC.

Let me explain this to Article 15, that 1/2-wit Semi-Criminal (using his self-confessed Avatar):

If A =B=C........then C = A is NOT called an ERROR in LOGIC just because the following is TRUE: A = B = C= A.....i.e., the proposition comes around "full circle".

An example of "CIRCULAR REASONING" or Faulty Logic is the following FAULTY PROOF using "Circular Reasoning":

An Apple is a Chair......because an Apple is chair.

Assuming that these Liebtard Morons understood the above.....which is strongly open to doubt......I proceed.

My statement which Article 15, the POLITICAL IDIOT, as well as the IDIOT with respect to LOGIC, derides as "CIRCULAR REASONING" (i.e. "faulty logic") is NOT "FAULTY LOGIC" at all.

Stating this in terms these LIEBTARD POLITICAL IDIOTS and LOGICALLY UNTUTORED MORONS CAN UNDERSTAND, I will use the CURRENT SCENARIO the DEMS are facing by juxtaposing the IDENTICALLY SIMILAR SCENARIO THE REPUBS FACED UNDER BUSH:

My statement which is an ACCURATE STATEMENT OF FACT, and which is LOGICAL and does NOT violate the tenets of CORRECT LOGIC:

"The Democrats turned the American people (unjustifiably) against Bush which in turn paralyzed the Republicans which gave the Democrats de facto power over the country."

The EQUALLY CORRECT STATEMENT OF FACT and ALSO LOGICALLY CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE IDENTICAL DILEMMA FACING THE MARXIST Obami Salami:

"The Republicans (this time justifiably) turned the American people against Obami Salami which in turn paralyzed the Democrats which gave the Republicans de facto power over the country.

The TRUTH of this last paragraph is admittedly NOT IN ITS FINAL STAGE. It is ACCURATE only in terms of it being a "frozen picture" capturing the TRUTH of Obami Salami's INABILITY to pass his MARXIST Healthcare, etc., thus giving the Republicans de facto power over the country.....in this "time frozen picture".

THE HISTORICAL TRUTH of the last paragraph will be presaged by the results of the 2010 Congressional elections.......and the Presidential Election of 2012 where the Marxist Obami Salami will munch the proverbial tumbleweed.

Please note: the purpose of the above exercise was to EXPOSE the LIBTARDS' (plural form) LACK OF LOGIC and the KNOWLEDGE OF SAME ...... NOT the accuracy of the PREDICTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH of that assertion. Although I am also confidant of the PREDICTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH which only time will tell.

Dummy, everyone knows an Apple is a computer.

 

[saveliberty]

The surge was necessary to keep the American people from storming the White House with pitchforks and torches.

It was a political delaying movement.

The real difference came when Gates and Petreaus took over. It was a leadership issue, not a troop quantity issue.

False claim from start to finish on your part.

If you say it, it must be true....

Never mind that Al Anbar was turning around long before a single surge troop had their boot on the ground.

So you wait around until you see the soldiers approaching before you'd move your troops huh?