posted January 16, 2006 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

A quick review of the record of leftist error reveals the left has been either wrong or lying in every argument they've made against the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

---

posted January 16, 2006 04:58 PM              

quote:

---

The operation went off on the intelligence the number 2 member of al-Queda "was going to be there." Further, it seems certain there were at least 8 or 9 terrorists killed in the missile attack...information from Pakistani intelligence.

---

So if he wasn't there, why bomb it anyway? If they were following his movements by intercepting communications, they would have worked out that there would be a change of plan would they not? It's as yet unconfirmed that 8 or 9 terrorists died as far as I can see but please post your source if you've found otherwise and let's debate the validity of the claims.

"Pakistani officials asserted that AL-QAEDA's deputy AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI wasn’t at the site of the CIA’s missile strike, which killed 18 people." http://aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10430

quote:

---

A quick review of the record of leftist error reveals the left has been either wrong or lying in every argument they've made against the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

---

Oh really? Where are those WMD's then jwhop?

quote:

---

The premises you operate under are nonsense, the kind of nonsense no rational person would indulge.

---

Now what did we say about being rude? It's a smoke screen for a lack of argument my dear, and you really must try and get out of the habit.

posted January 16, 2006 05:06 PM              

quote:

---

CardinalGal, if I had to theorize why they did that attack that way it might be due to financial reasons. As estimated the other day in Knight-Ridder newspapers the Iraq war could cost as much as $2 trillion. We can't really afford our war activity. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13622020.htm

Interestingly, part of the article contains this line: "Some analysts, however, argue that the Iraq war is inspiring more Muslim extremists to pursue jihad against America."

---

That's very interesting AG and I think we're pretty much in the same position.

quote:

---

What's wrong Jwhop? Can't muster any compassion for the loss of innocent lives? If a Communist, Saddam or a Democrat had killed these people you'd be all over it wouldn't you?

---

posted January 16, 2006 05:16 PM              

quote:

---

if intelligence services had feet on the ground in terrorist conclaves.

---

posted January 17, 2006 10:36 AM            

Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2006 10:06 a.m. EST
Ted Kennedy to Drop Club Membership

After ripping Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for what Senator Ted Kennedy called "troubling” ties to a social club at Princeton University, Kennedy is distancing himself from his own curious ties to a club at Harvard University.

As previously reported by NewsMax, Kennedy is a member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership. Ironically, the Owl Club, long reviled at Harvard as "sexist,” was evicted from the campus in 1984 for violating federal anti-discrimination laws authored by Kennedy.

According to the Boston Herald, Kennedy was questioned on his status as an Owl Club member by Boston TV station WHDH. Kennedy said, "I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”

However, according to the membership directory of the Owl Club, Kennedy updated his personal information as recently as September 7.

When told by the TV reporter that the Owl Club discriminates against women, Kennedy said, "I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out as fast as I can.”
This, of course, is not the first time Kennedy has been trapped in a web of hypocrisy. As noted in the best-selling book by author Peter Schweizer, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Kennedy has a long history of hypocrisy.

Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.

posted January 17, 2006 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

t will simply drive them further to their faith, their customs and eventually, more than likely to the side of the terrorists. It is ignorant to think otherwise - that's why, "Shock and awe" and the rest of these ill considered 'posse mentality' tactics will foster nothing but hatred and do nothing but isolate the west.

---

The ignorance of Dunceton U grads is legendary acoustic. By any measure of ignorance, your comments go right to the top of the scale.

Let's see, we're going to really make them mad at us if we respond with military force.....after they've declared war on us and killed about 3,000 American civilians in a sneak attack. That right acoustic. We're really going to make them mad....really going to isolate ourselves if we don't submit to unprovoked sneak attacks on American civilians? Get your head out of your @ss acoustic.

Tell me acoustic, how many of those killed in Pakistan were "innocent", how many were terrorists and if one is harboring, feeding, funding, supplying and supporting terrorists and terrorism, are they "innocent'?

I don't know which is more pathetic acoustic; your intellectual dishonesty or your lack of intellectual capacity. Case in point and I'll let you state from which intellectual disability you were speaking.

When I spoke about Commander Corruption bombing the hell out of Bosnia with dumb gravity bombs and killing civilians, or blowing up a pill factory and killing civilians, or launching missile attacks against Iraq and killing civilians, I wasn't chiding Commander Corruption. I pointed out these Clinton attacks which killed civilians to show the hypocrisy of leftists who never spoke out against Commander Corruption for doing so but were wetting themselves over civilian causalities in Iraq.

posted January 17, 2006 11:30 AM            

quote:

---

A quick review of the record of leftist error reveals the left has been either wrong or lying in every argument they've made against the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

---

quote:

---

This is a patently false statement, and a gross exageration even for you, Jwhop.......acoustic

---

You have that leftist disease acoustic, the disease which makes you think simply saying something is so, makes it so.

posted January 17, 2006 11:34 AM              

Also a quick cornflake poll, if I might be so bold .....

Is anyone here willing to champion the honor of the fair Ted Kennedy?

No?

I didn't think so.

posted January 17, 2006 12:03 PM            

quote:

---

So if he wasn't there, why bomb it anyway? If they were following his movements by intercepting communications, they would have worked out that there would be a change of plan would they not? It's as yet unconfirmed that 8 or 9 terrorists died as far as I can see but please post your source if you've found otherwise and let's debate the validity of the claims.

---

Cardinalgal, are you really so intellectually dishonest that you would put forth the notion the attack went forward with the knowledge that he wasn't there?

Reports of Pakistani security forces are that 8 or more people who were not villagers were removed from the village...probably for identification purposes. So, that blows the leftists theory it was just a family gathering that got bombed.

Leftist political hacks need to get it through their thick heads that Bush won the 2000 presidential election. It's been in all the papers Cardinalgal that the NY Times in consortium with other newspapers went into Florida and recounted the votes....after 4 or so recounts, every one of which showed Bush won. Their report was also that Bush won. Nor is the nonsense true that the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth...as I pointed out when I posted the Supreme Court decision on this forum. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to devise a uniform method for determining what a valid vote would be. That uniform method was to be used statewide by every vote counter.

Yes Cardinalgal, I'm familiar with the SAS. Are you suggesting there were SAS personnel on the ground in that village in Pakistan who identified al-Queda operatives in the village or were directing the bombing attack? Are you suggesting the SAS had infiltrated the village or had infiltrated al-Queda?

That's the only construction that can be placed on your comment which was in response to:

quote:

---

How simple it would be Cardinalgal...if intelligence services had feet on the ground in terrorist conclaves. But that's not possible in the small clannish villages in rural border areas of Pakistan...and further Cardinalgal, you know that.

---

posted January 17, 2006 12:18 PM              

quote:

---

Cardinalgal, are you really so intellectually dishonest that you would put forth the notion the attack went forward with the knowledge that he wasn't there?

---

But if you're uncertain as to whether your target is in place, why do you risk civillian allies lives? It's irresponsible and unnecessary if you claim to have the level of 'intelligence' that the US military does.

quote:

---

Reports of Pakistani security forces are that 8 or more people who were not villagers were removed from the village...probably for identification purposes. So, that blows the leftists theory it was just a family gathering that got bombed.

---

Where's the evidence jwhop? Have they been named and identified from whatever was left of them? Eye witnesses who've lost relatives claim otherwise, and they can prove their loved ones are missing/dead.

It's a well documented fact (simply search the net) that the SAS are present in the area and have been since the start of the operations over there. They were in fact placed there originally during the Afghan war with the Soviet Union, training up the Afghan fighters, so I hardly think it's a stretch of the imagination to presume that some of those men went on to be trained to infiltrate terrorist groups etc.

As for your parry regarding the election results jwhop, once again I would strongly recommend you look into both bodies of evidence instead of taking your party line at face value. They really must be so proud of you for being such a good boy and taking every word they say as gospel truth. Sit doggie!

posted January 17, 2006 01:03 PM            

quote:

---

Let's see, we're going to really make them mad at us if we respond with military force.....after they've declared war on us and killed about 3,000 American civilians in a sneak attack. That right acoustic. We're really going to make them mad....really going to isolate ourselves if we don't submit to unprovoked sneak attacks on American civilians? Get your head out of your @ss acoustic.

---

We've already been through this Jwhop. It's your belief that we should just keep killing and killing until we're absolutely certain that no threat remains. As we talked about before violence begets violence. Nothing will inspire more hatred towards us, and thereby more attacks on us, then p!ssing more people off by killing the innocent in the name of the War on Terror. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out, though it's interesting to note that you've failed to.

quote:

---

When I spoke about Commander Corruption bombing the hell out of Bosnia with dumb gravity bombs and killing civilians, or blowing up a pill factory and killing civilians, or launching missile attacks against Iraq and killing civilians, I wasn't chiding Commander Corruption. I pointed out these Clinton attacks which killed civilians to show the hypocrisy of leftists who never spoke out against Commander Corruption for doing so but were wetting themselves over civilian causalities in Iraq.

---

I don't believe I knew you during Clinton's term. In fact, I know I didn't. I was in the Navy at the time without computer access.

Despite this, you're clearly not disproving what I've said. If killing happens under a Communist, Socialist, Dictator or Democrat then it's bad in your book, but under a Republican it's perfectly ok. You're not at all upset about who might have been killed, because you assume they're guilty by association.

In fact, you're demonstrating with yourself what you're trying to demonize in Democrats. You say that Democrats should have been upset at what Clinton did, as a sort of justification for being upset now with Bush. They should be consistent, right? Well, how is it that you can't show your own consistency? You're appalled by the killing under Clinton. Why can't you be appalled now? Why? You'll say it's because you feel it's justified now. We all know the real reason is that it's because it's a Republican administration.

quote:

---

Are you so hopelessly impaired intellectually that you were unable to discern I was talking about the hypocrisy of leftists or were you talking out of your @ss again and making another intellectually dishonest argument?

---

As I pointed out above, it's really your integrity and inability to be consistent on the issue of killing that is at issue. We are merely a mirror exposing your flawed logic.

quote:

---

You have that leftist disease acoustic, the disease which makes you think simply saying something is so, makes it so.

---

Oh no, I don't think that at all. Your statement was just so far out in left field I didn't think it required more of an answer than that.

quote:

---

So acoustic, this is your chance to tell us what leftists were saying before and during the war that was not, either wrong or a lie.

---

We've already been over these things, and frankly you've been beaten down to such a degree I can't believe you're even trying to make this argument.

What were we saying?

We were saying that the UN Security Council should make the decision.

We said that we should have a coalition.

We said that Bush should use diplomacy (which he is only now realizing is an option as evidenced in his recent comments about Iran).

We said that we should have real evidence.

We said that there were other priorities that were greater than Iraq at the time.

That it was too expensive a proposition, especially considering the tax cut.

Need I go on?

quote:

---

More kiddiespeak Cardinalgal?

---

Kiddy like playing cowboy, playing war, not understanding diplomacy, not playing nice with others, not being able to handle money, slaughtering the english language, not being accountable for one's actions? Oh, that's George.

posted January 17, 2006 04:11 PM              

Jan. 11, 2005:
The last man to concede...
by Sheila Samples, Scoop

Excerpt: The irregularities were so massive and widespread it took Conyers 102 pages to list them. His report, "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio," was released on January 5, and is a clear indictment of the shameful lengths to which Republicans will go to derail democracy. At the same time, in a buoyant fund-raising letter to Ohians while the votes were still being counted, Blackwell made the case that he should be elected governor in return for saving the Great Buckeye State from "an unapologetic liberal named John Kerry," and for delivering the spoils to Bush.

Dec. 15, 2004:
Proof of Ohio election fraud exposed

Excerpt: TRIAD is owned by a man named Tod Rapp, who has also donated money to both the Republican Party and the election campaign of George W. Bush. TRIAD manufactures punch-card voting systems, and also wrote the computer program that tallied the punch-card votes cast in 41 Ohio counties last November.

... A representative from TRIAD Systems came into a county board of elections office un-announced. He said he was just stopping by to see if they had any questions about the up-coming recount. He then headed into the back room where the TRIAD supplied Tabulator (a card reader and older PC with custom software) is kept. He told them there was a problem and the system had a bad battery and had "lost all of its data". He then took the computer apart and started swapping parts in and out of it and another "spare" tower type PC also in the room. He may have had spare parts in his coat as one of the BOE people moved it and remarked as to how very heavy it was. He finally re-assembled everything and said it was working but to not turn it off.

He then asked which precinct would be counted for the 3% recount test, and the one which had been selected as it had the right number of votes, was relayed to him. He then went back and did something else to the tabulator computer.

The TRIAD Systems representative suggested that since the hand count had to match the machine count exactly, and since it would be hard to memorize the several numbers which would be needed to get the count to come out exactly right, that they should post this series of numbers on the wall where they would not be noticed by observers. He suggested making them look like employee information or something similar. The people doing the hand count could then just report these numbers no matter what the actual count of the ballots revealed. This would then "match" the tabulator report for this precinct exactly. The numbers were apparently the final certified counts for the selected precinct.

Dec. 13, 2004:
See for yourself or read the transcript
Programmer's testimony before
U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Excerpt: Mr Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections? Yes.

How do you know that to be the case? Because in October of 2000 I wrote a prototype for present Congressman Tom Feeney, at the company I work for in Oviedo, Florida, that did just that.

And when you say, "Did just that," it would rig an election? It would flip the vote fifty-one forty-nine to whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win.

And would that program that you designed be something that elections officials, that might be on county boards of elections, could detect? They'd never see it.

U.S. ELECTION:
Democracy in Question
Ritt Goldstein

STOCKHOLM, Nov 18 (IPS) - John Zogby, president of the polling firm Zogby International, told IPS he has been calling it "the Armageddon election" for about a year. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader believes the Republican Party was able to "steal it before election day."

Facts suggest something went very wrong on Nov. 2.

Speculation focuses upon a number of questions -- purposeful miscounts, anomalies surrounding electronic voting (e-voting) machines, particularly the optical scan types; and numerous reports of voting "irregularities" in heavily Democratic areas.

"What they 'do' is minorities," Nader said, highlighting the thrust of Republican efforts, "and make sure that there aren't enough voting machines for the minority areas. They have to wait in line ... for hours, and most of them don't. There are all kinds of ways, and that's why I was quoted as saying, "this election was hijacked from A to Z," Nader told IPS.

From the same article…

Allegations regarding optical scan machines' potentially allowing the manipulation of Florida's vote have been widely reported. In Ohio, the Green and Libertarian parties are pursuing a recount, numerous instances of voting irregularities having been reported there.

"As far as I'm concerned, this election was clearly stolen. What they did in Ohio was systematically deny thousands of African Americans, and other suspected Democrats, the vote," charged progressive author, commentator and activist Harvey Wasserman of Franklin County, Ohio.

"It was like Mississippi in the fifties, and it was deliberate ... had there been enough (voting) machines, and had people equal access to the polls with a reliable vote count, there is no doubt that John Kerry would have carried Ohio," he told IPS.

…

"In the end, what Nader is doing in New Hampshire is the best answer. And if there's a recount in Ohio," that is also important, said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist who specialises in statistical methods, elections and public opinion.

Somewhat concerned about the possible manipulation of e-voting machines, Franklin was more concerned over "the ordinary administration of elections," citing the simple logistical problems that had plagued voters.

He pointedly noted that the last two presidential elections highlighted "how the decisions of local people (officials) ... can have a considerable influence over who gets to vote, what rules govern."
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=26346

posted January 17, 2006 04:29 PM              

quote:

---

We've already been through this Jwhop. It's your belief that we should just keep killing and killing until we're absolutely certain that no threat remains. As we talked about before violence begets violence. Nothing will inspire more hatred towards us, and thereby more attacks on us then p!ssing more people off by killing the innocent in the name of the War on Terror. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out, though it's interesting to note that you've failed to.

---

AG I applaud you! And just to illustrate your point about inspiring hatred...

"A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished. Opinion of the United States in France and Germany is at least as negative now as at the war’s conclusion, and British views are decidedly more critical. Perceptions of American unilateralism remain widespread in European and Muslim nations, and the war in Iraq has undermined America’s credibility abroad."
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

So, really winning those "hearts and minds" then! And before you bang on in your somewhat repetative school yard fashion jwhop, no doubt champing at the bit to remind me that Britain is also tarred with the same brush, let me remind you we're well used to being despised unilaterally!

This whole sorry saga has indeed cost us members of our armed forces, (many due to 'friendly fire' at the hands of your own forces,) and the lives of innocent civillians in the July 2005 bombings. It's also made quite a dent in our defence budget which considering that the majority of people in this country were against going to war without the backing of the UN security council not to mention the proof of WMD's being present, could be a gross miscalculation on the part of Blair and his cabinet in the long run. The only reason he was voted in again is because we were led to believe that Gordon Brown would be taking over from him if they were re-elected, and now we see Blair's lied about that too. But possibly the worst thing we've lost is a certain amount of self respect in trailing after your intellectually challenged president and his "shoot first and ask questions later" administration, on their bodge it and f*ck it mission around the globe, which was entered into initially because our help was requested, and obviously because we had quite rightly pledged to support you after the horror that was 9/11; support that in my opinion has been sadly misused. However our continued involvement is undertaken (we hear from leaked reports from Parliament) in an effort to perform 'damage limitations' and prevent Bush from doing anything really stupid. We're guilty by association in this matter and that is a very bitter pill to swallow; but no doubt not nearly as bitter as the aftermath of the Bush administration on American global image let alone economy. Which I think is a terrible shame; America is a vibrant and dynamic country with innovative ideas and a wonderful dream of freedom for all. It's such a shame that this particular US government has managed to wreck the progress of that with their thirst for global domination and their blinkered stupidity.

quote:

---

You have that leftist disease acoustic, the disease which makes you think simply saying something is so, makes it so.

---

In which case you must be riddled with that particular malady jwhop my dear. I wonder that anyone could be so adoring and in awe of their government that their every utterance is taken as gospel truth. The phrase "get a room" springs to mind!

posted January 20, 2006 01:07 PM            

Is this on the latest talking points directive from Carl Rove - that you try to demonize Democrats as kids?

posted January 25, 2006 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

According to congressional researchers, the last Supreme Court nominee to be approved by the committee on a party-line vote was Louis D. Brandeis in 1916. Brandeis was picked for the court by Democratic President Wilson.

---

posted January 26, 2006 11:07 AM              

How are you anyway AG?

posted January 26, 2006 06:33 PM              

I love this one - it's so ethereal and mysterious.

and also this because it reminds me of my Celtic roots in Wales