Blue Jay, I am not aware of any action taken by the Justice Dept. Please enlighten me.

Rush hasn't covered the topic in a long time eddie... so that's why blue_jay is havin' a hard time rememberin' what to think and say on the subject.

WOW you're sure witty. An action would have resulted in a suit, which btw never occured. Instead US Attorney for Western WA John McKay(D)coincidentally lost his job because he decided WA state officials had handled the invented "lost" votes for Gregoire properly.

Yeah Hannity hasn't covered it in a while too. Darn I will have to listen to Beck to Medved to see what they had to say on it.

Atleast I released the boot in my sig.

Don't give me the power of the people crap when it's a known fact that less then a third of registered voters showed for the midterms. Ok now take a winning percentage of 60% and you're still talking grasping at straws. More people cared about voting for American Idol. With a congressional approval rating in the single digits, all time lows EVAH for congress, that's a sad statement. lol

You can't honestly say there is no threat either. I thought only Ostriches burry their heads in the sand.

There are certain people, left and right, who like to argue even those points they know are wrong, merely for the fun of arguing. In this case it is not harmless fun. Repeated enough, lies become truth in the minds of the herd. People who engage in that kind of propaganda are like the brownshirts of the net. They are complicit in a small but real way, in the deaths of soldiers, and the destruction of our armed forces.

Good job Blue Jay. The Fuhrer thanks you.

If we were arguing about chum, it wouldn't be of any importance. The problem is, is that 20 million guys like him repeating the same BS over and over, made it politically possible for Bush to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way.

Their are consequences to free speech, as well as responsibilities. Forget the first, and ignore the second, and I'll be there to remind that person to think before they speak. Speaking in cliches only serves to enforce my belief that blue jay is more like a parrot.

"9-11!! USA!! FOUR MORE YEARS!!"
Don't nifty black uniforms they hired Hugo Boss to design look sharp?



http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU

You guys are way too funny. You are all so far hung up on hating Bush you've got your eyeballs appearing where your tonsils would normally be. Its shear comic relief because as I have stated, I don't agree with everything the man has done.

It's funny how the left try to belittle people from the right and sluff them off as some sort of brain washed nazi (which btw posting swastikas might offend some Jews that visit the board) whom all they do is post BS and lies. Then when the person they try to minimize doesn't bend, all the sudden the hurt and offended card gets played.

puhlease. If I wanted cry babies I would have registered at the democratic underground website.

Excellent video Irie. Spot on.


Blue Jay, saying you don't support everything Bush has done, does not change the fact you support all the materially important policies the President has pursued.






I agree that Bush had made up his mind about going in, but in order for him to execute his planned invasion he needed the support of the American public. Mouthpieces like Blue Jay helped turn the war from a potential nightmare, into a real one. Don't underestimate the power of simple internet chatter. That same chatter and gossip is repeated at home, at work, and at the bar.

A million guys spouting the same bull that BJ spouts makes an impact, especially when no one challenges the lies. A million whispers is the sound of thunder. And now because not enough people spoke out before the war, we live in a shitstorm.

The term 'facist' is overused, however with regard to the neocons who worship Bush, much as I believe BJ secretly does, it probably is an accurate description.



Taken from Wikipedia, following citations:

1 ^ Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.
2 ^ Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin’s Press. On "populism, see p. 26: "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism".
3 ^ Nolte, Ernst The Three Faces Of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism National Socialism, translated from the German by Leila Vennewitz, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965.
4 ^ Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 1-4000-4094-9
5 ^ Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press ISBN 0-299-14874-2



Sounds like right wing political correctness to me. Considering that the context the picture was posted was to show opposition to militarism, populism, and blind nationalism. If I was Jewish I'd be more worried about people who supported a Nation-State using its resources to pursue wars of aggression.

Blue water,
Do you think it wise that we ask for UN approval for doing what is in our best interest. If you think that the UN holds our best interest at heart, you are sadly mistaken. I am not saying that they are always against us, just that they are not necessarily for us. If we were attacked by another country, would you wait for UN approval. Of course not. So when Sadaam was shooting at our planes, we should have taken the 911 sympathies and just did what we felt need to be done. All this, of course, hinges on my original thought, that, we went in because Israel was pissed off. I can't prove it, but it seems reasonable to me. Yeah Israel is is more pissed off at the palestinians, but that is a different story. They are pretty much powerless unless someone like sadaam starts giving them money and weapons. And, no, Israel did not threaten to use nukes, they don't need to. What I was saying was that If Israel decides to attack an enemy, the general fear is that others will get involved. Who is the real question. Lets say Israel attacks Iraq. Jihadists from all around start joining in, probably Syria and Jordan, perhaps the Saudis - and if nukes start falling, perhaps China or Russia. I have little doubt that if it does start getting out of hand, Israel will not restrain themselves at risk of losing their country. With Israel, there is no chance the enemy will rebuild your country. As Iran has said, the goal is complete annihalation. Israel can laugh at them because they know they hold the key to complete destruction in the region, not their enemies. As long as that is the case, they feel fairly safe. The second they do not, they take steps to remedy it, as they did recently in Syria. This is the reason we care so much about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Not because they will attack us, but because they will attack Israel, or just as likely, Israel themselves will put a stop to it. We, agian, are scared to death to let Israel do it because of the potention of escalating warfare. RIght or wrong does not matter. It is what it is. Israel is not going away without turning the desert to glass. As long as the US feels it needs oil from the region, we are not going to leave.
Vince, you keep talking about the lies but not ignore my arguement that we went in for other reasons. Perhaps you feel it is so ridiculous you don't have to even address it. If so, say so. I hope that our government intelligence never gets so transparent that the American people are able to know every detail about our foreign policy. Rather, I hope we can elect officals that we trust to decipher such information and take care of problems without putting us at risk. The fact that congress has voted for the war and has not yet removed Bush may be the indication that there is more to the story then we know.

Oh yeah, and as for sneaking in weapons,
1. I was talking about chemical weapons, which I believe he did have at one time, and may have buried, shipped away, or actually destroy. Most likely he did destroy them and then waffled on whether he did or didn't to provoke us and look tough. The next best thing to having a weapon is to have people think you have it.
2. If we really wanted to find nuclear weapons, we could have slipped in parts from the supposedly missing Russian supply.

Who knows, in the end I am using a lot of hypothesis to support the war. I realize this. I also realize I probably only know a tiny portion of the true story, whatever it may be. Hopefully a lot will become more apparant by the positions the next president takes. Now it is up to us to elect a president and congress that we trust. Unfortunately, since I don't particularly trust any of the candidates, that doesn't leave me much hope that anyone else will either.

We DID go in for reasons other than what the White House told us. The misrepresentation is the Big Lie. How can we, as a representative democracy, give consent to a war when we aren't given the basic facts?

The Downing Street Memo said it plainly, intelligence is being fitted to support a policy already in place.

The UN Charter allows for a country that has been attacked to defend itself. It does not require UN security counsel approval. O'Reilly tried playing that angle, it's a lie.

The UN Charter does NOT allow for a country to start a war in order to prevent a war. But the UN has no control over the US. We are the big dog. And only we, as an informed public, can police ourselves.

VHawk

AuntyM, I'm submitting your name to Barack to take over the CIA after he takes office.

Vinnie,
Do you think American's in general know enough to give consent? Would they have ever given consent in WWII if Japan hadn't attacked us? Not trying to compare the two, but I am trying to point out that politics is not and should not be a populist thing, that's why we are a republic, not a democracy. Would it make you feel better if we said we were going in because Israel was going to and we had to fight their wars. I am sure that would have went over real well. Truth is, if it was all about misrepresentations, then we should have been able to come up with something better. I guess Bush didn't have to. The Majority of American's were willing to do anything they were told after 911 and that is the biggest problem, because it won't go away just cause Bush does.

Irie,
My father lived through all that (Grandpa was SS). And while he hasn't compared Bush to Hilter, (he is getting old and isn't following politics the same) he has often compared how America's general tendency to follow is much like Germany's. After 911 I could see how he felt that way. The scariest thing I have heard is "well , if you aren't a terrorist you don't have to worry." I always ask conservatives if they would feel the same way about the Bush's policies if a democrat was in power. That always weems to get them a little upset.

My conspiracy theory is that the entire thing was just a grand Oceans 11 type of heist. Loot two countries at once....ours and theirs.

"well , if you aren't a terrorist you don't have to worry."

Along the lines of "mind if I search your vehicle? Why not if you have nothing to hide?" OR "mind if I check your urine, hair, blood, credit, etc?"

Americans are sheep.

I think Iran as a threat has been hyped just like Saddam/Iraq as a threat was hyped. All inferance with nothing proven.

Notice it was just announced they have a new missile capable of 1,200 miles but nobody can confirm if it's even been tested. At this point there doesn't have to be a real missile. It exists politically and will be used politically against us by our Admin.

If you want people to be sheep the number one way is to make them afraid of something.

Yup those were missles that hit the twin towers...yup, yup!

One of the things that makes the least amount of sense to me is why we didn't secure our borders after 911. They were and, still are, a freakin seive.

Hitting the Taliban had the entire world behind us. People for once after 911 happened started thinking beyond their next good meal, beer oor dope, orgasm, or good movie or whatever and started to realize a lot of folks in the world really hate us.

Instead we invade Iraq, an already contained threat. It was kind of funny how at first the threat from our armed forces quickly had Libya contrite and Iran seeking to appease us. Then, when they realized we were not going to accomplish the goal of transforming the country, they became completely emboldened.

I wonder what will happen there when we finally leave. Who will fill the power vacuum? As it stands now, Iran is a likely candidate, as is Turkey, and maybe even the Saudis. None of whom really want radical islam to take over. Even the Iranian Ayatollahs were starting to act moderate until we rejected their diplomatic peace gestures?!?!.

It is just now becoming known that Iran assisted us greatly in toppling the Taliban. But, as they say, they are a state which sponsors terrorism.

BTW, even the non-Fox news stations are reporting progress in Iraq. I wonder how they measure that? One less bomb a day? It's a damn bloody, nasty civil war we stirred up.

Here's the ethics question: Now that we have, do we owe the people there some chance at establishing order, or do we just get the hell out? As far as I'm concerned there is not a damn thing over there worth a f-ing pimple on an American's ass. Shiat, we can't even get gas under 3.20 a gallon for all that invading and taking over an oil rich country was worth. At least that would have made a wrong kind of sense.