| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush: The strategist in the shadows |
| 2005-03-04 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #6 When the Left talks or refers to "WMDS", they mean the great-for-propanganda/PC NUKE WEAPONS - they could care less for Sarin or Mustard Gas or any of the biologicals no matter the definition, even if their own when a Dem is in the WH, nor how many have died from the non-nukes. Leftism > credibility achieved via propaganda, politics, and info/perceptions control, NOT DE FACTO OBJECTIVITY OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-03-04 9:49:21 PM |
| #5 Bobby : I believe you are thinking of Abu ABBAS Fox News Article from March 2004 discussing his meeting with the virgins. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-04 1:16:42 PM |
| #4 To Bush, they were a godsend. He used the neo-cons by letting them think they were steering US policy toward Iraq. Had the plan for Iraq failed, the blame could have been shifted to fall on their heads. And here is where the author displays his total ignorance of American politics. As if the President of the United States can take a mulligan by saying, "It was Paul Wolfowitz's fault." Get real. Clearly this goofball has lived in Malayasia for so long, he assumes everyone else lives by Mahathir's rules. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-03-04 11:35:06 AM |
| #3 as for this article...blah, blah blah. Just an attempt for the We The Bush Bashing Believers to reposition their failed arguments into what they consider to be coherent. These blame America First/Bash Bush guys are done, finished, kaput. The best they can hope for now is more turmoil in the middle east or an attack here at home - to prove how much wiser they were than the rest of us. If this was 1960, they'd be looking for ways to reword their arguments that they were right about segregation all along. If it was late 1800's they'd still be attempting to argue that they weren't wrong about slavery. Hey Dipwads - you are on the wrong side of history. Do yourself a favor - shut up. There is a saying, better to keep quiet and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-03-04 11:15:48 AM |
| #2 I skipped down to the conclusion about W finishing the job his father started. When a friend of mine said that, I told him it was the dumbest thing I ever heard. He was stunned into silence. 1. The much publicised WMD report (I feget the guy's name)concluded Saddam DID have WMD's in 1991 and WOULD have used them if coalition troops crossed the border. 2. The goal at the time, backed by the "much-bigger-than-this-time" coalition was to take Kuwait, not invade Iraq. Remember, there WAS a UN resolution? 3. We wouldn't KNOW that Saddam didn't have WMD's if we hadn't spent a year looking for them. The above-mentioned report said the Saddam son charged with homeland defense (Uday, Qusay, whatever)came to Daddy asking for the WMD's to repell the infidels. Saddam had EVERYONE fooled. 4. There's an article today on Rantburg suggesting while Saddam and Binny might not have been on a first-name basis, Saddam certainly did have some AQ contacts. 5. Two of the world's worst terrorists were found in Bagdahd - Abu Nidal and Abu somebody that murdered Leon Klinghoffer (one of 'em had already passed on to paradise when the troops gpot there) I grow weary.... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-03-04 11:03:21 AM |
| #1 Are accolates by an opionated moron worth anything? |
| Posted by: gromgorru 2005-03-04 10:25:41 AM |