The Lib’ral Fool
Lib’ral! Poor fool.
You need more school
To show how you’re so wrong;
While nought you know
Of why it’s so
You simply go along.
Such lies, such hate,
An evil state,
Remorse you never show.
No truth, no light,
Dark blight!
You really think you know.
I wish, I wish
We both could fish
And I could make you understand
That all is well
If you would tell
The truth upon demand.
Posted by ChinaHill on November 17th, 2007 in Commentary, Jokes |
ColonelRobertNeville Says: November 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am
Dear LAL, you’re completely right about the mental illness of the Left, Liberalism and the old Radical.
It starts at moral vanity with a bloated control freak ego and continues ad nauseum, but who wants to admit to being like that and with these narcissitic motives? Not Penn, Sarandon, Robbins, Fonda, Belafonte, Gore, Sheen, Hillary and Moore etc, etc.
So, the Leftoid adopts fraudulent poses sans any evidence of proven success, as it’s always in a mythical future, always! They’re conformist bores and phony’s at core, who can never be satisfied with the flawed human scale of reality. They’re actually offended by real individals, real life and it’s compromises, ordinary people etc, and anyone who disagrees with any of the mechanical box of random fashionable junk that is Leftism. Even other Liberals!
And they NEVER admit or apologise for ANY monstrous error, even 100 million dead under Communism, or Che the child killer Guevara love. Aah, che-mart.com.
Their true goals are complete control of the state and absolue power, to control every aspect of peoples lives, economic, intellectual, actions, you name it.
Left Liberalism etc, is merely a feeling of surging passions that mean exactly nothing but what you feel at any very urgent moment, as they see it.
It really means danger and that the person feeling this way is perhaps permanently out of control, exactly like the spoiled and immature children that they are, and have been allowed to be for so long. All courtesy of the affluent West via incredibly successful Capitalist Democracy, free markets, freedom, the free flow of ideas, (Not the MSM then!), their parents and the protection of the state by our military etc.
They are as Mark Steyn acurately described them “living in a fantasy life completely suppoerted by the sytem they despise”.
Love your site and I’d love to eb added to ya blog roll. I’ve got to blog ranking P1, been ‘Instalanched’, seem to be liked for a laugh and some insight and have been getting listed. My shabby blog is colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com
Colonel Neville.
I wish you well and hope ya dig a few of these links, plus thepeoplescube.com, drsanity.com, dissectleft.blogspot.com.
http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/09/invasion-of-body-politic-snatchers.html
http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/10/whats-left-of-mind.html
http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/09/real-soldiers-protect-toy-citizens.html
http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/07/protester-neglects-to-insult-george.html
http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-d-day-and-american-led-invasion-of_08.html
nutslikebush Says: November 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 am
Colonel Neville,
Your over-the-top type of rhetoric is the main problem that is driving a wedge between our fellow countrymen. Instead of talking about real issues you take the low road; exaggerating about your imaginary opponent, creating straw men to fight (real dragons they must seem like to your imagination), and conflating the extremes of socialism and communism with American liberalism. Come on, you know good and well that liberals are as anticommunist as conservatives are. Didn’t you get the memo? Communism is banned! Liberals in America are free market capitalists, the opposite of socialists and communists. Some of the most successful free market capitalists to ever live are liberals. So you are describing two completely different species when you mention communists and American liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends and plenty of conservative friends. In truth, American liberals are not appreciably different from conservatives. It like Florida fans versus Florida State fans, only the die hards imagine there is any significant difference between the two. Communists and American liberals are as far away from each other on the political spectrum as conservatives and communists are. The best members of each group are motivated by noble and rational aims. The worst are just jerks who want to stir up shit like a bunch of soccer hooligans.
What we really need is good non-partisan problem-solving. Lord knows the challenges that we face will take all of our best efforts and sacrifices. So stop hating and fueling stupid pointless fights and start working toward goals that you can be proud of.
ChinaHill Says: November 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Nutslikebush.
Pretty bipartisan aren’t you? Did you also call Bush a Hitler? How about those Dan Rather forged military documents? Did you rejoice in the “proof” that Bush failed to complete his military obligations? Bet you also believed it when the liberal media stated that 255,000 (or was it 177,000) items had been looted from the Baghdad Museum because of Bush. Oh, and don’t forget the plastic turkey that Bush served to the troops that Thanksgiving day in Iraq. Did you believe that it too was fake, just like the Bush presidency? Shall I go through each of the more than 500 blatant, “bipartisan problem solving” lies that those on the left have constantly spewed out about Bush and company? Your words are nice but your chosen name gives you away. You liberals are not interested in anything but discrediting a wartime president.
Modern liberalism is not the liberalism that seeks bipartisonship. Be honest, you hate Bush as much as all the other “bipartison liberals” all over America. Hatred does not begat bipartisanship of any kind. Why, you say, he lied and manipulated all that intelligence so we could go to war and get all that Iraqi oil, right? Bet you even bought into the liberal lie that Saddam was not financing and supporting international terrorism eventhough everyone in the Clinton administration had stated throughout the 90s that he was? Very bipartison of you “nutslikebush.”
Your statements, especially when associated with your chosen name, is worthy of this website _ Laughing at Liberals.
I most certainly did!
nutslikebush Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 am
ChinaHill,
I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability, which is limited. I don’t recall ever calling anyone Hitler, except Hitler. As for the Dan Rather issue, I don’t think that anyone thinks that Dan Rather forged any documents - he failed to validate the authenticity of the documents that were presented on the 60 minutes show and in subsequent evening news broadcasts. I didn’t celebrate either way, if that makes you happy. Much of the other stuff you mentioned is news to me, never heard a single word of most of it until you mentioned them. I don’t hate Bush. I do think he has been well-intentioned but was working from a theoretical framework that didn’t match the facts of real life. It would be hard to argue with that view, given the outcomes of things. I think virtually everyone now agrees that the point of the Iraq war was to establish a foot print in the middle east that would help to ensure that we have long-term access to a major supply of oil in the middle east. You don’t believe that? I think it was well established that Saddam payed Palestinian families of suicide terrorists who attacked Israel. I also believe that Saddam was involved in a plan to kill Bush Sr, for which Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq (Clinton bombed Iraq monthly for 8 years). I am not thrilled that Clinton bombed countries without consulting congress.
Does this help?
What positive goal do you hope to accomplish by attacking people who you call Liberal? It seems to me that we live in a world in which Arabs think that Americans are evil, and vice versa; conservatives thing liberals are evil, and vice versa; State fans think Carolina fans are evil, and vice versa. So once we all decide that our opponents/enemies are evil, what next? All that is left to do is kill them, right? Well that is a losing strategy if you ask me. Perhaps we could begin by shaking loose our crazy biases and misconceptions that we have about each other and attempt to genuinely understand what is right about each other’s views of the world and work from there.
Finally, I agree with you that my moniker is an unfortunately one given that I want to promote non-partisan attitudes. But I have posted here under this pseudonym for several years and I don’t want to change it again (I have had four or five other identities here in the past), and I have always liked its double-entendre.
ChinaHill Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Nutslikebush
Suggest you do a Google search using “baghdad museum looting Bush” for the Baghdad Museum “bipartisan problem solving” issue.
Search “turkey iraq thanksgiving Bush” for the fake turkey “bipartisan problem solving” issue
Dan Rather presented the “forged documents” as authentic. We do not know if he knew they were forged are not. We do know they were, indeed, forged so they are his, they became his the moment he presented them as authentic to the public.
Do you still believe that Bush “stole” the election in 2000 in election, that he is a “selected president” rather than an elected president? If so, then how can you continue to preach “bipartisanship” believing that the evil conservatives cheated your man, Gore, out of the presidency?
If you have doubts about who is calling Bush, a Hitler, then suggest you do another “bipartisan problem solving” search on the internet using the terms “Bush Hitler.” Count the number of liberal websites which hold this view including some very prominent “liberal bipartisan” leaders.
Funny how you deny knowing anything about many of the things which I brought up (yes I continue to laugh at liberals). May I assume that you live in the United States where you have full access to all the news outlets 24 hours a day? How could this disparity on our individual knowledge bases have occurred since I have lived in Southeast Asia and China for the last 16 years where news is not such an available commodity?
You write as if we conservatives have no reason to be “laughing at liberals” and you liberals are working so hard to establish such a “bipartisan problem solving” agenda throughout America. FYI, here is just a small list of the “problem solving” statements made by liberals in the mainstream press over the last six years or so:
Joe Wilson did not lie
Vallery Plame did not commit perjury in her testimony before the liberals
Bush lied and manipulated the intel
Palestinian suicide bombers are not terrorists
Bush is both a moron and a coward
Islamofascists are actually freedom fighters
Iraqis did not vote for democracy
Iraqis do not deserve democracy
American harbors an evil society
America is not based on Judeo-Christian principles
Libby was convicted of leaking Plame’s identity
Plame was a covert agent working at Langley
The Abramoff scandal only touched Republicans
There is currently a civil war going on in Iraq
Liberals support the troops
Taxing income increases economic growth
Tax-cutting decreases economic growth
Hugo Chavez is a democrat
Canadian socialism works well
Bush is the worst president in history
Michael Moores documentaries are all based on researched facts
The Saudis got special permission to fly out after 911
911 was an inside job
Clinton had nothing to do with the policy of regime change in Iraq
The Iraqis were all sorry to see Saddam go
Bill Clinton never lied under oath
Lying about sex under oath is ok as everyone does it
Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski
No liberal ever said that Saddam was a threat
No liberal ever said that Saddam had WMDs and used them before
The 2001, 2002, and 2003 NIEs prove Bush lied
John Kerry was in Cambodia while serving in the Vietnam War
John Kerry has released his military records already
The Swift Boat group spread lies about John Kerry
The invasion of Iraq is the biggest fiasco by western military forces
Tax dollars do not belong to the people but belong to liberals in Congress
Liberals are tolerant people
Bush and his administration murders innocent people in Iraq
One is always guilty until proven innocent, ask Congressman Murtha
The Constitution is a living, breathing document and thus can be changed to establish a socialist state in its place
America was not established as a capitalist nation
Capitalism is evil
Big business is evil
Bush is the greatest danger to world peace
Libby was charged with covering up for Cheney
Cheney will make 2 million a year from the war in Iraq
Bush had a hand in the Enron fiasco
Bush was in the oil business before he became governor of Texas
Being governor of Texas is a meaningless job
Only losers and uneducated join the military
Military people are all stupid for being in the military
The Iraqis all hate us
The MSM is not liberal
The Iraq war is the same as the Vietnam war
Democrats believe in bipartisanship
I have a lot more where these came from and I will be glad to share each and every one with you along with the sources.
Do I think that all liberals are “evil?” No. My brother in Oklahoma is a bigtime liberal and I know he is not evil. Do I think that liberalism is an evil philosophy? Absolutely. How else can you explain the above “problem solving bipartisan” statements made by your fellow liberals and then you and my brother refusing to refute them for what they are - lies? What would happen to you if you publically refuted any of the lies above? Your fellow liberals would not be so tolerant of your views, now, would they?
Positive goals, you ask? My goal in this forum is to laugh at liberals and their lies. If one tells a lie loud enough and long enough it then becomes “the truth” in the minds of many people. Refuting lies and laughing at liberals, for me, serves the very idealistic purpose of telling the truth.
The liberals I know, have no interest in working for the common good of all of us Americans. They are only interested in forcing their agenda on us all because they are convinced that it is the correct agenda without regard to its consequences. The political correctness BS is just one tiny issue which convinces me that this is the case. Liberals simply are not tolerant of others’ views and, in fact, honestly believe that anyone who does not believe the same as them are “evil, undeducated podunkers.”
Once more, your monicker speaks louder than anything you could have written. Notice the colonels monicker and my monicker. Do you see anything about liberals in it?
Yes, I continue to love this site which allows me to laugh at liberals for good reason.
nutslikebush Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
ChinaHill,
But the real problem is that I, or anyone else who took a moment to do it, could generate an equally absurd list of crazy stupid shit that conservatives say about liberal politicians and officials (remember when Clinton was president and the mountains of crap that was made up about him? Or the Swift Boat lies made up about Kerry, etc.). But what would the point be? To prove the obvious, that stupid people exist equally on both sides. The question is, what can you do to repair the damage that has, and is, being done by partisanship? In a way, you are making my point when you bring out these laundry lists of misdeeds. Of course people lie about their political opponents. That’s why you can’t trust partisan radio, TV, or political advertisements for either side, right? Surely you don’t think that conservatives are less guilty of this nonsense than liberals are. Both sides have proponents who are liars and proponents who are honest good people.
nutslikebush Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I have to say, ChinaHill, not a single liberal that I personally know even remotely fits the description you give of liberals. So, either my liberal friends are unusual or you beliefs about liberals are inaccurate. Perhaps you need to befriend different liberals than the ones you currently spend your time with. I’d say that my group of friends and family members with whom I spend most of my time are pretty evenly divided (half are liberal and half are conservative) and there really isn’t much difference between them when you really get down to it.
nutslikebush Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
And, ChinaHill, plenty of conservatives don’t like Bush any more. So I don’t consider not being a Bush fan much of a partisan issue any more.
The Other Side Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
one could exchange conservatives for liberals in chinahill’s last post. its interesting to see a conservative thinking about liberals similar to what i think about conservatives. except the lies that liberals may have spread pale in comparison to the lies of the current administration.
bush stole the 2000 election (voter disenfranchisement of blacks and unreasonable voter purging). all of the irregularities that surrounded that election makes it hard to believe that bush won fairly.
could any of the conservatives on this site see where liberals are coming from on their beliefs? from what people have posted i would guess no. no matter what any liberal says, the conservatives on this site refute the liberal with character assasination and hate-based rhetoric. there’s no wonder why chinahill thinks political correctness is bs.
democrats passed schip with bipartisan support. the bill that congress overrode the veto for was bipartisan. republicans in the senate filibuster more than any other minority ever, bush vetoes many bills with no logical rationale. the reason why democrats cannot pass anything is because of conservatives. republicans lost the election and need to realize that they cannot get there way on everything anymore.
i understand that chinahill may laugh at liberals (it was mentioned many times). but i cannot laugh at conservatives because what they’re doing is having grave consequences to america domestically and abroad.
ChinaHill Says: November 24th, 2007 at 4:36 am
“(remember when Clinton was president and the mountains of crap that was made up about him? Or the Swift Boat lies made up about Kerry, etc.)”
There is currently a one million dollar challenge for Kerry to disprove your “Swift Boat lies” and according to press reports, Kerry has accepted the challenge. Too bad it will only prove what the rest of us “grave consequences to america” conservatives already know - Swiftboaters were telling the truth. But notice you called them liars and provided no evidence or proof. Kerry will have the same problem as he has yet to release his full military records to the public. IMHO, he simply will not do this as it may show that he received a “less than honorable” discharge for negotiating illegally with the enemy in his Paris trip and consulations with the North Vietnamese. This is not a lie, it is an opinion.
You did in your comments what my brother does all the time. Make allegations and then goes, what I call, “stone cold silent” when I ask for the evidence. You stated “except the lies that liberals may have spread pale in comparison to the lies of the current administration,” but you did not provide any evidence. No evidence for this current administration being anymore corrupt than any other. In fact, let’s count how many indictments and convictions this administration has had against it as compared to say, the Clinton administration which promised us to have the most “ethical in history.” Shall we do that mr. nutslikebush or will you concede that the Bush administration has had only one person indicted and one person convicted of anything unethical. Dare you count the number of indictments and the number of convictions during the Clinton years.
There-in lies the difference between the conservatives, as I see them, and the liberals. Liberal will lie about conservatives and follow these lies up with “stone cold silence.” The ends justify the means to liberals where lying is not that big of deal as long as they gain the power they are after. Conservatives make statements about liberals and provide the proof for why they made the statements. Right or wrong, at least one knows why conservatives believe what they believe.
Now to all those crazy and dishonest things that we conservatives said about Clinton. You seem to think that he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” You also seem to think that the other things he was “busted” for were made up by us conservatives just so we could “attack” him with our lies. This is not to say that there were ridiculous stuff being said, but mainstream conservatives did not buy into these stupid allegations but did see Clinton for what he was - “the most personally immoral man ever to sit in the oval office.” And, of course, I will be glad to repeat the true statements we made about Clinton and back each and every one of them up with factual data and the historical/public record.
You simply are not capable of doing that, even with the statement you made in one of your comments - “bush stole the 2000 election (voter disenfranchisement of blacks and unreasonable voter purging). all of the irregularities that surrounded that election makes it hard to believe that bush won fairly.” There was no voter disenfranchisement of anyone nor was there unreasonable voter purging as you state. Both have been proven to be patently false and made up by the liberals involved. Please provide factual data to the contrary and not hacks repeating the same tired lies. What irregularities are you talking about? In every recount, Bush came out on top. I repeat this carefully so you will not misunderstand - in every single recount, Bush won the election.
I guess I truly proved my point about your desire to have bipartisanship as being just more pretty words from the lips of a typical liberal. How do you expect us conservatives to believe you when you “believe” (without proof) that Bush stole the election? You have just contradicted what you tried to palm-off on us as your bipartisan stand. Does this not at least open your eyes to why we conservative feel that your liberalism goes against the very core of American values? Lying comes natural to people who have fallen victim to modern-day liberalism. I do believe that you lied about your desire for bipartisanship. Correct me if I am wrong, but how can you possibly desire bipartisanship with evil conservatives who pose “grave consequences to america domestically and abroad?” Does not this constitute a lie?
It should be obvious now why I and most conservatives “laugh at liberals..”
ChinaHill Says: November 24th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Refuting liberals by factual data is not now nor ever will be “character assasination.” I have, for the last thirty years, discussed, argued, chided, slammed and visited with my liberal brother about that which you seem to think us conservatives do not understand. I understand fully the political ideology of modern-day liberalism. I also know fully its history and development as an ideology based on Marxism and Stalinism.
I have also spent over twenty-years as an intelligence officer in the US military in most of the most secret organizations on the planet observing what the idiology has offered the world - disaster after disaster in the form of human suffering.
No, I do not believe that the recitation of factual data can be considered character assasination. I did not assasinate your character when I called you on your “bipartisanship” BS. I simply pointed out the factual data.
ChinaHill Says: November 24th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Refuting liberals by factual data is not now nor ever will be “character assasination.” I have, for the last thirty years, discussed, argued, chided, slammed and visited with my liberal brother about that which you seem to think us conservatives do not understand. I understand fully the political ideology of modern-day liberalism. I also know fully its history and development as an ideology based on Marxism and Stalinism.
I have also spent over twenty-years as an intelligence officer in the US military in one of the most secret organizations on the planet observing what your idiology has offered the world - disaster after disaster in the form of human suffering.
No, I do not believe that the recitation of factual data can be considered character assasination. I did not assasinate your character when I called you on your “bipartisanship” BS. I simply pointed out the factual data.
nutslikebush Says: November 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
ChinaHill,
As you undoubtedly know, many (or most) of the items in your list were neither “true” no fair things to say. It is especially untrue to claim that American liberals favor Marxism or Staliinsm any more than conservatives do. Can you see Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs (all liberals) touting.
Look back at all of the things that you accuse me of in your posts. And then look at what I said. You put plenty of words in my mouth that I did not say. When you forget to pay attention to what people are saying, you can just make up your own straw men to attack. But how does that help you? How does it help anyone?
I do have a question from your list. You said that the Iraq war is not a civil war. Can you elaborate?
You also said that liberals believe that capitalism is evil. Why is it that many of the most successful capitalists to ever live are liberal then?
Let’s just start with those two because each one of the items on your list will take months to work through, I am sure.
Take a deep breath and clear the anger from your noggin and let’s think through these all the way down to their cores.
also, when you get a chance check out http://www.dancarlin.com and listen to the Common Sense podcast. Let us know what you think of it.
nutslikebush Says: November 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
LAL Pals,
I stumbled across this fantastic podcast on Reinhold Niebuhr and I think he could be the prototype for what I would like to see us do. Please listen to this podcast for an introduction to his thinking (if you don’t already know who he was). I look forward to hearing what you all think of his ideas.
speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/niebuhr-rediscovered/index.shtml
The Other Side Says: November 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“Lying comes natural to people who have fallen victim to modern-day liberalism.” i think calling someone a liar over and over is character assasination. i never said being called bipartisan is character assasination.
bush’s administration:
-lied about the prescence of wmds in iraq, colin powell’s address to the un
-lied about iraq’s connection to al-queda, false intelligence about a meeting in prague
-illegally spied on americans communications without consulting the fisa courts which is blatantly illegal. the fisa courts were implemented to prevent illegal wiretapping
-his administration played a part in the outing of valerie plame (look at what mcclelen said in his book), armatige admits to leaking the name. leaking a covert agent’s name is dangerous to national security
-uses executive privelege for issues not relating to national security, sara taylor can say some things while testifying before congress but when pressed, hides behind executive privilege. rove and miers have refused to testify even after being sopenoed because of executive privelege
-the purging lists for the 2000 election were so broad that it removed non-felons and felons from other states from eligible voters and forced people to prove their right to vote (were the recounts statewide or in specific counties?). but the absentee ballots were all counted even though some were sent too late, against florida voting laws
-many african americans were turned away from the voting stations because they didn’t have two sources of identification and they only needed one
-the us has used waterboarding to torture terror suspects which goes against the geneva conventions (khalid sheik mohammad), mukasy cannot even say if waterboarding is illegal
-clinton lied to congress because republicans were on a witch hunt for impeachment. its amazing to see republicans cry foul when impeachment of cheney and bush are mentioned.
-he has used many signing statements, “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office…” Boston Globe, 04-30-06
-bush has expanded the role of the executive branch further that it should be.
does stone cold silent mean that i didn’t reply five minutes after the post showed up? both sides lie, thats unfortunatly part of politics. but not everything that liberals say is a lie just like not everything conservatives say is a lie.
and the dude that made the wager about the swiftboating is changing the rules and making kerry release his military records first. but that shouldn’t be needed because the wager was about proving the swift boat statements false. dude doesn’t sound so confident now.
nutslikebush Says: November 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Here is the most objective analysis of Kerry’s war record, and the accusations by the SBVT against Kerry, that I have found..
factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
ChinaHill Says: November 25th, 2007 at 2:35 am
You should have remained “stone cold silent.” By your definition of “lying” then the following liberals lied as well. But then maybe you were just expressing an opinion which you are most welcomed to express.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Must I go through your whole “opinions” about the Bush lies to show you that they are opinions and simply cannot be backed up by evidence? I think you can do the research on the internet to show why we conservatives laught at you liberals over your “litany of lies” argument. It is your opinion that Bush is a liar. Fine. Great. But just because you think he is a liar, does not make it so. The evidence can be presented to prove either side (no real major WMDS found in Iraq), depending on what your biases are. But then, maybe Clinton really did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, afterall!
AS to your allegations of what happened in Florida, no black or minority voter ever came forward nor was there any proof provided that minorities were stopped from voting in Florida. You did not do your homework and like all liberals, you take for granted that if a liberal states something it must be true.
Only one black lady was stopped for a minor traffic violation, treated with respect and continued on her way. Sharpton, Jackson and all the other Dems running to Florida to prove what you are saying could not find a single minority voter with a story like you just stated. It was made up - a total complete fabrication by the vultures who went to Florida. Please find one minority who can prove they were stopped on their way to vote.
What you liberals overlooked is what happened in 2002 in the off year elections. Jeb Bush won over 60% of the vote for reelection and Republicans were elected throughout the state. This, eventhough, a bunch of you liberals were down in Florida actively working to show that Bush was selected not elected. This, eventhough, there were hundreds of thousands of minority voters disenfranchised. Me thinks not!
Evidence means facts. Not opinions. At least be honest with your homework and admit that what you wrote as “lies” is nothing more than regurgitated liberal talking points from the DNC - opinions. You “believe” that events happened as described by the DNC. Evidence says something totally different.
As to the NSA thing, you simply are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. The target of these intercepts are overseas known terrorists who are calling their buddies in the US to set up financial transactions or terrorists activities (amazing how this little tidbit of information never gets printed in your list of lies). That has always been and will always be legal. Ask Clinton and ask Carter. They did exactly the same thing. Best leave this area alone completely unless you want to get into some really heavy stuff you are totally clueless about. If it was so illegal, why did Congress allow it to continue when they had the chance to stop it. Your Congressional Dems know it was not illegal. It was only brought up for one purpose - politics of personal destruction or Bush bashing. It simply is not illegal to intercept terrorist communications originating overseas. Look it up. It also explains why no liberal congressman would dare try to impeach Bush on this issue. Firstly, it is absolutely legal and it is exactly why NSA exists. Secondly, over 70 of all American approve of monitoring overseas terrorists no matter who they call. Stone cold silence would have served you well, especially on this issue.
Do I need to go and show you where you are totally wrong in your list of alleged lies or at least may have been a bit biased in your conclusions? I certainly will be happy to as the evidence is overwhelmingly against your list. Will it make a difference in your thinking? Will it be a waste of time since you already KNOW that Bush is a liar. I know this thought has never occurred to you, but you just may be a tad bit biased in your thinking.
If you are anything like my brother, not one little difference will it make. Your mind is made up, like every liberal I have ever met, and you are simply not interested in the facts nor are you interested in why folks disagree with you since you know “in your heart of hearts” that you and ony you are correct.
As to the Colin Powell testimony, are you trying to say that he fabricated the NSA intercepts of Saddam people removing evidence prior to a UN inspection? Again, the intelligence we had on Saddam as seen by the 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 NIEs stated the same thing - WMDs were in Iraq. Duhhh, guess where the President gets his information to make decisions from? One of two things happened: our intelligence and that of the whole free world were totally and embarrassingly wrong or Saddam moved them. That is the ony choices we have. You have obviously taken the former (which is fine by me) while I and many of my fellow conservatives would prefer the latter (which is not so fine by you and others of your persuasion).
Who is right? Certainly a normal functioning brain, especially of an American, would not call either of us a liar. But then you did call Bush a liar over this situation, didn’t you?
Let me know if I need to destroy anymore of your “legacy of Bush lies.” I have been doing it for years with my brother and like him, you will most definitely end up “stone cold silent” on the evidence you will receive. Do I expect to change your mind? No. Will not happen with a liberal. I do expect to knock some of your hatred out and some of your arrogance and show you that we conservatives believe the way we do based on logical reasoning. We have good reason to be laughing at you liberals.
As to the swiftboat thing, I did the research when it was going on and I am most definitely confident. I would like to see Kerry’s records be released to the public. That would pretty well shut his mouth as to his military experience. The Swiftboaters did not lie. Count how many backed Kerry and how many did not. That in itself speaks volumes about Kerry, the military “hero.”
ChinaHill Says: November 25th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Iraq and a civil war.
My opinions about a civil war in Iraq is based on my two-year conversations with an Iraqi professor of accounting at Assumption University in Thailand. He is from Babylon and talks with his family in Iraq at least four times a week. He was the one who stated that the events in Iraq was not a civil war. His reasoning was very simple. Shiites make up 75% to 80% of the population of Iraq with around 10 - 15% Sunni and another 5% Kurds in the north. A true civil war between Sunnes and Shiites would last no more than three days. The Shiites know who the Sunnis are, where they live and their tribal connections. Three days and there would be no more Sunnis living in Iraq. That has not happened and he promised to let me know when it begins. He did not think it would happen as many of the Sunnis are good honest peope and his Shiite brethren know this to be true. I simply buy his logic and repeat his logic. He has never been wrong on anything he has told me about Iraq. I trust him fully. And current events in Iraq prove him to be correct once more.
As to the Plame Game, suggest you research who Armitage is and what the definition of a covert agent is. Plame was not a covert agent as she was working at Langley in “plain view.” To state (once more without evidence to back it up) that the Bush administration had a hand in it is the same as lying. Armitage is not now nor has ever been a friend of the Bush administration. He is a State Department type and State Department types are not exactly the finest conservatives around. I say this from personal experience in dealing with these “professionals.” There is simply enough evidence to support both sides of this question that it comes down to a persons biases and not factual data. But then my brother also refuses to give the benefit of the doubt to any of us “evil conservatives.”
I did read the transcript of Plame’s testimony before Congress and she most definitely lied when she denied having anything to do with her husband going to Niger. Her husband, BTW, has been called a liar by most of the MSM.
Whether you buy into Marxism or Stalinism has nothing to do with the roots of modern liberalism. I did not call you a Marxist nor did I call you a Stalinist. But your chosen political idiology has its roots and shares common beliefs with what Marxists believe (not the same as the way they govern). Just as the modern conservative movement in America has its roots in Greek and Roman political “republican” idiology. Ask yourself what you thought when Chavez was elected president in Venezuala. He is most definitely a Marxist. My brother thought it was the next best thing to “sliced bread.”
Am I attacking you? Absolutely not. Am I questioning the logic of your political ideology? Absolutely. Am I laughing at the nonsense you continue to write in your comments? Absolutely. Your are just repeating the DNC talking points that are tired and worn out.
The concept of executive privilege that you brought up also made me laugh. Shall we see how Clinton used this privilege and then compare Bush’s use with his? What, you agree with Clinton’s use but not with Bush’s use when they are almost identical? Me thinks you have a serious “hate” problem going on here. But then, you have admitted that you hate bush by calling him a liar (without any actual evidence) and you did say he was evil as I recall for what he has done domestically and internationally.
Are you really capable of reasoned debate?
ChinaHill Says: November 25th, 2007 at 3:30 am
More on the NSA monitoring of our terrorists enemies:
From a law professor at George Washington University
I’d like to see the name of one senior Democrat that has even called for the NSA to stop its monitoring program. If the Democrats, were somehow to take back Congress, which is not unthinkable (I’m thinking of voting against my own GOP congressman because he voted against ANWR), they wouldn’t have the fortitude to vote for articles of impeachment based on a program that is favored by a vast majority of American opinion. Especially a program that has not been declared illegal by any court. Nor is there any court opinion that anyone has yet cited that comes close to saying that the NSA program is illegal, even taking the most unfavorable assumption of the yet unreleased details. The simple fact is no that court has ever ruled that the President needs a warrant to conduct Foreign intelligence surveilence of any kind. And I’d be willing to bet that this Supreme court (or most any other) would avoid taking any such case by at least 7-2.
Now the problem that this brings up for liberals, if what this professor states is true, is calling Bush evil and a liar for doing his job. Conducting foreign intelligence surveillence definitely is the job of the executive as is all areas of foreign policy.
Would any of you liberals like to try to convince us conservatives that the noise you made over this issue has nothing to do with the legality of the issue but has eveything to do with politics and undermining a wartime president? You spoke not when Clinton did it. You spoke not when Carter did it. Only when Bush is doing it. Again, laughing at liberals, for me, is most appropriate!
nutslikebush Says: November 25th, 2007 at 4:27 am
ChinaHill,
I have a confession to make. When you first listed the “sins” of the democrats a few posts back, I didn’t really read through the list because I didn’t really want to argue with you (I suspect it would be pointless and lead to nothing productive). But I am perplexed by some of you items, now that I look at it. For instance, you claim that Valerie Wilson wasn’t covert. So I need for you to clarify something for me (seriously, help me out here). Why did the CIA as the Department of Justice to investigate the leak of her identity? And why did Fitzgerald, Congress, and the CIA all report that she was indeed a covert agent.
Finally, why do intelligence operative, such as yourself keep showing up on this site? You are the fourth one in just a few months to start posting here. I am surprised that this site is such a magnet for military intel people.
nutslikebush Says: November 25th, 2007 at 4:30 am
ChinaHill,
I just heard Powell say that the intel on Iraq WMD was wrong. I personally know David Kay and he says it was wrong and that Iraq simply did not have WMD prior to the second Iraq invasion or after they were destroyed post Gulf War I. Show me where Powell said they had them and got rid of them. I think you are making that up but I will be happy to change my mind if you can show me data that is real.
nutslikebush Says: November 25th, 2007 at 4:33 am
ChinaHill,
In case you forgot who David Kay is -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160842,00.html
nutslikebush Says: November 25th, 2007 at 5:01 am
ChinaHill,
How could you possibly know that the swiftboaters did not lie? Even to say that is to demonstrate a strong bias toward hoping against hope that they are telling the truth. But based on the known facts of the situation, it would seem impossible to reach that conclusion. At best you could say it is the word of the SBVT (who, if you really look into it, were not present during any of the events they dispute. One of them was 700 yards away during one of the fire fights but the rest just heard things second or third hand but were not eyewitnesses. The main one recanted and said he didn’t really know what happened) dispute the official documents of the US Navy. But Kerry had actualy eyewitnesses supporting his account whereas the SBVT had none. You can look that one up and you will see that I am spot on with the facts on that one ChinaHill. I am not saying that Kerry’s account was necessarily accurate. But it seems at least as plausible as the SBVY stories. You seem to think that facts are whatever you want them to be. But I have been dealing with people exactly like you on this site for 4 years. You won’t be here long. Your type shows up, sprinkle the place with your magic fairy dust (which sounds exactly the same each time you clones show up here. Same exact talking points. Where do you guys find this stuff?) and then move on to a site where you can blow smoke without being challenged.
nutslikebush Says: November 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
ChinaHill,
You should be able to see just from the exchanges that the way to win an argument about what is right and what is wrong is not to merely show that your opponent’s party was wrong without demonstrating that your party was right. That is why a non-partisan approach suits me better, because I can certainly see that both parties are wrong on many of the same issues (the war in Iraq prior to the invasion, for example) and right on some of the same issues (it made sense to attack al qaeda in Afghanistan and would have been ok with me to pursue them into Pakistan and beyond). But when your opponent is wrong you aren’t necessarily right. So attacking them doesn’t help defend your own party. Better not to have a party at all so you aren’t in a position of having to ignore their misdeeds and focus on the misdeeds of just one party. I am equally irritated by both party’s shortcomings and excited by some ideas and people from both parties. But I don’t see how anyone can turn a blind eye to either party’s mistakes. I voted for Bush in 2000 (but not 2004) and I may vote for a republican in the next presidential election, but I am not blind to the major mistakes and betrayals of this republican president and his administration.
nutslikebush Says: November 25th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
ChinaHill,
First of all, you seem to be confusing what I say with what other posters (e.g., the other side) are saying. If you can’t keep us straight you will get really tangled up here at this site.
Interestingly, my Iraqi friends who still have family in Iraq are Shiites too. But they most definitely hold the view that they are in the midst of a low-level civil war (so does Colin Powell see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ngPtp7wbA) and just about every other expert on the topic.
As for Plame/Wilson, it was cute of you to suggest I look up Armitage. Do you think I live under a rock. I knew who Armitage was in 1990 and everyone knew that he was one of the leakers the day he confessed. But there were other leakers too who were using the leak to attempt to undercut Joe Wilson’s criticism of the Niger yellow cake claim. As for Valerie’s covert status, the CIA says she was covert and initiated the DOJ investigation. Wilson herself testified under oath before congress that she was covert (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1HYrs6RoMEE&feature=related). Patrick Fitzgerald released unclassified documents confirming that she was covert at the time of the leak. The unclassified summary of Plame’s employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, “Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”
Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, “engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business.” The report says, “she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times.” When overseas Plame traveled undercover, “sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.”
I remember when Joe Wilson personally meet with Saddam after the Kuwait invasion and told him he had to get out. Later he faced down Saddam who threatened to kill the US embassy employees and diplomats at the start of Gulf War I and Wilson won the release of those people, at great personal risk to himself. Bush I introduced him to his cabinet as a “true American hero.” I was pretty impressed by Joe Wilson in 1990. He served our country and was undoubted heavily involved in intelligence gathering in many countries for many years, especially in the middle east and Africa. What if he just couldn’t stand to see our country taken into a war on the basis of information that he knew full well was false? What else would an honest man do? Do you call him a liar because he has the courage to do what is right?
I am not sure if you were talking about me or The Other Side when you concluded by saying that my ideology is Marxist/Stalinist. But in either case, that is just crazy and so far off the mark that it makes you sound silly. How can you possibly think that you know anything about my ideology? Perhaps you are letting your assumptions wander too freely.
I don’t think that anyone believes that NSA surveillance is a problem as long as the law is being followed and the NSA get FISA court orders to do it. But if the law is being broken, that is a problem, isn’t it? I would just like to be assured that the administration hasn’t decided that they are above the law because I am not ready to give up my constitutional rights just yet and live like they did in the Soviet Union KBG state. If we give up our rights and freedom by dismantling the constitution, the terrorists win.
Dan Says: November 26th, 2007 at 1:43 am
ChinaHill,
I’m glad someone finally appeared on this site he knows what he’s talking about and supporting the truth along with factual evidence. Thank you very much for that, but unfortunately, as zealous as your effort here may be, nothing can be done to educate a liberal with the proper knowledge that the person has been deprived of by the liberal media all these years. It seems like nutslikebush is getting on your case quickly already, and he, along with plenty of other liberals, will in many cases find a certain sentence or phrase in your posts, and take it directly out of context, mabye tweak it alittle bit, examine it some more, and repoduce it to his complete and total satisfaction, and leaving you with questions that you argue over and over with them, but eventually you get tired of it because of how much they can babble over and over about the same false issue with which even if you show proof, they will still refute it and always find a way to disprove yourself. I actually just laughed because of how true it is. But, in any case, as much as I love this site, it is swarming with “Bush haters”.
nutslikebush Says: November 26th, 2007 at 2:08 am
ChinaHill,
You will want to watch this.
charlierose.com/shows/2007/10/31/2/a-conversation-with-valerie-plame-wilson
ChinaHill Says: November 26th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Ok Mr. Nutslikebush, let’s begin with your comments of 4:30 am concerning Powell and is presentation at the UN. He presented a transcript from intercepts of an Iraqi unit preparing for a UN visit. The translation was that they were taking stuff out the back door, stuff that was illegal to have (logically inferred by them hiding it from the UN inspectors). The point I brought up and asked you about was the veracity of that intercept. Did the US government just make it up or was it really an intercept of the communications that took place at a specific place and time? Powell never said that the intercept was made up or a fake intercept. He made his statement after the invasion and when it was obvious that Iraq did not have the WMDs that our intelligence and the free world’s intelligence thought it had. You obvious believe (and for very good reason) then that Iraq did not have the WMDs since we did not find it. I have accepted this as a reasonable position to take. No arguments from me there. What I laugh about it how quickly you translate this argument into an argument that Bush, therefore, lied about the WMDs.
Lying means that someone knew the truth and either covered it up or blatantly made a false statement knowing within that his statements were lies. This is exactly what you liberals stated, upfront and ugly, about the president of the United States. By taking the known intelligence and then making a decision based on the best intelligence and in good faith to protect our allies and Americans, cannot possibly be called “lying.” Yet go back and read every MSM in the country and listen to every liberal mouthing their hatred for Bush and you will see all calling Bush a liar. Even today, I do believe you think that Bush really knew there were no WMDs but went ahead with the invasion.
George Tenet, whom I have known off and on during my military career, is not now nor ever will be a conservative. He was a Clinton appointee and, Bush trying to be bipartisan, kept him as the DCI. Even Tenet stated publically that the WMDs were a slam dunk. A slam dunk from the DCI means the intelligence is accurate and real. It was not. Yet, here you are calling Bush a liar in front of God and the American people.
Having spent around six years working the middle east problems, I was not overly thrilled about the idea of an invasion. I was probably leaning heavily against it until I began to see the liberals doing their Bush lied BS. It is BS and should have been an embarrassment to all rational people everywhere.
Unfortunately, the DNC and the political operatives seized upon it to discredit the person of their hate. It was hate inspired and hate generated. It had no basis in fact. Bush made the decision (his right as the President) to take care of a regime that was milking money from the UN and defying all the resolutions of the world community as represented by the UN.
I honestly believe that your views are inspired by personal hate for George W. Bush and his associates. I sat in the Pentagon during the first gulf war and saw Dick Cheney every day of my life during that time. He is a gentleman and a hard working, honest man. When he was a Congressman from Wyoming he was well-liked and respected by everyone on the Hill. Look it up yourself. The minute he became the VP candidate with GWB, you liberals began to make him out as something evil.
How dare you demean and smear a gentlemen and fellow American like Cheney simply to benefit you politically. Have you really sat down and analyzed your irrational hatred for Bush and Cheney.
I despise your political philosophy because I have seen what it does when applied to peoples. Chavez in South America is blossoming into one of the current best examples. I do not hate you nor any of the liberals I have met. As a univesity instructor, this liberal philosophy is the major philosophy held by my fellow Western instructors. I get along with each and every one of them fine as long as we stay away from politics.
I find it interesting that I openly oppose your philosophy because I think it is wrong and where it has been applied it has proven to be disasterous. Now can you say the same about my political philosophy of conservativism. Do you hate the conservative philosophy and that is why you hate Bush so much? Tell us what you despise so much about our philosophy. I am not talking about individuals you may have met and then globalized their characteristics as being “conservative traits,” but the actual philosophy to which I and many Americans hold dear.
I am not trying to win an argument here. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to express my laughter which I cannot do in my work place. Winning an argument with someone means that someone lost and no one will every admit that in a political argument.
As to the intelligence operative thing, I do not consider myself to be such a person. Assuming that you mean humint when you say operative. My last assignment was in this arena but I found the people I worked with to be the worst human beings I have ever met in my life. I did not appreciate their attitudes nor did I enjoy the job, although trekking around in the jungles of Laos looking for MIAs and POWs was exciting and worthwhile. If I could, I would have spent all my time in Laos, away from the “less than honorable” people I was forced to work with in the office. No I am not an intelligent operative. Let’s just say I was a technician with language abilities.
And as to me staying or leaving, well, that is my choice and not yours.
I do not agree with everything that Bush and the Republicans do or are doing. But I have simply not found any honest people that I trusted or respected within the now “modern liberal” party of the Democrats. They are too quick to lie and simply are not the party of Sam Nunn and others. Anyone that calls Bush a liar over the WMDs simply deserves no respect from an honest American. That seems to be my benchmark.
BTW, betrayal is a very strong word coming from a person who claims to have voted for Bush. But then, who am I, but one who sees the Democrats constantly putting forth “former” or “reformed” Republicans who claim to have turned against the GOP because of the sins of Bush. Sorry, if I doubt your claims of voting Republican. It is a scam that Democrats use all the time to gain some kind of respectability. No real conservative would ever go over to the dark side of socialism and PC pandering.
I will try to comment on each of your posts as I have time.
nutslikebush Says: November 26th, 2007 at 3:52 am
ChinaHill,
Discovered your cut and paste source. Glen Beck.
ChinaHill Says: November 26th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Nutslikebush and Glen Beck,
The source should have been no concern. The points brought out by the professor was the issue. You could have asked me for the source. The issue was simply that liberals (at least the comments I have seen) never mention that the target of these intercepts are always terrorists and not US citizens and these terrorists are calling on international lines. Wouldn’t even you admit that by doing this (omitting this very important part of the intercepts), those liberals are dishonest at best and lying at worse.
Here is an example of this continued “lying:”
/////Fellow presidential hopeful Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) stated that it was “a low point in our history when the leader of the free world fights to deceive the American public.” Added the governor: “Rather than defend the Constitution, President Bush has bamboozled the country. Whether it is outing a CIA operative, illegally spying on Americans, or advocating the use of torture, the Bush administration has made a mockery of our legal system.”
How can I or any reasonable American be a liberal after a Democrat “presidential hopeful” makes blatantly dishonest statements like the above. President Bush did not out a CIA operative. His name was not mentioned in any indictment that I know of. He is not “illegally spying” on Americans. Waterboarding is only torture in the eyes of the liberals who use the issue as an excuse to bash-Bush or maybe they are trying to protect someone important to their cause. How has Bush made a mockery of our legal system?
Laughing at liberals is my hobby. Can you see why?
BTW, yes I most definitely got you confused with the other liberal commenter here. What is his monicker - The Terrorist Side or some such thing? You both sound exactly the same to me especially when I read your comments out loud.
Is Dan correct in what he stated? You guys jump all over the stratosphere to cover your little lies of blatancy and omission? I will try to keep up, but be advised that my brother has been doing that for years and it simply makes no difference since the truth usually quiets the dishonest.
FYI, was it you or the terrorist guy who stated that Bush lied about those WMDs. I have seen no response to my position on the WMDs and how Bush no way lied by using the available intelligence to make his decision. I must be getting old or you guys seem like twins to me :-).
More on ole Valerie later. She most definitely lied when she said she had nothing to do with ole Joe going to Niger. The fact that she suggested he go is public record. Isn’t it amazing how these two “heroes” are making big bucks off their patriotism? Does us capitalists good to know that people can lie and then make big bucks off of the lies. Kinda like Monica with her line of fashion wear or fashion accessories. Only liberals do that kind of stuff and then talk bad about big business. Only in America!
nutslikebush Says: November 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
First ChinaHIll,
That’s Dr. Nutslikenush to you.
Second, where did I say Bush lied about WMD? I believe, and have always held, that Bush and the administration believed, incorrectly, that Iraq had a WMD program. That is why I talked about Curveball and the credibility issues surrounding him for years on this site. Are you new here? Bush did pull the trigger too soon and was aiming at the wrong target. About that almost everyone now agrees. As for the backdoor issue, the CIA disputes your position. I would really like for you to show me actual evidence, not hearsay that is generated to support the position that you wish were true. There is a major difference between clean data and hearsay.
Tell me more about my political philosophy. But you should know that I have been fiercely anticommunist since the 1960s and am a free market champion. You really have no idea what you are talking about when you try to pin the socialist tag on me. I think you are airing an argument that you are having with someone else and imagining that I am them. But go ahead and air it out and keep pretending that I am the person that you believe that I am. This site seems to be therapeutic for some people. Let me ask you this, when I vote for Republican candidates (which I do about half of the time), am I still a liberal socialist? I think you just toss everyone into the same category who disagrees with you or challenges you. My point is not that liberals are better than conservatives, just that conservatives turn a blind eye to all of the things their people do and condemn liberals for those same sins.
In political arguments between republicans and democrats there are almost always at least two losers.
nutslikebush Says: November 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
ChinaHill,
If you think Bush is conservative, you have no idea what conservative means.
nutslikebush Says: November 27th, 2007 at 4:38 am
ChinaHill,
Is Brent Scowcroft (Bush 41’s National Security Advisor) a liberal in your book? You know, he an I think a lot alike. This little piece form an interview with Scowcroft captures the essence of the thinking of many people who oppose the war. It was published in the New Yorker (I know, I know. Just read the words) in 2005. It reads:
“This is exactly where we are now,” he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. “We own it. And we can’t let go. We’re getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there’s a fair chance we’ll win. But look at the cost.”
The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. “I’m not a pacifist,” he said. “I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force.”
Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force. “I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes,” he said. “You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it.”
The neoconservatives—the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war—believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. “How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.” And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,” he said.
Like Scowcroft, I would support pop ‘em with a nuke if I genuinely thought that our national security was in jeopardy. If you can understand this, I think that Saddam was an evil tyrant that should have been ousted, just not the way that we did it and not when we did it. We needed better situational awareness, to say the least.
Now that we are there, perhaps we should commit to staying no matter what the cost in lives or money. If it costs 500,000 lives and $5 trillion, would that be acceptable for you? Is there an upper limit to our investment in Iraq beyond which you would not go? Is Iraq important enough to everything that we have in it both militarily and financially? If the answer is no, then where would you draw a line? I believe all wars are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired because having a winning strategy from the start is the only thing that can succeed. You can’t play not to lose and expect to win, as we say in sports. I think that is what the Powell doctrine and the Shinseki plan had in mind. But Rumsfeld had other ideas, unfortunately. Now the so-called surge, along with new techniques for detecting and detonating IEDs, is quelling some of the violence in Baghdad. But the Iraqi government is in suspended animation. The elected officials simply hate each other’s guts and will not give an inch on anything. They won’t even show up for parliament sessions. That is a pisser.
nutslikebush Says: November 27th, 2007 at 4:49 am
The reason that you confuse us, ChinaHill, is that it requires cognitive energy to think in about details and it is more economical to build a cognitive prototype that possesses the feature that you would prefer to argue with and just let every statement that challenges you activate the simplified prototype that resides in your head rather than the real, complex human on the other end..
nutslikebush Says: November 27th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez:
Is he a socialist/liberal/dove? By ChinaHill’s definition he most certainly is. How did he get to be the commanding general in Iraq with such an ideology, ChinaHill?
ChinaHill Says: November 27th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Nutslikebush,
How about if I stated in my comments: to generic liberals whom really do not exist except in my mind? Would that mean that the Richardson statements of “eavesdropping on Americans,” “bamboozling the American people,” and “destroying the legal system in American,” were also not really made but only in my imagination as well? Does that mean that all the discussions I have had with liberals who hold that Bush is evil and he has destroyed America did not really happen as well?
Why don’t you tell us about your political philosophy and why you would vote for Kerry in 2004 (you did say you did not vote for Bush, right?) and at the same time be anticommunist? I really would be interested in seeing how you twisted your “I am not a liberal philosophy” and “I am an anticommunist philosophy” all out of whack to do that magic trick. It was Kerry who did meet (while still in the US Navy) with the communists in Paris (totally against all laws and American values), you know.
Once again, you are displaying a typical tactic by our laughable modern-day liberals, accuse Bush of not really being a conservative. Never mind that he is a Republican just like his father and was elected by conservative Republicans twice to the Oval Office. And, of course, he was elected the governorship to Texas twice as well. Sorry, but I have seen this as well as the “I voted for Bush in 2000 but now I am a liberal” bullcrap as well. Why not try something new like - I came in a spaceship to save America from itself. I am sure that would probably convince more of us conservatives here than the garbage you are putting out now.
I just read an article that shows how the Republican Party is much more diversified than the Democrat Party. It is nice to see someone who is capable of defining just exactly what is a conservative and what is not. I have conservative friends who disagree with me on many, many issues from abortion to immigration to capital punishment. One thing we do not do is try to define what is a conservative and what is not. Now here you are trying to define a conservative and show how Bush does not meet YOUR definition. Guess what. I am laughing bigtime.
I am convinced by your monicker and by your “I voted for Bush before I voted against him” and your “Bush is not a conservative” comments that you are a living, breathing, honest-to-goodness, born-for-greed, gotta-lie liberal. The spittin’ image of why us conservatives laugh so much at your liberal antics, comments and general stupidity.
BTW, I would never laugh at something I did not like. Hate just does not fit my personality.
Dr. Nutlikebush, you say? If you have a PhD, then my hats off to you. That is something I have thought about but the burning desire in my stomach never existed. It is not an easy thing to get. Have a professor friend up in the northeast someplace state that the PhD he received in physics was a piece of cake compared to the Chinese Mandarin training we both received at our year at Monterey. Cannot imagine anything being more intense and difficult than military language training. Do not think I would volunteer at my age to go through that much pain ever again.
ChinaHill Says: November 27th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Dr. Nutslikbush,
FYI, signal intelligence is the primary source and human intelligence is used for collaboration. This is true because of the “nasty” nature of humint and its proven untruthworthiness. Presidents do not go to war on the word of a humint source only. To think that this is what happened shows just how much a liberal you really are. I remember reading the review of the book by Drogin and put it in the trash bin of liberal lies for the following excerpt alone:
Interview with the author - Curveball: The Iraqi Defector the Bush Team Used to Sell the War
//snipped//
Drogin: I believe George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. He took the nation into an unnecessary war that is now a tragedy of epic proportions. He alone is responsible for that decision. I assume that my readers understand that. So in the book, I try to unravel the CIA role in this, not absolve Bush. This is not a book about policy, or reform proposals, or internal debates in the White House. I wanted to understand how an intelligence system that spends about $50 billion a year could produce the worst intelligence disaster in our history. The cascade of mistakes in the Curveball case is a big part of the answer. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/65743/?page=2
//snipped//
Now if you cannot see problems in logic and a total misunderstanding of how the NIC works in this snippet, then suggest you not push this Curveball BS further. I know liberals lie because of garbage like this that I see everyday coming from their lips. Been there, done that and thus I know from personal experience! Dan Rather’s forgeries are nothing compared to what lies the liberals have passed on over the Iraq war. The purpose was purely political which puts them way beyond the “liberals that I only imagine.” The concept that Bush manipulated the intelligence (that matched exactly the intelligence that Clinton received and all the other intelligence agencies in the world) should make even you, a born-for-greed liberal, laugh along with us conservatives. Intelligence does not work that way and because it does not, I because it does not, I trust the organization I was brought up him more than the sum total of all liberals on the planet. Trust them with my life completely.
And as to the “convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi,” my Iraqi friend knows him and his family very well. Convicted in Syria. Duhhhhh, does not take a genius to know why he was convicted as he was working against the Baathist regime in Iraq. Where is Chalabi now and what is he doing, “the convicted fraudster” as you liberals call him? When you find out what he is doing, ask yourself how can that be if he is such a known criminal? The answer is that he is not. Welcome to liberal politics. Have a nice stay.
ChinaHill Says: November 27th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I did not put the whole interview comment in my Drogin statement. I apologize:
Drogin: I don’t see that as an either-or proposition. Both happened. The White House clearly manipulated information to make its case for war. It exaggerated the supposed link between Saddam and 9/11, for example, going far beyond what the CIA believed. My point to Harpers was that the White House didn’t need to “cherry pick” intelligence on Saddam’s WMD because the CIA stuff was all wrong. And it flowed into the White House by the truckload. Go back and read Powell’s 2003 U.N. speech, or the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the so-called gold standard of the U.S. intelligence community. Virtually every sentence is wrong. That was the official view. It gave them the pretext for war.
So, to be clear: I believe George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. He took the nation into an unnecessary war that is now a tragedy of epic proportions. He alone is responsible for that decision. I assume that my readers understand that. So in the book, I try to unravel the CIA role in this, not absolve Bush. This is not a book about policy, or reform proposals, or internal debates in the White House. I wanted to understand how an intelligence system that spends about $50 billion a year could produce the worst intelligence disaster in our history. The cascade of mistakes in the Curveball case is a big part of the answer.
////
Only a “fire breathing, hate-filled” liberal, who has lost his mind in hate, would state that Bush will go down as the worst president in history. By definition, history is past tense. It will be years down the road before legitimate (not phony liberal) historians can make such an assessment. This alone disqualifies this guy and his book. He is biased and biases destroy legitimate scholarly works.
“The White House clearly manipulated the intelligence.” Was Bush manipulating this same intelligence during the Clinton reign of greed as well? Common sense is something that liberals do not have a lot of. The intelligence in the 1990s was the exact same intelligence we saw with Bush. Hello, Dr. Nutslikebush, how do you tap dance, discount and rationalize this very obvious truth? Manipulating the intelligence is pretty much impossible to do in the NIC. I have never seen such checks and balances in a system organization like I saw in the NIC. These professionals take their job seriously. The definition of a true intelligence professional covers the concept that one’s beliefs and political philosophy always takes a backseat to the job at hand. When one’s beliefs and political philosophy get in the way, a professional must resign. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame broke this little cardinal rule as did Larry Johnson and many of the other “professional” intelligence officers now working to undermine our efforts in the Middle East. Bottomline is, you keep your mouth shut until what you were working on is over, well over! Liberals, being progressives, do not see the need to follow such arcane and obviously ridiculous rules of conduct since their opinions are always correct. They really believe they are saving America from the evils of conservatism. But then maybe I am just imagining what I did for over 20 years and the written and unwritten rules I lived under. My mistake!
ChinaHill Says: November 27th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Dr. Nutslikebush,
I just read some of your pending comments. Why waste your time going through a list of people to find out if I think they are from Mars or from Venus? Who cares?
Why am I here? Was it to defend the invasion and the subsequent war in Iraq? Not hardly. As I mentioned earlier, I had serious doubts about the invasion and what was going to happen. I stepped totally on the side of the Iraq War only when I saw the blatant political lies the leftwing liberals were spreading to undermine the war. They could not debate the rightness or the wrongness of the war so had to revert to attacking the morality of the person who sent troops and started it. Attack the person who made the decision, prove he is evil and one does not have to worry about concrete discussions about the actual issue of the war. Welcome to liberal land. When I saw this happening and saw the stupid and ridiculous lies being spread, I went on the side of the war.
When I met my colleague at AU who was from Babylon and he explained in great and gruesome detail why he was forced to leave Saddam’s Iraq, then that made it even more of a reason to support the war. Saddam had set up an even bigger organization within Iraq than the Nazis had done under Hitler. In fact, Saddam used the Nazification of Germany model to build his Baathist organization. He was at a level ten to hundred times worse than Hitler in terms of infiltration and control.
Lt. General Sanchez you ask me? Not a professional soldier. Speaking out against something you were involved with when it is still going on goes against basic military protocol and American values. Only liberals do such a thing. True military professionals simply would not. That is my opinion. What do you think? Do you think it appropriate to try to undermine that which you have pledged to defend? Right, wrong or indifferent, IMHO, military personnel have no business criticizing something that is ongoing simply because they have a strong opinion about it. There are still men and women on the ground putting their lives on the line. Criticizing just makes these soldiers jobs more difficult. Which, BTW, brings into focus that upward to 80% of our military members continue to support what we are doing in Iraq. And just think, they are there where they can get killed. A heck of a lot more moral authority than you and I possess at this time, don’t you think?
I also have extremely strong opinions about two liberal presidents criticizing a sitting president. No Republican president ever criticized Carter and every president had good reason to do that. Is this also just my “liberal” imagination acting up again? Carter and Clinton really have not been critical of Bush and thus my concept of what liberalism represents must be false, right?
nutslikebush Says: November 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
The problem in Iraq is not the liberals. I wish the world were as simple as you imagine it is. The problem with the Iraq war is that it is based on a flawed theory of how and where the US should project its military might and it was initiated under a flawed strategy. Can we paint ourselves out of the corner that we painted ourselves into?
Iraq is now primarily a civil war that Iraqis must settle. The US can do little to help them now, unfortunately. Are they up to the task. Only history will tell.
But Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, and Afghanistan remain the hot recruiting grounds for anti-American jihadism. What should we do about them?
BTW, military support has dropped dramatically for the war. In the CNN poll published a few days ago only 31 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war. In a 2005 Zogby poll, 72% said end the war by 2006. http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075So you are still fuzzy on your facts.
nutslikebush Says: November 28th, 2007 at 2:50 am
ChinaHill,
I think it is unpatriotic to not speak truth to power when one is a civilian. It would be unethical, immoral, and unpatriotic, for Sanchez to fail to do so now that he is a civilian. I believe the same about both Valerie and Joe Wilson. As citizens, it is their responsibilities to speak the truth even when it conflicts with the actions of the politicians. I am sure that Thomas Jefferson would be with me on that principle.
While Sanchez was in the military, he could not and should not have questioned the orders of the president or his superiors. The military is different. It is a communistic microcosm of our society. Authority is everything in the military. In civilian life, it is nothing. Democracy’s fundamental value is to challenge authority and debate all issues on the table.
ChinaHill Says: November 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Dr. NutlikeBush,
The following excerpt from one of my poems pretty much covers what I think of your first paragraph concerning Sanchez:
He knows the truth is his alone
In all its cosmic glory shown
For lib’rals hold all truth that’s known
Of human knowledge all their own
Now is this the same truth that General Petraeus and his staff are currently working successfully with The Surge?
It is totally unethical for a military officer to undermine another military officer in time of war, retired or otherwise. I am not sure you realize it, but Lt.General Sanchez receives a military retirement paid to him from Department of Defense funds and thus is still very much under military protocol and regulations which clearly states he is not allowed to show disrespect to a fellow officer. What makes you think his truth is somehow “more truthful” than those who support the current surge and the military under arms still in Iraq. As Victor Davis Hansen put it concerning Sanchez and his ilk:
“In all these cases there is a dismal pattern: a mediocre functionary keeps quiet about the mess around him, muddles through, senses that things aren’t going right, finds himself on the losing end of political infighting, is forced out or quits, seethes that his genius wasn’t recognized, takes no responsibility for his own failures, worries that he might be scape-goated, and at last senses that either a New York publisher or the anti-war Left, or both, will be willing to offer him cash or notoriety — but only if he serves their needs by trashing his former colleagues in a manner he never would while on the job,”
Sanchez was a loser. If he had doubts about what was going on in Iraq, why didn’t he step forward while he was THE MAN instead of waiting until after he was passed over for promotion? He was not able to stop the insurgency when he had a chance and he admitted his incompetence over the scandals with the Iraq prison. He did not get his fourth star so he is now doing what all liberals do, whine, tap dance, discount and rationalize their failures. He simply is not a professional soldiers by the very definition of a soldier he swore to uphold. Want to bet that he tries to run for VP with the Dem candidate?
But who am I to dare question a liberal in his continued dominion over the truth. Once again, you and all the liberals like you just might be wrong. This, of course, has never occurred to you in your confidence that you and only you are right. With all due respect to your humanity, I reject what you regard as truth. You are a liberal in your concept of what is true and what is not true. Everyone else is just being evil and corrupt. All one has to do is believe deeply that something is true (only if one is a liberal) and then one will have carte blanc to carry out treasonous acts to save America from all those evil and rotten conservatives trying to destroy the country and forcing all those evil and dumb Iraqis into gaining a freedom which they voted for twice.
And your statement that the military is a “communistic microcosm of our society” pretty well nails the lid down on your qualifications as a “fire-breathing, Bush-hating liberal.” No conservative, half-conservative, quarter-conservative anywhere in America could possibly insult me and all those who serve or served in the military by calling us communists. What was it you said? You are anti-communists, right? Seems you just proved that my concepts about liberals are not quite the imagination which you claimed they were. So far you have proven that you: 1) are a Bush hater 2) hate the military and what it stands for 3) are working on the side of the terrorists who want us out of Iraq 4) believe that conservatives are evil 5) believe liberals are the only people in America who have access to the “truth” 6) think you are the only person who has the right to define who or what a conservative is 7) are a military expert who fully understands what strategies will work in the modern world and which will not
are a legal expert on all things concerning the evil Bush administration 9) know and understand what Thomas Jefferson would believe on all of these issues 10)are a totally ethical human being with all those disagreeing with you being unethical 11) are an extremely moral human being with those you dare disagree with you as being immoral 12) the most patriotic person at this website simply because of the previous 11 items. You are indeed an amazing and awe inspiring personality. Liberal though you are :-)!
ChinaHill Says: November 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Dr. NutslikeBush,
Did you determine how many soldiers in Iraq were interviewed by CNN? Has it occurred to you that CNN, Zogby or any other polling outfit cannot possibly get accurate data from military personal simply because of the obvious slanted liberal questions that are being asked. A normal military person simply will refuse to talk to a pollster. The only ones who do are left-leaning liberals. I know because I have been there and remember well mine and my friends thoughts toward such polls. I know, if you say it is not so, well it is just my imagination acting up and you will have to forgive me.
Does it seem to you that I am laughing at you? I certainly hope so.
ChinaHill Says: November 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
More to my friend Dr. Nutslikebush,
“The problem in Iraq is not the liberals. I wish the world were as simple as you imagine it is.”
And tell me again what part of the world you currently live in and the areas that you have lived in that makes you more qualified than me to say how the world really is. Be aware that I have lived outside the US since 1992 and over 60% of my military career was spend in these other parts you think you know about. My wife was not born in America (she is a citizen) and I have two adopted kids who are not American. The first part of my monicker gives you a hint at where I currently live and travel extensively. But then again, I could be imagining all this, right?
nutslikebush Says: November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
ChinaHill,
I begin every thought with the assumption that I am probably wrong. To be human is to be wrong. And I laugh at myself even more than you could possibly laugh at me. I am absurd. Why would I care if someone laughed at me? That is irrelevant to me.
Now for the interesting part. You have no earthly idea who I am, the extent of my experience, or where I have lived or do live. Even lacking any knowledge about me, you automatically assume that you have some special knowledge that makes your view superior to mine. Isn’t that a form of elitism (and false assumption) controls your mind and rationalizes your tendency to ignore views that are incongruent with yours? To me you seem trapped in a web of assumptions that block your exit from a very small and dark cave. It doesn’t matter where you have been, you carry that cave around with you in your mind. There is a bigger and better illuminated world out there. But you can’t get there with ideological chains fastening your mind.
As for the communist comment that the military is a communistic microcosm of our society, it is not intended as an insult. I know it is ironic, but don’t you see the parallels? The parallel between communism/socialism and the military has always fascinated me and yet it seems like people don’t even notice them. I think that the US military operates according to purely communistic principles. First, the US military (and everyone in it) depends completely on the State. In the military, the group is more important than the individual. There is no me, only we. Military personnel give up for the duration of their enlistment their basic rights to freedom of speech and action (trying walking away from the base sometime). You think they give those up even after they retire if they receive retirement benefits paid by the State. While in the military you have to obey authorities who rank higher than you, whether they are right or wrong. While in the military your health care system is based completely on a socialized medicine model.
The problem that I have with people like Stalin is that they wanted to run entire societies exactly the way the military operates. I prefer freedom, freedom, freedom for society and individuals. Freedom always comes first for me. But that’s just me, the liberal talking (I will be happy to play the liberal for you if you need that from me. In truth, I really am no more liberal than I am conservative. I know, it’s all or nothing for folks like you - just boot the operating system and let it spin out the preprogrammed conservative party line.)
I will be happy to listen and think about anything that you can come up with to show me that the military is not based on a communistic model.
PS. You don’t have to call me Dr. I was just kidding (not about being a doctor; I am. But about you having to call me that).
nutslikebush Says: November 30th, 2007 at 4:09 am
ChinaHill,
we do have some things in common. I have lived in five other countries and I also have two adopted children from other countries. Does that help?
ChinaHill Says: November 30th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Dr. NutslikeBush
“I think it is unpatriotic to not speak truth to power when one is a civilian.”
Please explain to me, based on your first paragraph, how we poor unenlightened and “living in a cave” conservatives would ever realize that you “begin every thought with the assumption that you are wrong.” Maybe it is my inability as an uneducated conservative that keeps me from extracting this concept from the above sentence. Help me out, Dr., if you would. You stated, “I think (definitely an opinion) it is unpatriotic to not speak truth” seems to me to prove that you not only do not assume you are wrong but infer strongly that you are indeed the holder of the truth and thus MUST, as a patriot, slam, smear, or otherwise discount anyone who disagrees with this truth. You are saying that you have no choice but to carry out these actions and thus you agree with Sanchez, Plame and Wilson. Enlighten me how you have assumed or rather how you think I should have assumed that you first assumed that you were wrong and then come up with such a statement? The twisting that you do based on your “revealed philosophies” is simply something I cannot imagine. Reminds me of the “I am not a liberal” and “I am anti-communist” but I voted for Kerry statement. Twisted into a shape that is metaphorically impossible to describe, comprehend or even dream in my worst nightmare. But, of course, I obviously do not live in the same rarified air as you obviously do.
As to the laughing part, do not think for a minute that I am laughing at your antics for your benefit. As I mentioned earlier, it does my soul good to laugh at what I consider (but not necessarily know as you seem to know) to be ridiculous and twisted statements of utter absurdity. I enjoy the laughter for myself and it has nothing to do with you.
“I wish the world were as simple as you imagine it is.”
Your next paragraph is even more hilarious when taken along with the above statement made by you in a earlier post. You make a truthful statement: I do not know you. Yet, you seem to think you know me as proven by the above statement. You know for certain that I have some sort of “living in a cave” view of the world or somehow what I see everyday around me or any interactions I have with other people are just imagined. My world is imagined and your world is not. This is certainly worth the chuckle it received when I first read it. In fact, forgive me for a few seconds as I chuckle again . . .
“Even lacking any knowledge about me, you automatically assume that you have some special knowledge that makes your view superior to mine.”
The above statement from you also made me laugh. You informed me that I have a “simple view of the world,” inferring strongly that you, in your infinite wisdom and superior world experience, have the correct view of the world and thus through some magical looking glass have come to know me. I made no assumption about superiority or anything else. Those are your words not mine. My statements are simple facts. I have lived in those places. I doubt very seriously that you nor anyone else in this forum can match my “live the cave” environment you think I have done. I, for example, founded, developed and operated a large and very successful English language school in Phnom Penh, Cambodia for three years from 1994 - 1997. I worked as an interrogator in Bangkok in the POW/MIA branch of DIA, traveling to Laos to actually search for those missing during the vietnam war. The list could go on and on with unique and unusual experiences I have had over the course of my life.
“Living in a cave” certainly made me laugh louder than anything you have stated thus far. You do not agree with my world view which is based on personal experience of, say, teaching the sister and other family members of the current Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sin and meeting and visiting with him often. Also teaching almost every one of the top military generals in that country as well as personally tutoring the provincial governor of the most important province outside Phnom Penh for the three year period. Judging my experience from these facts and other facts and then stating that somehow, just because my world view does not match yours, I must be “living in a cave,” seems to me would qualify you, not me, as the one who is rather arrogant and elitist. But then who am I but some dumb podunker, lacking enough intelligence or education to compete in the “real” world which you have obviously defined and I must accept without argument.
I did not dispute that your world view was wrong. I simply did not agree with it based on my experience living in the world in which I currently reside. My comments about my experience were made for a very specific reason, to show you that just maybe you may have been just a tad bit wrong when you think I was inexperienced or had a less than your brilliant and absolutely elegant view of reality.
“Isn’t that a form of elitism (and false assumption) controls your mind and rationalizes your tendency to ignore views that are incongruent with yours?”
It is you who have accused me of “living in a cave,” or did you just now forget that? I have false assumptions but you do not. But wait, didn’t you just elegantly tell us earlier that you start with the assumption that you are wrong? Let me see if I can paraphrase what we have learned about you so far. I apologize if my words and sentence constructions are not as elegant as yours. Bear with me if you would.
You assume you are wrong before you know you are right. Is this a far statement? In your world view you know you are correct even though you first assumed that you were incorrect before you found out you were indeed correct.
“To me you seem trapped in a web of assumptions that block your exit from a very small and dark cave. It doesn’t matter where you have been, you carry that cave around with you in your mind. There is a bigger and better illuminated world out there. But you can’t get there with ideological chains fastening your mind.”
I have made no assumptions about you at all. You stated you were not a liber