I think you're either trying to be a noose-iance, or just getting hung up on the specifics of the word "hanging," rather than the general sentiment that whomod thinks Bush should be executed, regardless of method.
Why did you misspell "nuisance" by using the word "noose" with a hyphen at the end of it? And why did you itilisize it and the word "hung?"
Assasination and war crimes trials are two different matters entirely, G-Man.
But I'm sure you already know that.
But we don't hang people for war crimes in this country (assuming that such a crime occurred). And I'm sure you knew that. So the only way you could see Bush hanged would be if he were lynched.
While I realize Bush is a white man, and lynching doesn't have the same offensive connotation to liberals when the victim is white, you're still calling for what amounts to killing the president illegally.
Bad form, whomod, bad form.
And, don't worry, I'll be back to discredit the report later. I just wanted to deal with your possibly illegal statements first in the hopes that you might retract them.
Who said anything about this country. I was thinking of the Hague. While it's unlikely that he would be turned in, the penalty for war crimes is hanging. That is not ME doing it so why are you trying to spin this as me wanting to personally kill Bush? And why would a verdict by the Hague be illegal?
Because you're a douche, that is why.
Oh, and Whomod: Assasoinate Bush? that you keep posting on te title thread?
here's you:
Originally Posted By: G-man
No, i didn't say whomod wanted to assassinate Bush. I'm just asking the question
Were you raped by puns as a child? Or were you forced to spend time in a pun-itentiary? I've never known anyone with such a pathological hatred of puns.
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
No offense intended to Ron Paul, who was the only one to get the answer right. Even the Republican audience agreed with him.
This is exactly why things that should not need to be debated anymore continue to be debated. Because no matter how many facts you place in front of Republicans, no matter how many studies are done by bipartisan panels, no matter how many White House talking points you prove are lies, they remain intractable and hold on to their false memes and then keep adding to it.
Case in point: Mike Huckabee. When asked by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews if he could still justify going into Iraq on the basis of WMDs not yet found, the Huckster finds a way to insult one of our few remaining allies in the region:
Quote:
Matthews: Well, do you believe that there was WMDs in Iraq that hasn’t been found that would have justified the war had we discovered it?
Huckabee: I think it’s more likely that the WMDs—that we know that he at one time had—he used weapons against the Kurds—good chance they went to Jordan. We don’t know where they are. But the point is there was every reason to believe that they were there at the time. And it wasn’t just the President or the Republicans who believed that and who acted upon it. It was the Democrats as well. I think for now for people to say, ‘well, we didn’t find them,’ no, that we didn’t. But the other side of that is we’re there. Let’s not make a situation worse by pulling out and leaving Iraq in a very unstable situation and having it erupt throughout the Middle East and giving al Qaida a base and really betraying the trust that many Iraqi peole have put in us because they have believed we would not abandon them and leave them to the slaughter that they would likely be subject to.
Argh. How many talking points did you count in that statement? You gotta love the defense of “But the Democrats!” too. Someone has been advised by Ari Fleischer. I’m just sayin’…
if you keep up on right-wing moonbat orthodoxy, you’ll know that it’s Syria — not Jordan — where they allege the weapons were supposedly smuggled to.
In his upcoming memoir, titled Against the Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President, former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee (R) “excoriates [President] Bush and his GOP allies” for exploiting “wedge issues,” but also “saves some of his harshest words for Democrats who paved the way for Mr. Bush to use the U.S. military to invade Iraq”:
Quote:
Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against prosecuting the war. “The top Democrats were at their weakest when trying to show how tough they were,” writes Chafee. “They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post-September 11 world, and when they acted in political self-interest, they helped the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom.
“Instead of talking tough or meekly raising one’s hand to support the tough talk, it is far more muscular, I think, to find out what is really happening in the world and have a debate about what we really need to accomplish,” writes Chafee. “That is the hard work of governing, but it was swept aside once the fear, the war rhetoric and the political conniving took over.”
Not to forget the media and the public who eagerly and willingly let themselves get swept right along and manipulated by the war fervor and need to avenge 9/11 on someone, anyone.
And I have to agree with his assessment of top Democrats. When the situation called for courage and risk, they chose cowardice and safety. Which is why I still can't stomach Hillary. Edwards voted for the war as well but he had the backbone to say that he made a mistake. I don't understand why admitting mistakes is still seen as weakness. It clearly takes backbone to admit a mistake and show you learned from it than to try to pretend that no mistake was ever made.
Day three of the administration‘s publicity surge and galling news that the much hyped reductions in tour lengths. The president announced, will not apply to any of the troops in harm‘s way in Iraq.
Just more smoke and mirrors for the Pro-Bush/Iraq war crowd to parrot. I think at least the troops 'get it' now and thus are increasingly supporting the Democrats now.
Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.
Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.
"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.
though whomod hates the Bush administration, he'll have to at least admit they did a good job on getting interrogations processed, they could have tried to gauge the polls and public opinion but they went about the business of protecting America first.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.
Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.
"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.
though whomod hates the Bush administration, he'll have to at least admit they did a good job on getting interrogations processed, they could have tried to gauge the polls and public opinion but they went about the business of protecting America first.
Seriously, do those interrogations actually produce real results?
I hear info gained under torture isn't always trustworthy, on account of people willing to say anything to stop the pain (and considering your average terrorist is willing to kill himself to get the job done, I don't think some pain is gonna faze him).
I say this not out of concern for any terrorist's well-being, but thinking bigger picture. We consider ourselves to be a bastion of liberty and human rights. It'll be hard to get other nations to listen to us when we condemn them for human rights abuses if they're gonna throw the "Well, YOU guys do it!" line back at us.
(And also, there's always the chance that someone being interrogated isn't actually a terrorist, but someone innocent guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Terrorists are one thing, and I'm all for protecting the lives of our troops and fellow citizens, but I don't hold with torturing some civilian who's never harmed anyone. Do the interrogators have any way of being able to tell the difference?)
Just sayin', these interrogations we hear about aren't being always complained about just for a bushel of laughs.
Last edited by The Pun-isher; 2008-04-1112:25 AM. Reason: Fixing a pun
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
I hear info gained under torture isn't always trustworthy, on account of people willing to say anything to stop the pain (and considering your average terrorist is willing to kill himself to get the job done).
how dare you call Obama and Jimmy Carter liars! Terrorists are just regular joes who want to feel loved.
...I hear info gained under torture isn't always trustworthy, on account of people willing to say anything to stop the pain (and considering your average terrorist is willing to kill himself to get the job done, I don't think some pain is gonna faze him)...
I dunno about that. if these guys are conditioned to prepare for a quick death by suicide bomb or at least by shooting, they're probably not expecting or particularly looking forward to anything lengthier, even if it's not as painful. physical pain is only one small component in a complex array of psychological manipulation techniques, and often the anticipation of great pain is such an effective tool that the actual administration of said physical stress proves unnecessary. it's been said time and again that these techniques don't represent imminent physical danger, just as it's been said that these heinous atrocities are about as intense as a frat hazing. usually people put themselves through more psychological strain through anticipation alone. but the point to all this is, how much useful information would it take to establish the necessity of certain interrogation techniques in the minds of those who establish and enforce policy?
...I hear info gained under torture isn't always trustworthy, on account of people willing to say anything to stop the pain (and considering your average terrorist is willing to kill himself to get the job done, I don't think some pain is gonna faze him)...
I dunno about that. if these guys are conditioned to prepare for a quick death by suicide bomb or at least by shooting, they're probably not expecting or particularly looking forward to anything lengthier, even if it's not as painful. physical pain is only one small component in a complex array of psychological manipulation techniques, and often the anticipation of great pain is such an effective tool that the actual administration of said physical stress proves unnecessary. it's been said time and again that these techniques don't represent imminent physical danger, just as it's been said that these heinous atrocities are about as intense as a frat hazing. usually people put themselves through more psychological strain through anticipation alone. but the point to all this is, how much useful information would it take to establish the necessity of certain interrogation techniques in the minds of those who establish and enforce policy?
...I hear info gained under torture isn't always trustworthy, on account of people willing to say anything to stop the pain (and considering your average terrorist is willing to kill himself to get the job done, I don't think some pain is gonna faze him)...
I dunno about that. if these guys are conditioned to prepare for a quick death by suicide bomb or at least by shooting, they're probably not expecting or particularly looking forward to anything lengthier, even if it's not as painful.
When you're dealing with martyrs who are encouraged to sacrifice themselves for the cause, I'm sure they're willing to put up with a hell of a lot, if they're really committed. Hell, some of 'em might even get off on it - they might actually take pride in suffering.
Quote:
it's been said time and again that these techniques don't represent imminent physical danger, just as it's been said that these heinous atrocities are about as intense as a frat hazing.
Not by people whose word I'm gonna accept at face value.
Quote:
but the point to all this is, how much useful information would it take to establish the necessity of certain interrogation techniques in the minds of those who establish and enforce policy?
Well, as long as there are SOME productive results. If there are real results that save lives, and it's not being done just for kicks or purely out of revenge...let's just say I won't pain-t a completely negative picture.
(Hrmmm...torture really doesn't lend itself to all that many puns...)
I gotta wonder how much the average militant or terrorist really knows. I doubt any henchman or minion would be entrusted with too much information in case he spilled what he knew, under duress or otherwise. The problem isn't the small fry minions - it's the puppet masters pulling their strings, and they might take steps to make sure they can't be identified.
Last edited by The Pun-isher; 2008-04-111:13 AM.
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
Today’s #5 story on Countdown resembled Keith Olbermann’s many Special Comments as he tore apart President Bush, his lies and cruel treatment of our soldiers by fact-checking his speech about Iraq this afternoon.
So much for pressuring the Iraqis to stand up for their own country. In case it wasn’t obvious already — it was — Bush made perfectly clear that troop levels will not dip below the pre-surge level of 140,000 for the remainder of his presidency.
The “debate” over the surge has always perplexed me. We can all acknowledge that violence has mainly decreased. One doesn’t need a masters degree in foreign affairs to know that flooding more troops in would help cause that. The real issue is whether (a) the levels are sustainable — they’re not — and (b) whether the “surge” has achieved the intended result of providing the Iraqi government the breathing room needed to make the essential political progress — it hasn’t. Furthermore, the relative decrease in violence has just as much to do with troop levels as it does with ethnic cleansing, physical separation of varying sects, millions of Iraqi refugees, and millions of dollars in bribe money being doled out. By every meaningful measure, the surge has been a failure, providing breathing room only to President Bush so that he can pass along the disaster he started to the next President. Then again, that was probably the goal all along.
President Bush has decided to put a hold on troop withdrawals, but tries to give the appearance that he’s actually reducing troop levels. He also reduced tours of duty for our soldiers from 15 months to 12, but with a cruel caveat — it doesn’t apply to any troops currently in Iraq or those deploying before August.
Olbermann rips Bush for saying troop morale would plummet if we were to lose in Iraq by not fulfilling HIS goals, pointing out that some 120 soldiers committed suicide last year alone, and for them, the war is already over.
Quote:
” Last year he escalated the war in Iraq, today he announced that there would be deescalation beyond July, yet somehow stood there with a straight face and lied about how he was withdrawing troops. Now, that was hardly the lone instance of dissembling, tortured logic, sophistry and outright dishonesty in Mr. Bush’s latest sugar-coating of the undeniable and unforgivable fact that he is continuing to arrange for the needless deaths of American heroes.”
Three protesters, a half-dozen signs and a missing petition.
"People walk past and say, 'I'm glad you're doing something,' " said Marty O'Malley, a Forest Hills council member who has attended more than 100 anti-Iraq war events, as he stood in front of Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle's Downtown office last week with the small gathering of activists.
"I want to shake them and say, 'Why aren't you doing something!?' " . . .
Mr. O'Malley stood outside Mr. Doyle's Downtown office, wearing a Vietnam veteran hat and seven Obama buttons. He blamed last-minute organization efforts for the poor turnout.
Poor guy sounds bitter. He should try hunting, or going to church.
Does someone, other than whomod, want to give me a summary of the three clips he posted. I assume that it has something to do with the fact that McCain stated what we all know, namely, that Iraq has strategic oil reserves. But if I wanted to watch Olbermann, which I don't, I'd do so on an actual television, not a two by three inch YouTube clip.
By MICHAEL CALDERONE & AVI ZENILMAN | 5/8/08 11:19 AM EST
Even with countless media outlets available these days, a Sunday New York Times cover story (with VIDEO EVEN!) could always be counted on to send a jolt through the television news cycle.
But apparently that’s no longer the case. Indeed, reporter David Barstow’s 7,600-word investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.
While bloggers have kept the story simmering, Democratic congressional leaders also are speaking out, calling for investigations that could provoke the networks to finally cover the Times story — and, in effect, themselves.
On Tuesday, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin “urging an investigation of the Pentagon’s propaganda program” to determine if the networks or analysts violated federal law.
FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, applauded their efforts. “President Eisenhower warned against the excesses of a military-industrial complex,” Copps said in a statement. “I’d like to think that hasn’t morphed into a military-industrial-media complex, but reports of spinning the news through a program of favored insiders don’t inspire a lot of confidence.”
DeLauro said by phone that the Pentagon’s program was “created in order to give military analysts access in exchange for positive coverage of the Iraq war.”
The FCC request follows DeLauro’s April 24 letters to five of the most powerful network executives: NBC News President Steve Capus, ABC News President David Westin, CBS News President Sean McManus, FOX News chief executive Roger Ailes and CNN News Group President Jim Walton.
Only ABC and CNN have responded so far, according to DeLauro, who is not the only member of Congress calling attention to the Times story.
Both Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have written to the Government Accountability Office, seeking an investigation into whether the Pentagon aided in connecting military analysts with contractors.
“I decided to push this issue hard because ever since The New York Times exposé appeared, the silence has been deafening,” Kerry said in statement to Politico.
Kerry said there needs to be a “thorough investigation” into government contracts and “whether Americans’ tax dollars were being used to cultivate talking heads to sell the administration’s Iraq policy.”
Others involved include Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who told Think Progress he’s begun to “distrust the military,” and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who said on the House floor that the Times story reflects poorly on the Pentagon, analysts and media organizations.
Congressional outcries alone might not be enough, but if investigations yield any new discoveries or lead to high-profile hearings, the networks would be hard-pressed to continue their de facto blackout.
Surprise. The networks aren't covering a story about how they were duped by the Bush administration.
Happily, the propaganda had a willing and eager audience amongst the right wing (and the likes of some people here on these boards ).
Here's the YouTube of the NYTimes video:
This is what the communists used to do. It's frankly, disgusting and sad how easy it is to deceive those susceptible to bullshit. And all it acheived was to prop up shaky public opinion for a couple more years and a add more to the thousands of dead Americans who died for a pack of lies.
CAUGHT: Pentagon pundits on TV news
"psyops on steroids". and these guys were profiting on the war as well as they sat there on TV furthering propaganda that frankly, pro-war Bushie fans were more than eager to eat up. Incredible. People need to go to jail.
How long does it take you to make those posts? Or do you copy and paste them from the everyone gets along forum?
It took about 30 minutes or so. I copied the article and then added commentary and looked for the video.
But tell me that taxpayer funded propaganda and war profiteering being passed as objective analysis in order to send more troops (4073 now) to their unnecessary deaths doesn't bother you but woe to the universe if whomod cuts and pastes something.
1. analysts are typically hired to give their opinions, biased or otherwise; 2. there's really nothing wrong with any presidency trying to get their position put forth on the networks
How long does it take you to make those posts? Or do you copy and paste them from the everyone gets along forum?
It took about 30 minutes or so. I copied the article and then added commentary and looked for the video.
But tell me that taxpayer funded propaganda and war profiteering being passed as objective analysis in order to send more troops (4073 now) to their unnecessary deaths doesn't bother you but woe to the universe if whomod cuts and pastes something.
You know no one really reads what you say. You could have spent that time doing something constructive. Like not posting here.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Today’s #5 story on Countdown resembled Keith Olbermann’s many Special Comments as he tore apart President Bush, his lies and cruel treatment of our soldiers by fact-checking his speech about Iraq this afternoon.
So much for pressuring the Iraqis to stand up for their own country. In case it wasn’t obvious already — it was — Bush made perfectly clear that troop levels will not dip below the pre-surge level of 140,000 for the remainder of his presidency.
The “debate” over the surge has always perplexed me. We can all acknowledge that violence has mainly decreased. One doesn’t need a masters degree in foreign affairs to know that flooding more troops in would help cause that. The real issue is whether (a) the levels are sustainable — they’re not — and (b) whether the “surge” has achieved the intended result of providing the Iraqi government the breathing room needed to make the essential political progress — it hasn’t. Furthermore, the relative decrease in violence has just as much to do with troop levels as it does with ethnic cleansing, physical separation of varying sects, millions of Iraqi refugees, and millions of dollars in bribe money being doled out. By every meaningful measure, the surge has been a failure, providing breathing room only to President Bush so that he can pass along the disaster he started to the next President. Then again, that was probably the goal all along.
President Bush has decided to put a hold on troop withdrawals, but tries to give the appearance that he’s actually reducing troop levels. He also reduced tours of duty for our soldiers from 15 months to 12, but with a cruel caveat — it doesn’t apply to any troops currently in Iraq or those deploying before August.
Olbermann rips Bush for saying troop morale would plummet if we were to lose in Iraq by not fulfilling HIS goals, pointing out that some 120 soldiers committed suicide last year alone, and for them, the war is already over.
Quote:
” Last year he escalated the war in Iraq, today he announced that there would be deescalation beyond July, yet somehow stood there with a straight face and lied about how he was withdrawing troops. Now, that was hardly the lone instance of dissembling, tortured logic, sophistry and outright dishonesty in Mr. Bush’s latest sugar-coating of the undeniable and unforgivable fact that he is continuing to arrange for the needless deaths of American heroes.”
Bush belongs in the deepest pit of hell.
Olbermann (and you as well, Whomod) can suck my fucking cock.
Your partisan vitriol, and quoting opinionated people who agree with you, doesn't win you any converts. It just shows you're an opinionated liar.
From the very beginning of this war, and for 5 years straight, you continually spin every action of the U.S. --NOT just Bush-- negatively, continually repeat al Qaida's and broader anti-American talking points, and show an absolute refusal to take the side of your own nation and its soldiers at any point.
And on at least one occasion, have gleefully cheered the deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
Cocksucker. Weasel.
If there is anything factual to say about the Iraq war, it is certain not to come from you.
Raising again the original topic: "It's not about oil or Iraq..."
Over the last 1400 years, 270 million non-believers were murdered by Muslim jihadists. Islam destroyed the Christian Middle East and Christian North Africa. It is estimated that upwards of 60 million Christians were slaughtered during this conquest. Also, half the Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus murdered. Islamic jihad also destroyed over 10 million Buddhists. In other words, Islam is a killing machine.
Iraq will not be the first or the last point of combat for the U.S. and the broader West (and for that matter China, India, the Phillipines, etc., as well) against the expansion of violent Islamofascism.
But please. Go ahead and tell us just once more, that it's all America's fault.
Welcome to the banana republic. Where you can count on being fed military propaganda disguised as objective analysis.
This is what the communists used to do. It's frankly, disgusting and sad how easy it is to deceive those susceptible to bullshit. And all it acheived was to prop up shaky public opinion for a couple more years and a add more to the thousands of dead Americans who died for a pack of lies.
No this is what Communists like you do, Whomod:
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Originally Posted By: whomod
No. I just label you a bigot.
Big difference.
No, that's just more ad-hominem attack. You label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, hater, extremist, etc.
Your tactics come straight from the Moscow Central Committee:
Quote:
Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi, or Anti-Semitic... the association will, after enough repitition, become "fact" in the public mind.
Slander as an alternative strategy to honest political debate.
The Revolution continues, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
).
