• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Please feel free to agree or disagree.Or both...

nonothing

Well-known member
Friday, November 24, 2006

(updated below)

Dick Cheney, October 24, 2006


Q. Are the terrorists trying to influence our election in your view?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think they're very much aware of our political calendar here, I really do. . . . So I think they are very conscious of the electoral timetable in the United States.

I can't say that they make a specific decision for a particular act, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's a factor that enters into their thinking.

Q I have a Pentagon source that tells me there are websites out there that they've just recently translated that actually refer to the election and ask for an up-tick in violence to try and influence the election, is that accurate?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't be surprised. It sounds right to me.


UPI, October 23, 2006


Senior U.S. government officials and military officers have suggested that Iraqi insurgents are trying to influence the U.S. midterm elections. A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote.

His comments Thursday echoed those made by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney two days earlier on conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh's radio show, which is carried on the Armed Force Radio network in Iraq.

George Bush, October 18, 2006


There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.


Don Rumsfeld, October 26, 2006


Here they are, getting up every day saying, “We’ve got an election in two weeks in America, gang, and we want to change horses over there because we don’t like the folks we’re having to deal with now; they’re a little tough on us. So let’s get out there and let’s make some noise.“

John Hinderaker, November 10


I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. See, for example, this article by Aaron Klein. And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates.

New York Times, today


In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said. . . .The attacks were the worst in an intensifying series of revenge killings in recent months, in a cycle that has increasingly paralyzed the political process and segregated the capital into Sunni and Shiite enclaves, and threatened to drag Iraq into an all-out civil war.

Boston Globe, yesterday


Yesterday was no different: About 100 people were killed in the country. Among them was a bodyguard to the speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who himself escaped an apparent assassination attempt the day before. A journalist for the state-run al-Sabah newspaper was also killed, gunned down as he drove through the capital.

Washington Post, today


More than 1,000 Iraqis a day are being displaced by the sectarian violence that began on Feb. 22 with the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, according to a report released this week by the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-associated group.

This increasing movement of Iraqi families, caused by the lack of security and by the growth of armed local militias and criminal gangs, is adding to the already chaotic governmental situation in Baghdad, according to U.N., U.S. and non-governmental reports released over the past weeks.

Everything they accuse others of doing -- exploiting national security for domestic political gain, being 'unserious' about war matters, playing games with the mission of the troops -- is what they do as transparently as possible. And note how they used a senior military official to make the disgusting claim that the violence in Iraq was related to a desire to help Democrats win the midterm election: "A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote."

The idea that the sectarian violence in Iraq, which has been spiraling out of control since the beginning of the year, had anything to do with trying to make Democrats win the election was always as transparently false -- stupid even -- as it was repugnant. Yet they say anything, and the media largely lets them get away with it.

And now the incontrovertible proof is here that what they said was a lie designed to manipulate Americans into voting Republican out of a desire to punish the Democrat-favoring terrorists in Iraq, and what are the consequences? They lie and manipulate like this not only because they lack any shred of integrity and character -- although that's true -- but also because they know they can do so with impunity.

Ponder how corrupt and misleading their coordinated pre-election claim was: All the increased violence in Iraq was just about the midterm election, not a sign of a spiraling civil war. It was just The Terrorists who hate Bush, because he is so tough with them, trying to help the Democrats. Nothing was really that bad in Iraq. Once the elections are over, it will all subside, because it's only about that.

The only thing worse than government leaders lying to their citizens so blatantly about a war is lying in order to benefit themselves politically for cheap electoral gain, so that's exactly what Bush officials and Bush followers do.

UPDATE: Nobody glorifies the power of the Islamic Terrorists more than Bush followers do. As The Heretik says in comments: "What's so impressive about the terrorists and the insurgents and the Shiites and the Sunnis who yearn so for the inevitable caliphate that will stretch from Spain to Pluto and beyond is that even as they fight amongst themselves, they have time to sit down and figure out how to influence our politics here."

And he says over at his own blog: "Our midterm elections are over and the violence that was raised to influence those results has spiked even higher" (The Heretik also has an extremely satisfying illustration of what Pat Leahy is doing to the White House). And as James Raven notes, some Bush followers are blaming Nancy Pelosi for this increased violence (because her desire to withdraw from Iraq is galvanizing The Terrorists).

So, to recap: when insurgents engage in violence before the elections, that's the fault of Democrats because it's done to help them win (and credit to Republicans because it shows how tough they are on The Terrorists). When the insurgents engage in violence after the elections, that's also the fault of Democrats because they are excited by the Democrats' success (and credit to Republicans because Republicans want to stay forever, which makes the insurgents sad and listless). And when there is no violence, all credit to Republicans because it shows how great their war plan is.

Put another way, no matter what happens in Iraq (violence increases, violence decreases), and no matter when it happens (before the election, after the election), it is the fault of Democrats and it reflects well on the Republicans. Isn't it fair to say that that's the very definition of the mindset of a cultist?

by Glenn Greenwald
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Its the same old stuff we hear here. I don't think some think responsibility and republican go together in the same sentence.
 

Steve

Well-known member
About the auther.....

I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

in other words the auther is an ACLU lawyer....

the real title of his article:
Why I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement

commenting on the bias of the article:
.....it, (the article),..it's auther, and it's following on this board are all biased with Bush hatred....because any unbiased person could see the direction and bias in the article half way through....

so continue to make "unfounded" comments against the Republicans on this board.....at least we can read, do research and uncover the intent of your spin.......
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
About the auther.....

I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

in other words the auther is an ACLU lawyer....

the real title of his article:
Why I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement

commenting on the bias of the article:
.....it, (the article),..it's auther, and it's following on this board are all biased with Bush hatred....because any unbiased person could see the direction and bias in the article half way through....

so continue to make "unfounded" comments against the Republicans on this board.....at least we can read, do research and uncover the intent of your spin.......

Steve, I don't think you can see the truth for your own bias.

Everyone is out to get you and to smear you. You turn everything into a strawman (smear against the military) so you have something to hate justifiably.

If you don't start living in the real world, you will continue to be stuck in fantasy land.

If you have your own view of events described, bring them with related facts. If you are going to dismiss other people's facts, tell why. Be persuasive.
 

Steve

Well-known member
If you have your own view of events described, bring them with related facts. If you are going to dismiss other people's facts, tell why. Be persuasive.

I presented facts.....the author is extremly biased....

Nonothing deleted the title..... Why I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement....

I dismissed it because it is just an overly biased view....and presented facts to show it was "overly biased"......

Just as I dismiss most of your comment......it had nothing to do with the thread.....should I call nonothing names?...would that be persuasive?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
Steve, I don't think you can see the truth for your own bias.

Everyone is out to get you and to smear you. You turn everything into a strawman (smear against the military) so you have something to hate justifiably.

If you don't start living in the real world, you will continue to be stuck in fantasy land.
I disagree. Steve is 1 of the most respected posters we have. Most of us have a lot of respect for Steve and the service he has given to our Country.

Just because you feel threatened by him is no reason to try to make him look bad. Actually, it is only making you look bad.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
X said:
Econ101 said:
Steve, I don't think you can see the truth for your own bias.

Everyone is out to get you and to smear you. You turn everything into a strawman (smear against the military) so you have something to hate justifiably.

If you don't start living in the real world, you will continue to be stuck in fantasy land.
I disagree. Steve is 1 of the most respected posters we have. Most of us have a lot of respect for Steve and the service he has given to our Country.

Just because you feel threatened by him is no reason to try to make him look bad. Actually, it is only making you look bad.

I too respect the service Steve has given to our country and many of the other servicemen who have done the same.

I do not feel threatened by him in any way. I hope he feels the reciprocal no matter what the disagreement.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ101 wrote:
Steve, I don't think you can see the truth for your own bias.

Everyone is out to get you and to smear you. You turn everything into a strawman (smear against the military) so you have something to hate justifiably.

If you don't start living in the real world, you will continue to be stuck in fantasy land.

I disagree. Steve is 1 of the most respected posters we have. Most of us have a lot of respect for Steve and the service he has given to our Country.

Just because you feel threatened by him is no reason to try to make him look bad. Actually, it is only making you look bad.

thank you X.....

I guess it seems that when some are challanged intellectually they resort to name calling.....and refering to others in derogatory ways.....

seen it before it is not a new thing.....remenber stveC's melt down....boy was that bad......

but for NEO eCON101 to insult the integrity and Honor of the Military in an attempt to challange me,.. well it is beyond comparison.....Maybe he should have read my comment first,.......then he would understand a little more about who he insulting......I was never a marine but working with them gave me great respect for thier understanding of HONOR.....

One of my mentors, a Navy Seal....gave me some great insight into people like her....(NEO eCON101) ,...her use of the comments such as (I want to challange them)...(I want them to reach a deeper level).....are all from a point of view looking down...,...(a condensending view at that),.....and as he said...for most of the world it is a point of power to look down on your adversary.....but not for a SEAL....as long as thier looking and yapping they can be knocked off thier little perch.....
 

katrina

Well-known member
I agree with X..... Steve is an insperation to me and I have great respect for the man......

VOTE STEVE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Steve said:
[.....remenber stveC's melt down....boy was that bad......

.....
I thought that was good.

All these libs are on shaky ground mentally it seems anyway. Nothing new with a liberal meltdown.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Steve said:
[.....remenber stveC's melt down....boy was that bad......

.....
I thought that was good.

All these libs are on shaky ground mentally it seems anyway. Nothing new with a liberal meltdown.

I'll tell you who scares me, and makes me wonder about mentally...Thats the person that votes for a letter (R) or a (D) and not the person who stands behind it- or thinks evrything a (R) or a (D) says or does has to be absolutely right- just because of the little letter.......IDIOTIC....
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Steve said:
About the auther.....

I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

in other words the auther is an ACLU lawyer....

the real title of his article:
Why I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement

commenting on the bias of the article:
.....it, (the article),..it's auther, and it's following on this board are all biased with Bush hatred....because any unbiased person could see the direction and bias in the article half way through....

so continue to make "unfounded" comments against the Republicans on this board.....at least we can read, do research and uncover the intent of your spin.......


I left the piece untitled because I felt the title to be misleading.I did however leave the authors's name so in the event one wanted to find out more,all they needed to do was a very simple Google search...It is not like you had t go into the bowels of the Smithsonian to find this particular column... :wink:

Of course you see the bias half way through,because the first half you were most likely to be in agreement with....You are correct also that the author is bias,as are those in which he writes about....He was merely stating facts and presenting them how HE see's those facts .....The only way you were able to attack the article was to hunt down the author.....No mention in his bio as who he was a lawyer for......but again YOU choose to make the spin now work in YOUR best interest.....

I understand you dislike any thing that the democrats will do or say....I guess I just find you to be hypocritical in your stanch repeating of how the democrats always find wrong with the republicans......

I have never once said all G.W.Bush's decisions were bad.......heck i am in full agreement with his stance on getting more parents involved on all public school's concerns....I frankly prefer the conservative view on criminals and how they should be treated with harsher penalties.....On many accounts Mr. Bush has done plenty of positive endeavors in assisting the USA in becoming a better place to live......Also not including the invasion of Iraq,he had big issues to try and solve.Immigration being one of them...With all honesty I don't think there was a win there for him,as finding a solution will take more then one attempt,and he was the first to have that issue play such a huge role in his term .....


I see the effort put in by the president,some of the back lash comes from those he surrounded himself with...which is what this article is taking point on.....The fact that he is the Pres.means he must swallow the crow that others he chose have served up.....


I disagree with the invasion of Iraq,and the lives lost there....Fighting no matter what never solves the issue... in most cases an understanding must be reached.....How one does this is by many means, none of which where choosing in my opinion......but it is time to stop fixing the worlds problems off the backs of the innocent......Those that decide to take life must also be prepared to take the responsibility of such decision if that decision does not go as planned.......To not take full responsibility for actions of such catastrophic level,can one still be called a good leader in regards to that particular decision?

As a leader to claim anything other then ones own fault,when things go bad or not as planned,shows a lack of true leadership.....I do not know why so many died in Iraq and why it still goes on,but if it was a problem of estimation,who do you hold responsible......The democrats for not laying down in front of tanks in a desperate attempt to stop it...Or the troops sent over to do what is asked of them............or The Iraqi people for living as they did.....or the leader with the idea that came to a reality under his watch? ......To go was that the mistake?......To stay was that the mistake?.....Pick your choice,neither is fair to anyone including the man who decided.....but to lead one must know how to follow,maybe the cries are finally getting loud enough for all to hear.......

Each of us has our own opinion on whom the responsibility lays with....It is half the reason we battle on here.....It,in my opinion is time for each person to get behind what is right.....not what is spite........support the effort to curb this catastrophe and get your family members home,and let Iraq's wounds heal.....Nothing will ever be the same on a world scale again.....but maybe these two fighting countries can both win in the end.....We should all say a prayer for that.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Nonothing
.He (Glenn Greenwood) was merely stating facts and presenting them how HE see's those facts ....

if you took out all his opinions and left the facts it would be a 1/2 paragraph....



But feel free to seperate the "so called facts" he presented....

it is his opinion not facts he presents......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
I'll tell you who scares me, and makes me wonder about mentally...Thats the person that votes for a letter (R) or a (D) and not the person who stands behind it- or thinks evrything a (R) or a (D) says or does has to be absolutely right- just because of the little letter.......IDIOTIC....
Unfortunately, I think it's absolutely essential that voters take party affiliation into consideration these days. It's a shame that it's that way, but the politicians are the ones that started all of it. Now, the way they split themselves into 2 groups for committee assignments, voting, etc, the voters don't have a choice but to consider which group best represents the things that are most important to them.

I think that many of us could probably agree that we would much prefer that they do away with the political parties completely. That way, we could vote for the best individual. But until that happens, often times a vote for a third party is the same as voting for a dem.

Ross Perot is a great patriot and touts policies that make a lot of sense. He is really a brilliant man and a great, great American. But the people that voted for him for President are the people that gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton.

I don't know that it's accurate, or that it's how many of the rest of you would describe me, but I actually consider myself to be a very conservative libertarian. Oftentimes, I don't really feel like I fit anywhere. So I often find myself having to vote for the lesser of the evils.

I don't like it, that's just the way it is.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Oftentimes, I don't really feel like I fit anywhere.[/b] :cry2: :cry2: :cry2: :cry2:


Ahhhh....we kinda like ya.....( lordy knows why???!!!! :heart: :nod: )
 
Top