|
Grex > Agora56 > #96: Cheney shoots fellow hunter in South Texas. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 218 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 125 of 218:
| 
Feb 18 22:17 UTC 2006 |
It jibes perfectly with the revisionist spin that was put out as a talking
point once it became abundantly clear that the mission wasn't accomplished.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 126 of 218:
|
Feb 18 22:44 UTC 2006 |
Well, I understand that my initial interpretation was incorrect.
|
tod
|
|
response 127 of 218:
|
Feb 18 23:01 UTC 2006 |
Let's talk about Nigeria(Lagos) and Venezuela cutting Shell's nuts off.
Is it because of oil depletion or is Team Evil Axis recruiting for the big
ass kicking of the USA economy?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 128 of 218:
|
Feb 18 23:13 UTC 2006 |
Shell is a Dutch company. How does that figure in?
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 218:
|
Feb 18 23:26 UTC 2006 |
It figures in that 1.5 million barrels of Venezuelan oil a day go directly
to the USA. They're the world's 5th largest oil exporter. It figures in a
BIG way. Katrina will look like a mosquito bite compared to how bad it would
affect our economy.
|
bru
|
|
response 130 of 218:
|
Feb 19 02:45 UTC 2006 |
My original interpretation was that the IraQI MILITARY was now defeated.
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 218:
|
Feb 19 03:58 UTC 2006 |
My interpretation was that it was typical political hotdogging and a waste
of taxpayer money.
|
cross
|
|
response 132 of 218:
|
Feb 19 18:56 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 133 of 218:
|
Feb 19 22:57 UTC 2006 |
we have made iraq safe for theocracy.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 134 of 218:
|
Feb 20 00:40 UTC 2006 |
The original mission was to rid Iraq of WMDs. Once they got in there and
realized there weren't any.... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
|
tod
|
|
response 135 of 218:
|
Feb 20 02:25 UTC 2006 |
re #134
No doubt
|
bru
|
|
response 136 of 218:
|
Feb 20 13:02 UTC 2006 |
Syria has the WMD now. They were shipped there via stripped out civilian
airliners at the behest of SAddam. There is documentation to that effect.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 137 of 218:
|
Feb 20 13:48 UTC 2006 |
Let's bomb the shit out of Syria !
|
edina
|
|
response 138 of 218:
|
Feb 20 15:44 UTC 2006 |
I caught the round table of "Meet the Press" yesterday. Mary Matalin, David
Gregory, Maureen Dowd and Paul Gigeut (editor for the WSJ). I personally feel
much of the Dick Cheney fiasco has been overblown. That being said, something
Matalin disclosed truly bothered me. She said that the group of hunters had
basically gotten together to exchange facts so that one statement could come
out of it. The fact that this came from Matalin's own lips was somewhat
incredulous to me.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 139 of 218:
|
Feb 20 16:21 UTC 2006 |
I think the whole deal about the whitehouse not notifying the entire
world of what was a non-government activity is overblown. However, I do
not feel the same about the firearm mishandling by Cheney. I think he
got a pass this time because of his position.
|
edina
|
|
response 140 of 218:
|
Feb 20 16:35 UTC 2006 |
I have no issue with them not immediately informing the press - I do have an
issue with them "getting the story straight".
I think that this has served two purposes: to show how the White House really
doesn't want people to know what it's doing and to detract from things that
are of true importance.
|
cross
|
|
response 141 of 218:
|
Feb 20 16:40 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 142 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:07 UTC 2006 |
re136: sources other than neocon, broose?
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:50 UTC 2006 |
I thought the WMD were buried under a well marked palm tree...
BWAHAHAHAH!
Sheesh...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 144 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:52 UTC 2006 |
re #136: If there really was even semi-credible evidence that the weapons
were moved to Syria what possible motivation would the Bush administration
have for withholding it?
So far the only argument I've seen supporting the contention that Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria relies on two easily
demolished assumptions:
First assumption: "Well, we know that the weapons exist and we didn't
find them in Iraq, therefore they *must* be in Syria.." If you can't
see the problem with this assumption you're not trying very hard.
Second assumption: "All those Arab countries are alike and they're
chiefly concerned with doing whatever it takes to get the USA."
Imagine for a second that you were a paranoid dictator in control
of Iraq. During your reign you've started and ultimately lost badly
two wars with neighboring countries (Iraq, Kuwait.) Why on earth
would you give your weapons of mass destruction to a neighboring
country, poorer than your own, run by another dictator, and with
clearly manifest territorial ambitions in the region (say, who's
that occupying Lebanon?)?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 218:
|
Feb 20 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Quite right. The same argument applies to the very small probability that Iraq
under Sadaam would have given any significant weapons to Al Qaeda. Absolute
dictators just don't do that sort of thing - or they jeopardize remaining
absolute.
|
bru
|
|
response 146 of 218:
|
Feb 20 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Have you forgotten what Saddam did with his aircraft during the first gulf
war? He sent them to Iran. IRAN! A country he had just had a major war where
he used WMD's against.
You talk like SAddam was a sane man.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 147 of 218:
|
Feb 20 20:25 UTC 2006 |
re #146:
> You talk like SAddam was a sane man.
That's because I believe he *is* a sane man. Brutal, ruthless, amoral,
and evil, but I believe him to be rational, calculating, and as capable
as anyone of understanding the consequences of his actions.
Would you have us believe he was a raving lunatic who, through a phenomonal
sequence of strokes of fortune, managed to seize and retain power for 30
years in a completely cutthroat environment?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 148 of 218:
|
Feb 20 20:43 UTC 2006 |
Calculating, definitely calculating.
|
richard
|
|
response 149 of 218:
|
Feb 20 21:01 UTC 2006 |
mcnally said:
"That's because I believe he *is* a sane man. Brutal, ruthless, amoral,
and evil, but I believe him to be rational, calculating, and as capable
as anyone of understanding the consequences of his actions."
I agree. The best way to enrage certain people in a world war II
discussion is to say Hitler was sane and rational, and not a satanic
possessed lunatic. But I think Hitler was sane and rational, and knew
the consequences of his actions. Which make his actions all the more
horrible. Just like Saddam. I do not believe therefore that if Saddam
had WMD's that he would ultimately have used them. Just as Kruschev,
another horrible dictator, did not.
|