| 27th September 2006 09:54 AM |
|
|
| Chuck |
Was Bush warned by another country?:
"The Israelis had warned us in August 2001, when they sent a delegation to Washington, handed over a list of 19 individuals in the United States whom they believed to be planning terrorist activities, and issued a nonspecific warning that a major terrorist attack was afoot. Yet there are indications that the Mossad knew about Muhammad Atta and his gang long before they let U.S. law enforcement in on the secret."
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html
[Edited by Chuck] |
| 27th September 2006 11:14 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Silly me. I thought the issue was you calling sirmoonie a crybaby for pointing out that you draw conclusions without bothering to read the material.
Dude...I thought you said you read?...you sure aboout that? |
| 27th September 2006 11:17 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
You are starting to repeat yourself. One must be resourceful, even on the main themes. There is a different and creative way to insult someone each and every time. I'm not going to tell you this again. I will not repeat myself. Do you hear me? I will not repeat myself!
Watching you fall all about yourself trying to defend Clinton is killing me...4 years of posting with you and you finally disclose an allegiance to an individual other than yourself...and it's Bill Clinton?...fucking funny
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
| 27th September 2006 11:20 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Dude, listen, fuck it. Its Bush Geek Fuck Ing Ism. Not one of these guys - Max, Telecaster, Mao Fuji, Riffy, etc. - can explain it. Don't ask them too, it upsets them, and they have to go find blog links about Clinton. Or even worse, his wife.
Man..hike up yo draws G...yo meltdown is showing |
| 27th September 2006 11:28 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Man..hike up yo draws G...yo meltdown is showing"
|
| 27th September 2006 11:28 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Joey wrote:
" Man..hike up yo draws G...yo meltdown is showing"
I smell ass |
| 27th September 2006 11:30 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Bill Clinton has once again shown the Repubs. that he is in fact, the Man. The beatdown of Wallace was a stroke of brilliance on his part. 1/2 day spent on his anger and now the main focus is on Bush's inactions and and the potentially disasterous effects of his misguided war in Iraq. He is, in fact, the master. |
| 27th September 2006 11:35 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Bill Clinton has once again shown the Repubs. that he is in fact, the Man. The beatdown of Wallace was a stroke of brilliance on his part. 1/2 day spent on his anger and now the main focus is on Bush's inactions and and the potentially disasterous effects of his misguided war in Iraq. He is, in fact, the master.
Bill sure can intimidate women and pasty white newsman...I would have liked to seen him knuckle up on Bin Laden...him being a tough guy and all |
| 27th September 2006 12:58 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
You know the Republicans are getting their asses kicked when they have to once again resort to whining about some made up "liberal media bias". For chrissakes, if it wasn't for your so-called "DLM" bending over and taking it dry from the Man (see Miller, Cooper, the entire WaPo staff including editorial board), the right wing wackos wouldn't have their excellent adventure in Iraq. They're still doing! Just this a.m., Lauer let the degenerate gambler get away with making up a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Didn't even say "WTF are talking about, Snake eyes?" Pathetic.
Face it, the media is not "liberal" or "conservative". They are lazy. They print whatever is fed to them, no questions asked. The more sensational, the better. Now, try something better.
Who is "the degenerate gambler"? I don't usually catch Lauer & Co. |
| 27th September 2006 12:59 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Doh!
[Edited by pdog]
ME fucking OW! |
| 27th September 2006 01:03 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I'll answer your question Maxy.
Pakistan's "President General" is a military dictator. A military dictator in the mold of....ummmm....SADDAM HUSSEIN. So, your position is that we should be chummy with ruthless military dictators when it suits us? You mean like when the Reagan admin was all chummy with Saddam, and Rummy and Dick would fly to Bagdad for dinner and handshaking?
To me this administrations earlier actions has made this a pretty clearcut situation. Ruthless military dictators are bad, and need to be removed from power so that Democracy can take root. Right? Or is it just ruthless military dictators that DON'T have WMDs that need to get whacked?
Do you really think that Pakistan would be the least bit afraid of our "threats" now? Dude we can't even clean up the mess in Afghanistan, much less in Iraq. And none of them had any really nasty weapons like Pakistan has. If I was the Paki Prez and GW tried to strong arm me over dinner, I'd laugh in his face, followed by a "George, bring it, don't sing it."
What GW is saying in this instance is..."Yeah he's a psycho military dictator who has murdered thousands of his own people and has a large stockpile of WMDs sitting right out in the open. BUT! He's OUR psycho military dictator who has murdered thousands of his own people and has a large stockpile of WMDs sitting right out in the open."
Sorry man, but I find that pretty fucking awful.
However, I do not find THIS pretty fucking awful....
[Edited by Sir Stonesalot] |
| 27th September 2006 01:14 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Nice suit!
As far as Pakistan having nukes, when did they get them? I'm uncomfortable with having Musharraf in the WH tonight but the fact is that he is key to our strategy there & it's good to keep him close by. |
| 27th September 2006 01:19 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Pakistan's "President General" is a military dictator. A military dictator in the mold of....ummmm....SADDAM HUSSEIN. So, your position is that we should be chummy with ruthless military dictators when it suits us? You mean like when the Reagan admin was all chummy with Saddam, and Rummy and Dick would fly to Bagdad for dinner and handshaking?
So your answer is you'd rather not work with Pakistan at the risk of Al Qeada (His enemy too) overthrowing him and gaining nukes. OK.
|
| 27th September 2006 01:23 PM |
|
|
| jb |
I really don't mind Musharef at all...I understand his predicament. |
| 27th September 2006 01:25 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Joshy you've become a realist. |
| 27th September 2006 01:39 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
SS...she is staring at me also...what gives?...well I did start using Brut again |
| 27th September 2006 01:47 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
No Maxy.
What I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I've always been right up front about shit like this. I really don't have any solutions. The situation is beyond what my feeble lil' brain can deal with. But I can still see when things are not right. Having dinner with a homicidal military dictator in the White House is NOT RIGHT. I don't want Mike Tyson to beat me up, but that doesn't mean that I have to invite him over to my house for dinner...you know what I'm sayin'?
Anyhow, Ride 'em Cowboy!!!
[Edited by Sir Stonesalot] |
| 27th September 2006 01:48 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
jb wrote:
I really don't mind Musharef at all...I understand his predicament.
This is it in a nutshell...even the geo-politically challenged Bill Clinton would understand the value of working with this man as opposed to the mullahs who are plotting his death and waiting to gain power...it's a simplistic and short-sighted argument to simply say he's a dictator and we should not deal with him...if that's the prevailing view, then we should just raise our drawbridge and tell the world to fuck off...modernization is that country's best be in achieving some sort of pluralistic government
And I was pretty sure Pakistan already has nukes...don't they? |
| 27th September 2006 01:48 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
I've already explained how I felt in one line: He's doing a lot to help us under threat of his own life. Pakistan has nailed quite a few high value targets in the last few years. More than the libs best friends like France and Russia. Also, Bush was anything but "punked" by him. Word has come out that we threatend his ass pretty good to get on baord right after 9/11. He's our b*tch and I guarantee he was reminded of this over dinner. And Fiji chimed in with the very improtant fact that if he gets overthrown, Al Qeada has nukes instantly.
Based on this, can you explain why we shouldn't be working with this guy?
I await your response to my question.
I never said we shouldn't work with him or he should be overthrown. Removing him, would destabilize the region, and allow radical groups an oppurtunity to take over. Your own words. It would be foolish to overthow him, yet removing Saddam was a smart move?
I must be too stupid. I had no idea one was different from the other. We know have a very safe place in mid east, in Iraq. Iran and Saudi Arabia got the message, don't export terror or persue nuke technology, or we'll destabilize the region more.
If you show me where I said Mushroomhead should be removed, I'll shut the fuck up, I never said it.
Since SS has shown a hottie and stated the same case I would've I have nothing more to say other than this, he was in OUR White House!
That is disgusting.
If we all looked at pics of hot women all day, there's be no war.
|
| 27th September 2006 01:48 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Nice suit!
As far as Pakistan having nukes, when did they get them? I'm uncomfortable with having Musharraf in the WH tonight but the fact is that he is key to our strategy there & it's good to keep him close by.
They've had them for years, as well as India.
Keep him close, work with him, but don't allow him in OUR house!
He's a bad man! Have you heard his rationle for not going after Bin Laden and signing a truce with Taliban warlords who protect him... It would be funny if it was a movie. Then again Bush never thought about Bin Laden before we were attacked, it's not like the previous admin. didn't tell them. Fucking Clinton. you could've told him.
With so much conjecture on the Republican part, it's also just as safe to say, Al gore may have looked into bin Laden and al Queda. The futre of the pasts 20-20 hindsight is an open book. And the threat saddam posed was huge. He had the ability to throw cans of raid at the usa. |
| 27th September 2006 01:51 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Of course Musharraf's different from Saddam Insane. He allows elections, he's pushing them into the 18th century & he's an ally, albeit a reluctant ally. |
| 27th September 2006 01:52 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
pdog wrote:
They've had them for years, as well as India.
Keep him close, work with him, but don't allow him in OUR house!
They & India got nukes during the Clintoon Error. Look it up! |
| 27th September 2006 01:53 PM |
|
|
| Dick Bush |
Glen,
Let's look that this way.
How many american casualties were there on pacifying the bloody Slobodan Milosevic on Balcans?
Allow me remind you: not a single one, buddy boy!
Wasn't the american highly effective military action a FULL success and a true lesson to the farty, old Europe, truly unable to solve the troubles on its own ground?
On the other hand, what's actually going on in Iraq?
Boobah got his cock sucked by some dirty whore - that's not good at all - but howz about funky Walker, is there one single thing you'll remember after he'll be gone to hell?
Vent on, buddy. |
| 27th September 2006 01:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
All I'll remember "Dick" is that W actually responded to threats to THIS country. That matters, buddy boy. Bubba was always a piece of shit who refused to recognize threats to this country & all his fulminating about it only shows howe guilty he really is.
[Edited by glencar] |
| 27th September 2006 01:57 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Do you really think that Pakistan would be the least bit afraid of our "threats" now? Dude we can't even clean up the mess in Afghanistan, much less in Iraq. And none of them had any really nasty weapons like Pakistan has. If I was the Paki Prez and GW tried to strong arm me over dinner, I'd laugh in his face, followed by a "George, bring it, don't sing it."
Are you serious?...you and others who have mentioned things in this regard are failing to understand the distinction between destruction and occupation...you should have no doubt SS about America's ability to reduce Pakistan to glass...it could be done very quickly...and would cost the lives of few, relatively speaking, Americans
But you're right...he'd still laugh...but not because he thinks that we are logistically incapable of destroying his country, but because he knows that as a people, we are far too soft and indecisive to do such a thing...even if it means preventing the destruction of ourselves...but Pervez isn't the only one laughing in that respect...all the bad guys know this about us...and they know it will be our undoing...do you think some of those bad guys would hesitate to destroy us if they could...what do you suppose they will do when they get to the point where they can?
|
| 27th September 2006 01:58 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
All I'll remember "Dick" is that W actually responded to threats to THIS country. That matters, buddy boy. Bubba was always a piece of shit who refused to recognize threats to this country & all his fulminating about it only shows howe guilty he really is.
[Edited by glencar]
Clinton came a lot closer to killing Bin Laden than the Bush ....Glencar, please understand Bush has done nothing to capture Osama in almost 6 yrs!!! |
| 27th September 2006 01:59 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Of course Musharraf's different from Saddam Insane. He allows elections, he's pushing them into the 18th century & he's an ally, albeit a reluctant ally.
He is not an elected official. Saddam Hussein allowed elections too!
There's also been a long, ongoing conflict bettween India and Pakistan for decades.
Clinton allowed nukes. Why are we blaiming him. America allowed nukes, the world allowed nukes.
George bush allowed Bin Laden to attack us, is that a fair statement, seeing as how he never held on terror briefing regarding ghim, clinton had weekly briefing and got blown at the same time.
Bush can't multi-task. No wonder he has a dictaor in the white house, he loves the tate-of-dic...
Let's pretend for a minute, we're americans and not two political parties. Once you clear that bullshit away, then you can see the reality.
We need a realtionship with Mushyhead, we also needed the one with Saddam. That don't make it moral, and you don't have them over for dinner! |
| 27th September 2006 01:59 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
glencar wrote:
They & India got nukes during the Clintoon Error. Look it up!
Interesting
I like the indians...as a people they seem good to me...Bush's cooperation with their energy program will prove to be a stroke of genius as the next 50 years unfold |
| 27th September 2006 02:01 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
All I'll remember "Dick" is that W actually responded to threats to THIS country. That matters, buddy boy. Bubba was always a piece of shit who refused to recognize threats to this country & all his fulminating about it only shows howe guilty he really is.
[Edited by glencar]
"Bin Laden determined to attack"
or
"weekly briefings on Bin Laden"
Please place the name next to the president who these statemnts aplly too.
I will grade this on a curve! |
| 27th September 2006 02:01 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
jb wrote:
Clinton came a lot closer to killing Bin Laden than the Bush ....Glencar, please understand Bush has done nothing to capture Osama in almost 6 yrs!!!
Ok...now y'all are just getting retarded...it's best I let you figure out why on your own |
