RNC's Bush Campaign

[HolyWarrior]

john, get a Censored grip.

If you EVER think I want to go back to the 90s decade of lies, YOU should be committed to a mental institution. But then, here's something for ya


http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...tics-headlines

Wash. Congressman Questions Saddam Timing

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

December 16, 2003, 9:16 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah." The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing." When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him. "It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something." State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq war. "Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott -- and Howard Dean, who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories."

You assclowns are in total meltdown, and it's a wonderful sight to see. [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img]

[ 05-27-2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[LordKathen]

HolyWarrior, you are out of line! This is a family forum. I hope the mods take measures here.

i, too, feel you are out of line, holywarrior, and would like to see you apologise to john.

your ill treatment, however, cannot hide the facts. here's a more reasoned review of the events of the weekend. the italics are mine.

In Victory, America Loses The capture of Saddam Hussein marks a great victory for the US military and for Bush - or so the media and the administration would have us believe. Finally, after the nine long months since the onset of America's war upon Iraq, there he was being paraded for all to see: Saddam Hussein. Looking somewhat more like a refugee than a deposed tyrant, Hussein was poked, prodded, and probed by an American doctor in full view of tens of millions in America and around the world this Sunday morning, just in time to pre-empt the Sunday political talk shows. As CBS surrounded its repetitive presentation of the tape snippet with Rather-blather about this being "game, set, and match" for George Bush in next year's elections, the media factories generating "American Pride(tm)" swung into overdrive; the swirling animated eagle-and-flag graphics, the breathless commentary about this meaning "a new respect" for America in the middle east and around the world, and the milataristic musical fanfares heralding the impending commercial breaks all conspired to convince the public that this was the most significant event since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Were that it were so. Of couse, nobody would argue that it's a bad thing that Hussein has been captured; anytime a despotic regime bites dust, it is generally speaking something to be happy about, and in the sad case of Iraq - a country which not only had to endure decades of his rule, but an additional dozen years' worth of forced starvation caused by draconian sanctions - one can only hope that perhaps finally the beleagured people will get a break. Regardless of the administration's stated intentions, however, this is likely to be a by-product of events rather than a goal in itself, if it happens at all; more likely, the slow spiral into chaos in the form of tribal warfare, coupled with an ongoing conflict with the occupying forces, will visit continued suffering for years to come. It's worth wondering what we all might be paying attention to this particular Sunday morning were it not for this "triumph of American intelligence." Most of us, of course, would be going about the course of our normal daily lives - holiday shopping, hangover nursing, child-minding, church, work. But at least some would have been riveted by a lower-profile but no less interesting news item, one that surely would have been a hot topic on "Meet The Press": The Halliburton overcharges. Remember? Just a day or two earlier, it was looking pretty bad for the Bush administration in the endless Info-War. Halliburton, the company whose former leader just happens to be Vice President Cheney and which had the good fortune to get a fat billion-dollar no-bid Iraq reconstruction contract, was being excoriated by the Pentagon for some 60 million dollars' worth of inflated invoices. The malodorous stench of corruption was beginning to seep out of the hermetically-sealed Bush bubble, and things were beginning to look a bit bleak for the administration on the homeland propaganda front. There would be tough questions asked, inquiries launched, and baying for blood from a newly-emboldened field of Democratic contenders for Bush's throne. But as if on cue, along comes assistance from that most unlikely of sources. America's boogeyman Saddam Hussein rides in to save the day, replete with appropriately bedraggled appearance and whipped-cur onscreen manner, just in time to deflect all eyes from a good hard look at the character of the man serving as their Commander In Chief. It was as if the final scenes of a John Wayne western had been deconstructed and had their "bad guy" replaced by a computer-enhanced, media-tailored uber-villain. America's vile scourge Saddam had finally been reduced to his animalistic, elemental form; good had vanquished evil in a single memetic swoop. We got our bad guy; therefore, America has a magnificent leader. Away with all of those tough questions about fraud and sweetheart insider deals. Guess the photo-ops and soundbites from this one will go a long way towards overcoming that "mission accomplished" gaffe, eh? In the public eye, maybe. In reality: not by a long shot. A telling detail, somewhat glossed over in the television coverage, is the underwhelming response by the Iraqis themselves. Aside from the bought-and-paid-for Iraqi "experts" who were promptly plunked into studio chairs for cheerleading sessions, few seemed all that thrilled. For them, the issue stopped being Saddam months ago. For them, the issue is now American occupation, and the incontrovertible fact of America's failure to bring peace, stability, and democracy to the country it destroyed - not to mention its failure to justify doing so in the first place. Besides the tough questions surrounding Halliburton that will now go unasked in the tide of SaddaMania, there are other compelling issues which this glorious victory seems destined to sweep under the carpet. Where are those WMDs, anyway? And how many civilians have we actually killed? Why are American service personnel still coming home in bags, or with limbs missing? And, given that the pre-war justifications for an attack have been systematically dismantled and discredited ad nauseum - no ties to 9/11, no nuclear program, no chemical weapons, no anything - why the hell have we sacrificed our global credibility, the goodwill of much of the world, and hundreds of U.S. soldiers in the hellhole that Iraq has become? If the Bush administration has its way, the world may never know. Savvy viewers of the Saddam Sideshow might want to pursue one rather theoretical line of inquiry, however. If America wins a war it was never legally or ethically justified in fighting and which was launched on false pretenses, is our stature enhanced or diminished? And if doing so results in debt, death, and global ill-will for the victor, should the leader in charge be lauded as a hero - or denounced as a liar? Note: © 2003 David B. Livingstone

[Azimaith]

Originally posted by john: I can't believe how many people are still talking like Bush is doing a good job !! Are you all on the government payroll? Or are you all rich and are hoping for more tax cuts for the rich or just plain ...DEAF DUMB and BLIND!!! This guy belongs in jail!!!Not another term in the white house!!

Haha thanks for insulting me John, that really supported your case along with you complete and utter lack of support for the wild accusations you've flung here. Nope, I'm neither deaf, dumb, nor blind.. dunno about you though...

And Sultan, I believe, that if Bush wanted to look great, he'd grab Saddam ASAP and say that its the great intelligence work that this new administration is capable of, it wasn't looking bad at all in my opinion, it was the same old same old as always in Iraq.

[ 12-17-2003, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Azimaith ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: john, get a fuckin' grip.

HolyWarrior, YOU get a grip. I will no longer stand for such CRAP to be posted on IW. This Forum is being watched VERY closely now. As per the RULES here, your account is locked for 2 weeks.


Let this be a lesson, and a warning to others that wish to take off their gloves, and make things personal.

[LordKathen]

Thank you Z.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by LordKathen: Thank you Z.

Not a problem. Even though we disagree sometimes, there's no need to disrespect others just because of others views. Grrr..


We now take you back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[Timber Loftis]

Saw that one coming.

Since HolyWarrior isn't around to defend himself, let me take advantage and whip out an oldie but a goodie.

[img]graemlins/troll.jpg[/img]

[LordKathen]

So, are you defending him? The only thing that I was refering to was his cursing. His opinion was another matter. I hope your not calling me a troll.

[ 12-17-2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

[john]

Wow...Sorry but the more I read latly (other than newspapers) about Bush,Chaney,Ashcroft,Rice etc etc.I can't help but remark.These people have devestated our environment,destroyed the clean air act,passed new laws to let the worst poluters get away with trashing OUR air,water just for a few bucks!! They lie and deceive with the newspapers owned by their powerful friends.and get the foolish to believe their doing their best for you and me ,while shoveling the money into their little tax shelters.While we ,the ones who actually have to work for a living, see payroll tax,sales tax,excise tax bla bla bla tax....get it? Don't mean to rant but I work hard for a living and don't like to be lied to by the people who are supposed to be in charge.. ( pardon my spelling ).Peace love Woodstock