ARS on Twitter
RSS
Thumb Suckers
Posted by Raven on December 19th, 2005
LOL Capt. B has a term I hadn’t quite thought of, for the peaceniks, the pacifists, the defeatists of this country.
The Honorable Mr Bush gave his Address the Nation speech Sunday night. You can read the entire transcript by clicking here. It was a great speech and said what many of you are saying with one voice. In past blogs I mentioned “one person can make a difference” and many of YOU are doing that. The President apologized and took responsibility (democrats look that up it’s a new word for you) and stated “It was the right thing to do” and he is right that it defiantly was the right thing to do. However I don’t think he had to apologize. Lets help the left sided thumb suckers remember Sadam killing those hundreds of Kurds in his own land with a variant of mustard gas and cyanide. (Note: Mustard gas, yea its WMD.
THUMB SUCKERS. Heh.
All of the thumb suckers would be complaining right now if Sadam was still in power and had orchestrated several attacks similar to the 9/11 attack on the US. All we would be hearing is why didn’t we take care of him earlier?? How could this have happened? That’s the way the thumb suckers are. We do the right thing and they want the left thing.
Sepmer Fi Capt. and have a safe Christmas!
December 19th, 2005 at 8:21 am
That pretty much covers it.
Thumb suckers, I like it!
December 19th, 2005 at 10:48 am
The President apologized and took responsibility (democrats look that up it’s a new word for you) and stated “It was the right thing to do” and he is right that it defiantly was the right thing to do. However I don’t think he had to apologize.
I’m totally lost. At what point in this speech did the President apologize?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Go to whitehouse.gov and read the text of the full speech. He didn’t prostrate himself and indulge in the weeping and gnashing of teeth, but he did take responsibility for going to war and he explained why, including the fact that like everyone else, he had been led to believe there was WMD and he gave other reasons, as he did prior to going, that the left and the MSM ignored because it would have interfered with the “Bush lied” campaign. He did assume full responsibility, something his predecessor would never have done.
However, if you know the facts, you also know he had nothing to apologize for.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Mustard gas and cyanide is no better or worse than white phospherous and depleted uranium. Death is death, and in this respect, the US was the bringer of death.
The report just came out anyway, and it states unequivocally that Bush and party had a much wider breadth of intelligence, as well as info on methods and background that the rest of the government had to look at when making their decision.
He should be impeached for his carelessness.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Seth,
The author says:
The President apologized and took responsibility (democrats look that up it’s a new word for you) and stated “It was the right thing to do” and he is right that it defiantly was the right thing to do. However I don’t think he had to apologize.
The author links to a transcript of the speech located here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179084,00.html
My question is a simple one: at what point in this speech did the President apologize?
December 19th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
BFM
The apology was implicit, not an “I’m sorry” apology, but an explanation apology. Every single US politician who voted to go to war had the same Intel as Bush, though the left is baselessly claiming otherwise.
Timmah
Every time the US goes to war during a GOP admin, the same lefties come out of the wood work sympathizing with the enemy. The people we’re fighting blow up little children and decapitate innocent abductees.
But still you Marxists find fault with the US when we fight to win, sometimes losing soldiers because . This isn’t a game of patticakes our troops are involved in, and the overall objective of the GWOT is to either blow your sorry ass up or convert you to Islam, the lowest sect, and take away the freedoms you now enjoy.
It’s amazing how out of touch with reality you lefties are and it’s a good thing for America that most of us don’t think like you or vote like you probably vote.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Seth – Do you ever get off your holier than thou highhorse?
In case you haven’t noticed, incidents of terrorism (not counting those in the warzone) have increased threefold since the Iraq war. Any middle east expert will tell you Saddam kept Al quaida out of Iraq, as they were standoffish at best and rivals at worst.
When you invade, occupy and attempt to pacify a sovereign nation, particularly an arab one, you are undoubtably going to create terrorists. Every son that sees their father shot dead at a US roadblock, every daughter that has lost her entire family to an RPG, they become the next generation of terrorists. As would you in their situation, if you’re as much of a he-man warrior as you like to fancy yourself.
It’s harmful to the national discourse to treat terrorist acts as if they were acts of war, and not the acts of a criminal fringe group. Afghanistan was more or less justified, because the ruling government there pretty much was Al quaida, Iraq was another matter entirely.
Don’t fucking call me names like marxist or lefty, it makes you look stupid, and it’s intellectually dishonest. Don’t fucking tell me i’m “sympathizing with the enemy”, that kind of Mccarthyite bullshit might wash with someone who cows to intimidation, not me.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
And as far as “bush’s apology” goes, someone has allread said it better than me…
“At least it’s good to know that Bush remembers that he’s the one who had to say the words “Invade Iraq” before it would happen. Fuck him. Bush did not take one bit of responsibility for the bad intelligence. It’s like saying, “I’m responsible for the decision to break that lamp, and I’m responsible for getting the Elmer’s to put it back together,” but you know what? You didn’t say you broke the fuckin’ lamp.”
December 19th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
(Rolling my eyes) Furry whatever your freakin name is, get a clue. The President took responsibilty, that can encompass apology and all. He’s a bigger man than most of todays liberal/leftist dim witted Democrats thats for sure.
December 19th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Hey Raven, you swooping in each thread and berating everyone that comes to your blog in an overly insulting manner doesen’t count as debate.
December 19th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
The bad intel came from the screwed up national security/intelligence system Clinton had left when HE did. If Clinton or any other Dem had done what Bush did in Iraq, you and the rest of the left would have been swooning and praising him for it, the only difference is that the second we lost a couple of soldiers, he’d've had ‘em hauling ass in full retreat(see “cut and run”) — come to think of it, he(a Dem pres, of course) did disgrace us like that at Mogadishu, didn’t he?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If it thinks like a lefty and spews like a Marxist, it’s probably either/or.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Seth, the bogus intel came from Neocons like Doug Feith, it had nothing to do with “Clinton’s CIA”. They relied heavily on the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi. They fed most of the discredited intel to the senior officials without passing it along the standard chain of command, where it would most likely have been rejected.
Most of the mid-level CIA folks rejected all intel from the INC, it was the idelogues like Wolfowitz, Feith and Cheney who believed the lies and used it to justify the war.
This has been faithfully documented by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker article called “The Stovepipe”. I highly suggest it.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Hmmm, a non sensical blame clinton, followed by a personal attack… why am i not surprised?
And no, I wouldn’t be applauding anyone who messed up Iraq as badly as Bush. I don’t care if it’s fucking Nader, he’s a lying prick that deserves to be sent to the Hague.
Regardless, it would have never happened, because Clinton listened to the experts in matters of war, and all the credible experts were advising against the invasion of Iraq, only Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were trying to sell this bullshit “we’ll be greeted as liberators” nonsense.
Even the first Bush knew that invading Iraq would be a mistake in the first gulf war, and he was right there, lined right up along the border allready, so I guess you’re wrong again.
I like the contrast between the different presidents though now that you mention it, Clinton’s purpose was humanitartian aid, and Bush’s is a resource grab at best and simple minded revenge at worst.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
“A resource grab” indeed.
The problem with you southpaws is that you actually believe the right incapable of doing anything because it is good, you think everything Bush does is for commercial reasons.
Speaking for myself, and you better believe I’m a conservative, I donate large sums of money to charities and good causes all the time, but as is my belief, I never write them off on my taxes, because I don’t believe that I should make my fellow taxpayers have to contribute to causes I endorse but they might not. You’ll find this true of many of my fellow conservatives.
Yet whenever those across the aisle believe in a cause, they attempt to make a federal case of it and force all tax payers, through govt allocations, to contribute to it.
This is socialism.
But I digress–
Bush & Co actually have reasons that go beyond commerce where the GWOT, including Iraq, is concerned. You ought to give some thought to what he says in his speeches(if you bother listening to them), and try to listen objectively.
We are winning in Iraq, but the MSM will ignore a major positive event and concentrate on a negative event of far less importance to the “big picture.” No matter what we accomplish in Iraq, they will downplay it.
There was a joke I heard recently that involved Bush getting out of a smallboat and walking across the water to retrieve something. The next day’s headline reads, “Bush can’t swim.” That’s pretty much the nature of the short shrift the media gives him, then they have the nerve to take polls based on the disinformation they’ve distributed, so they naturally have bad reviews to report. It’s absurd.
Verplank, the New Yorker article, now that I’ve read it, is about as one-sided as one can expect from a liberal publication(as far as the inclusin of only facts that support the author’s premise). I used to love the New Yorker back in my Wall Street days of the early 1980s, when the Democrats were a lot more like they were when I was growing up in a Democrat household.
The problem today is that the Democrats have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the far left and are no longer a party that can claim compatibility with the majority of Americans — that’s why we’ve had a Republican majority on the Hill for so long and why we’re likely to enjoy a Republican White House for at least two more terms, perhaps even longer.
The Democrats no longer have a coherent message, they can only attack Bush and his policies without offering any alternative policies that make any sense to the majority of voters.
They offer flip-floppers like Kerry, screamers like Dean and pitbulls like Pelosi who can only criticize, not provide answers. Until they develop some sort of unit integrity and come up with definitive policies, they will remain in the electoral dog house.
That’s the way of it.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:16 am
Seth:
The apology was implicit, not an “I’m sorry” apology, but an explanation apology.
Honestly, I have never heard that an explanation of events could be an apology. I have heard of an explanation being construed or misconstrued as an apology. You see an apology and I don’t, we disagree, no big deal.
Since you see the apology and I do not, could you please tell me what the President is apologizing for? Do you think the President should be apologizing? If you do not think the President should be apologizing and the existence of an apology is open to interpretation, why do you choose to interprete his words as an apology?
Raven:
(Rolling my eyes) Furry whatever your freakin name is, get a clue.
I realize that this is your blog but, respectfully, your comment is a poor substitute to rational discourse.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:44 am
What every leftist assclown is missing is real simple:
Towel-Heads 2100
Yankees 31000
We’re kicking ass you defeatist pigs!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:06 am
Hey, in Beantown they say “Yankees Suck”.
Red Sox fans hate America!
December 20th, 2005 at 4:14 am
Betsy–
As I said, Bush has nothing to apologize FOR. Why is it so important to you to see a blatant apology when he did the right thing?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Seth:
What about the New Yorker article was one-sided? You said it included facts that only supported the author`s premise. But for you to cite that as wrong, you must have evidence that there were facts against his premise, and he chose to ignore them. So. What facts were left out?
I think you`ll have a tough time with that. See, people often say things like what you said when they don`t see evidence that fits their world view. “There must be evidence pointing to what I believe. I`m sure of it!” You guys never take it to the next logical level. If there is no evidence in sight that backs up your view, hey, maybe it`s wrong?
December 20th, 2005 at 9:33 am
Seth:
As I said, Bush has nothing to apologize FOR. Why is it so important to you to see a blatant apology when he did the right thing?
It’s not important to me to ’see a blatant apology.’ I don’t need an apology from President Bush. I was merely pointing out the fact that you saw an apology where I saw none. Specifically I said: ‘You see an apology and I don’t, we disagree, no big deal.’
I then asked the following question:
‘Since you see the apology and I do not, could you please tell me what the President is apologizing for?’ To which you replied: ‘Bush has nothing to apologize FOR.’
That brings us to the final question that I asked upthread which has remained unanswered: ‘If you do not think the President should be apologizing and the existence of an apology is open to interpretation, why do you choose to interprete his words as an apology?’
December 20th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Fur–
You really split hairs. This is the last response I’ll supply.
I heard an apology for the entire intelligence community there, not just for Bush. It was his watch, even though it wasn’t his fault. There was no need for him to say “I’m sorry.”
He inherited the intelligence/security aparat he had to work with, and though he tried to set things right, Congress refused him the budget he needed until after 9/11. Rather than use the left’s tactic of laying the blame elsewhere, he simply took it on himself, like any strong leader.
I can’t explain my point any clearer than that, and shouldn’t have to. It should jave been self evident to any intelligent person. I now believe you’re just some troll who will belabour your question as more of an irritant than a legitimate question.
Have a nice day.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Regarding counterterrorism, Bush never tried to “set things right” before 9/11. Terrorism wasn’t even on his radar screen. Simply repeating the mantra “Bush is a strong leader” doesn’t make it so.
Here’s a collection of goernment documents which show otherwise:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039
December 20th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Seth
You really split hairs. This is the last response I’ll supply.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Your point of view, as I see it, is this:
1) The President has nothing to apologize for.
2) The President apologized.
Wouldn’t your POV be more consistent if #2 was changed to ‘The President didn’t apologize’ because, after all, he didn’t.
He inherited the intelligence/security aparat he had to work with, and though he tried to set things right,
Tried to set things right prior to 9/11? When and how?
Congress refused him the budget he needed until after 9/11.
I was unaware of Congress, until very recently, refusing anything to the President. Could you please provide links?
I can’t explain my point any clearer than that, and shouldn’t have to. It should jave been self evident to any intelligent person.
I was merely asking for an explanation of your point since, to me, it was unclear.
I now believe you’re just some troll who will belabour your question as more of an irritant than a legitimate question.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I thought we were having an interesting discussion. I can’t see that I’ve done anything that puts me within the definition of troll. If you can point out anything I missed that defines me as a troll, I will concede your point.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
I believe that the standard definition of a troll here on the stalinist-right side of the internets is “anyone not part of the echo chamber.”
You could also add “anyone who thinks for him or herself”, but that would be mean.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Shingles, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner. You hungry?