(When the UN voted against invasion, he basically gave them the finger and went in anyway. (What would happen if a country other than the US did the same thing?)
Well, it depends.
If you're stomping down on a former colony, that's just fine.
If you're an African nation comitting genocide, that's okay too.
If you're trying to wipe out Israel, that's alright.
> That could be true. Osama bin Laden made "celebratory" video messages on the date of 11th of September both in years 2002 and 2003. But this year he has not. I wonder why, hmm?
Heck, the 2003 video used stock footage of Osama. Maybe the 2002 one, also, if I recall. Very suspicious.
I find it impossible to believe that the we could capture Osama Bin Laden and keep it a secret for very long at all. News that big would definitely leak out.
I mean, I'm sure they've ramped up their efforts to capture the guy, but I'm not sure that it'd be politically expedient anyway. I mean, the Democrats have put forward so much (baseless) suspicion that, upon capture, many people might believe Bush was hiding Osama for later. Heck, some people thought that we were hiding Saddam in his little spider-hole.
My personal hypothesis: Osama is dead. He hasn't starred in any videos (it's always his "second in command"). Al-Qaeda just wants everyone to think he's alive, for morale purposes. We haven't found him yet because it's hard to find someone who doesn't have to eat, drink, breathe, or be guarded -- he could be buried anywhere.
> This is just my perception, but it seems we spend hundreds of billions for solving a problem that could have been avoided with a few billion dollars and a little diplomacy.
To be fair, Saddam Hussein got billions of dollars and a lot of diplomacy.
Ditto for the North Koreans, actually.
> it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times.
So you admit that the Iraqis tried to revolt against Saddam multiple times, and you still thought they might succeed within a feasible timeframe? These people were slaughtered and clamped down on.
> A lot of times, all it would have required was for the CIA to just not tip him off.
And where did you hear this? I find it unlikely that the CIA would really be more effective than Saddam's own intelligence services anyway.
> there were several opportunities to remove the embargo and help the Iraqis to revolt
How would lifting the sanctions help Iraqis revolt? Saddam himself was bribing and trying to get them lifted.
Well, the "Demms" were dumb enough to try to pass off MS Word documents as authentic 1970's National Guard memos. And then they were dumb enough to defend them tooth and nail in the face of mounting evidence against them.
You say the documents don't count because they are forged, and they are forged because they contradict your position.
No, they are forged because they were typed up in Microsoft Word, and are impossible to replicate using any known 1970's typewriter.
which is given the lie by the very fact that Bush jumped the queue to get into the guard
"Jumped the queue"? That's a Michael Moore fabrication. There were plenty of flight slots open when Bush applied. There was no mythical unified queue.
5 years. That covered not just Alabama, it also covered a year or two of Yale. It was not 5 years if you feel like it, or 5 years of getting dental exams. It was 5 years of flight duty. He skipped the last two.
He did leave early, but he didn't exactly skip the last two. He fufilled his point obligations (at least 50 points a year) for all five years, and he got an honorable discharge. The Air National Guard was flexible.
He said, 'Well, you're not going to let me fly the jet you're phasing out anyway. Can I leave?'
They said, 'Sure, we have too many pilots anyway. Off you go.'
Word documents that somehow get misaligned enough to look like they are typewritten
They don't look typewritten at all. The only reason that there is a slight variation from a printed Word doc is because the thing was run through a copier a dozen times.
...well, it's been fun talking to you. One doesn't often come across someone so willfully blind.
So you can make it mismatch and match at the same time? Crumple it up to make it misaligned and look like a typewritten document, but it still matches Word exactly? Pretty clever!
Because the alignment distortion is consistent with modern photocopiers. Did you even look at the link I gave you? Here's a shorter one. Keep in mind that nothing comes even vaguely as close as MS Word.
As for not being required to finish his flight obligation, he signed documents to get into the Guard that he would spend 5 years flying, and only did three.
Well, seeing as he broke no rules and got an honorable discharge, I'd have to say everything went fine.
a standard flight physical which would have incidentally shown up his cocaine usage. He'd taken them before, and he sure as hell supports the war on drugs. I guess he just can't take the heat. He was also told that the Alabama outfit was not acceptable, went ahead on his own and flaked out from both bases anyway.
Where's the proof? Still being fabricated?
If he was typing up memos himself to cover his ass for Bush's outside interference
He couldn't type and the memos were forged. Please try to pay attention.
do you think it likely he'd blab to his wife? How old were his children then?
"Lt Bush is a dynamic outstanding young officer. He clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot. Lt Bush is possessed of sound judgement, yet is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot. He is mature beyond his age and experience level as evidenced by his recent participation in the unit firing deployment."
Just give it up already, will you? You're embarassing yourself.
Being crumpled up and run through a copier for a few generations will introduce some variation in the horizontal and vertical spacing (mostly to do with the position of the scanning element.)
But the main jist is that the forged memo is impossible to duplicate on any typewriter of the era -- even the best $3000 Selectric Composer typesetting machine. Whereas if you load up a modern version of MS Word, keep the default settings, and type up and print out the text of the memo, you get a perfect match.
everyone knew how pissed the colonel was about Bush playing fast and loose with his obligation
Says who? Proven liar Bill Burkett? Killian's former secretary (who is now a Democrat)? Killian's wife and son disagree with their claims, and the only hard evidence turned out to be forged.
Bush signed up for 5 yars flight obligation and walked away from the last two years.
Outright incorrect. Bush was denied a place in the flight line in Alabama (too many pilots), so he skipped an invasive medical exam and got grounded. He then finished off his point requirements for the year and left legitimately.
And besides, they were retiring his jet fighter anyway. Even if the option had been available to him, there wasn't enough time left in his Air National Guard duty to train for a new plane.
Sitting for 7 minutes reading a book like a deer in headlights while the country is udner attack --- what kind of bravery is that?
Waiting for the Secret Service to scout out the area and prep an alternate escape route. What did you want him to do, run the country by phone?
On a related note, accoring to Kerry's wife, Kerry was dumbstruck for 20 minutes on 9/11/01 (weren't we all?). Furthermore, Mrs. Kerry thinks Bush acted appropriately.
He can't even take responsibility for anything.
Well then hold him responsible for his actions. Don't let him off the hook this November -- re-elect him and make him deal with the consequences of his actions, good or bad.
Why are parallels between Rome and the USA becoming so common? Oh... right, the conquest, slavery, and facade of Democracy.
Conquest -- Apparently involves immediately working to give a nation back to its people.
Slavery -- Still exists in the world today, and the United States is one of the few nations still fighting against it (having eliminated it from within out borders).
Facade of Democracy -- Apparently that's what happens when your favorite candidate loses the election.
That is probably a very big part of what Bush Jr. had going against him when he invaded Iraq in the first place -- the name of his father who killed one part of the Iraqi population, and then betrayed the rest. Leaving them in the hands of a brutal dictator and punnishing them with sanctions to boot.
Thankfully, the Iraqi population isn't as U.S.-centric as you are in their thinking. They blame Saddam and his cronies for the killings since 1991, believe it or not.
I mean, do you have a source to back up your outrageous claim?
So if the major urban areas constitute a majority of the people in the country, what the hell is wrong with their votes counting as the majority of the votes for President?
Because our Federal Government is just that -- a federation of independent states. The states have somewhat less sovereignty than they used to, but the system is by and large still the same.
> It would if all opposition to the US puppet regime weren't in Abu Graihb prison, or already executed.
Don't be silly. There is plenty of opposition on the loose in Iraq. Very easy to spot -- they're the ones shooting aid workers and hiding behind civilians. They're the ones bombing Iraqi police stations and beheading journalists.
This kind of "opposition" (can't use the T-word, now can we?) merely belongs in prison or in the grave.
> Given the number of recent attacks, if safe to say that the whole country is unsafe and going to civil war.
Except that Najaf has calmed down, public opinion has turned against al-Sadr, and the people of Samarra wised up and kicked out their own "insurgents".
Really, the last big hotspot is Falluja, what with all the diehards and foreigners.
Of course you hardly ever hear about this stuff. Bad news sells in the media business, as we all know. Heck, some people in this thread this that we "leveled" some city or town in Iraq -- pure hyperbole.
I didn't say that the audience was incorrect on that particular subject. Just that they probably hadn't reached that conclusion on their own. (I'm not saying that the average TV viewer is any better, mind you, but don't mistake agreement with intelligence.)
As an aside, Bush certainly is running a negative campaign -- though I'd say Kerry's campaign is more negative. The way Kerry and his staff reacted to Prime Minister Allawi was simply disgraceful.
There's a fine line between "informed" and "instructed". Really, how many people in that audience, do you figure, research many different sources and reach their own conclusions? Odds are they just take whatever they see (Daily Show included) at face value.
9/11 made people realize that we should deal with problems sooner rather than later, and that America should scrap it's image as a "paper tiger".
Remember Mogadishu? The 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Our reactions to those incidents, and many more, emboldened terrorists worldwide. They gave the impression that we talk tough, but are too cowardly to do anything.
Look at Iraq. Flouting the terms of our cease-fire for over a decade -- shooting at us occasionally, screwing around with the inspections, scamming the Food for Oil program, attempting to assassinate a former President... at what point do we put our foot down? 9/11 demonstrated that we can't wait forever.
> The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.
Not according to the United Nations he wasn't. Nevermind that it's been proven that he was (at least unsuccessfully) seeking WMD. That alone was a direct violation of our cease-fire with Iraq.
> Well, not GWB. We know he likes to sit for 7 minutes staring blankly.
He had to sit in the classroom until the Secret Service worked out an exit plan. They had secured the school beforehand, so it was the safest place to be before they got an alternate route to Air Force One worked out. It's not like Bush could have done anything anyways -- even Teresa Heinz Kerry agrees.
> If you think we can kill all the terrorist you're a fool. Israel has arguably been engaged in that policy for most of its 50 year existence, and it hasn't worked.
Israel hasn't been consistent in their policies, to say the least. Any times of peace were just used by the Palestinians to re-arm. As for current events, Israel actually seems to have nearly won the current "intifada", and Ariel Sharon has his country reasonably united on the case of terrorism.
> That is why this time, we're paying for over 90% of the costs of the occupation, and in 1991 we paid 5%.
What occuption in 1991? You mean the no-fly zones? The current "occupation" is rather more comprehensive.
> This "coallition of the willing" is made up of coutries that we bought off with foriegn aid
As opposed to the war's opponents, who were bought off with Saddam's "Oil for Food" money. But I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason why Kofi Annan stonewalled that investigation.
> We had an unprecedented opportunity, and the Bush administration squandered it.
Squandered goodwill? All that America-love was just a blip on the radar. Almost immediately after 9/11, foreigners were worried about what 'evil America' might do to retaliate.
> I figured this story was describing yet another baseless 527 attack on Kerry.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are far from baseless. They've already gotten Kerry to concede on a few points, and haven't had any of their accusations disproven. I mean, there's:
Kerry's story about how Nixon sent him to Cambodia during Christmas, and how this was "seared, seared" in his memory. Only now we find out that he was never in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even president then anyways.
It was also seared in his memory about when he was in Vietnam when he heard MLK Jr. was shot. Only MLK Jr. was shot months before Kerry went to Vietnam.
Kerry has admitted that his first Purple Heart "may have" been self-inflicted (by accident). This is mainly because Kerry's journal from the time stated that they hadn't been attacked yet.
Kerry said he got an honorable discharge before schmoozing with the North Vietnamese, but in fact he was still an officer.
He now claims that he requested and signed up for the most dangerous job in the Vietnam War, but in actuality he tried to sign up for the safest. (After failing to get a deferment.) How do we know this? Not only because of records (swift boats were changed from easy coastal patrols to dangerous river missions after Kerry signed up). But we also have Kerry's own admission of this fact a few years ago.
Now, what does this say about John Kerry as a candidate in 2004? I can already hear the cries of "that was 35 years ago", but his lies and exaggerations of his deeds are very recent. I can hear the cries of "at least he went", but Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam.
But hey, at least when he was called up, Kerry didn't run off to Canada or something. Instead he took a crack at emulating his personal hero, John F. Kennedy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it depends.
If you're stomping down on a former colony, that's just fine.
If you're an African nation comitting genocide, that's okay too.
If you're trying to wipe out Israel, that's alright.
The list goes on and on...
> Bush, OTOH, lied in order to lead the USA into an expensive, and utterly pointless war.
So, Iraq hadn't been flouting the terms of the 1991 cease-fire? Good to know.
> The Bush administration has outsourced that job to Pakistan, which is disturbing.
Seeing as we can't actually enter Pakistan, it's not all that disturbing.
> That could be true. Osama bin Laden made "celebratory" video messages on the date of 11th of September both in years 2002 and 2003. But this year he has not. I wonder why, hmm?
Heck, the 2003 video used stock footage of Osama. Maybe the 2002 one, also, if I recall. Very suspicious.
I find it impossible to believe that the we could capture Osama Bin Laden and keep it a secret for very long at all. News that big would definitely leak out.
I mean, I'm sure they've ramped up their efforts to capture the guy, but I'm not sure that it'd be politically expedient anyway. I mean, the Democrats have put forward so much (baseless) suspicion that, upon capture, many people might believe Bush was hiding Osama for later. Heck, some people thought that we were hiding Saddam in his little spider-hole.
My personal hypothesis: Osama is dead. He hasn't starred in any videos (it's always his "second in command"). Al-Qaeda just wants everyone to think he's alive, for morale purposes. We haven't found him yet because it's hard to find someone who doesn't have to eat, drink, breathe, or be guarded -- he could be buried anywhere.
> With Bush giving Kerry a hard time for his "Global Test" remark
;-)
On a related topic, I think I've found that Global Test
> This is just my perception, but it seems we spend hundreds of billions for solving a problem that could have been avoided with a few billion dollars and a little diplomacy.
To be fair, Saddam Hussein got billions of dollars and a lot of diplomacy.
Ditto for the North Koreans, actually.
> it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times.
So you admit that the Iraqis tried to revolt against Saddam multiple times, and you still thought they might succeed within a feasible timeframe? These people were slaughtered and clamped down on.
> A lot of times, all it would have required was for the CIA to just not tip him off.
And where did you hear this? I find it unlikely that the CIA would really be more effective than Saddam's own intelligence services anyway.
> there were several opportunities to remove the embargo and help the Iraqis to revolt
How would lifting the sanctions help Iraqis revolt? Saddam himself was bribing and trying to get them lifted.
Well, the "Demms" were dumb enough to try to pass off MS Word documents as authentic 1970's National Guard memos. And then they were dumb enough to defend them tooth and nail in the face of mounting evidence against them.
No, they are forged because they were typed up in Microsoft Word, and are impossible to replicate using any known 1970's typewriter.
"Jumped the queue"? That's a Michael Moore fabrication. There were plenty of flight slots open when Bush applied. There was no mythical unified queue.
He did leave early, but he didn't exactly skip the last two. He fufilled his point obligations (at least 50 points a year) for all five years, and he got an honorable discharge. The Air National Guard was flexible.
He said, 'Well, you're not going to let me fly the jet you're phasing out anyway. Can I leave?'
They said, 'Sure, we have too many pilots anyway. Off you go.'
(I'm paraphrasing.)
Here is a decent article on the subject.
They don't look typewritten at all. The only reason that there is a slight variation from a printed Word doc is because the thing was run through a copier a dozen times.
...well, it's been fun talking to you. One doesn't often come across someone so willfully blind.
Because the alignment distortion is consistent with modern photocopiers. Did you even look at the link I gave you? Here's a shorter one. Keep in mind that nothing comes even vaguely as close as MS Word.
Well, seeing as he broke no rules and got an honorable discharge, I'd have to say everything went fine.
Where's the proof? Still being fabricated?
He couldn't type and the memos were forged. Please try to pay attention.
Okay, then, actual, legit documents show Killian praising Bush. Allow me to quote:
Just give it up already, will you? You're embarassing yourself.
Being crumpled up and run through a copier for a few generations will introduce some variation in the horizontal and vertical spacing (mostly to do with the position of the scanning element.)
But the main jist is that the forged memo is impossible to duplicate on any typewriter of the era -- even the best $3000 Selectric Composer typesetting machine. Whereas if you load up a modern version of MS Word, keep the default settings, and type up and print out the text of the memo, you get a perfect match.
Says who? Proven liar Bill Burkett? Killian's former secretary (who is now a Democrat)? Killian's wife and son disagree with their claims, and the only hard evidence turned out to be forged.
Outright incorrect. Bush was denied a place in the flight line in Alabama (too many pilots), so he skipped an invasive medical exam and got grounded. He then finished off his point requirements for the year and left legitimately.
And besides, they were retiring his jet fighter anyway. Even if the option had been available to him, there wasn't enough time left in his Air National Guard duty to train for a new plane.
Waiting for the Secret Service to scout out the area and prep an alternate escape route. What did you want him to do, run the country by phone?
On a related note, accoring to Kerry's wife, Kerry was dumbstruck for 20 minutes on 9/11/01 (weren't we all?). Furthermore, Mrs. Kerry thinks Bush acted appropriately.
Well then hold him responsible for his actions. Don't let him off the hook this November -- re-elect him and make him deal with the consequences of his actions, good or bad.
Conquest -- Apparently involves immediately working to give a nation back to its people.
Slavery -- Still exists in the world today, and the United States is one of the few nations still fighting against it (having eliminated it from within out borders).
Facade of Democracy -- Apparently that's what happens when your favorite candidate loses the election.
Thankfully, the Iraqi population isn't as U.S.-centric as you are in their thinking. They blame Saddam and his cronies for the killings since 1991, believe it or not.
I mean, do you have a source to back up your outrageous claim?
Can we get some "Funny" mod points around here?
So if the major urban areas constitute a majority of the people in the country, what the hell is wrong with their votes counting as the majority of the votes for President?
Because our Federal Government is just that -- a federation of independent states. The states have somewhat less sovereignty than they used to, but the system is by and large still the same.
> It would if all opposition to the US puppet regime weren't in Abu Graihb prison, or already executed.
Don't be silly. There is plenty of opposition on the loose in Iraq. Very easy to spot -- they're the ones shooting aid workers and hiding behind civilians. They're the ones bombing Iraqi police stations and beheading journalists.
This kind of "opposition" (can't use the T-word, now can we?) merely belongs in prison or in the grave.
> Given the number of recent attacks, if safe to say that the whole country is unsafe and going to civil war.
Except that Najaf has calmed down, public opinion has turned against al-Sadr, and the people of Samarra wised up and kicked out their own "insurgents".
Really, the last big hotspot is Falluja, what with all the diehards and foreigners.
Of course you hardly ever hear about this stuff. Bad news sells in the media business, as we all know. Heck, some people in this thread this that we "leveled" some city or town in Iraq -- pure hyperbole.
I didn't say that the audience was incorrect on that particular subject. Just that they probably hadn't reached that conclusion on their own. (I'm not saying that the average TV viewer is any better, mind you, but don't mistake agreement with intelligence.)
As an aside, Bush certainly is running a negative campaign -- though I'd say Kerry's campaign is more negative. The way Kerry and his staff reacted to Prime Minister Allawi was simply disgraceful.
And that's why Franken's (and Moore's) books are always classified as "satire". So they don't get sued for libel.
> an informed audience.
There's a fine line between "informed" and "instructed". Really, how many people in that audience, do you figure, research many different sources and reach their own conclusions? Odds are they just take whatever they see (Daily Show included) at face value.
Incorrect. Some joker e-mailed O'Reilly with "facts" from this site.
But hey, at least he owned up to it right away, instead of stonewalling for days and insisting that the statistics were "fake but accurate."
> This happened right after the 9/11 Commission put out their statement that no, there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Not quite. The Commission said there were connections, just no direct cooperation. Yes, they've specifically said this.
> What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
9/11 made people realize that we should deal with problems sooner rather than later, and that America should scrap it's image as a "paper tiger".
Remember Mogadishu? The 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Our reactions to those incidents, and many more, emboldened terrorists worldwide. They gave the impression that we talk tough, but are too cowardly to do anything.
Look at Iraq. Flouting the terms of our cease-fire for over a decade -- shooting at us occasionally, screwing around with the inspections, scamming the Food for Oil program, attempting to assassinate a former President... at what point do we put our foot down? 9/11 demonstrated that we can't wait forever.
> The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.
Not according to the United Nations he wasn't. Nevermind that it's been proven that he was (at least unsuccessfully) seeking WMD. That alone was a direct violation of our cease-fire with Iraq.
> Well, not GWB. We know he likes to sit for 7 minutes staring blankly.
He had to sit in the classroom until the Secret Service worked out an exit plan. They had secured the school beforehand, so it was the safest place to be before they got an alternate route to Air Force One worked out. It's not like Bush could have done anything anyways -- even Teresa Heinz Kerry agrees.
> If you think we can kill all the terrorist you're a fool. Israel has arguably been engaged in that policy for most of its 50 year existence, and it hasn't worked.
Israel hasn't been consistent in their policies, to say the least. Any times of peace were just used by the Palestinians to re-arm. As for current events, Israel actually seems to have nearly won the current "intifada", and Ariel Sharon has his country reasonably united on the case of terrorism.
> That is why this time, we're paying for over 90% of the costs of the occupation, and in 1991 we paid 5%.
What occuption in 1991? You mean the no-fly zones? The current "occupation" is rather more comprehensive.
> This "coallition of the willing" is made up of coutries that we bought off with foriegn aid
As opposed to the war's opponents, who were bought off with Saddam's "Oil for Food" money. But I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason why Kofi Annan stonewalled that investigation.
> We had an unprecedented opportunity, and the Bush administration squandered it.
Squandered goodwill? All that America-love was just a blip on the radar. Almost immediately after 9/11, foreigners were worried about what 'evil America' might do to retaliate.
It may run well now, but we know it won't be really stable until version 1.666
(old reference)
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are far from baseless. They've already gotten Kerry to concede on a few points, and haven't had any of their accusations disproven. I mean, there's:
Now, what does this say about John Kerry as a candidate in 2004? I can already hear the cries of "that was 35 years ago", but his lies and exaggerations of his deeds are very recent. I can hear the cries of "at least he went", but Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam.
But hey, at least when he was called up, Kerry didn't run off to Canada or something. Instead he took a crack at emulating his personal hero, John F. Kennedy.