You're referring, of course, to Bush senior, who did so along with a large group of other nations because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and posturing along the Saudi border. He (Bush senior) committed to a an eventual regime change there, based on Saddam's failure to ever live up to the agreements he made to cease the destruction of what was left of his military as he withdrew from that invasion. The Clinton administration continued pressure on him over weapons inspections (such as the large VX gas stashes the UN observed, his long range missile building and importing from North Korea, etc), and continued the presence of the military in the region because Saddam never stopped shooting at the allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the ares where he (Saddam) had been doing things like slaughtering thousands of villagers.
The second Bush echoed Clinton's stated policy of getting rid of Saddam, and finally acted on that post-9/11 after Saddam not only continued to stonewall the UN, but syphoned off food money to rebuild his military, continued to attack no-fly patrols, made public (televised) payments to terror operations and the families of suicide bombers in the region, and demonstrated that his continued provocations, long-range missle programs, and hide-and-seek with his VX stockpile wasn't going to get better - only worse. With groups like AQ starting to filter down from their suddenly less hospitable hangout in Afghanistan and into places that included Iraq, and with a jillion un-addressed UN calls for him to stop blocking his promised weapons inspections, the second Bush wrapped up what two presidents before him (and many other nations) had been doing all along: defanging the Baathist regime in Iraq, and getting rid of Saddam and his odious, mass-murdering, criminal family and their cronies.
That war was started by Saddam, and finished with his ouster. The fight with the insurgents started winding down under Bush, not Obama, and it was Bush's wrap-up schedule for major operations there that Obama stuck to and finished, since it was now on his watch.
Obama got us out.
We are not out of Iraq. If you think so, you're wrong. If you know so, then you're lying. There are thousands and thousands of our people there, armed to the teeth, in harm's way, and providing support for the slowly-growing Iraqi infrastructure's ability to deal with insurgents on their own. We are still right next door in Kuwait, in huge numbers, to provide exactly the same support we have been - only, now it's more difficult because we have to do some operations at longer range.
Of course, you know all of this, because it's right there in front of you.
Can you see the wee-bit of difference there?
Your are either woefully uninformed, or deliberately misrepresenting the situation.
I can and I'm voting for Obama.
You are either too uninformed to safely vote, or you're too comfortable deliberately lying about the situation in order to show support for someone for other reasons that you're not stating. Either way, please do not vote. Neither ignorance nor purposeful disingenuousness in the service of an unspoken agenda have a place there. But if you are going to continue to attempt to mislead people, thank you for doing it on a topic that's such a plain case of public record, because doing so makes it so much easier to disregard your advice.
Great example! Many people won't understand your use of theatrics to help me make a point, but some will, so thanks. The implication (that by looking first to their own interests, rather than forcing someone else to given them stuff, people are actually oppressing the people to whom they're not gladly being forced to give free stuff) is perfectly toned. You couldn't have simulated the entitlement-minded, Nanny-state-loving, born-being-owed-someone-else's-labors mentality any better. Your use of deliberately insulting, angry words is pitch-perfect as you paint your portrait of such people, who inevitably resent the very people they insist on having as their forced patrons. Well done, sir.
No. The problem is that when a bunch of lazy whiners cry loudly that their inability to get free stuff taken from someone else is actually a form of oppression, that they contribute to the muddled discourse and decline in critical thinking that got us here in the first place. People who feel entitled to everything pretend feel oppressed when they're told they actually have to work for some of it, instead. Actual hints of oppression are eclipsed by the noise these leeches make while banging drums in protest against the lack of free stuff.
It doesn't take vigilance to see that Somalia isn't free
Right, which is why it's really important to use words like "oppression" to identify actually oppressive situations, not circumstances in which people tweeting about their ennui on their smartphones call themselves oppressed when they have to actually pay the bills they agreed to pay when they decided to spend four years in an expensive liberal arts college getting a degree in something for which there is no market.
Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
For that matter, the materials and services used to prevent death from other causes should also be provided by the minority of people who pay the majority of the taxes. It's only right. So, let's see... death by freezing is bad, so a majority of the citizens should have housing and energy paid for by other people. Starving to death is definitely something health-related, so no question that most people should be getting someone else to pay for their food. Certainly nobody (except the minority who pay most of the taxes) should have to pay for things like the water piped to their house, since clean potable water is a necessity for being healthy, and that's health-related, just as much as condoms are, for sure. So, even though a lot of water will be used to wash things like the cars that are medically necessary in order to get you to your so-important-that-someone-else-should-pay-for-it visit to the podiatrist, it's still something other people should pay for.
Which aspects of housing and food and clothing and personal grooming and a mattress that makes you sleep super well and a really nice chair in your cubicle at work and nice hobbies that help you to live a low-stress and this healthier life aren't health services, really, when you get down to it? The government should pay for all of it - everything that will make you happy (and thus healthier - it's been shown in studies!) should be paid for by someone else, always, since it's a right to have everything you want and need in order to be as healthy as possible since that's government's job.
No. Conservatives are againt profligate government spending, and then seeing taxes raised rather than spending less in the first place. Conservatives see spending less as the way to keep taxes low, not taxing more as a way to try to pay interest on endlessly growing national debt in order to keep spending limitless.
Conservative means stingy, liberal means generous
No. Conservative means stingy with other people's money, liberal means generous with other people's money.
Christ was for generosity
So they say. I didn't notice any famous scripture that mentions taking money from other people in order to be generous with it.
Conservatives are intolerant
No. But liberals are certainly intolerant of conservatives, as you're demonstrating.
A Christian may try to talk a gay man out of committing homosexual acts, a conservative would like to see him in jail or dead.
You're confusing religious crazies with conservatives. On purpose, of course.
When prohibition was instituted it was the conservatives who fought for that change
No, it was religious people - and mostly women - who did so. Try to keep up.
Conservatives are against aid to the poor
No. They are against forcing you to spend part of each day working for the poor. They, on the other hand, are (look it up!) far, far more generous to the poor than liberals. The overwhelming majority of charitable donations, and the charitable organizations with the most stream-lined, low-overhead operations, are run by conservatives and business-funded foundations. Liberals are the least charitable with their own money. This pattern has been true for many decades.
Conservatives hate homeless people
No, conservatives would rather that everyone work and have their own home. Liberals prefer a state of dependency, where there is a perpetual legion of people who exist on hand-outs, so that there can be a full-time profession of taking money from one group (keeping some, as a fee for running the operation by career Nanny State professionals), and giving it to other groups. Liberals like there being ignorant, homeless, hungry people - because without them, they'd have to focus on doing something actually productive, instead.
I don't think conservatives even read the bibles they thump.
It's been my experience that it's people on the progressive left that show the strongest instinct to disallow the use of certain words, to ban the discussion of awkward moments in history, and to use the power of the state to dictate which world view everyone should have. You know, total tolerance, except for the things they don't like, for which there is zero tolerance.
Religious wackadoos may have some born-of-ignorance cultural hurdles to overcome (thanks, parents!), but the supposedly very educated lefty progressive types exhibit a pretty disturbing interest in top-down, society-comes-from-the-government policies. Conservatives want less of that, progressives want more of it. When you see totalitarian operations like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., it's not the conservative embrace of a constitutional republic's checks and balances that come to mind.
We changed the real server's IP address (on a different block) and pointed the proxy there, after pointing DNS at the proxy. The original IP address stopped listening for anything. They did keep trying to hit it until they realized nothing was there.
No, it's expensive to be hated by a small group of people who happen to not mind being network abusing dicks so they can put on a show of hurting your business. There are plenty of people who don't like the Occupy nonsense, but most of them are too busy doing something constructive to sit around figuring out how to DDoS attack George Soro's hundreds of web properties.
For that event, we used Zen Networks. They're at www.zenprotection.net, which describes their services pretty well. Not affiliated in any way, but they did solve the problem for us over the short stretch it was required. Honestly, we didn't shop around much... the site in question was very much on fire. Not like a slashdotting, of course, but some fairly determined Eastern European punks looking for cash. They made my clients angry enough to have them asking, "Is there something we can do back to these guys?" We didn't, of course. Would have been a waste of time.
How do you determine if the third party proxy has sufficient bandwidth to handle the DDoS + regular traffic?
They have a performance guarantee, and don't get paid if they can't keep up at the promised level. Any of the ones you'll want to use will have a dashboard that shows you a more-or-less-real-time view of the blocks/passes, and how much of the purchased throughput you're using.
It was a lot cheaper to pay a third party proxy a $400/month rate for 45 days (until the asshats attempting the extortion got bored and went away) than it wold have been to provision more server horsepower, pay for the bandwidth, and pay T&M for the DC's NOC to help with firewalling. A quick DNS change, use the credit card, hold your breath until it stops. Quick, cheap, and you can go on to other things.
Basically, make sure none of your time-sensitive loads reach 100% and you're fine
As long as the people running the datacenter aren't metering the noise that hits the interface set up to catch your traffic, whether or not they pass it along to your server. If you're burning up their resources, somebody's got to pay the pipe(r).
We've never been at war with Afghanistan. We are fighting the Taliban. It's the Taliban that went to war in Afghanistan, and was ruling its people by the sword. Which you know, and prefer not to address.
There were no WMD
Really. So Hans Blix lied. The photos and huge lists of stockpiles of VX, etc., tallied and reported by the UN and other entities - that was all just fiction, right? Do you suppose that the thousands of people dead in the north of Iraq, killed en masse using the WMDs you say didn't exist, would agree with you? What exactly is your point? How does asserting an alternate reality actually make you feel better?
I threaten violence?
You're right. You should have no trouble, then, if someone who thinks you'd benefit from a slap in the face actually gave you one, as you suggest?
The details like they had no WMD, and you Republicans lied us into war over them?
Those would be the WMDs that legions of Democrats who saw the same intel and the governments of many other countries were also convinced were an issue? You know, the piles of things like VX gas weapons that UN inspectors saw, had some opportunities to count, but could not get any info on their disposition? Saddam himself thought he had more WMDs than he actually did (he was being lied to by subordinates who didn't want to admit that some had been shipped to Syria, that much had been rendered useless from neglect, or that the additional weapons systems needed to use them were in various stages of either being bought from North Korea and Pakistan, or still being cobbled together... I'd go on, but you know all of this).
Yes, the people in "your gang" (to use your phrase) talked over and over again about those WMDs (which they knew existed... because they did exist), and about their policy of regime change - militarily if necessary - with respect to Saddam. You know, the guy who lobbed SCUDs across his borders? The guy who used the WMDs that you say he didn't have to kill thousands of people in his country? The guy who was handing payments to the families of dead terrorists on television, and encouraging more? That guy, right? The people in your gang included the CIA boss - hired by Clinton - who made a very strong case for the fact that Saddam's UN-observed WMDs not only hadn't magically disappeared, but were being added to, not least through the use of UN-administered oil for food money being directed to Iraq's military. Again, you already know all of that. Saying they had no WMD is a simple lie, meant to distract. Ask Hans Blix if Iraq had stockpiles of VX. His own crew pointed it out, remember? Yeah, you know that too.
Details like they went to war in Iraq because they wanted to, instead of in Afghanistan where they had to?
You mean the Afghanistan being run by the Taliban, the organization that we went after, militarily, before ramping things back up in Iraq? You know, the exact opposite of the non-real situation you just described?
the terrible crimes you Republicans are responsible for
I notice you say stuff like that a lot, but manage to never get specific about actual crimes. Let me guess... you don't like things like "rendition," such as Bill Clinton authorized? That sort of thing?
A decent country would never let you say another word again without getting slapped in the face.
Ah, the classic lefty response to words you don't like. Shout people down, threaten violence. Anythign to avoid specific engagement on actual substance. Stay classy!
Wow, that was an excellent rebuttal, complete with facts! Oh, right, you don't have a single fact that runs counter to what I just said, so you're using the classic lefty playbook of ad hominem attack in order to distract from the unpleasant fact that you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual substance of the matter. No point admitting that the GP was factually wrong, huh? Nope! Just keep on lying! Go get 'em, defender of liberty!
Never mind, you probably have to get back to editing audio feeds for NBC, or prepping fake historical memos for CBS. That's a good intern, on you go.
IF you think that Scooter Libbiy did ANYTHING without the direction of Dicky then you are a complete moron
And, as you obviously know but are pretending not to so that you can hope to keep your narrative alive for uninformed people, Scooter Libby wasn't found to have disclosed the identity of Plame. That wasn't even on the docket in his trial, despite the special prosecuter's enormous expenditure of time and cash looking around for who turned out to be... Richard Armitage, at the State Department (you know the guy who eventually 'fessed up). You know this, and everyone else knows this. The fact that you're mentioning Libby as the source shows how disingenuous and deliberately misleading you're trying to be. Not sure why, though. You must have vested interest in that particular fiction.
Other than the details. You know, where it wasn't who you said it was, and it had nothing to do with the reasons you're saying. And of course the part where you're leaving out her role in the high volumes of BS surrounding the situation, her husband's rampant lying and misrepresentation, and your own deliberate (indirect) characterization of the info mentioned by the UK, etc.
We were in a conflict with Iraq from the day they invaded Kuwait. They never stopped shooting at planes, never honored a single condition of their agreement during their withdrawl, and continued everything from long range missle import/construction, mass murder, terror funding, UN cash redirection-to-military-use, obstructing inspectors, and the rest - non stop - until the day that regime was finally taken down. Pretending that unclear British intel about (real!) uranium trafficking/shopping-around, or any other single event, sealed the deal to have Saddam finally held to account is the big lie, here. So why are you pushing it?
Reverse what? Reverse it being a crime to blab classified stuff? If you think he shouldn't be in trouble for identifying covert agents, just lobby to have him pardoned by the executive branch, who have that authority.
What do you mean? The guy in the State Department who mentioned her name to a reporter got in a bit of trouble, and the scapegoat the Dem's special prosecuter tried (and failed, of course) to pin it on, got strung up for a completely unrelated matter. That was that. Were you hoping for something absurd, like it mattering more, given the actual circumstances?
How can we remember what did not happen? If you're going to do some trollish BS-ing, at least try to be more creative. That one is so simply not true that you're just making it obvious you're a twelve year old trying to sound cool. Really, come up with another one. Involve Eeeeevil Corporations, Dick Cheney's heart transplant, the Greek debt and German taxpayers, CO2 emissions, gold currency standards, AIDS as a CIA plot, and then you'll be getting somewhere.
Too bad that they fail. Another AMOLED manufacturer is a must !
Really? Your preferred way to get more of the stuff you want made is to encourage theft from the people who are risking giant piles of money to develop it in the first place? What are you, 8 years old?
Wait, I thought that Hollywood was just a bunch of pinko commie socialist Marxist lefty progressives.
You're confusing spoiled, rich actors with the people who actually find and risk the money to make things like movie studios operate. "Hollywood" is a business town, just like Detroit is. But both cities have large demographics made of people with an entitlement world view, or who - realizing that all they really do is act or a living - suffer major liberal guilt when they recognize how much money they bank. They line up their public politics with what they imagine their customers want to see, rather than teaching their customers what it takes to really run a hundred million dollar project that will probably fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush went to war against Iraq
You're referring, of course, to Bush senior, who did so along with a large group of other nations because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and posturing along the Saudi border. He (Bush senior) committed to a an eventual regime change there, based on Saddam's failure to ever live up to the agreements he made to cease the destruction of what was left of his military as he withdrew from that invasion. The Clinton administration continued pressure on him over weapons inspections (such as the large VX gas stashes the UN observed, his long range missile building and importing from North Korea, etc), and continued the presence of the military in the region because Saddam never stopped shooting at the allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the ares where he (Saddam) had been doing things like slaughtering thousands of villagers.
The second Bush echoed Clinton's stated policy of getting rid of Saddam, and finally acted on that post-9/11 after Saddam not only continued to stonewall the UN, but syphoned off food money to rebuild his military, continued to attack no-fly patrols, made public (televised) payments to terror operations and the families of suicide bombers in the region, and demonstrated that his continued provocations, long-range missle programs, and hide-and-seek with his VX stockpile wasn't going to get better - only worse. With groups like AQ starting to filter down from their suddenly less hospitable hangout in Afghanistan and into places that included Iraq, and with a jillion un-addressed UN calls for him to stop blocking his promised weapons inspections, the second Bush wrapped up what two presidents before him (and many other nations) had been doing all along: defanging the Baathist regime in Iraq, and getting rid of Saddam and his odious, mass-murdering, criminal family and their cronies.
That war was started by Saddam, and finished with his ouster. The fight with the insurgents started winding down under Bush, not Obama, and it was Bush's wrap-up schedule for major operations there that Obama stuck to and finished, since it was now on his watch.
Obama got us out.
We are not out of Iraq. If you think so, you're wrong. If you know so, then you're lying. There are thousands and thousands of our people there, armed to the teeth, in harm's way, and providing support for the slowly-growing Iraqi infrastructure's ability to deal with insurgents on their own. We are still right next door in Kuwait, in huge numbers, to provide exactly the same support we have been - only, now it's more difficult because we have to do some operations at longer range.
Of course, you know all of this, because it's right there in front of you.
Can you see the wee-bit of difference there?
Your are either woefully uninformed, or deliberately misrepresenting the situation.
I can and I'm voting for Obama.
You are either too uninformed to safely vote, or you're too comfortable deliberately lying about the situation in order to show support for someone for other reasons that you're not stating. Either way, please do not vote. Neither ignorance nor purposeful disingenuousness in the service of an unspoken agenda have a place there. But if you are going to continue to attempt to mislead people, thank you for doing it on a topic that's such a plain case of public record, because doing so makes it so much easier to disregard your advice.
Great example! Many people won't understand your use of theatrics to help me make a point, but some will, so thanks. The implication (that by looking first to their own interests, rather than forcing someone else to given them stuff, people are actually oppressing the people to whom they're not gladly being forced to give free stuff) is perfectly toned. You couldn't have simulated the entitlement-minded, Nanny-state-loving, born-being-owed-someone-else's-labors mentality any better. Your use of deliberately insulting, angry words is pitch-perfect as you paint your portrait of such people, who inevitably resent the very people they insist on having as their forced patrons. Well done, sir.
It doesn't take vigilance to see that Somalia isn't free
Right, which is why it's really important to use words like "oppression" to identify actually oppressive situations, not circumstances in which people tweeting about their ennui on their smartphones call themselves oppressed when they have to actually pay the bills they agreed to pay when they decided to spend four years in an expensive liberal arts college getting a degree in something for which there is no market.
Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
For that matter, the materials and services used to prevent death from other causes should also be provided by the minority of people who pay the majority of the taxes. It's only right. So, let's see ... death by freezing is bad, so a majority of the citizens should have housing and energy paid for by other people. Starving to death is definitely something health-related, so no question that most people should be getting someone else to pay for their food. Certainly nobody (except the minority who pay most of the taxes) should have to pay for things like the water piped to their house, since clean potable water is a necessity for being healthy, and that's health-related, just as much as condoms are, for sure. So, even though a lot of water will be used to wash things like the cars that are medically necessary in order to get you to your so-important-that-someone-else-should-pay-for-it visit to the podiatrist, it's still something other people should pay for.
Which aspects of housing and food and clothing and personal grooming and a mattress that makes you sleep super well and a really nice chair in your cubicle at work and nice hobbies that help you to live a low-stress and this healthier life aren't health services, really, when you get down to it? The government should pay for all of it - everything that will make you happy (and thus healthier - it's been shown in studies!) should be paid for by someone else, always, since it's a right to have everything you want and need in order to be as healthy as possible since that's government's job.
Give it a rest.
Do yourself a favor. Grab a dictionary, and look up the phrase "false dichotomy."
Conservatives are against taxes
No. Conservatives are againt profligate government spending, and then seeing taxes raised rather than spending less in the first place. Conservatives see spending less as the way to keep taxes low, not taxing more as a way to try to pay interest on endlessly growing national debt in order to keep spending limitless.
Conservative means stingy, liberal means generous
No. Conservative means stingy with other people's money, liberal means generous with other people's money.
Christ was for generosity
So they say. I didn't notice any famous scripture that mentions taking money from other people in order to be generous with it.
Conservatives are intolerant
No. But liberals are certainly intolerant of conservatives, as you're demonstrating.
A Christian may try to talk a gay man out of committing homosexual acts, a conservative would like to see him in jail or dead.
You're confusing religious crazies with conservatives. On purpose, of course.
When prohibition was instituted it was the conservatives who fought for that change
No, it was religious people - and mostly women - who did so. Try to keep up.
Conservatives are against aid to the poor
No. They are against forcing you to spend part of each day working for the poor. They, on the other hand, are (look it up!) far, far more generous to the poor than liberals. The overwhelming majority of charitable donations, and the charitable organizations with the most stream-lined, low-overhead operations, are run by conservatives and business-funded foundations. Liberals are the least charitable with their own money. This pattern has been true for many decades.
Conservatives hate homeless people
No, conservatives would rather that everyone work and have their own home. Liberals prefer a state of dependency, where there is a perpetual legion of people who exist on hand-outs, so that there can be a full-time profession of taking money from one group (keeping some, as a fee for running the operation by career Nanny State professionals), and giving it to other groups. Liberals like there being ignorant, homeless, hungry people - because without them, they'd have to focus on doing something actually productive, instead.
I don't think conservatives even read the bibles they thump.
You don't even know what a conservative is.
What are you babbling about?
Who said anything about "pointing out" things? I'm talking about banning speech.
Conservatism taken to its logical conclusion
It's been my experience that it's people on the progressive left that show the strongest instinct to disallow the use of certain words, to ban the discussion of awkward moments in history, and to use the power of the state to dictate which world view everyone should have. You know, total tolerance, except for the things they don't like, for which there is zero tolerance.
Religious wackadoos may have some born-of-ignorance cultural hurdles to overcome (thanks, parents!), but the supposedly very educated lefty progressive types exhibit a pretty disturbing interest in top-down, society-comes-from-the-government policies. Conservatives want less of that, progressives want more of it. When you see totalitarian operations like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., it's not the conservative embrace of a constitutional republic's checks and balances that come to mind.
We changed the real server's IP address (on a different block) and pointed the proxy there, after pointing DNS at the proxy. The original IP address stopped listening for anything. They did keep trying to hit it until they realized nothing was there.
I guess it's expensive to be unpopular.
No, it's expensive to be hated by a small group of people who happen to not mind being network abusing dicks so they can put on a show of hurting your business. There are plenty of people who don't like the Occupy nonsense, but most of them are too busy doing something constructive to sit around figuring out how to DDoS attack George Soro's hundreds of web properties.
For that event, we used Zen Networks. They're at www.zenprotection.net, which describes their services pretty well. Not affiliated in any way, but they did solve the problem for us over the short stretch it was required. Honestly, we didn't shop around much ... the site in question was very much on fire. Not like a slashdotting, of course, but some fairly determined Eastern European punks looking for cash. They made my clients angry enough to have them asking, "Is there something we can do back to these guys?" We didn't, of course. Would have been a waste of time.
How do you determine if the third party proxy has sufficient bandwidth to handle the DDoS + regular traffic?
They have a performance guarantee, and don't get paid if they can't keep up at the promised level. Any of the ones you'll want to use will have a dashboard that shows you a more-or-less-real-time view of the blocks/passes, and how much of the purchased throughput you're using.
It was a lot cheaper to pay a third party proxy a $400/month rate for 45 days (until the asshats attempting the extortion got bored and went away) than it wold have been to provision more server horsepower, pay for the bandwidth, and pay T&M for the DC's NOC to help with firewalling. A quick DNS change, use the credit card, hold your breath until it stops. Quick, cheap, and you can go on to other things.
Basically, make sure none of your time-sensitive loads reach 100% and you're fine
As long as the people running the datacenter aren't metering the noise that hits the interface set up to catch your traffic, whether or not they pass it along to your server. If you're burning up their resources, somebody's got to pay the pipe(r).
Yes, the Afghanistan we're still at war with
We've never been at war with Afghanistan. We are fighting the Taliban. It's the Taliban that went to war in Afghanistan, and was ruling its people by the sword. Which you know, and prefer not to address.
There were no WMD
Really. So Hans Blix lied. The photos and huge lists of stockpiles of VX, etc., tallied and reported by the UN and other entities - that was all just fiction, right? Do you suppose that the thousands of people dead in the north of Iraq, killed en masse using the WMDs you say didn't exist, would agree with you? What exactly is your point? How does asserting an alternate reality actually make you feel better?
I threaten violence?
You're right. You should have no trouble, then, if someone who thinks you'd benefit from a slap in the face actually gave you one, as you suggest?
The details like they had no WMD, and you Republicans lied us into war over them?
Those would be the WMDs that legions of Democrats who saw the same intel and the governments of many other countries were also convinced were an issue? You know, the piles of things like VX gas weapons that UN inspectors saw, had some opportunities to count, but could not get any info on their disposition? Saddam himself thought he had more WMDs than he actually did (he was being lied to by subordinates who didn't want to admit that some had been shipped to Syria, that much had been rendered useless from neglect, or that the additional weapons systems needed to use them were in various stages of either being bought from North Korea and Pakistan, or still being cobbled together ... I'd go on, but you know all of this).
... because they did exist), and about their policy of regime change - militarily if necessary - with respect to Saddam. You know, the guy who lobbed SCUDs across his borders? The guy who used the WMDs that you say he didn't have to kill thousands of people in his country? The guy who was handing payments to the families of dead terrorists on television, and encouraging more? That guy, right? The people in your gang included the CIA boss - hired by Clinton - who made a very strong case for the fact that Saddam's UN-observed WMDs not only hadn't magically disappeared, but were being added to, not least through the use of UN-administered oil for food money being directed to Iraq's military. Again, you already know all of that. Saying they had no WMD is a simple lie, meant to distract. Ask Hans Blix if Iraq had stockpiles of VX. His own crew pointed it out, remember? Yeah, you know that too.
Yes, the people in "your gang" (to use your phrase) talked over and over again about those WMDs (which they knew existed
Details like they went to war in Iraq because they wanted to, instead of in Afghanistan where they had to?
You mean the Afghanistan being run by the Taliban, the organization that we went after, militarily, before ramping things back up in Iraq? You know, the exact opposite of the non-real situation you just described?
the terrible crimes you Republicans are responsible for
I notice you say stuff like that a lot, but manage to never get specific about actual crimes. Let me guess ... you don't like things like "rendition," such as Bill Clinton authorized? That sort of thing?
A decent country would never let you say another word again without getting slapped in the face.
Ah, the classic lefty response to words you don't like. Shout people down, threaten violence. Anythign to avoid specific engagement on actual substance. Stay classy!
Wow, that was an excellent rebuttal, complete with facts! Oh, right, you don't have a single fact that runs counter to what I just said, so you're using the classic lefty playbook of ad hominem attack in order to distract from the unpleasant fact that you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual substance of the matter. No point admitting that the GP was factually wrong, huh? Nope! Just keep on lying! Go get 'em, defender of liberty!
Never mind, you probably have to get back to editing audio feeds for NBC, or prepping fake historical memos for CBS. That's a good intern, on you go.
IF you think that Scooter Libbiy did ANYTHING without the direction of Dicky then you are a complete moron
And, as you obviously know but are pretending not to so that you can hope to keep your narrative alive for uninformed people, Scooter Libby wasn't found to have disclosed the identity of Plame. That wasn't even on the docket in his trial, despite the special prosecuter's enormous expenditure of time and cash looking around for who turned out to be ... Richard Armitage, at the State Department (you know the guy who eventually 'fessed up). You know this, and everyone else knows this. The fact that you're mentioning Libby as the source shows how disingenuous and deliberately misleading you're trying to be. Not sure why, though. You must have vested interest in that particular fiction.
Everyone knows this is true.
Other than the details. You know, where it wasn't who you said it was, and it had nothing to do with the reasons you're saying. And of course the part where you're leaving out her role in the high volumes of BS surrounding the situation, her husband's rampant lying and misrepresentation, and your own deliberate (indirect) characterization of the info mentioned by the UK, etc.
We were in a conflict with Iraq from the day they invaded Kuwait. They never stopped shooting at planes, never honored a single condition of their agreement during their withdrawl, and continued everything from long range missle import/construction, mass murder, terror funding, UN cash redirection-to-military-use, obstructing inspectors, and the rest - non stop - until the day that regime was finally taken down. Pretending that unclear British intel about (real!) uranium trafficking/shopping-around, or any other single event, sealed the deal to have Saddam finally held to account is the big lie, here. So why are you pushing it?
What can I do to reverse this?
Reverse what? Reverse it being a crime to blab classified stuff? If you think he shouldn't be in trouble for identifying covert agents, just lobby to have him pardoned by the executive branch, who have that authority.
remember when dick cheney exposed that cia agent when her husband opposed the iraq invasion?
It's difficult to remember stuff that didn't actually happen. Seems to work for you, though. Have fun with that.
Whatever happened to this?
What do you mean? The guy in the State Department who mentioned her name to a reporter got in a bit of trouble, and the scapegoat the Dem's special prosecuter tried (and failed, of course) to pin it on, got strung up for a completely unrelated matter. That was that. Were you hoping for something absurd, like it mattering more, given the actual circumstances?
Remember when Bush outed Valery Plame?
How can we remember what did not happen? If you're going to do some trollish BS-ing, at least try to be more creative. That one is so simply not true that you're just making it obvious you're a twelve year old trying to sound cool. Really, come up with another one. Involve Eeeeevil Corporations, Dick Cheney's heart transplant, the Greek debt and German taxpayers, CO2 emissions, gold currency standards, AIDS as a CIA plot, and then you'll be getting somewhere.
Too bad that they fail. Another AMOLED manufacturer is a must !
Really? Your preferred way to get more of the stuff you want made is to encourage theft from the people who are risking giant piles of money to develop it in the first place? What are you, 8 years old?
Wait, I thought that Hollywood was just a bunch of pinko commie socialist Marxist lefty progressives.
You're confusing spoiled, rich actors with the people who actually find and risk the money to make things like movie studios operate. "Hollywood" is a business town, just like Detroit is. But both cities have large demographics made of people with an entitlement world view, or who - realizing that all they really do is act or a living - suffer major liberal guilt when they recognize how much money they bank. They line up their public politics with what they imagine their customers want to see, rather than teaching their customers what it takes to really run a hundred million dollar project that will probably fail.