DoD classified White Phosphorus as "chemical weapon"
Someone brought this up when White Phosphorous was brought up before. Now you know, it's classified as a chemical weapon.
The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."
by MG at 10:39 PM
66 Comments:
I suppose all you liberals think that Sony is committing chemical warfare against millions of consumers since most of their TV sets contain phosphorus. Most of your readers are probably under chemical attack right now if they are using a CRT on their computer.
Give me a break. This is just liberal hysteria.
O.K lets have the geek conversation, all weapons suck especially more so if hipocracy is involved in use, but here is some third party data
The real hypocrisy is that the US and the UK gave Iraq its weapons in the first place, during the Iran-Iraq war.
Then we spent billions trying to stop Iraq using those weapons. Then we spent billions more trying to remove the person the US and UK were responsible for putting there.
Hypocritical and stupid.
What worries me is that these are the people we voted in. What does that make us?
Ok, so maybe 'you' didn't vote for Bush or Blair, or even Bush/Thatcher/Major but you get my point.
purplesimon out...
Kirk is an amazing phenomenon. A man who can spell, write coherently, understand basic chemistry, and yet is unable to tell the difference between using a chemical inside a sealed box on a desk and spraying it directly on flesh. So you suppose it's some sort of learning disability? Perhaps a stroke?
I bet he's Kirk Cameron, that washed up child actor who got all GodFreak.
(I am such a bitch ;)
"This is just liberal hysteria"
So apparently, according to the incredibly intelligent Kirk, the US Department of Defense is nothing but a liberal propaganda machine. Since the US DoD classified WP as a chemical weapon (at least, when it was used by Hussein against the Kurds), then obviously they're just a bunch of liberal whack-jobs spreading hysteria.
Seriously, though, the gov't never ceases to amaze me in its hypocricy. We have the largest stockpile of (banned) chemical & biological weapons in the world (yet denounce anyone else who wants/gets them), think it's perfectly okay that Pakistan, India & Israel develop nuclear weapons despite Non-Proliferation (but invade Iraq because they "might someday" develop some, and essentially threaten Iran North Korea for wanting nuclear capability), we see absolutely nothing wrong with using (by our OWN definition) chemical weapons against opponents (but condemn others for using the EXACT SAME chemical weapons), ad nauseum. And I'll bet morons like Kirk will continue to defend the hypocricy (well, so long as a Republican is in charge) until their death beds.
Phil
http://nomadechoes.blogdrive.com
My word Phil, I haven't heard so much drivel since the Dayton Accords.
Let's take a look at the sources you guys picked out:
1) The Independent. Yeah, I'll believe some liberal UK tabloid the day I start believing The National Enquirer.
2) Wikipedia. Hey look everybody! Communism is making a comeback! Whoopie! This site alone proves that McCarthy was right.
I don't see anything here from any solid sources. I mean there are tons of reliable media out there: The Weekly Standard, Fox News, World Net Daily, News Max, yet I don't see any of them claiming the stuff in television sets is a chemical weapon. Gee, wonder why that is?
Leave it to the liberals to defend Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own people. Not only did he gas the Kurds, but he would fire chemical munitions at them that would burn through the bone and if that didn't do them in the chemicals would later cause kidney or liver failure. That is a terrible way to die, yet you choose to defend these actions?
Kirk, you're repated insertions of your foot in your mouth astound me! Why are you even posting here? McCarthy was right?! you paranoid religious right wacko! No wonder you love Jerry Falwell so much (another religio-hippocrite-but keep sending him money anyway)- Maybe if you stop trying to label anyone liberal filth who disagrees with your hippocritical stance on the war vs. your obvious religious beliefs, you'll see your eating your own words. Besides having that rebel flag sketch on your bio page - I don't think anyone can take anything YOU say more seriously than the National Inquirer. I don't see anywhere in the gospels, where Jesus condoned killing/torturing other people in any way for any reason, - Maybe you extreme religious folks ought to do a little more reading of the bible and learn something about loving your fellow man. Now on to your next piece of nonsense- FOX NEWS!?!?!? reliable? are you fucking kidding? I suppose all those news tidbits on Free Republic and National review are unbiased as well. As far as "liberals defending saddam" your also out of your mind. Sure Saddam was a baddie-(unless we're doing business with him or arming him) If Saddam was so bad, then why arent we in North Korea right now, where there is complete admission of Nuclear capability-and what about Israel? They're packing enough nukes to level the whole persian gulf. And how about the genocide in darfur? Why not start something there? I can think of at least 5 other hotspots in the world that would have made more sense to attack or at least focus on "diplomatically" - something this administration doesn't seem to have in its vocabulary. Between, the WP, DU ammo/armor, and all those other sweet modern weapons we're using over there, there will be more birth defects and cancer rising among that decimated population of Iraq than Saddam could have ever hoped to harm in his whole life - PLUS this poison will keep on giving long after we're all dead and buried. I suggest you save your rantings for the other disillusioined mass of Chitian hippocrites who continue to support Herr Bush and the rest of his junta of faux-christians - and spare us your continued lunacy.
Mexican: It's just like a liberal to try and derail an honest debate through misdirection. I don't recall talking about Jerry Falwell, any of my religious beliefs, my support or lack thereof of the war against terror, old Dixie, the Bible, Jesus, Israel, Darfur or anything like that. It is you who have brought all this up to try and discredit me by making it appear that I am some sort of extremist. The only reason you do this is because you cannot win an honest debate with me. I also never claimed Democratic Underground was supplying "ammo/armor" to anyone, so don't even try to claim otherwise.
Maybe if Clinton wasn't so busy playing dip the cigar with an intern he could have prevented the September 11th attacks. Instead he was busy trying to misdirect the public from his failings by starting an unjustified war in Yugoslavia. Rent the movie "Wag the Dog" if you don't believe me. It's all there.
People like you disgust me. I try to correct the record, while you run a smear campaign against anyone who points out your disconnection with reality.
Kirkster-
Mexican? sorry bud, I'm American.
Our disgust is mutual my friend.
Oh yeah, I prefer the term progressive over liberal.
Old dixie...hah! You are an extremist, even if you wont look in the mirror. Some corrections for you, my obviously superior blogger...
First of all, these things I brought up to discredit an already discredited administration, i attach you because of your blind obedience to your conservative masters.
As far as my examples, I merely took the time to read your bio and blog. I would never debate you because your kind will never open themselves up to looking at things from any other perspective than the ones theyre told to see on FOX news.
And ain't it funny how all you conservatives throw Clinton up there as soon as your presented with real questions you can't answer? Thanks for truly clearing the record and proving every stereotype I know about extreme southern religious conservatives.
Cheers!
hey Kirk:
You said: "Maybe if Clinton wasn't so busy playing dip the cigar with an intern he could have prevented the September 11th attacks". Unless you are inferring Clinton should have had the guys with butterfly nets come and get Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle and the rest of the Project for a New American Century (P.N.A.C.) and commit them to an insane asylum, I have some bad news for you, and I seriously doubt that is what you are inferring.
Since 9/11 is a delicate subject I will put this as gently as possible. The "official" 9/11 story, regurgitated a thousand times over by the Bushites and their media mouthpieces is a far-fetched myth, easily disprovable by even the most cursory analysis of the details. See, that's the thing: the "official" 9/11 myth isn't meant to be analyzed, but instead to be simply accepted at face value; the reason being that when you look at the details of it the whole thing quickly comes unravelled. From the obvious controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7, to the "finding" of the "indestructable" passport days later near the WTC rubble, to the "9/11 hijackers" somehow being able to render the world's most expensive Air Force totally impotent for over an hour & twenty minutes while they made their way to their targets, to the Pentagon not firing any SAMs in its own defense, to the several accused "9/11 hijackers" reappearing days after 9/11, to the instances of obvious foreknowledge like the warning of some people like the mayor of San Francisco to avoid flying and the WTC on 9/11 and the record amounts of "put" orders placed on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter, to the Naudet brothers' footage showing something that looks nothing at all like a Boeing 757 crashing into the North Tower, to the multitude of 9/11 "coincidences" that one must make themself believe were just coincidences and nothing more if one wants to believe the "official" myth, and much, much more evidence that all confirms one thing: That 9/11 was not at all the work of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein or any combination of the two, but instead was an inside job done by our own government. Sad but true, and the "official" myth is physically impossible and easily disprovable. I have commented about this very matter before on this blog and provided a mountain of links to valuable information from numerous, varied sources confirming this. Look in the November 2005 archives section under the article "Buzzword of the day: Murtha" and scroll down the comments until you get near the bottom of the page. Here's the link to that page for quick access:
http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2005/11/buzzword-of-day-murtha.html#comments
For a good albiet brief summary of the reasons why 9/11 was carried out, I wrote in the comments [also here in this blog] on a different page:
http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2005/11/key-bush-intelligence-brie_113270521699738410.html#comments
At the end of the day you're going to have to ask yourself, are you going to go on believing a far-fetched myth simply because it's psychologically more comfortable, or are you going to accept the facts even though they are bitter?
Eurotrash: Once again you don't stick to the subject at hand because it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that TV glow dust is somehow a chemical weapon. You sir are an extremist and a propagandist living in a fantasy land.
Destroy Fascism: While your name is utterly offensive, you offer some sound theories. However, if - and by if I mean probably - the Bush administration allowed or orchestrated the September 11th attacks, they would have done so to protect this great country. It's not for us to second guess our leaders. I fully support the Bush administration in their effort to protect America by any means necessary.
Kirk,
I had a girlfreind who was so cute. She had curlytop blond hair. She had just the right size boobies with the most sexy nips you could ever hope to see. She was a doll with a great sense of humor and she was smart. But the reason I am bringing her to your attention right now is because of one thing she used to love to say to people who she didn't agree with. She used to say "eat shit and die". That's what I am going to pass on to you, Kirk. Eat shit and die.
Kitt: Perhaps if you were a real man you wouldn't have to have sexual relations with a doll.
hey Kirk:
"To protect" America?
So you support the idea of murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 to be used as an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan to make it safe for the P.N.A.C.'s pipeline project? You are proving how sick you are. People like you, if I may torture the meaning of the word "people", are the same kind of brainless pieces of shit who will support anything so long as it's wrapped up in a flag. The same kind of brainless pieces of shit who in Nazi Germany saw everything Hitler was doing as being "in the interest of the nation" because that's psychologically easier than facing the truth. One thing I will credit you with is at least "probably" seeing that the Bushites caused 9/11 as you admitted, but apparantly you are trying to "make it O.K." in the vacuum of your "mind" by telling yourself it was done for the "good" of the nation. This is BEYOND sick. And exactly why is the handle 'Destroy Fascism' to you "utterly offensive"? It can only be offensive to you if you are a fascist, which by your being an apologist for the Bushites' murderous 9/11 inside job you make it seem highly likely that's precisely what you are.
hey Kirk:
And another thing, if you love America as you profess to, then why exactly do you have as your symbol the flag of the entity that tried to rip this country in half (and failed miserably)? Are you the same kind of redneck that drives around in a pickup truck with an American flag sticker on the back bumper an inch away from a Confederate flag sticker, showing anyone who'd care to look just how ignorant you are?
Destroy Fascism: I should have known by your handle that you were just offering a reasonable theory to ensnare me in your liberal trap. Well my heathen liberal, it is of no matter to me as I do not easily succumb to liberal mind control. In fact, I think your theory is just like 1,000 monkeys typing away – eventually they will print an accurate news story at some point. Congratulations, keep pounding away at those keys.
I have no idea that what these acronyms are that you are throwing out. I believe you are just making them up like the monkey typist you appear to be.
It is quite clear that you don't have the faintest idea that our president already had plans to invade Iraq before September 11th occurred in order to protect America from a terrorist attack that could have killed thousands of people. When September 11th occurred it was a blessing in disguise as it allowed us to eliminate threats across that globe that would have resulted in hundreds, maybe thousands of American deaths. Without September 11th we may have witnessed a catastrophic terrorist attack under this president's watch. Thank God that President Bush wouldn't allow this to happen while he was in charge and instead was proactive in preventing a horrific terrorist attack on US soil by linking Iraq with the September 11th attacks and preventing Iraq from launching Scud missile attacks on the United States.
That's the problem with you liberals; you know nothing about geo-politics. President Bush was right, Clinton was wrong. This is just political muckraking by scum that have the same extremist Yankee views as Michael Moore and Stalin.
Kirk: "blessing in disguise"
Dude I don't care who you are or what you represent, but 9/11 was NOT a blessing in any way. Can it and go home.
The more "JIRK" posts, the more he reveals and explains who actually makes up that 34% job approval rating -
keep up the good work pal, and try not to let us liberal mind controllers take you over. Tin foil hat anyone?
hey Kirk:
Where do I begin? First of all, the only acronym I "threw out there" is the P.N.A.C., meaning the Project for a New American Century, who are the bunch or right-wing shitbags that in 1998 tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq because of its massive oil resources and are the ones who said that the only thing that could get the American people to accept massive increases in defense spending and a more aggressive military posture is a catastrophic galvanizing event like "a new Pearl Harbor". Perhaps you've heard of some of its more prominent members: Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle et cetera, et cetera. For reference, see:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/weiner6.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02192003.html
Perhaps if you got your news from anywhere other than Faux "News" then you might have heard of them.
Second of all, if you don't think 3,000 dead Americans is catastrophic enough, then exactly how many IS? 6,000? 60,000?
Third of all, I know more about geopolitics than you will EVER know you shitbrain mouth-breathing redneck. Bush "linking Saddam to 9/11" is a 100% FALSE LINK. There is NO LINK there. Nothing. He may as well have been trying to "link" 9/11 to India. Even the 9/11 whitewash committee admitted this, probably the one truthful thing they said. The whole fucking WORLD knows this, seemingly except for you Kirk. Pull your head out of your ass if you still can. As for Saddam "launching Scud missile attacks on the United States", I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Do you have any idea what the range of a Scud missile is, you peabrain? Obviously not. Here's a little education for you: The SS-1B 'Scud-A' and all its variants is a single-stage surface-to-surface battlefield missile, not an intercontinental ballistic missile or ICBM [whoops, another acronym, try not to get confused there sparky]. The range of the SS-1B 'Scud-A' is a mere 280 miles. Its two improved variants that Iraq developed are the 'Al Hussein' and 'Al Abbas' varieties, whose ranges are 373 miles and 534 miles respectively, meaning they can't even get out of the Middle East, let alone flying several THOUSAND miles to the United States. So you bought your gas mask for nothing you brainless piece of shit. This is a critical difference between a battlefield missile (intended for deep operational level strikes against targets in an enemy's rear area, and can be used for attacks on enemy cities within its [very limited] range), and ICBMs which can fly from one continent to another across several thousands of miles. Enormous difference. Bush and his cronies didn't prevent any "terrorist attack" by invading Iraq, quite the contrary, it gives ready-made propaganda to eny terrorist who has been saying what an imperialistic shitpile America is, and has made America an international pariah ("Pariah" means "outcast", to save you from having to look that one up). Something ELSE the invasion and occupation has accomplished is to make America's military incredibly worn-down and weak while showcasing its weaknesses such as an extreme over-reliance on air power, for any potential aggressor nation to plainly see, while crippling its recruitment and vastly diminishing American prestige in showing it cannot even hope to contain a rag-tag force of Rebels that use homemade explosive devices and small-arms. Also, it is steadily eating up a mountain of money to keep them there, money that even if spent on other military needs could have gone to replacing old and worn-out equipment, expanding the military quite a bit, providing a better quality of life for servicemen instead of having so many of them on food stamps, better retirement benifits for them, better training etc. But instead, it's being pissed away at the rate of $80 billion every couple months in a losing war in Iraq. As it is right now, it's unsustainable. Just ask [retired] Genl. Barry McCaffery. They will not be able to keep the current [inadequate] force level in Iraq for another year, guaranteed. That means a withdrawl is on its way starting in 2006. This war is a humiliation for America, for its military, and will be the albatross around the neck of Bush and other Republicans in the 2006 mid-term Congressional "elections". Altogether, it has left America a great deal LESS safe, not more safe, this should be fairly obvious to even someone of your miniscule and stunted intellect Kirk.
And as for "Yankee extremism", this just sounds like more ravings from someone who is still bitter after 140 years that the South got its ass kicked. Yes, you won the early battles, and gave the Union a good fight at Gettysburg, but in your most important battle Lee wouldn't listen to Longstreet and had to display that typical Southern quality, pigheadedness, and had his worst and most unimaginative showing of the war. After that [and Vicksburg], your side was on borrowed time. Awwwww, what a shame the side that was fighting for the "states' rights" to keep other human beings in inhuman bondage got its ass kicked. You deserved to lose. Deal with it.
Darntetn and Welfare Leach: You both perfectly demonstrate the liberals’ intolerance of differing views.
Destroy Fascism: None of your links work. I’ve clicked them repeatedly and they go nowhere. Given the fact that you are unwilling to provide links to reputable sources, and the fact that you spell the word “any” as “eny”, I have to conclude that your information is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Not to mention that your use of profanity shows how desperate you are to prove some kind of liberal point no matter the overwhelming evidence against what you are saying.
All Liberals: It is absolutely disgraceful that you are speaking ill of our president while we are at war. You are giving comfort to our enemies and quite frankly what you are doing is tantamount to treason. Our soldiers are dying to protect your rights – rights that people in other countries don’t enjoy – and you denigrate their service by speaking out against their commander in chief? What is wrong with you people? I hope someday we put war criminals like you in prison where you belong.
Thank You JIRK-
You just reproved what an ignorant hippocritical sheep you really are. Please keep posting - i find your logic incredibly entertaining - albeit blindly obedient and stupid.
to Kirk:
All three of the links work; all you have to do is shade them with the mouse, hit 'copy' in the little window, go to the address bar and hit 'paste', and then 'enter'. Very simple, even you should be able to do this. As for misspelling "any", it was a typo, as you can see from my spelling it correctly later in the post; besides, this is a weak, pathetic defense you are trying to make by making fun of someone's typo, as you've made them yourself anyway, and it smacks of the worst kind of desperation. As for "wishful thinking", you brainless Nazi redneck, how about your wishful thinking of clinging to the belief that Saddam had WMDs? How about your wishful thinking that the 9/11 inside job was for "the good of the country" and a "blessing in disguise"??
As for criticism of the so-called "commander-in-chief" in time of war being "treason" as you call it, this is nonsense. If this country had a legitimate system of electing a president this drunken asshole Lush would've been sent back to Crawford in 2000, but instead it hinges on an artificial "electoral college" and not the popular vote which he lost, so we shouldn't even have to be having this conversation were this a real democracy. Turds like you will believe ANYTHING and follow ANYONE so long as it's wrapped up in a flag. The most UNpatriotic thing someone can do is to be an abject moral coward like yourself and let this country slide farther and farther down into the shithole Lush is taking it into without so much as a peep of dissent. Do you LIKE the police state America has become? Do you LIKE making yourself believe the illegal war in Iraq is a GOOD thing? Do you LIKE your government authorizing torture and indefinite detainment in dungeons with no charges? Do you LIKE America becoming the most hated country in the world and with GOOD REASON? The Army could start goosestepping and you'd say it's alright and call it the "freedom step", right? Turds like you make it even easier for the shitbags in power to steal away what few rights you have left. And as for "rights that people in other countries don't enjoy" this is laughable. There are countries that are MUCH more free than America, for example Spain, the Netherlands, and basically all Western European countries are more free than the U.S. So is Canada. You need to stop acting like outside of America everyone else cuts peoples' hands off for stealing. There is a whole world out there beyond America's borders. America could learn a LOT from Western European countries and Canada. It's no wonder this country is the laughingstock of the world. But as for dissenting in wartime being "treason", well, I've said it before but I'll say it again: At the end of World War II when Hermann Goring was captured, his interogators asked him, "Just how did you Nazis get the German people to unquestioningly go along with your plans for unprovoked wars of aggression?". Goring responded, "Oh, that's easy. All we had to do was to tell the masses that it was a matter of national security, and paint all the dissenters as unpatriotic and traitors". Sound familiar Kirk? How's it feel for your "government" to be taking pages out of the Nazis' playbook?
A typo: "Interogators" should be spelled "interrogators". Just thought I'd correct that before the idiot Kirk starts raving about typos, thinking it "proves" something. What an ignorant asshole.
Also Kirk, during Clinton's mess regarding Kosovo, the Republinazis criticized the commander-in-chief endlessly. Do you consider this to be "treason" as well?
As for "war criminals" being put in prison where they belong, they can start with the war criminal that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
bravo! -destroy
Destroy Fascism: You talk to me like I haven't talked with a liberal before. I'm already well aware of the liberal tactic of obfuscation and am not going to spin my wheels cutting and pasting or whatever other complicated task you would like to see me waste my time on.
Your insults just show how immature and wrong you are. Learn some manners.
It is clear to everyone that reads this thread that you have lost the debate. That is why you have gone so far off topic instead of discussing Clinton allowing September 11th to occur because he was too distracted by chunky interns to bother staying current with world affairs.
You seem to know an awful lot about Nazis that no one has heard of. That's very interesting… very interesting.
People like you are the reason why other countries hate America. After September 11th the world rallied around President Bush, but cringed at the hateful smear campaign launched by the vast left wing conspiracy and decided that while they were behind our president 100% that the people of this country were cowardly fanatics. I find it very unfortunate that much of the world thinks that all Americans are like you.
Idiota que Camina: Indeed, all you liberal extremists know is destruction.
hey Kirk:
This is hilarious. Please keep posting Kirk, as you never fail to totally discredit the right-wing "cause" every time. Please keep giving us ammunition, we love it.
Kirk, as for the process of pasting an address into your address bar at the top of your browser, it is so painfully simple, so widely-known, that I have never, ever had to explain it to anyone before and which is why I have never left instructions on how to do this when I post links, as it's presumed that everyone knows how to do this. It isn't some new-fangled trick only known about by a handful of computer whiz people, but something that anyone who can use a PC should be able to do and is about as much of a secret as the four seasons occurring each year. In your case I see I was assuming too much, but nobody else on this blog or elsewhere has ever told me that they can't figure it out, as it is common knowledge. If you think pasting an address onto your address bar is a "complicated process" then surely you must think tying your shoes or wiping your ass is a complicated major effort, too difficult to be attempted.
The reason why I know some things about the Nazis is because I actually like to READ. Ever heard of reading Kirk? It's what people do who have enough sense to know if you can't learn from history you are condemned to repeat it as Santayana said.
As for the "left-wing conspiracy" "smearing Pres. Bush" after the 9/11 attacks, you have a pretty wild imagination and an exceedingly bad memory; not only did the world show immense sympathy for the U.S., but the whole of America was united, Democrats and Republicans, as it hadn't been in as long as I can remember. At that point there WAS NO partisan bickering, certainly NO "smear campaign" and the Democrats bent over backwards to accomodate Bush and reach across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship. 9/11 in effect shamefully shifted all political discourse in this country far to the right, where it remains, only having receded ever so slightly by now. No, the whole country came together without partisan infighting for a long time after 9/11, and your short memory on this surprises even me, but I suppose it shouldn't given your lunatic ravings. No Kirk, what turned the whole world against America was most certainly NOT the Democrats, but the Republifascists who have since 9/11 tried to use that [American-made] tragedy as an "excuse" to do whatever they want to do regardless of the consequences, such as the illegal invasion of Iraq; THAT right there turned the world against America and you can thank your beloved "president" for this. Just as quickly as the world's sympathy was aroused by 9/11, it dissipated as they could see that right-wing assholes like Bush and Cheney were determined to use it to advance their narrow imperialist agenda and try to use it as an "excuse" for every brutal excess they felt like doing. Why do you think the entire WORLD wanted to see Bush LOSE the 2004 "election" and be replaced by a Democrat? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and your convenient historical amnesia is fooling nobody worth fooling Kirk, its only redeeming value being comic relief.
As for your tired "blame Clinton" bullshit regarding 9/11, I thought we already went over this once already, ending with you admitting you "probably" think 9/11 was an inside job? How does that square with your continuing to moan that "if not for Clinton's inaction etc." then 9/11 wouldn't have happened?? Either you see the truth about 9/11 being an inside job that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda [or anything Clinton did or did not do], or you believe the "official" 9/11 fairy tale of "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters that shut down the world's most expensive Air Force". You can't have it both ways. I've already explained how only someone who doesn't care to look at the details of 9/11 [or who is too chicken-shit to look] can believe the nonsensical "official" fairy tale, explaining how even the most cursory of analysis causes their story to unravel beyond repair, and to this you appeared to agree, but then fell back on the psychological defense mechanism of pretending it was an inside job done "for the good of the country" and was "a blessing in disguise" with some ridiculous horseshit about how invading Iraq "prevented" a "catastrophic" terror attack in America, which in itself infers that you feel 3,000 dead Americans isn't catastrophic but a drop in the bucket, small change [thanks for illustrating just how heartless we know Republinazis are]. But then, after this you are now trying to blame Clinton again, inferring that now you DON'T think 9/11 was an inside job but was instead done as the "official" easily-disproven myth has it. So which is it? You are making for a very schizophrenic argument there Kirk. But by all means, please continue posting, this is fun and severely damaging to your "cause", more so with each post you make.
Kirk. I'm not a liberal. Not even remotely Left. Check my other comments on Moxie's other threads.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I again assert that 9-11 was in no way a blessing. 3000 Americans died. To believe that in any way was a blessing is to stoop to the level of the Palestinians that danced in the streets over it.
hey Kirk:
Pasting an address onto your address bar is such a "complicated task" that it takes all of two seconds, about the amount of time it takes someone with a brain to realize Bush is a drunk shitbag war criminal.
Ahem... WP is a chemical weapon. Wasn't that the topic? Let's try sticking to it ok? With, um, non-twisted facts and all?
Doesn't seem to be anyone on THIS side of the aisle twisting facts about this post.
My question is, regardless of WP's technical status, just why did the Pentagon first deny using it in Fallujah, then go back on that months later [only when it came out that in one of its own publications it had interviews with artillerymen who talked about using it in Fallujah] admitting it used it but claiming it wasn't used against civilians, and now is saying it was intending to hit the Rebels with it but probably got some Iraqi civilians in the process? I mean anyone with at least five brain cells knows you can't take anything the U.S. military says as the truth unless it can be verified by other [read: CREDIBLE] sources, but don't they see they're just digging themselves in deeper?
Destroy Fascism: Why am I not surprised that you are twisting my words? Perhaps you should reread my comment again. I am not jumping through hoops to read your false information. It's very simple. If you had valid sources then you would provide simple access to them, not force people to cut and paste. All you are trying to do is obstruct the debate by forcing busywork upon people of opposing views.
Republifascists? That's very immature and just makes people take you even less seriously than they already do.
I couldn't quite stomach your rant to actually reread it, but it seems you think Bush's anti-terrorism strategy and Clinton's failure to prevent September 11th are somehow contradictory. Once again, it's very simple. Try to follow along. If Clinton hadn't of been so obsessed with penetrating harlots with tobacco products and instead focused on preventing terrorism we would never had to of endured September 11th in order to make the world safer from Islamofascists across the globe. Seems pretty simple to understand, but perhaps a hormone riddled teenager like you has a hard time with this concept.
Darntern: If you are not a liberal and you are not a conservative then what kind of abomination are you? I did appreciate your link though. So, I guess we'll have to fight with sticks and stones since pretty much everything is a chemical weapon using the liberal elitists' definition. Oh wait, sticks and stones probably contain chemicals, guess we'll have to use fists… oh no, there are chemicals in our blood. Guess since there are chemicals in our blood and people can cause injury we will have to outlaw people too. Good job liberal scum! You've killed us all! But, at least you've finally convinced me that everything on this Earth is a chemical weapon. Congratulations.
hey Kirk:
Nobody is trying to "force busywork" on anybody; I am not ABLE to "provide simple access" to them beyond the extremely simple access of putting the address there and presuming anyone can access it who either 1.has sense enough to know how to put it on their browser's address bar, which excepting you, everyone else does, or 2.actually WANTS to read the article it links to and isn't going to use some weak chicken-shit excuse like "it's too complicated for me to figure out" or "it's busywork" when everyone else seems to have no problem with it. I have NEVER posted any other type of link on here, simply because I CAN'T. There is no format for me to, and believe me, I've posted a lot of links intended to help my fellow non-fascists and guess what? As I stated those links aren't enabled in any other way than the ones you saw here, because pasting them on your browser's address bar is simplicity itself. Nobody's twisting your words Kirk, you yourself are saying it is "too complicated" a process for you when no-one else has any difficulty with it. If literally two seconds of effort is too much of a hassle for someone to access an article, what can one think but that the person just doesn't want to read the article and would be using any excuse not to regardless? I have yet to meet one other person besides you Kirk who has any problems pasting an address into their address bar. Not one. Grow the hell up you unbelievably stupid redneck moron.
Regarding calling your side Republifascists, well, if you all didn't try to act like fascists I wouldn't call you that. And believe me, absolutely nobody including people on your own side of the aisle such as Darntetn take YOU seriously Kirk. You are the stereotypical ignorant white trash redneck with a tiny mind and even tinier balls, so psychologically cowardly you bury your head farther and farther up your ass rather than look at the facts. You convince absolutely no-one Kirk and make an enormous fool out of yourself in trying. Please continue to post, as we could all use a good laugh, especially at the expense of someone as retarded as you obviously are. Next I must say, contrary to what you are thinking I'm certainly no teenager and haven't been for a while now, so don't get your hopes up. As for you, I doubt you've even hit puberty yet because you certainly don't argue like it. And once again I must tear you a new one in regards to your 9/11 ravings. You either have completely forgotten what you posted earlier or are so laughably shit-simple you can't see how you are contradicting yourself. Pay attention, I'll try to make this as simple as possible: You mentioned 9/11, so I explained that, sorry to burst your bubble but it was an inside job done by our own government, as the preponderance of evidence easily proves. You then posted that you "probably" agree that it was an inside job, but then you try to "make it O.K." in your "mind" [if I may strain the meaning of the word] by claiming it was "for the good of the country" and "a blessing in disguise" because apparantly to try to use your twisted "thinking" this then gives America the "right" to invade wherever it feels it is able to, which you assert will avert some "real catastrophe" meaning you consider 9/11 to be small potatoes, unlike myself who considers 9/11 to be a major tragedy. You don't seem to understand, Kirk, that in agreeing that 9/11 was an inside job you are automatically negating your "argument" that Clinton's "inaction" had anything to do with it because, if you can follow this unbelievably simple concept Kirk, if it was an inside job done by the U.S. government [as it was] then it wouldn't matter if Clinton was even using a cigar on Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office, because Al Qaeda had NOTHING to do with it. Get it now?? Inside job done by Bush's government = no Al Qaeda connection. So with no Al Qaeda in the picture, only someone as simple-minded as you are turning out to be would then try to assert that it was "Clinton's fault" when you had just agreed you "probably" realize as I do that 9/11 was an inside job as opposed to a "foreign terrorist attack". Why is understanding this very simple reasoning such an insurmountable task for you Kirk? Why do you feel you can argue both sides of an issue and expect nobody to call you a fucking imbecile?
Destroy Fascism: Oh yes, I can see that there is no way for a liberal obstructionist like you to provide links to reliable sources. Believe me; I fully understand your dilemma. Perhaps if you reread my comments you will see that I understand that it would harm your obfuscation techniques.
You are simply repeating yourself with your latest comment. I'm not as desperate as you to resort to repetition.
You can say whatever you want, but repeating your lies doesn't magically make them true and calling me names doesn't prove your point either. It simply proves that you are a foul mouth teenage brat or at least have the mental capacity of one. Either way, you lost this debate a long time ago.
The fact remains that if Clinton hadn't of been so distracted playing hide the stogie then we wouldn't have had to suffer through September 11th in order to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States.
hey Ku Klux Kirk:
How simply do I have to explain this for you to be able to understand it? I am not a registered member on this blog, so as a guest there is NO FORMAT FOR ME TO PROVIDE H.T.M.L. LINKS except the way I have always been posting them regardless of what said links are about. It has never before presented a problem for anyone except you, the neanderthal who thinks taking two seconds to paste the address onto your address bar like everyone else does is some kind of "busywork", "obstructionism" or "obfuscation". Give it up. It is painfully obvious that you wouldn't read any article I link to regardless, or else in about 1/1000th of the time it takes for you to make up your childish pathetic excuses you could have already linked to it and [if you CAN actually read if that isn't assuming too much] could have read them by now. But instead you choose to be a chicken-shit and make up sad, disingenious excuses for why you won't look at them and accuse me of "obstructionism". What a pathetic display Kirk, made even more so by your persisting with it. Do you REALLY think I or anyone else here considers posting addresses in the only way possible for me to post them, whose access is so simple anyone who can dress themself can do it, to be "obstructionism"? Grow a brain.
"Repeating your lies" you said? Exactly what that I've posted has been a lie? Care to elaborate?
"Lost this debate a long time ago"? By whose estimation Kirk? Am I the one who first tried to claim most laughably that "Saddam would have attacked America with Scud missiles" that couldn't even make it out of the Middle East, let alone travel the SEVERAL THOUSAND miles necessary to hit the U.S.? Am I the one who accuses others of "liberal mind control tactics"? Am I the one who made the ridiculous statement that the world hates America because of some "smear campaign" by Democrats taking place in the wake of 9/11 that "exists" only in your imagination Kirk? Am I the one who is trying to argue both sides of the 9/11 issue, totally contradicting myself by offering two opposing mutually-exclusive viewpoints then being so simpleminded I can't see how it's a contradiction? No, Kirk, all of that was you Bubba. By any objective extimation you lost this argument soon after it started and have been digging yourself in deeper as time goes by. I explained your schizophrenic 9/11 contradiction in my last post in so simple a manner that an autistic child should be able to understand it, but you STILL persist in degrading yourself, still refusing to see your own contradiction. How can I make this even more simple so that you can understand how you have contradicted yourself? For the 900th time, here goes:
1.You brought up 9/11 into the discussion out of nowhere like most asses on your side of the aisle do, so I figured I'd explain that it was an inside job, not a foreign terrorist attack. Remember that?
2.You then admitted you "probably" agree that it was an inside job [then proceeded to try to minimize this horror by claiming it was "for the good of the country" and "a blessing in disguise"]. Remember this? Still able to understand it at this point or have we already gotten too "complicated" for you?
3.For 9/11 to have been anything that anybody could even REMOTELY try to blame on Clinton's "inaction" it would have HAD TO HAVE BEEN an actual foreign terror attack and not an inside job done by Bush's government; Even you agreed that you "probably" are capable of seeing it was an inside job done by Bush's government. Do you deny that you said that?
4.So, because it was [as the preponderance of evidence shows for anyone who would care to look into 9/11] an inside job done by Bush's government it takes only common sense to see that Al Qaeda or any other foreign terrorist group was not responsible and therefore whatever Clintonite "inaction" regarding Al Qaeda or any other terror group has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, that Clinton's "inaction" is A MOOT POINT.
5.So to summarize in case you have already gotten confused:
9/11 inside job by Bush's government = no Al Qaeda involvement, thus nothing there that could be "blamed" on Clinton.
The only way anyone could try to "blame Clinton" for 9/11 is if such an individual accepts the ridiculous 9/11 "official" fairy tale regurgitated many times over by the government, which is a myth made impossible by the laws of physics as well as many other things making it impossible. Is it finally clear now Kirk? Do you finally see how you can either 1.falsely "blame Clinton" for 9/11 by clinging desperately to the disproven "official" 9/11 fairy tale of "nineteen hijackers etc."
OR
2.admit [as you did] that you "probably" realize it was an inside job done by the government which means no Al Qaeda involvement, meaning the "blame Clinton" nonsense is not applicable.
You can't argue both. To try to claim both continues to show how ignorant and incapable of critical thinking you are. Your "argument" is inherently a CONTRADICTION because it involves presupposing two entirely different sets of villains for the same act: the Bush regime [in your truthful admission that you feel it "probably" was an inside job] and Al Qaeda [in persisting to "blame Clinton" for what, in that scenario, would have to be a FOREIGN terrorist attack]. You are embarrassing yourself Kirk, if possible even more than you embarrass yourself by sporting the Loser Flag of Southern Bigot Inbreds. Grow up. Genuine adults can't try to argue two sides of an issue simultaneously and expect anything other than derision and laughter. Pick one and stick with it, or shut the fuck up you brainless hillbilly.
In addition, only in your fantasy world, Kirk, was 9/11 NOT catastrophic. I've never, EVER heard anyone else try to claim it wasn't a catastrophe. How many Americans have to be killed and how many skyscrapers have to be demolished for it to be catastrophic in your fantasy world you bloodthirsty bastard?
Besides, if the Bush regime carried out its 9/11 inside job for the far-fetched purpose you've stated [to give America the "excuse" to invade whatever country they feel like invading so as to "prevent future terror attacks"], then why in the hell would they have made 9/11 such a bloody catastrophe with 3,000 innocent people killed? It hardly takes anywhere near that amount of dead Americans to make this nation scared silly; they would have instead carried out a much less-complicated and certainly less bloody inside job killing perhaps 20 or 30 or maybe at the most 100 people, used a lot of smoke and mirrors, claimed to have "prevented" it from being an even larger catastrophe, and proceeded to play it up in made-for-TV movie propaganda purporting to show what "could have" happened had they not "foiled" the larger part of the attack. It would have had the same effect on the American peoples' perception of the "terror threat" and would have cost comparatively much fewer lives. Just look at the Bushites' anthrax letter campaign: It killed a grand total of five people, and to this day if someone opens up an envelope that some idiot has put flour in as a prank, they shut down a whole city and everyone across the nation is terrified to open their mail! It wouldn't have taken 3,000 dead from something made to look like a "foreign" terrorist attack in order to shake up America, so if their real concern was to prevent future loss of life from terrorist attacks certainly they wouldn't have been so callous as to consider 3,000 innocent people to be expendable. The thought of this is utterly ludicrous. No, certainly if they were so heartless as to kill 3,000 Americans in one day they had other motives for 9/11 than preventing further inordinate loss of life, meaning they had economic motives, meaning they needed an "excuse" to throw America's weight around and invade Afghanistan so as to make it safe for their pipeline project, then milk it further by trying to falsely tie Iraq into it so they could occupy the world's second-largest oil producing country [Iraq]. It is purely logical to consider that those who would inflict such a horrific disaster as 9/11 on America were doing it for base motives rather than making the deaths of 3,000 Americans a certainty so as to "prevent" hypothetical future American deaths. Only someone with dogshit in their head would argue otherwise.
A good example of this would be the Dept. of Defense's plans [thankfully never carried out] for a false flag operation designed to make it appear Cuba was committing terrorist attacks against Americans, called Operation: Northwoods. They bandied about several ideas, such as a mock airline hijacking, blowing up a U.S. warship [but since this would likely cause some sailors to be killed, that "idea" was scrapped in favor of blowing up an empty ship], destroying [unoccupied] U.S. aircraft on the ground, etc. involving such features as dummy aircraft and fake funerals with empty caskets. This was in the early 1960s when Americans were more mentally conditioned to loss of life than they are nowadays, and yet instead of planning to kill 3,000 Americans and blaming it on Cuba so as to have an "excuse" to launch a full-scale invasion of that country, instead they decided even then that inordinate loss of American lives in a false flag operation wasn't a good proposition so they made every effort to minimize the casualties or eliminate them altogether. Though it was as I said never approved to be carried out, just the planning of it shows that they wouldn't callously consider 3,000 Americans to be expendable in providing a false pretext for aggression. Some good articles regarding Operation: Northwoods are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Northwoods
http://www.attackonamerica.net/operationnorthwoods.htm
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501abc
So obviously, the Bushite 9/11 false flag operation was most certainly NOT carried out to give a pretext to "prevent future loss of life from terrorist attacks", as if their main concern was preventing inordinate loss of life then they would have gone with a much less callous false flag plan more along the lines of an Operation: Northwoods.
This Kirk guy has really shown Destroy Fascism for who he/she really is: An obstructionist. Kirk has pointed out several times that Destroy Fascism doesn’t provide links to good sources, yet rather than rectify the situation the obstructionist lies about how he/she can’t post links because they are not a registered user.
I’m not a registered user, yet I seem to have no problem posting links:
Hello, I’m a link.
So, given that Kirk has proven that Destroy Fascism lies about little things like links; he/she probably lies about the big things too.
I am against Bush and the war in Iraq, but given some of the obvious lies spewed about by anti-Bush people I’m started to think that maybe people like Kirk are right. I originally thought he was an extremist, but I would have to be an idiot to bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts he has provided just because they are unpleasant.
I’m going to have to do more research now and figure out which side I am really on.
hey Anonymous/Kirk:
First of all, I have yet to see any way for me post "clickable" links [but as excepting Kirk, everyone else seems to have no problem pasting them onto the address bar, it has never been an issue any other time; people have thanked me for links I've provided, but nobody but Kirk has ever had any problems with this or asked me how to paste a link into the address bar]. I seriously don't know how to post them so they're clickable, and I have always assumed it was a format that wasn't available unless someone was registered at the blog; if I was being an obstructionist, I'd just not provide any links at all, like you did when you said "Hello I'm a link" and posted nothing. No, since anyone who can use a PC seems to realize how to paste a link onto the browser's address bar, this is [excepting K.K.Kirk], never a problem. Kirk obviously is using it as an excuse because he's too much of a redneck pussy to actually look at the articles I've given the addresses to, so his pitiful excuse is "it's too complicated; I don't have the time to; you're an obstructionist". You, "Anonymous", are most likely Kirk trying to pretend someone agrees with you and make yourself look like slightly less of an ass. Kirk has proved absolutely nothing except what a moron he is; he does nothing but harp on the same tired bullshit about Clinton's Lewinsky matter which proves exactly nothing and bitch about me not being able to provide links that he can click on instead of taking an entire two seconds to paste them in the address bar like EVERY OTHER FUCKING LINK I'VE POSTED REGARDLESS OF THE TOPIC. This is getting old Kirk, and you are getting desperate. I have proved your ridiculous "argument" wrong from every conceivable angle, yet you keep coming back for more humiliation, still with your head firmly planted up your ass. Grow the hell up.
Anonymous: Glad someone else here took notice of Destroy Fascism's little game. Pretty cute how he claims that our links don't work isn't it? Maybe he had his ISP block all non-liberal content so he can "honestly" make this claim. Did you also notice how he tries to filibuster the thread with long winded comments that say nothing? That is a typical liberal tactic. I don't know if you watched the debates between John Kerry and George Bush, but Kerry did the same thing. He just talked and talked, but never actually said anything. The first debate was a perfect example, Bush kept things simple and to the point and absolutely destroyed Kerry on the facts, but the liberal media kept trying to portray Kerry as the winner! That's why you are unsure, because the media has been bought off by the Democrats. There's only one unbiased news channel and that's Fox News. Apparently when you have enough money like Rupert Murdoch you don't care to push other people's propaganda.
"Apparently when you have enough money like Rupert Murdoch you don't care to push other people's propaganda."
...other than the white houses
hey Kirkanonymous:
Now you're agreeing with yourself. Your little "anonymous" performance was hardly believable, worse even than Colin Powell's U.N. speech. This is the oldest trick in the book, when a right-winger loses an argument the right-winger logs back on "anonymously" and pretends to be someone from our side who was turned off by someone's comments and is now "thinking about switching sides". It is ALWAYS so obvious and so pitiful. This is such a tired old tactic it's hard to believe you thought anyone would buy it. You talk about saying nothing? You are the idiot who's obsessed with Clinton's sexual behavior and keeps writing in with the same stale worn-out garbage about a cigar as if this proves anything. No matter how many different ways you say it, it is the same statement you are trying to make and every time it proves the same thing: NOTHING. You are a one-trick pony Kirk. Get a new line, maybe one that actually helps prove a point instead of being a childish playground taunt about a past presiden't sexual matters that proves nothing, a president I might add that will be recorded in history as being a thousand times better of a president than your beloved idol Bush, or his wimpy father; undoubtedly Bush will be remembered as the worst president the U.S. has ever had, bar none, and no amount of cigar-related comments will change this. Were you dropped on your head when you were little, perhaps repeatedly? Anyway, your "Hello I'm a link" bullshit didn't work as there is nothing but empty space under your snide remark; and NO, your OTHER links DID appear Kirk when you were logged in as Kirk, just not the attempted clickable link when you wrote in "anonymously" but obviously still you Kirk. It is a pretty immature, pathetic and desperate tactic to write in "anonymously" and pretend to agree with yourself. You seem to suffer from the same problem afflicting most stupid people, in that you seem to think everyone else is as stupid as you are.
Before Kirkanonymous starts doing cartwheels about my typo and going "See! See! That 'proves' I'm right!!" or some nonsense, I'll correct it: it should read "a past president's sexual matters".
This is why I don’t usually comment on these threads. Some people are just plain fanatics and only know how to attack people.
Everything is a conspiracy to people like Destroy Fascism. Even I never went so far as to make the insane claim that Bush planned the September 11th attacks, nor have most people on my side. How ridiculous is this? This guy really illustrates that there is a lunatic fringe on our side of the aisle too.
I just wish there were more moderates like Kirk and myself. I don’t care whether you label yourself conservative or liberal, just as long as you aren’t so extreme that you are completely blind to any facts that don’t match your ideology.
hey Kirkanonymous:
There is a mountain of evidence that 9/11 was a Bush regime inside job, just look in the "Buzzword of the day: Murtha" thread in Nov.2005 archives, and go to the comments near the bottom of the page, I give a ton of links to evidence proving it had to be an inside job. Here is the page:
http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2005/11/buzzword-of-day-murtha.html#comments
...and even "your buddy" Kirk [meaning you Kirk who is talking to himself] admitted he "probably" agrees that 9/11 was just that, an inside job done by the Bush administration. Read Kirk's [meaning your!] post earlier in this thread here that we are posting on. The difference is, I have enough sense to realize the Bushites did it as an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan to make it safe for their pipeline project and then they tried to falsely tie 9/11 in with Saddam so they could occupy Iraq, the world's 2nd-largest oil producer; Kirk seems to think the Bushites rigged a 9/11 inside job so they could invade wherever they want in order to "prevent catastrophic terror attacks" as if 9/11 wasn't catastrophic (In fact, Kirk calls it a "blessing in disguise"!). "How ridiculous is [9/11 being an inside job]?" you ask. I ask you, how ridiculous is believing the "official" 9/11 myth of "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters who shut down the world's most expensive Air Force for an hour and twenty minutes over the most heavily-watched airspace in America while they meandered to their targets, one being the Pentagon which fired no SAMs in its own defense"?? How ridiculous is it to believe that 110-story skyscrapers can "collapse from fire" in nine seconds (meaning more than ten floors "collapsing" per second!), telescoping straight down into their footprint looking precisely like a controlled demolition [because it was]??
Anonymous - I doubt even KIRK would call himself a moderate. Have you READ his opinion on things?
If you call that moderate, I'd be absolutely terrified of what you call a conservative. Would have to be much worse than this delightful peach:
http://nsfc.blogspot.com/2005/11/she-scares-small-children-and-animals.html
Moxie Grrrl:
I am pretty certain that "Anonymous" is actually Kirk posting anonymously; it's the old trick of right-wingers having lost an argument then writing back in anonymously, pretending to be someone on our side who got offended by something someone said and is now supposedly "thinking about switching sides". It is a tired old trick that I've seen on other blogs and it is always pathetic. I felt pretty sure right off the bat that "Anonymous" was Kirk and with every post by "Anonymous" it becomes even more transparent. Their syntax is the same and also consider: "Anonymous" and Kirk are the only "two" people that I've ever heard ridiculously claim that because I post a link's address in the only way I can see to do it, that being in its non-clickable form, i.e. requiring a whole two seconds to paste it into their address bar, that I'm being an "obstructionist". As soon as "Anonymous" chimed in with this nonsense I knew it was Ku Klux Kirk in disguise and with successive posts by "Anonymous" he's making it even more obvious. It's really kinda' sad; I wonder if Kirk sends himself Christmas cards as well?
Anonymous: Moxiegrrrl is right that I would never refer to myself as a moderate, I am a pure conservative. Don't worry though, this isn't the first time someone has referred to me as a "moderate" and I don't take offense when it's not a conservative saying it. You are simply confusing my pure righteousness, well reasoned arguments and not calling idiots like Destroy Fascism petty names as being a moderate.
You are totally correct that Destroy Fascism is a conspiracy nut on the lunatic fringe.
However, he is likely partially correct in that President Bush saw the need for September 11th. Obviously he twists the facts and provides no evidence as we both have noted. Nonetheless, if you read Rebuilding America's Defenses you will find on page 51 of the document (actually page 63 of 90 according to Adobe) this statement in reference to building our military to make a safer world:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
The organization that made this document is the Project for the New American Century or PNAC for short. This organization is and was very forward thinking and is the driving force behind the nation's current success. How so you ask? Well, many high ranking officials of the president's administration were members or involved with this wonderful organization.
In fact here is a letter they sent to Bill Clinton in 1998 - 3 years before September 11th!!!
The letter basically says we have to invade Iraq in order to protect America from September 11th! What did Clinton do? Yeah, we all know, he cigared an intern.
Who signed the letter?
Elliott Abrams-Senior Director on the National Security Council*
Richard L. Armitage-Deputy Secretary of State*
John Bolton-Under Secretary of Arms Control*
Paula Dobriansky-Under Secretary of State, Global Affairs***
Francis Fukuyama-Member of President's Council on Bioethics**
Zalmay Khalilzad-Ambassador to Afghanistan***
Richard Perle-Chairman of Defense Policy Board*
Peter W. Rodman-Assistant Secretary of Defense***
Donald Rumsfeld-Secretary of Defense***
Paul Wolfowitz-Deputy Secretary of Defense*
Robert B. Zoellick-U.S. Trade Representative***
* George W. Bush's first term
** George W. Bush's second term
*** George W. Bush's first and second term
That's just the letter, if you poke around the site you'll find even more administration officials that were involved with PNAC in some fashion.
So, since Clinton didn't take action what else could President Bush do to protect America from a catastrophic and catalyzing event? Think about it. This administration does everything with such total competence, how could September 11th have happened unless it was in the best interest of the United States?
I think once you connect the dots you will see that the world is not like what lunatic liberals such as Destroy Fascism say it is like.
MoxieGrrrl, apparently Kirk does have some sort of problem being called a moderate, but if you read his comments you can see that while everyone else has been in attack mode he has been the only one trying to seek common ground. This, to me anyway, makes him a moderate.
Kirk, I already understood your argument, but thanks for providing the links to PNAC. I had heard of this group before, but always in a negative light. Your last comment was the most rational view of this organization I have read to date and clears up some nagging concerns I had regarding Bush.
I can't quite say that you've won me over yet, but it is food for thought.
This thread has proved my point that liberals can't argue the facts. Looks like the righteous win another round.
Catch up to us, Kirk dear, this thread's been dead for a week.
MoxieGrrrl: Yes, it's only dead because you Godless liberals have been proven wrong and are too afraid to argue your case.
Yep that's me, Godless liberal!
Now you have angered me with your attack on Christianity. I will have to call for a boycott of your site and you will face economic hardship not seen since FDR caused the Great Depression. I suggest you repent before it's too late.
ACK! I REPENT!
So how does one actually "repent"? Must I go to some sort of structure that contains lots of bloody symbolism and kneel in some fashion? Or do I just pay someone some money?
That's better.
We've made it even easier for sinners such as yourself to repent. You can now repent from the convenience of your own home. In addition, you can show your absolute devotion to the Lord right here.
You have a lot of repenting to do, so get to it.
Oh thank you Kirk, you've saved my heathen ass!
Now where's my checkbook...
We take all major credit cards if you have trouble locating that checkbook.
I originally posted my facts in 2005, and still in the year 2006 no liberal has been able to refute anything I have posted. This is more proof of the righteousness of the conservative movement.