"If the Left is not about getting rid of tyranny, then I don't know what it is about."--Salman Rushdie
ROFLMAO!!! They both unanimously agreed that running away like a whipped puppy constituted a win in said debate. Sadly, this seems to be the case for a great many right wingers these days. They run away from reasoned debate in favor of slinging mud and they eschew facts and evidence in favor of slogans.
Perhaps the 'cons invoking 911 over Iraq is wearing thin these days.... http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/19608.content.html
1. How about flouting for more than a decade the UN resolutions from Gulf War I? 2. So those Germans we killed in North Africa really had no hurt any Americans... 3. This particular group of enemies does not do "pacts" because they do not really represent nations but rather loose and extensive coalitions. If you are going to wait around for a formal declaratioin of war, you are going to get smashed.
so you're saying Saddam and Osama have a "loose" coalition? what coalitions are you talking about? sympathetic? same religon? same part of the world?
Oh yawn, basso. Why not tell us again how Bush never linked Saddam to 9/11 while you're being cute. Love how you've cribbed the 'thanks in advance' bit. It's perfect for you, considering you share the Jorge brothers' habit of demanding others answer your questions and running away when asked for same. You also share their proclivity for bogus, intellectually dishonest slander which has been noted here not only by me but also by FranchiseBlade, Deckard, R2K and mcmark to name just a few recent ones. We name your (worse than) McCarthyism and rather than answer the charge you respond with more of the same. Anybody with half a brain could point to several examples of said "canard" in this very thread, including yourself. Play dumb if you want. You blow off debate in favor of bogus, heinous insults and insinuations as a rule. It's boring. And if you refuse to answer my questions, I'm not wasting any more time answering yours.
Because Coulter is just as bad, if not worse, than Michael Moore (just as bad), Al Franken (worse, because he uses and documents facts), or Molly Ivans (just as bad). Coulter may have "something legitimate to say," but this piece (of crap) is nothing more than character assasination and is no better than O'Liely or Limbaugh's nearly verbatim diatribes against Sheehan in the last week.
coulter, moore, franken, rush, o'reilly, rich, krugman, hannity, ivans- they're all the same, and they all do a disservice to political discourse in the country.
Actually they aren't all the same. Krugman, and Franken certainly use actual facts in their work. They don't resort to made up facts, and don't try trumped already dubunked evidence as facts. There actually is a difference. Again, it is humerous that you don't see a distinction between using facts and made up inaccurate garbage. It is one of the reasons that Tom Tomorrow cartoon was so funny and so spot on accurate.
Again that is or isn't true based on what counties are recounted and which ballots are thrown out. You may not like that, but it is a fact. It is odd that you, who have engaged in creative editing of posts in order to change the context, would have a problem with the tactics of any of the people you mentioned.
Sigh... No basso, not correct. The fact that you haven't said the words 'If you don't support the president you're against the troops' is meaningless. You have repeatedly equated criticism of going to war in the first place, criticism of the strategy once there, criticism of how the war's going, criticism of the now refuted reasons for going to war in the first place ('You're saying they're dying for nothing! How dare you!') and criticism of practices such as were employed at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and Afghanistan with giving comfort to the enemy, wanting the troops to fail and being pleased when they do. Further, you have joined in the demonization of veterans and families of fallen soldiers that do not support the president's policies, exposing the shallow level of your own support for the troops themselves, as distinct from their commander in chief. Further still, you have insisted again and again that war opponents' arguments were not sincere but were born only of an irrational hatred of Bush and you have made that assertion time and again without any backup whatsoever. Everyone here can draw their own conclusions, in the face of all that, as to whether or not my assertion was a "canard." I, for one, have once again, against all better judgement, wasted time answering you. Until you do the same (and there's a hell of a backlog), don't expect me to do it again.
There are probably mothers of dead soldiers who feel exactly the opposite of Sheehan and every degree in-between. Why don't they deserve the same exposure, promotion and attention that she is getting?
You are a reductionist par excellence! I wasn't thinking of them (Saddam in particular) when I wrote that summary-- just the terrorists in general. It is not beyond the pale that they would have find a time and a place to collaborate in the future. Coalitions can be driven by any or all of those factors that you mentioned... and in any combination, too.
and your a generalist par excellence.. but aren't we talking about why 1800 soldiers have died in Iraq? is there a "loose" coalition between Saddam and the people who orchestrated 911 (OBL/Al Queda)?
So boiling it down to the simplest possible explanation is off the mark in my opinion. I don't think there is any direct cooperation between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Saddam.
"loose" is too loose a way to describe it. i'm less and less convinced that we know the full story of 9/11, and more and more convinced there's an iraqi hand in it, if not operational, then certainly on a support and training basis.
