PDA

View Full Version : Rumsfeld is going to resign



royalfan5
11/8/2006, 12:51 PM
according to Republican officals. Currently being reported on CNBC. Press Conference is forthcoming.

bri
11/8/2006, 12:53 PM
Oh man, this is like Godless America-Hating Liberal Christmas!


Well, you know, if we believed in Christmas.

colleyvillesooner
11/8/2006, 12:53 PM
heh

mdklatt
11/8/2006, 12:55 PM
Talk about a day late....

slickdawg
11/8/2006, 12:55 PM
:les: THIS IS ALL THE FAULT OF THE JEWS!!!!

bri
11/8/2006, 12:56 PM
:les: THIS IS ALL THE FAULT OF THE JEWS!!!!

Wait, is Mel Gibson resigning too?

royalfan5
11/8/2006, 01:00 PM
Ex-CIA Director Gates to be the successor.

slickdawg
11/8/2006, 01:05 PM
It would be more fun for Bush to nominate Nancy Pelosi.

homerSimpsonsBrain
11/8/2006, 01:07 PM
Sure as hell!! Bush just announced it.

homerSimpsonsBrain
11/8/2006, 01:08 PM
We are soooooo doomed!! Gates is an Aggie <shudder> (Note: I'm JUST KIDDING)

bri
11/8/2006, 01:08 PM
It would be more fun for Bush to nominate Nancy Pelosi.

Yeah, but she's gonna be busy ruining America as Speaker of the House. :D

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 01:08 PM
Flip. Flop.

slickdawg
11/8/2006, 01:09 PM
Yeah, but she's gonna be busy ruining America as Speaker of the House. :D


She has all the answers, hell, lets just make her dictator.


Well, she says she has all the answers, she just hasn't told us.

KABOOKIE
11/8/2006, 01:10 PM
Another victory for Al Queda!

bri
11/8/2006, 01:10 PM
We are soooooo doomed!! Gates is an Aggie <shudder> (Note: I'm JUST KIDDING)

So, we'll never go for it on fourth down and have 12 men on the battlefield? :D

bri
11/8/2006, 01:11 PM
Another victory for Al Queda!

YES!

72 virgins, HERE I COME!!!! :D

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 01:12 PM
Now they should get on the phone and APOLOGIZE deeply to Colin Powell and get him back on board. I don't know much about Gates but I know Powell would do his best to help our troops succeed in Iraq.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 01:12 PM
At least Bin Laden can finally come out of his cave...it is safe again!!!

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 01:18 PM
Now they should get on the phone and APOLOGIZE deeply to Colin Powell and get him back on board. I don't know much about Gates but I know Powell would do his best to help our troops succeed in Iraq.

I had the fortune of being in a meeting that he spoke at last month. Went on for nearly two hours.

The guy is committed to victory in Iraq and the GWOT. We all know we aren't playing to win like we should right now, thus the day of reckoning we had yesterday.

This is a grand opportunity for Bush. I pray he doesn't let it pass.

mdklatt
11/8/2006, 01:20 PM
I had the fortune of being in a meeting that he spoke at last month.

Powell or Gates?

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 01:22 PM
I'm for Colin Powell as Secretary of Defense.

I think he can get the job done, and I think he's free of all this ideological **** that made Rumsfeld keep hammering his head against a brick wall for these past few years.

The guy is a Republican, but he's remarkably non-partisan. He has no higher political ambitions, all of which means the Dems have no good political reason to undermine him.

You also know he can take control of the DoD given his past career, both in terms of his ability and in terms of his acceptance by the DoD.

If the White House can get him on board, I think he'd be perfect.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 01:24 PM
Powell.

But he even said he in the meeting I was at he was done with government. I doubt he wants to put himself in same situation that Rumsfeld was in.

royalfan5
11/8/2006, 01:24 PM
Bob Gates has already accepted the job pending confirmation. Powell isn't going to get this job.

Paris of Troy
11/8/2006, 01:25 PM
Bush was for Rumsfeld, before he was against him.

mdklatt
11/8/2006, 01:25 PM
Bob Gates has already accepted the job pending confirmation.

And the pub-controlled Sentate is going to rubber stamp his confirmation...wait a minute...

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 01:30 PM
I think Bush should nominate John F. Kerry to DOD.

He could help them get smarter and stuff.

jk the sooner fan
11/8/2006, 01:30 PM
Oh man, this is like Godless America-Hating Liberal Christmas!


Well, you know, if we believed in Christmas.

dont kid yourself, we all know you believe in christmas

but just the commercial business side of it ;)

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 01:31 PM
And the pub-controlled Sentate is going to rubber stamp his confirmation...wait a minute...
Why would Bush even bother with it?

2 years left, just do the recess confirmation.

Or,

Let the dims try to destroy the man while fighting a war.

jk the sooner fan
11/8/2006, 01:32 PM
i doubt Powell has the stomach for the job, and personally if I had to pick anybody from his "generation", I'd pick Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf.....talk about a no nonsense *** kicker...

homerSimpsonsBrain
11/8/2006, 01:33 PM
And the pub-controlled Sentate is going to rubber stamp his confirmation...wait a minute...

Gates will be confirmed before January. Thats why Rummy resigned today.

mdklatt
11/8/2006, 01:34 PM
Or,

Let the dims try to destroy the man while fighting a war.

Do you really think the guys on the ground in Iraq give a **** what the monkey****s in DC are up to?

sooneron
11/8/2006, 01:34 PM
Well, you know, if we believed in Christmas.

Ahem! I believe it is referred to as Festivus!

Widescreen
11/8/2006, 01:34 PM
Yet another screwup by Bush. This should've been done at least 6 months ago. Instead he waits until the day after the election. What exactly did he gain by doing that?

william_brasky
11/8/2006, 01:38 PM
So if the Dems don't dominate yesterday, does this happen?

NormanPride
11/8/2006, 01:40 PM
Yet another screwup by Bush. This should've been done at least 6 months ago. Instead he waits until the day after the election. What exactly did he gain by doing that?

Now he looks like he's going "OH SHI-"

jk the sooner fan
11/8/2006, 01:42 PM
Do you really think the guys on the ground in Iraq give a **** what the monkey****s in DC are up to?

please tell me you're joking?

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 01:42 PM
Do you really think the guys on the ground in Iraq give a **** what the monkey****s in DC are up to?

You think if they see a bunch of anti-war nut jobs in congress trying to harass the administration, de-funding the war and sending impeachment bills out, they won't give a ****????

Well, if they won't, the people they are fighting will, unfortunately.

I will try to expect better out of the dems, that they will want to be victorious in a war they voted to start and that they will support our troops they sent to fight this war, and that they won't further hurt the country trying to find some reason to impeach Bush. I am hoping they prove me right on this, as they cannot be that stupid.

slickdawg
11/8/2006, 01:44 PM
So if the Dems don't dominate yesterday, does this happen?


no.

bri
11/8/2006, 01:46 PM
So, if there had been a war back in the 90's, the Republicans would have had the common courtesy to NOT "lob some articles of impeachment" at Clinton over a blow job? :D

GrapevineSooner
11/8/2006, 01:50 PM
Looking back, I don't think that was the wisest thing for the Republicans to do as it smacked of bitter partisanship.

But just for the record, bri, it was over this thing called Perjury in the Paula Jones case.

Something that led to Clinton being disbarred in Arkansas after he left the Whitehouse.

;)

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 01:52 PM
The Dems have already won their first battle, in Under 48 hours they have gone from "Dims" to "Dems"

Paris of Troy
11/8/2006, 02:00 PM
Damn, and I thought Brittany text-messaging her divorce to K-Fed was cold.

THIS is cold!

Widescreen
11/8/2006, 02:03 PM
You think there aren't a bunch of Republican ex-congressfolks that are pretty PO'd right now? People had been begging for this to occur a long time ago. And Bush stubbornly clings to Rummy - then lets him go the day after the loss. Wow!

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 02:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9wJqvmPfQc

slickdawg
11/8/2006, 02:23 PM
Brittany now gets to express her forbidden love for Rummy!

Widescreen
11/8/2006, 02:29 PM
I used to be a Rummy fan - mainly because I loved the way he would look at a reporter who had just asked a stupid question and tell them it was a stupid question. His handling of Iraq was atrocious - particularly after we had to start trying to keep the peace.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 02:33 PM
and that they won't further hurt the country trying to find some reason to impeach Bush.

They have to look. There's been virtually no oversight in six years. That's Congress' job.

Hopefully, they don't try to impeach him over stupid **** like the Republicans did -- extra-marital blowjob? Who DOESN'T lie about that? -- and hopefully they don't find anything truly worthy of impeachment.

But if they do find something important -- like he authorized the stuff at Abu Ghraib (I'm not saying he did, I'm saying if they find he did -- how can they not?

Mongo
11/8/2006, 02:35 PM
They have to look. There's been virtually no oversight in six years. That's Congress' job.

Hopefully, they don't try to impeach him over stupid **** like the Republicans did -- extra-marital blowjob? Who DOESN'T lie about that? -- and hopefully they don't find anything truly worthy of impeachment.

But if they do find something important -- like he authorized the stuff at Abu Ghraib (I'm not saying he did, I'm saying if they find he did -- how can they not?

He lied under oath. The political whiz you are should know this.

Fugue
11/8/2006, 02:36 PM
They have to look. There's been virtually no oversight in six years. That's Congress' job.

Hopefully, they don't try to impeach him over stupid **** like the Republicans did -- extra-marital blowjob? Who DOESN'T lie about that? -- and hopefully they don't find anything truly worthy of impeachment.

But if they do find something important -- like he authorized the stuff at Abu Ghraib (I'm not saying he did, I'm saying if they find he did -- how can they not?

this would be insane for them to start doing. Like handing a bullet to the Republicans to shoot at them in '08.

tbl
11/8/2006, 02:40 PM
Gates, 63, has served as the president of Texas A&M University since August 2002, and as the university's interim dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service from 1999 to 2001.

Gah!!!

tbl
11/8/2006, 02:41 PM
"We are announcing an immediate pullout from Iraq and we will send heavy forces into Afghanistan. There are reports of unexploited sheep and we will deal harshly with such negligence."

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 02:41 PM
He lied under oath. The political whiz you are should know this.

He lied under oath? No way. I had no idea.

Oh wait, I did, which is why I asked, "Who doesn't lie about that?"

That's one of those things where a reasonable person rolls their eyes, says, "What an idiot" and moves on.

Which is essentially what the electorate did, as evidenced by the fact that Clinton was basically the only President in forever to gain seats during his second term midterms.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 02:45 PM
I hope the new guy brings back naked triangles for prisoners.

It's my favorite form of torture.

You take off your clothes and stand on your nasty hairy countryman.

Fugue
11/8/2006, 02:46 PM
He lied under oath? No way. I had no idea.

Oh wait, I did, which is why I asked, "Who doesn't lie about that?"

That's one of those things where a reasonable person rolls their eyes, says, "What an idiot" and moves on.

Which is essentially what the electorate did, as evidenced by the fact that Clinton was basically the only President in forever to gain seats during his second term midterms.

no, it's one where a normal person gets put in jail for perjury. ;)

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 02:47 PM
no, it's one where a normal person gets put in jail for perjury. ;)

I defy you to find a person who has been successfully prosecuted for that particular lie. (With jail time for full credit)

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 02:48 PM
They have to look. There's been virtually no oversight in six years. That's Congress' job.

Hopefully, they don't try to impeach him over stupid **** like the Republicans did -- extra-marital blowjob? Who DOESN'T lie about that? -- and hopefully they don't find anything truly worthy of impeachment.

But if they do find something important -- like he authorized the stuff at Abu Ghraib (I'm not saying he did, I'm saying if they find he did -- how can they not?

Yes, it would be nice if the dims did have a reason to impeach Bush first.

If the GOP is lucky, the far-left will make the dims try to impeach Bush over fighting the war on terror as aggressivly as possible.

That will make 2008 a very very easy year for the GOP.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 02:49 PM
he should've been prosecuted for messing with that toad Lewinsky, I mean come on dude you're the President you can get better,

upon further review of Hillary ....no he can't this post is overturned.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 02:50 PM
no, it's one where a normal person gets put in jail for perjury. ;)

I guess Vae is a fan of perjury with out consequences. His perjury didnt matter because his midterm elections prove it. So many fockturds that voted for that liar support perjury from the POTUS.

Fugue
11/8/2006, 02:50 PM
I defy you to find a person who has been successfully prosecuted for that particular lie.

there aren't different levels of perjury.

StoopTroup
11/8/2006, 02:51 PM
http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_chicken_little.jpg

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 02:52 PM
I defy you to find a person who has been successfully prosecuted for that particular lie.
Well, there we have it. Sexual misconduct of an subordinate employee, sexual harassment and lying under oath while in front of a federal grand jury is not a crime people. That is all.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 02:54 PM
personally I get more upset about the way he dealt with the Mid-East, the USS Cole comes to mind, more than I am with his blowjob.

StoopTroup
11/8/2006, 02:54 PM
It was Monica's fault for spitting out the evidence.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 02:54 PM
there aren't different levels of perjury.

There are different levels of all kinds of crimes -- even when there are no legislated differences, there are the kinds that get prosecuted, and the kinds that aren't.

There are the kinds that get the maximum sentence, and kinds that get the minimum.

Welcome to the real world.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 02:56 PM
Well, there we have it. Sexual misconduct of an subordinate employee, sexual harassment and lying under oath while in front of a federal grand jury is not a crime people. That is all.

So, if Bush gets ticketed for jaywalking, he should be impeached?

There are offenses which are worthy of impeachment and there are offenses which just aren't worth the time.

Lying about something pretty much every man on the planet (if caught in the situation) would lie about -- or be sorely tempted to lie about -- probably isn't one of those that are worth the time.

I mean, weren't you the one that just said that the Dems shouldn't look for a way to impeach Bush? What if he commited a silly no-victim crime that nobody (that is, nobody without an axe to grind) gives a **** about? Should the Dems pursue it?

bri
11/8/2006, 02:59 PM
Yes, it would be nice if the dims did have a reason to impeach Bush first.

If the GOP is lucky, the far-left will make the dims try to impeach Bush over fighting the war on terror as aggressivly as possible.

That will make 2008 a very very easy year for the GOP.

I love the outright cheering for (insert name of opposing party here) to screw the country up just so (insert name of party you belong to here) can easily re-take power next time. 'Cause that's all that matters, having power. The "good of the country" can fend for itself as long as MY FAVORITE TEAM WINS, DAMMIT! :D

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 02:59 PM
So, if Bush gets ticketed for jaywalking, he should be impeached?

There are offenses which are worthy of impeachment and there are offenses which just aren't worth the time.

Its interesting, and frankly very telling, that you think sexual harassment and perjuring ones self in front of a federal grand jury somehow equals jay walking.

But then again, given your shortcomings when it comes to history and facts, I am not surprised in the least.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 02:59 PM
So, if Bush gets ticketed for jaywalking, he should be impeached?

There are offenses which are worthy of impeachment and there are offenses which just aren't worth the time.

Lying about something pretty much every man on the planet (if caught in the situation) would lie about -- or be sorely tempted to lie about -- probably isn't one of those that are worth the time.

Jaywalking compared to perjury? Weak.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 02:59 PM
what gets me is Dems get all bent out of shape because they think Bush is lying but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems get all bent out of shape because Bush was not in Vietnam but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems get all bent out of shape because they think Bush experimented with drugs but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems like to call Bush a dumbass but he has a higher IQ than the guy they voted for in 04

Dems orgasm over theirselves over the economy of Clinton but it doesn't matter when it comes to Bush.

Either dems are really dums or they are hypocrites on crack.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:00 PM
I love the outright cheering for (insert name of opposing party here) to screw the country up just so (insert name of party you belong to here) can easily re-take power next time. 'Cause that's all that matters, having power. The "good of the country" can fend for itself as long as MY FAVORITE TEAM WINS, DAMMIT! :D

I notice you didn't quote my other post in which I said I expect and hope this doesn't happen.

figures.

Mjcpr
11/8/2006, 03:01 PM
what gets me is Dems get all bent out of shape because they think Bush is lying but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems get all bent out of shape because Bush was not in Vietnam but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems get all bent out of shape because they think Bush experimented with drugs but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems like to call Bush a dumbass but he has a higher IQ than the guy they voted for in 04

Dems orgasm over theirselves over the economy of Clinton but it doesn't matter when it comes to Bush.

Either dems are really dums or they are hypocrites on crack.

Not unlike Howzit, it goes both ways.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 03:01 PM
Vae, can you just say what Clinton was wrong?? Pretty please?

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:02 PM
Not unlike Howzit, it goes both ways.


for the sake of this arguement let's ignore that.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:02 PM
Jaywalking compared to perjury? Weak.

I'm just trying to find where Tuba is drawing the line.

He did say, after all, that the Dems shouldn't hurt the country further by trying to impeach Bush.

What if Bush did something that's impeachable? High crimes and misdemeanors -- well, jaywalking is a misdemeanor. If a crime is a crime, then if he jaywalks, he should be impeached.

If he shouldn't be impeached for jaywalking, then that implies that there are certain crimes which you shouldn't impeach for, right?

slickdawg
11/8/2006, 03:03 PM
I love the outright cheering for (insert name of opposing party here) to screw the country up just so (insert name of party you belong to here) can easily re-take power next time. 'Cause that's all that matters, having power. The "good of the country" can fend for itself as long as MY FAVORITE TEAM WINS, DAMMIT! :D


A revolution starts with the power of an idea, and ends when the only idea left is power.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 03:04 PM
Isnt perjury consider one of the HIGH CRIMES AND MIDOMEANORS listed as an impeachable offense? Some one please correct me if I am wrong.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:04 PM
Vae, can you just say what Clinton was wrong?? Pretty please?

Sure, I've said it before and I'll say it again. He was wrong to commit perjury.

I just don't think that that particular crime deserved the dollars, time or effort it received. It was just a petty, blatant witch hunt.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:04 PM
I'm just trying to find where Tuba is drawing the line.

He did say, after all, that the Dems shouldn't hurt the country further by trying to impeach Bush.

So shopping for excuses to impeach a President is OK huh?

Nice.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:06 PM
Sure, I've said it before and I'll say it again. He was wrong to commit perjury.

I just don't think that that particular crime deserved the dollars, time or effort it received. It was just a petty, blatant witch hunt.


well Clinton shouldn't have been a witch

don't start nothin won't be nothin

Scott D
11/8/2006, 03:06 PM
what gets me is Dems get all bent out of shape because they think Bush is lying but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems get all bent out of shape because Bush was not in Vietnam but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems get all bent out of shape because they think Bush experimented with drugs but it didn't matter when it came to Clinton

Dems like to call Bush a dumbass but he has a higher IQ than the guy they voted for in 04

Dems orgasm over theirselves over the economy of Clinton but it doesn't matter when it comes to Bush.

Either dems are really dums or they are hypocrites on crack.

Really, you could generalize those more and just change it to 'Political Party Affiliated' :D

afs
11/8/2006, 03:06 PM
Do you really think the guys on the ground in Iraq give a **** what the monkey****s in DC are up to?

yes - from experience.

Fugue
11/8/2006, 03:10 PM
There are different levels of all kinds of crimes -- even when there are no legislated differences, there are the kinds that get prosecuted, and the kinds that aren't.

There are the kinds that get the maximum sentence, and kinds that get the minimum.

Welcome to the real world.

:rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:10 PM
yes - from experience.

Amazing that even a non-serving suckka like me can see this, yet people like MDK are so blind with hate of all things Bush, they cannot.

Sad and unfortunate.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:11 PM
So shopping for excuses to impeach a President is OK huh?

It's SOP. Just ask the 90's Republicans.

What I'm hoping for is that they don't just take any excuse -- that would be bad for the country. They should only try to impeach if they find fairly heinous crimes -- like, as I said, if they find that he authorized Abu Ghraib.

(Again, so the thread doesn't go that way -- I'm not saying he did. It is an example only.)

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:12 PM
And by impeachment shopping, I mean of course, throwing every little looney tune thing into a bill and seeing if it sticks, as the dims did last year...



RESOLUTION
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.635:

Funny, I thought they would just investigate first, then if they found something really wrong, they would go for impeachment. Not roll it all into one bill.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 03:13 PM
It's SOP. Just ask the 90's Republicans.

What I'm hoping for is that they don't just take any excuse -- that would be bad for the country. They should only try to impeach if they find fairly heinous crimes -- like, as I said, if they find that he authorized Abu Ghraib.

(Again, so the thread doesn't go that way -- I'm not saying he did. It is an example only.)


The 90 repubs went shopping? **** Clinton perjured on national television, thats a front door delivery for a reason to impeach.

mdklatt
11/8/2006, 03:15 PM
Amazing that even a non-serving suckka like me can see this, yet people like MDK are so blind with hate of all things Bush, they cannot.

Sad and unfortunate.

I say "monkey****s in Washington" and the America Hater immediately implicates Bush. Not surprising at all.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:16 PM
I say "monkey****s in Washington" and the America Hater immediately implicates Bush. Not surprising at all.

He tries so hard, God bless him.
:P

TheHumanAlphabet
11/8/2006, 03:18 PM
Yet another screwup by Bush. This should've been done at least 6 months ago. Instead he waits until the day after the election. What exactly did he gain by doing that?

As Rush said, He is cow-towing to Polosi. She wants him gone, he's gone. I bet the U.N. guy is next.

Ike
11/8/2006, 03:18 PM
The 90 repubs went shopping? **** Clinton perjured on national television, thats a front door delivery for a reason to impeach.


Bush claimed (not too long ago) that he never said "Stay the course" on national TV too? Is there a difference?

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:18 PM
The 90 repubs went shopping? **** Clinton perjured on national television, thats a front door delivery for a reason to impeach.

Welcome to what I call Vae-History.

Its a lot like fantasy I guess.

homerSimpsonsBrain
11/8/2006, 03:18 PM
he should've been prosecuted for messing with that toad Lewinsky, I mean come on dude you're the President you can get better,

upon further review of Hillary ....no he can't this post is overturned.

So Bill steps off Airforce 1 with a potbellied pig under his arm and tells his aid "I got this for Hillary". Aid replies "Good trade Mr. President"..

<crickets chirping>

Hello...

Widescreen
11/8/2006, 03:19 PM
At least Cynthia McKinney won't be there to lead the charge. You remember her. She was the one that said that, even though there was no actual evidence Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, they should investigate to see if they can find any. :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:19 PM
Bush claimed (not too long ago) that he never said "Stay the course" on national TV too? Is there a difference?

Bush didn't say that, Tony Snow did I think.

Even so, I don't think he is that stupid to deny such a thing.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/8/2006, 03:20 PM
Damn, and I thought Brittany text-messaging her divorce to K-Fed was cold.

THIS is cold!

Huh?

Widescreen
11/8/2006, 03:21 PM
As Rush said, He is cow-towing to Polosi. She wants him gone, he's gone. I bet the U.N. guy is next.
Why would he cow-tow to her? She's not even the speaker of the house yet. And even if she was, the President isn't beholden the the speaker of the house anyway. :confused:


Bush claimed (not too long ago) that he never said "Stay the course" on national TV too? Is there a difference?
Clinton was under oath and Bush wasn't?

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:22 PM
At least Cynthia McKinney won't be there to lead the charge. You remember her. She was the one that said that, even though there was no actual evidence Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, they should investigate to see if they can find any. :rolleyes:

Yes but Charlie Rangle is still there, and he now controls the purse strings.

He also said he wants to stop the war via just cutting off funding. Imagine if he did that and his bill to re-start the draft had been passed! Yipes.

Ike
11/8/2006, 03:22 PM
Bush didn't say that, Tony Snow did I think.

Even so, I don't think he is that stupid to deny such a thing.

orly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFk2jLmmwo


But my point is, that this, being a lie, is not really all that important of a thing to lie about. Just like the Lewinsky thing was not all that important of a thing to lie about either. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for that, and GWB shouldn't have to face big consequenses (except at the polls) for this.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 03:24 PM
Bush claimed (not too long ago) that he never said "Stay the course" on national TV too? Is there a difference?

I support Bush on very few things. He has f'ed up all along the way(evidence:yesterdays election). He said it. He said he didnt say it. That is BS.

But he wasnt under oath. This does not make it right, but we are talking about Clinton. Keep up.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:26 PM
orly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFk2jLmmwo


But my point is, that this, being a lie, is not really all that important of a thing to lie about. Just like the Lewinsky thing was not all that important of a thing to lie about either. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for that, and GWB shouldn't have to face big consequenses (except at the polls) for this.

Argh, got me. I thought I saw Tony Snow do that. My apologies.

Ike
11/8/2006, 03:26 PM
I support Bush on very few things. He has f'ed up all along the way(evidence:yesterdays election). He said it. He said he didnt say it. That is BS.

But he wasnt under oath. This does not make it right, but we are talking about Clinton. Keep up.


Fine...but why should he have been asked about consentual sex under oath? Thats the thing that witch hunts are made of.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/8/2006, 03:28 PM
Why would he cow-tow to her? She's not even the speaker of the house yet. And even if she was, the President isn't beholden the the speaker of the house anyway. :confused:


Clinton was under oath and Bush wasn't?

Bush is always a get-alonger...unlike the whining dims in 2002, he will take the lumps. He no longer has the House and Senate...What's he gonna do. Pelosi is running the show now...

Fugue
11/8/2006, 03:29 PM
orly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFk2jLmmwo


But my point is, that this, being a lie, is not really all that important of a thing to lie about. Just like the Lewinsky thing was not all that important of a thing to lie about either. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for that, and GWB shouldn't have to face big consequenses (except at the polls) for this.

the problem was the doing it under oath. The lie could have been about what color his stool was that day and the result would have been the same. As the sitting president who selects justices for the highest court in the land, he can't lie under oath.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:30 PM
orly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFk2jLmmwo


But my point is, that this, being a lie, is not really all that important of a thing to lie about. Just like the Lewinsky thing was not all that important of a thing to lie about either. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for that, and GWB shouldn't have to face big consequenses (except at the polls) for this.

Well, I just read exactly what he was saying in that quote Ike, and he wasn't trying to say he never said it, rather trying to spin his position. I think it came out painfully horrible, as do most things with Dubya.

However, to say the Lewinsky things wasn't important is really blinding yourself to this.

If there is one thing the most powerful man in the world should be, its accountable for his actions. And that includes sexual harassment and lying to things as important as federal grand juries.

If Bush did the same thing, I would have no problem saying he needed to be impeached as well, but he hasn't.

And all the dims are doing now is shopping for reason to impeach the man, as shown in the bill they filed LAST YEAR.

jdsooner
11/8/2006, 03:30 PM
http://www.jahozafat.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Austin_Powers_In_Goldmember&quote=boofrickety.txt&file=boofrickety.wav

Dr. Evil: "Boo Frickety hoo!"

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:31 PM
The 90 repubs went shopping?

Yep, they did. And they were right to have: that's Congress's job. Dig out the skeletons in the executive and put em on display.

Impeachment over that particular incident was a stretch though. And, as I mentioned, most of the country agreed -- Clinton's approval ratings were consistently high, and even netted his party a few seats.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:31 PM
Fine...but why should he have been asked about consentual sex under oath? Thats the thing that witch hunts are made of.


Clinton a married man was porking a young intern and that's why they asked him. The only person your supposed to be having consentual sex with when your married is your wife.

then again one look at Hillary and I couldn't get it up with a six pack of viagra and a paper bag.

Fugue
11/8/2006, 03:33 PM
depends on if that paper bag is hawt or not. :texan:

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:35 PM
And all the dims are doing now is shopping for reason to impeach the man, as shown in the bill they filed LAST YEAR.

Some of them are. Let's see if the whole party goes along with it first, shall we?

I don't think it will. What I think we'll see is investigations -- as it should be -- and only if there were some seriously heinous things done will there be an impeachment.

Short of that, you'll see me against impeachment -- just like I was with Clinton.

TopDawg
11/8/2006, 03:35 PM
If there is one thing the most powerful man in the world should be, its accountable for his actions. And that includes sexual harrassment and lying to things as important as federal grand juries.

And Democrats say it should also include going to war and lying about the reasons for it. You may think that's a ridiculous claim to make, but many people (including most of the world outside our borders) think it's a more reasonable and justified reason for going after our President than the one the Republicans came up with in the 90's.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:35 PM
what would be really funny would be if today was April 1st and right after the Dems get all lathered up over this, they came out and said April Fools

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:35 PM
Clinton a married man was porking a young intern and that's why they asked him. The only person your supposed to be having consentual sex with when your married is your wife.

OTOH, 'tain't illegal and thus requires no questioning under oath.

(Unless you're an officer, that is.)

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:35 PM
I thought they ask him because of the sexual harassment suit by Paula Jones.

The one Clinton settled if I remember correctly.

jdsooner
11/8/2006, 03:37 PM
Pelossi already ruled out impeachment. There is no need to impeach a lame duck president in his last two years. It is time to get ready for 2008.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 03:38 PM
what gets me is Pubs get all bent out of shape because they think Pelosi is lying but it didn't matter when it came to Delay

Pubs get all bent out of shape because Clinton was a draft dodger but it doesnt' matter that Bush basically did the same thing

Pubs get all bent out of shape because they think Clinton experimented with drugs but it didn't matter when it came to Bush

Pubs like to call Clinton an immoral leader but he has never slept with an underage minor.

pubs orgasm over theirselves over the economy of Bush but give credit for Clinton's economy to Bush Sr

Either Pubs are really dums or they are hypocrites on crack.

Welcome to Two Way Road

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:38 PM
That's my understanding also.

(my comment was in response to the notion that it was because he was a married man ;) )

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:38 PM
And Democrats say it should also include going to war and lying about the reasons for it.

Then I suggest those Democrats not only read the link in my signature, but also read the comments of John F. Kerry, Hillary, Kennedy, etc before the war and even before Dubya was President.

Then can we impeach all of them?


But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:40 PM
Then I suggest those Democrats not only read the link in my signature, but also read the comments of John F. Kerry, Hillary, Kennedy, etc before the war and even before Dubya was President.

Then can we impeach all of them?

Sure, if you can prove that they were the ones manipulating the intelligence. I'd be for it, in fact.

I think the best you can do -- assuming the intelligence was in fact manipulated -- is show that they relied on manipulated intelligence provided to them by the Bush administration.

Remember kids, it ain't Congress' job to run the CIA. That's Bush's job right now. The intelligence that Congress sees is all provided by Bush's people.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:41 PM
what gets me is Pubs get all bent out of shape because they think Pelosi is lying but it didn't matter when it came to Delay

Pubs get all bent out of shape because Clinton was a draft dodger but it doesnt' matter that Bush basically did the same thing

Pubs get all bent out of shape because they think Clinton experimented with drugs but it didn't matter when it came to Bush

Pubs like to call Clinton an immoral leader but he has never slept with an underage minor.

pubs orgasm over theirselves over the economy of Bush but give credit for Clinton's economy to Bush Sr

Either Pubs are really dums or they are hypocrites on crack.

Welcome to Two Way Road


what gets me is dems copy pubz threads and are not very original.

Mongo
11/8/2006, 03:41 PM
Fine...but why should he have been asked about consentual sex under oath? Thats the thing that witch hunts are made of.

The pubs were jealous. They had been hitting on her for months and she rejected them everytime. Then slick willy scored with her only after a couple of conversations. Clinton then rubbed it in the pubs face that he got some action and told the pubs that they had no game. The pubs were angry that they could not get some from the easy fat chick. They were not taking this lightly, and set out for the ultimate c*ck block.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:42 PM
Sure, if you can prove that they were the ones manipulating the intelligence. I'd be for it, in fact.
I think they would have to be the ones who did it, considering the intel existed well before Bush was President.

As my signature seems to show.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 03:43 PM
A) I am not a Dem
B) It is hypocritical for you to attack them for being hypocrites when Republicans are just as bad

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:45 PM
A) I am not a Dem
B) It is hypocritical for you to attack them for being hypocrites when Republicans are just as bad
A) if your not with us, your against us
B) When I say it first you can't then try to redo it and use it against me.

Sorry man but those are the rules.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2006, 03:45 PM
I am changing my verbage for now.

From here on out, as God is my witness, on this 8th day of the 11th month of the year two thousand and six AD, dims shall be refered to as Donks.

Amen.

Vaevictis
11/8/2006, 03:47 PM
I think they would have to be the ones who did it, considering the intel existed well before Bush was President.

If that's the case, then I guess Bush is in the clear, eh?

At this point, we could always just wait and see. You know that there will be investigations forthcoming.

In fact, if Bush is in the clear, you should be gnashing at the teeth for the investigations to proceed. If Clinton got seats when he clearly did break the law, then hell, when Bush is unambiguously exonerated, why, the Republicans should win every seat on the hill.

EDIT: Heh, gnashing at the teeth. That sounds like something Bush would say.


As my signature seems to show.

Heh, I turned off signatures in my preferences first thing when I signed up for this board ;)

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 03:47 PM
I am sorry that I didn't get the Limbaugh guide to arguments in the mail yet...and to think I thought my EIB subscription would pay off.

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:51 PM
I am sorry that I didn't get the Limbaugh guide to arguments in the mail yet...and to think I thought my EIB subscription would pay off.


honestly I'd like to give you some leeway here but I've double checked and yes it is against the rules.

so unless you got something else, I'll just chalk another one up for me.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 03:54 PM
DAMM YOU EIB NEWSLETTER!!!

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 03:56 PM
DAMM YOU EIB NEWSLETTER!!!

flagrant violation of the rules

I'm looking into having you banned for a few days.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/8/2006, 03:59 PM
banned isn't a word....baned on the other hand....

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 04:02 PM
banned isn't a word....baned on the other hand....


post reported

mdklatt
11/8/2006, 04:02 PM
Pubs get all bent out of shape because they think Clinton experimented with drugs but it didn't matter when it came to Bush


Bush did more than "experiment". :texan:

usmc-sooner
11/8/2006, 04:04 PM
Bush did more than "experiment". :texan:

nobody experiments

they've either used them or they haven't

SoonerTitan
11/8/2006, 04:30 PM
It's a beautiful day to be a Dem.

SoonerProphet
11/8/2006, 05:18 PM
Perhaps a repudiation of the PNACers. One would hope anyway, seeing that that their foreign policy in Iraq has been a complete folly. Gates is more of a Scowcroft kinda guy, some giddy schadenfreude from us realists.

C&CDean
11/8/2006, 05:24 PM
It's a beautiful day to be a Dem.

Really? Why? Did you win the lottery? Get a big raise at work? Did they discover a cure for cancer? Has Osama been vaporized? Are all our troops at home? Are the poor suddenly rich? Did all the teachers get a raise? Have all the child molesting priest/preacher/politicians been zapped by lightning? Have Hillary and Pelosi analinguized each other to death?

Tell me one "beautiful" thing that happened today that has anything to do with the election yesterday.

And please consider this an open invitation to share all the beautiful things that go down over the next couple years because of who got voted in yesterday. I'll wait with bated breath...

Howzit
11/8/2006, 06:14 PM
Not unlike Howzit, it goes both ways.

If by "goes both ways" you mean "is gonna slash Pat's tires" I agree.

;)

TopDawg
11/8/2006, 06:35 PM
Tell me one "beautiful" thing that happened today that has anything to do with the election yesterday.


As a Donk, let me be the first to say that most of the beautiful stuff is happening right here on the South Oval. ;)

It's fun to just :pop:

C&CDean
11/8/2006, 06:46 PM
As a Donk, let me be the first to say that most of the beautiful stuff is happening right here on the South Oval. ;)

It's fun to just :pop:

And how is what's happening right here on the South Oval today different than any other day? And if this is your definition of "beautiful" may I be the first to say you need to get out more often?

TopDawg
11/8/2006, 06:50 PM
And how is what's happening right here on the South Oval today different than any other day? And if this is your definition of "beautiful" may I be the first to say you need to get out more often?

Remember in 2001 and 2002 after the Texas game? The Football Board was really no different than it was before the Texas game, but it was a lot more fun for us.

And I have made an effort to get out more today. It really IS a beautiful day.

C&CDean
11/8/2006, 07:27 PM
Remember in 2001 and 2002 after the Texas game? The Football Board was really no different than it was before the Texas game, but it was a lot more fun for us.

And I have made an effort to get out more today. It really IS a beautiful day.

It's drizzling, cold, and ugly in Baltimore. And the football board was WAY different. Why? Cause the decent, righteous people won. That didn't happen yesterday. And it shows.

Scott D
11/8/2006, 07:42 PM
in a modern political climate the decent righteous people never win.

bri
11/8/2006, 07:57 PM
I notice you didn't quote my other post in which I said I expect and hope this doesn't happen.

figures.

I notice you didn't notice that I didn't single out any one person, but rather addressed a general segment of the population on BOTH sides of the aisle, using your comment as a segue.

figures.

jk the sooner fan
11/8/2006, 08:45 PM
Do you really think the guys on the ground in Iraq give a **** what the monkey****s in DC are up to?

i still want to know if you were serious when you asked this gem of a question?

SoonerTitan
11/8/2006, 11:36 PM
Really? Why? Did you win the lottery? Get a big raise at work? Did they discover a cure for cancer? Has Osama been vaporized? Are all our troops at home? Are the poor suddenly rich? Did all the teachers get a raise? Have all the child molesting priest/preacher/politicians been zapped by lightning? Have Hillary and Pelosi analinguized each other to death?

Tell me one "beautiful" thing that happened today that has anything to do with the election yesterday.

And please consider this an open invitation to share all the beautiful things that go down over the next couple years because of who got voted in yesterday. I'll wait with bated breath...Sorry you feel so bitter but let me ask you the same questions seems to me the repubs didn't fix any of that either and we are at war. So yeah it's wonderful.

Frozen Sooner
11/8/2006, 11:48 PM
I find it hilarious that Gates just jumped to the one team that has a worse record this November than A&M does.

Frozen Sooner
11/9/2006, 02:26 AM
I find it hilarious that Gates just jumped to the one team that has a worse record this November than A&M does.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the administration as a whole here, not the DoD.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/9/2006, 05:22 AM
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the administration as a whole here, not the DoD.

WHY DO YOU HATE THE TROOPS!!!!

The Good news is that we can now blame the Dems for keeping us in Pointless war that we can't win ;)

Chuck Bao
11/9/2006, 07:11 AM
It is indeed a beautiful day today.

The stock market is a very good indicator of how people managing money think about this shift in power.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/9/2006, 07:28 AM
Yeah you are right..let's not take into account the economy has been improving and hitting record highs for the last month, was that the Republicans fault?

Chuck Bao
11/9/2006, 07:36 AM
Record deficits, yes.

I think the stock market has been anticipating this over the last month or so.

Gandalf_The_Grey
11/9/2006, 08:30 AM
Umm the recovery has been happening for the last 2 years...Was they anticipating for 2 years

Chuck Bao
11/9/2006, 09:29 AM
Obviously, there are many factors driving stock markets. The recent record run of the blue chip DJIA is probably due more to excess liquidity, anticipation of a possible reversal in the interest rate trend sometimes next year and a soft landing for the US economy.

The markets also react to day-to-day news, which was my point that Wall Street would, and traditionally has, preferred for the legislative and executive branches to be controlled by different political parties. And, reading daily market reports over the last week, it appears that the result was not unexpected.

It appears that the brief moment that the Virginia race would have to go through a recount, resulting in uncertainty for a month or so about control of the Senate (with flashbacks to the 2000 presidential race) did give the market some pause. I think the markets are now back to looking at economics and corporate earnings.

For me, I’m hoping for a Santa Claus effect and a big year-end rally.

OklahomaTuba
11/9/2006, 09:38 AM
I notice you didn't notice that I didn't single out any one person, but rather addressed a general segment of the population on BOTH sides of the aisle, using your comment as a segue.

figures.

So quoting someone in your post isn't trying to single out any one person???
:confused:

OklahomaTuba
11/9/2006, 09:42 AM
Obviously, there are many factors driving stock markets. The recent record run of the blue chip DJIA is probably due more to excess liquidity, anticipation of a possible reversal in the interest rate trend sometimes next year and a soft landing for the US economy.

The markets also react to day-to-day news, which was my point that Wall Street would, and traditionally has, preferred for the legislative and executive branches to be controlled by different political parties. And, reading daily market reports over the last week, it appears that the result was not unexpected.

It appears that the brief moment that the Virginia race would have to go through a recount, resulting in uncertainty for a month or so about control of the Senate (with flashbacks to the 2000 presidential race) did give the market some pause. I think the markets are now back to looking at economics and corporate earnings.

For me, Iím hoping for a Santa Claus effect and a big year-end rally.

Didn't it just go up about 20 points yesterday??

I love how all of the sudden the economy and stock market are doing so well now, as if the election somehow just pulled the Bush economy out of the ****ter in one day.

No more soup lines people, the Donks are in charge now. ;)

OklahomaTuba
11/9/2006, 09:45 AM
Yeah you are right..let's not take into account the economy has been improving and hitting record highs for the last month, was that the Republicans fault?

Here we go with that neoKKKon revisionist "history" again.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 10:15 AM
It is indeed a beautiful day today.

The stock market is a very good indicator of how people managing money think about this shift in power.

Remind me not to hire you as my broker. ;)


Election results weighed on the stock market today, with declines among sectors that could be hurt by changes in government policy.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CNBC/Dispatch/061109markets.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0&vv=410

Widescreen
11/10/2006, 10:40 AM
You think there aren't a bunch of Republican ex-congressfolks that are pretty PO'd right now? People had been begging for this to occur a long time ago. And Bush stubbornly clings to Rummy - then lets him go the day after the loss. Wow!
Yep.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/rumsfeld2.html


GOP furious about timing of Rumsfeld resignation
By Patrick O'Connor

Donald Rumsfeld's abrupt resignation from the Pentagon the day after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress has infuriated some GOP officials on and off Capitol Hill.

Members and staff still reeling from Tuesday's rout are furious about the administration's decision to dump the controversial defense secretary one day after their historic loss, they said in a series of interviews about the election results.

President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation on Wednesday and named Bob Gates, a former CIA chief and president of Texas A&M University, as his replacement.

"The White House said keeping the majority was a priority, but they failed to do the one thing that could have made a difference," one House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. "For them to toss Rumsfeld one day after the election was a slap in the face to everyone who worked hard to protect the majority."

Exit polling suggested that an overwhelming majority of voters disapproved of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and members and aides were frustrated with the timing of the announcement because an earlier resignation could have given them a boost on the campaign trail, they believe.

"They did this to protect themselves, but they couldn't protect us?" another Republican aide said yesterday.

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten called outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) on Wednesday morning to notify him of the move, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said Thursday. A spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the White House also notified the House leader before the news was announced.

Citing the various scandals that have roiled the Republican Congress, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow Thursday downplayed the impact of the war in Iraq on Tuesday's election.

"The voters said, 'You know what, we expect you to come to Washington and do the people's business,'" Snow said during his regular press briefing Thursday. "And when people lose sight of that, voters tend to remind them of the priorities. That's 10 seats right there."

The working relationship between Bush and congressional Republicans will be an interesting subplot for the next Congress as the GOP adjusts to its new role in the minority.

Relations between the president and Republicans on the Hill have frayed dramatically since he began his second term, with GOP lawmakers placing increased blame on the administration for its perceived inability to reach to members and staff on legislation, personnel moves and its interpretation of the legal code in the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

Republicans cite the fumbled rollout of Social Security reform, the administration's continued support of comprehensive immigration reform and the president's insistence to defend American involvement in Iraq on the campaign trail.

There were also very public spats between Hastert and the administration over an FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's (D-La.) congressional office and a major split over the near acquisition of port operations in six major cities by a firm based in Dubai.

Bush met with Boehner, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Thursday morning.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 12:46 PM
Yeah, firing Rummy has me really steamed the more I think about it.

He didn't deserve to be treated like this. And our Troops don't deserve us handing AQ and Iran a victory in Iraq by retreating instead of winning, as the Jim Bakers of the world would have us do.

No doubt AQ and Iran are very, very happy today.

mdklatt
11/10/2006, 12:51 PM
Yeah, firing Rummy has me really steamed the more I think about it.

He didn't deserve to be treated like this. And our Troops don't deserve us handing AQ and Iran a victory in Iraq by retreating instead of winning, as the Jim Bakers of the world would have us do.

No doubt AQ and Iran are very, very happy today.

Why does George Bush hate America?

Rogue
11/10/2006, 01:42 PM
Yeah, firing Rummy has me really steamed the more I think about it.

He didn't deserve to be treated like this. And our Troops don't deserve us handing AQ and Iran a victory in Iraq by retreating instead of winning, as the Jim Bakers of the world would have us do.

No doubt AQ and Iran are very, very happy today.

Iraq was the wrong place to launch the GWOT. Not only did we invade the wrong country (Iraq vs. Afghanistan) for the wrong reasons (faulty intelligence, unresolved Oedipal conflict, oil, whatever), but Rummy, W, Cheney, et al continued to defend this long after it was apparent to many what had gone wrong. The tactic, however, worked for the 2004 elections. Then it became obvious that it hadn't just gone wrong it was a complete cluster-****. No WMD, no link to 9-11, and no workable plan beyond bomb the **** out of Iraqis, get Saddam, and declare victory. Mismanagement is an understatement. Rumsfeld deserved far worse than being allowed to publicly save face and "step down." He deserved the "Brownie" routine where he's told he's doing great one day and ****-canned the next.

So here we are in the "quagmire" that Cheney and Rumsfeld predicted in 1991, still trying to convince ourselves that it was in 2002 and is in 2006 the central hub for the GWOT. Meanwhile Iran, N. Korea, hell even Mexico smells the blood in the water and we are sitting out in the open with our pants around our ankles. Our troops do deserve better than this and so do we. The Sec. of Defense completely screwed the pooch and I say good riddance.

Now maybe we can re-focus on the GLOBAL war on terror, of which Iraq is still a minor factor, and get on with kicking that terrorist ***.

As for the Dems winning seats, good for us. I always wanted to see one party or the other with control of the House, Senate, and White House to see if it would be more efficient. In some ways it was interesting to see how political work could be accomplished. In other, more important ways, it proved to me why our government is designed to be inefficient with cumbersome checks and balances.

Congrats to the Dems, you have inherited a new record deficit, an occupation nobody wants, a jaded and cynical electorate, and you still have John Kerry tripping on his dick in front of microphones and cameras daily. Be careful what you ask for.

Chuck Bao
11/10/2006, 01:53 PM
Now, I would have thought that a Republican victory and Rummy being Rummy would have been the best thing ever for AQ and the rest of the bad guy terrorists dudes. I mean, they've been great so far in helping the recruitment of new bad guy terrorist dudes.

Oh, and Tuba nice job on the some sectors stock market quote. I'm sure you'll find a way to defend profiteering in energy and medicine as a good Republican should. BTW, I'm not really a stockbroker, so you couldn't be my client. But, I still like sharing my ideas with you. ;)

Widescreen
11/10/2006, 01:59 PM
Didn't you say you went to Baylor? I've never met a Baylor Democrat before.

Chuck Bao
11/10/2006, 02:18 PM
Southeastern and then Baylor MBA. So, I don't really count.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 02:43 PM
So here we are in the "quagmire" that Cheney and Rumsfeld predicted in 1991, still trying to convince ourselves that it was in 2002 and is in 2006 the central hub for the GWOT.

Ok, well after finally taking a break from laughing at your bitterly pathetic rant that pretty much covers all the liberal "myths" about the war and Bush (except the whole Bush causing 9-11 thing, you missed that one somehow)

I thought I would point out this little nugget.

Seems AQ would disagree with you on your "analysis" that Iraq isn't the central hub of the GWOT.

mdklatt
11/10/2006, 02:50 PM
Seems AQ would disagree with you on your "analysis" that Iraq isn't the central hub of the GWOT.


Well it certainly is now.

PhilTLL
11/10/2006, 02:52 PM
Ok, well after finally taking a break from laughing at your bitterly pathetic rant that pretty much covers all the liberal "myths" about the war and Bush (except the whole Bush causing 9-11 thing, you missed that one somehow)

I thought I would point out this little nugget.

Seems AQ would disagree with you on your "analysis" that Iraq isn't the central hub of the GWOT.

Why do you listen to Al Qaeda so much?

Seriously, they make outlandish statements like that because, well, that's what they do, and they know the Iraq war does more for recruitment than a thousand videos on the internets. We could start a voluntary war on the North Pole and they would still show up, call it their central front, and declare impending-victory-god-willing.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 02:53 PM
Now, I would have thought that a Republican victory and Rummy being Rummy would have been the best thing ever for AQ and the rest of the bad guy terrorists dudes. I mean, they've been great so far in helping the recruitment of new bad guy terrorist dudes.

They also seemed to be pretty good at keeping this country safe from an attack since 9.11.01 as well.

mdklatt
11/10/2006, 02:55 PM
Why do you listen to Al Qaeda so much?



Tuba is a mouthpiece for all America Haters.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 02:55 PM
Why do you listen to Al Qaeda so much?

Seriously, they make outlandish statements like that because, well, that's what they do, and they know the Iraq war does more for recruitment than a thousand videos on the internets. We could start a voluntary war on the North Pole and they would still show up, call it their central front, and declare impending-victory-god-willing.

Ok, so given your logic of if we start a war on the north pole they would still show up, what makes you think if we run away and retreat they won't come here again???

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 02:56 PM
Tuba is a mouthpiece for all America Haters.

MDK's really on a creative posting roll today. ;)

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 02:57 PM
Well it certainly is now.

All the more reason we should cut and run, huh?

Yup, lets turn Iraq into another Afganistan, this time with oil!

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 03:08 PM
People forget so easily...

Once the Islamic government is established in Iraq, Zawahiri calls for it to expand into neighboring countries. "It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the peninsula and Iraq," Zawahiri wrote.

But the step toward the al Qaeda's version of a perfect world starts with expelling the Americans from Iraq. He asked Zarqawi to begin preparations for that day immediately.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," he wrote. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam - and how they ran and left their agents - is noteworthy."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/20051017_3074.html

PhilTLL
11/10/2006, 03:17 PM
Ok, so given your logic of if we start a war on the north pole they would still show up, what makes you think if we run away and retreat they won't come here again???

No, given my logic, we should never have deposed a leader who, though a brutal tyrant, was also a secular leader and highly suspicious of Islamist terror in general and al Qaeda in specific. We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan and strengthened operations in cooperation with Pakistan as well as putting more heat on Iran instead of diverting our attention to Iraq for a set of fictional reasons and an ideal to which we now don't even seem committed just so we could keep fighting the elements that Saddam was already repressing.

Now that we're there and al Qaeda in Iraq is sizable and still growing, no, there aren't any easy answers to the when and how of leaving. The unrelated random street violence and the sectarian chaos in Iraq make it an even more potent source of new Islamist fighters, especially since Western-style democracy has an even worse outlook there than Afghanistan. But it's a mess that we should have known not to put ourselves in and a recruitment opportunity that we might as well have served up on a platter.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 03:30 PM
We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan and strengthened operations in cooperation with Pakistan as well as putting more heat on Iran instead of diverting our attention to Iraq for a set of fictional reasons and an ideal to which we now don't even seem committed just so we could keep fighting the elements that Saddam was already repressing.

Set of fictional reasons???

You will have to explain that one.

No one seemed to believe any of the reasons were "fictional", well, except for the countries that were in bed with Saddam like France, Germany and Russia.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 03:33 PM
If true, I think AQ is confused here...

A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.
The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

The Democrats' victory in Tuesday's Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.

Outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had stepped down to flee the Iraqi battlefield, he added.

He told US President George W Bush to "stay on the battleground".

"I tell the lame duck (US administration) do not rush to escape as did your defence minister.

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6137082.stm

mdklatt
11/10/2006, 03:47 PM
All the more reason we should cut and run, huh?



You really think we should pull out of Iraq? Never mind, I already know the answer.

PhilTLL
11/10/2006, 04:24 PM
Set of fictional reasons???

You will have to explain that one.

No one seemed to believe any of the reasons were "fictional", well, except for the countries that were in bed with Saddam like France, Germany and Russia.

WMD: Other than comedy bit for Press Club dinner, didn't produce results
Links with al Qaeda: Tenuous, to put it politely
Percentage of Americans who thought Iraq had connection to 9/11: over 50%; I don't think they all just imagined it in their own heads, rather something made them deduce that.

Saddam's major involvement in terrorism was to antagonize Israel, which really should have made him Israel's concern in this Global War On Terror.

A lot of people believed and still believe "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" isn't fictional, either, but it doesn't make it less so.

The other, more ephemeral, more ideological reason was to "free the people of Iraq." The freely elected government cannot control the country, and appears either willing to bend to the will of militia leaders and strongmen or simply to be given over to their control (much like Saddam came to power). Worse for us, we were admittedly freeing Iraq in the interest of our own national security, and from that standpoint, the outcome looks less and less likely to be a net benefit. Whether through the increasing enmity of the Iraqi people to the US, increased influence from Iran, decreased stability in the region overall, or what have you.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 04:53 PM
Now, I would have thought that a Republican victory and Rummy being Rummy would have been the best thing ever for AQ and the rest of the bad guy terrorists dudes. I mean, they've been great so far in helping the recruitment of new bad guy terrorist dudes.

Oh, and Tuba nice job on the some sectors stock market quote. I'm sure you'll find a way to defend profiteering in energy and medicine as a good Republican should. BTW, I'm not really a stockbroker, so you couldn't be my client. But, I still like sharing my ideas with you. ;)

Sounds like ya'll over there in Thailand need a guy like Rummy...


BANGKOK, Thailand -- Eight bombs exploded almost simultaneously at car and motorcycle showrooms in restive southern Thailand on Thursday, wounding nine people, police said.

The blasts were believed to have been carried out by Muslim insurgents, police said.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900220.html

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2006, 05:12 PM
WMD: Other than comedy bit for Press Club dinner, didn't produce results

Just last week, the NY Times said Iraq was less than a year away from a nuke of all things. Everyone believed he had WMD, mostly because he said he did, tried to hide it and used it on his own people.

We can debate this stuff again and again, but the fact is we are there, and we would be making a HUGE mistake if we hand AQ or Iran a victory.

Rogue
11/10/2006, 05:35 PM
Ok, well after finally taking a break from laughing at your bitterly pathetic rant that pretty much covers all the liberal "myths" about the war and Bush (except the whole Bush causing 9-11 thing, you missed that one somehow)

I thought I would point out this little nugget.

Seems AQ would disagree with you on your "analysis" that Iraq isn't the central hub of the GWOT.

Tuba,
Other than my snide, parenthetical notes about "unresolved oedipal conflict, oil...) what were the liberal myths I included in my pathetic little rant?

I think Rummy ****ed up by invading Iraq in the first place. It was a big, expensive, distracting campaign that did not help but delayed our effectiveness in the Global War on Terror. Tuba, I may be a liberal but if you can get past that without dismissing everything I write you might realize that I'm a veteran, military-lovin', gun totin', anti-terrorist, patriotic, pro-America liberal.

I just happen to think that our detour to Iraq was a huge mistake and committed too many finite resources that could have been much better used tracking down the real terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? I think he had a 2nd cousin who visited Iraq once but other than that NO FUGGIN CONNECTION to Iraq but THE MUTHERFUGGER BEHIND 9/11? Unless you can convince me that our plan all-along has been to destabilize the region, set up camp, and wait for them to come to us there so we can trick 'em with some ACME spring-loaded cartoon nets and stuff, I'll continue to think it was the wrong place to be for the past 4 years.

Whatever Rumsfeld did to convince W to invade Iraq or didn't do to convince W not to invade - should have cost him his job a long time ago. It seems plain to me that he was either incompetent, incapable of speaking truth-to-power (or just truth period maybe), or both. If you think we'd be better off with him back in office then I guess we just completely disagree. But your opinions about why I am wrong that include condescending rhetoric about liberal myths are always welcome unless you'd like to be more credible and show me some undisputed facts that prove me wrong. (I enjoy my mental image of you poring through your FOXnews and Dittohead database hoping that some talking head jagoff said something to back you up this week so you don't have to rely on the nasssty NY Times and "Al Qaeda spokesman" quotes anymore.)

mdklatt
11/10/2006, 07:21 PM
Just last week, the NY Times said Iraq was less than a year away from a nuke of all things.

Point of order: I believe the documents the NYT was referring to (and now you decide to believe that "liberal rag"?) were from the first fracas with Iraq. Now that we've gone in and shaken things around, it's apparent that we really did destroy Iraq's existing WMD program back in 1991.


Everyone believed he had WMD, mostly because he said he did, tried to hide it and used it on his own people.

We can debate this stuff again and again, but the fact is we are there, and we would be making a HUGE mistake if we hand AQ or Iran a victory.

Fine, but remember that doesn't absolve the Bushies from any blame for the current cluster****. Even Rumsfeld came out today and said that while the invasion of Iraq was a stunning success (which nobody disagrees with), the occupation has been...not so much (which only a few hard-core phants--not including Bush anymore--still disagree with).

For the record, I don't even care who is to blame as long as somebody fixes the damn problem.

mdklatt
11/10/2006, 07:34 PM
your tuba tactic is getting old, stupid, and annoying

Yeah, so is his. :rolleyes:

Rogue
11/10/2006, 08:47 PM
I was gonna say something about how even Bush and Co. have come to the same conclusion about Rumsfeld finally. Probably based on different reasons than mine, and obviously a couple years afterward but I obviously if he were the best man for the job, he'd still have it.