Spook. Relaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For all the Cheney types:
Down Below
If there
[quote=“Bodo”]
CS, I wish you right wing nutters 
would decide which it is: Clinton set the stage for the 9/11 tragedy because he wouldn’t go to war, wouldn’t take the Al Qaida threat seriously, etc. OR Clinton set the stage for the Iraq war . . . per your post. 
[/quote]
And I wish you dustbunny for brains leftists would get this straight…Clinton was was ultimately responsible for both.
Why did you bother to post? You obviously have disdain for Richardm, and the questions he is asking. Why not start your own thread? Or post on a thread that you have some interest in. You obviously think this thread is a waste of time. Don’t get it . . . 
Bodo[/quote]
No Bodo, you just don’t understand Hobbes’ culture. I know he has no disdain for me. He has some good points, but as a lawyer, he uses many many words to make them. I welcome his repies to any statement I might make, because he is always a model of polite decorum.
Okay, going with the quick replies this time:
True. Well at least the second sentence is true. (Not sure how much “culture” I have though :homer: )
Not sure about that, but thank you.
True.
Not sure about the decorum part, but thank you.
And Bodo: For what it’s worth, I respect what you were trying to do. Richard knows that I think he’s a smart guy. He knows I like his posts. And I knew that he would not misinterpret my criticism. But if I were in your position, and I saw someone who (as far as I could tell) was just trying to insult someone with a page-long post, and cared nothing for the topic, then I might feel like telling that person off too. Anyway, no hard feelings. 
Cheers,
H
[quote=“spook”]The most powerful organized force pushing the Bush administration towards armed confrontation with Iran is AIPAC, not defense industry lobbies. This was also the case with Iraq and armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein.
It’s no small matter that Vice President Dick Cheney chose the annual meeting of AIPAC to make his starkest threat towards Iran and its nuclear fuel cycle development program to date:
"Vice President Cheney threatened Iran today with “meaningful consequences” if it fails to cooperate with international efforts to curb its nuclear program.
“For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” Cheney said in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
– Washington Post[/quote]
Must all be part of that International Zionist Conspiracy, eh spook?
[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“spook”]The most powerful organized force pushing the Bush administration towards armed confrontation with Iran is AIPAC, not defense industry lobbies. This was also the case with Iraq and armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein.
It’s no small matter that Vice President Dick Cheney chose the annual meeting of AIPAC to make his starkest threat towards Iran and its nuclear fuel cycle development program to date:
"Vice President Cheney threatened Iran today with “meaningful consequences” if it fails to cooperate with international efforts to curb its nuclear program.
“For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” Cheney said in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
– Washington Post[/quote]
Must all be part of that International Zionist Conspiracy, eh spook?[/quote]
[quote]A war to democratize the Middle East??? I don
[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“spook”]The most powerful organized force pushing the Bush administration towards armed confrontation with Iran is AIPAC, not defense industry lobbies. This was also the case with Iraq and armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein.
It’s no small matter that Vice President Dick Cheney chose the annual meeting of AIPAC to make his starkest threat towards Iran and its nuclear fuel cycle development program to date:
"Vice President Cheney threatened Iran today with “meaningful consequences” if it fails to cooperate with international efforts to curb its nuclear program.
“For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” Cheney said in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
– Washington Post[/quote]
Must all be part of that International Zionist Conspiracy, eh spook?[/quote]
The majority of Jewish Americans (70%) opposed the Iraqi war. Organized support for war with the Islamic world is a fundamentalist “conspiracy” which unites religious fundamentalists of all stripes and persuasions. Is it wrong that AIPAC lobbies for Israel’s agenda in Congress? No. Likewise it’s not wrong to point out that it does so.
But don’t take my word that AIPAC is the most potent organized force pushing for war with Iraq and Iran. Let it speak for itself:
"Today, AIPAC has 100,000 members across all 50 states who are at the forefront of the most vexing issues facing Israel today: stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace. And above all, ensuring that Israel is strong enough to meet these challenges.
For these reasons, The New York Times has called AIPAC the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel, while Fortune magazine has consistently ranked AIPAC among America’s most powerful interest groups.
Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress - at home and in Washington - AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. From procuring nearly $3 billion in aid critical to Israel’s security, to funding joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons, AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel. . . .
Our Current Agenda
Stopping Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons . . .
Standing By Israel to Ensure the Security of the Only Democracy in the Middle East:
America must continue to stand by Israel’s side politically, diplomatically and economically. Not only is U.S. aid needed to maintain Israel’s security during this dangerous and challenging time in the country’s history, but aid to Israel supports a reliable, front-line ally in our joint battle against weapons proliferation and terrorism. AIPAC engages Congress to support Israel.
Educating Congress About the U.S.-Israel Relationship . . .
[u]What We
Mr. Jane Fonda agrees with me.
[quote=“Tom Hayden”]We may never know who blew up the mosque and, with it, the prospects for troop withdrawals. It is assumed that the villains were either deranged Sunnis acting on their own, or al-Zarqawi cadres intent on civil war.
There is another perspective for close observers of dirty wars, the possibility that the bombing was planned and handled by elements of Western counter-terrorism forces. Similar tactics were employed by British agents during the long conflict in Northern Ireland, and heavily-armed British commandos disguised as Arabs were captured in Basra just last year. One of the oldest imperial strategems is to divide and conquer, incite sectarian divisions, and justify military occupation to keep the natives from killing each other. This is precisely the justification for continued war that is heard from those who have admitted the original invasion was a “mistake.”
Anything may happen still. An exit strategy is at hand. But the US policy is to have no exit. For now it appears that the long war will continue to the bitter end.
[/quote]
Tom Hayden is a burned out ass-clown.
And I have told him this to his face over dinner.
His reply…“Pass me those green beans…yeah, I’ve heard that before…you gonna pass that?”
He was not referring to the green beans.
She has her admirers. She’ll be touched to know you’re among them
[quote=“Bodo”]
[quote]A war to democratize the Middle East??? I don
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]She has her admirers. She’ll be touched to know you’re among them
[/quote]
Hey, at least she has the guts to ask Bush tough questions instead of constantly lobbying him softballs like the rest of the Press Corp.
She doesn’t ask “Tough questions.”
She editorializes and pushes her anti-Bush agenda.
To think otherwise is to refuse to admit the truth.
Quite a difference. Unless, of course, one shares her agenda.
Come on, TainanCowboy. She’s given every administration since Kennedy a rough ride. I don’t like her style, but she’s hardly playing partial. Until, that is, she gets into her column. But that’s the columnist, not the reporter. She’s one of the few reporters left who asks questions in the Press Briefing room. The rest just take notes.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Give it a rest TainanCowboy. She’s given every administration since Kennedy a rough ride. I don’t like her style, but she’s hardly playing partial.[/quote]Jaboney -
Might I suggest that it is you who need to “give it a rest.”
If you have been paying attention to Helen Thomas and her disgusting performances during the White House press conferences you would be very familiar with her grandstanding agenda pushing and over the line insulting taunting of hte current US President, press secretaries and others representing the Bush Administration.
To view her as impartial is simply to fail to see and understand. She has been the “Crazy Aunt in the Closet” since the Clinton* regieme left town and she found herself wearing her knee-pads and with no where to go.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]If you have been paying attention to Helen Thomas and her disgusting performances during the White House press conferences you would be very familiar with her grandstanding.[/quote]Full stop there. She’s a grandstander. That’s major reason why I don’t like her style. She’s also a doom-and-gloom whiner. Another reason. She also asks the hard questions, of everyone. Which is much more than can be said of 90% of the press today.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]She doesn’t ask “Tough questions.”
She editorializes and pushes her anti-Bush agenda.
To think otherwise is to refuse to admit the truth.
Quite a difference. Unless, of course, one shares her agenda.[/quote]
There’s no question that she despises Bush, and I do wish she was more objective. Regardless, I respect the fact that she’s not afraid to stand up to Bush and ask him tough questions. Even when I disagree with her, there are millions of Americans who want the kinds of questions that she asks answered.
Personally I think we place the president on far too high a pedastool in the United States. I love it when C-SPAN shows Prime Minister Blair at the House of Commons, going to toe to toe with the opposition leader. I think that’s how it should be in our country too. Instead of the pathetic ass kissing the president gets at his annual address to Congress where those groveling sycophants we pay to represent us as Senators and Congressmen erupt in applause after every sentence, I want to see him before Congress on a regular basis, defending his policies in a real debate. Helen Thomas at least manages to make President Bush answer a real question every now and then.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“Bodo”]
[quote]A war to democratize the Middle East??? I don