Karl Rove 9/11 comments

[Guest oldschooler]

Karl Rove said the other night at a fundraiser in NYC:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. ... I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

He also noted that Al Jazeera has been broadcasting Dick Durbin's recent comments about Gitmo.


I personally think he was generalizing a little to much and I don`t
think Liberals acted that way when 9/11 happened...but
he DID express how MOST Liberals (Bush haters) are acting about the
"War on Terrorism" NOW...

[Guest bengalrick]

i think it is an over-generalization of that period... it is far right on the money w/ the current enviroment, but after 9/11 there was a weird feeling of unity for all of us... well for most of us

[url="http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5578"]click here[/url]

[quote]Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism” And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website Archive, “Death, Downtown,” [b]Posted 9/12/01[/b], www.michaelmoore.com, Accessed 7/27/04)[/quote]

[quote]Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11.  Moore:  “Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood this, Tim.” (CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” 10/19/02)[/quote]

[quote]Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.”  “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right.  Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.”  (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)[/quote]Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)[QUOTE]

there are many more examples of this on this website... his comments were intended (imo) to be directed to fucks like michael moore, etc... what this did was another brilliant move for him though... it made hillary, kerry, and others admit they were liberals... they spoke as if he generalized all of the democrats as this, but he said moveon.org... one of his sayings is (paraphrasing) "if someone is mad at you, provoke them more..."

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/users/user_1483/b9ebb4ca040530ad4b4313845705d61c/b9ebb4ca040530ad4b4313845705d61c.jpg[/img]


[img]http://www.networkingtheinternet.com/images/karl-rove-boats.jpg[/img]



[i]Somebody shoot this fat Fuck [/i]

[Ben]

Thanks to BJ I don’t have to post my sarcastic, yet hilarious and poignant remark now..

[Guest BlackJesus]

Good Movie is....

[img]http://www.documentaryfilms.net/Reviews/BushsBrain/BushBrain.gif[/img]

[url="http://www.bushsbrain.com/"]http://www.bushsbrain.com/[/url]


It shows how Rove has been the brains behind Bush since the start

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:32 PM'][i]Somebody shoot this fat Fuck    [/i]
[right][post="106759"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



I`d rather some1 shoot THIS FAT FUCK...

[img]http://www.gravett.org/pc/archives/moore-fatass-new.jpg[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/exhibitions/presidentially_speaking/images/tuby_rove.jpeg[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]Hell shoot them both.....

I would trade Moore for Rove.... Rove directly affects the Nation by telling Bush what to do, Moore makes movies and trys to persuade public opinion[/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

Hey Liberal pussies !


[img]http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/thumbs_rove_lg.jpg[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b][u]The brains
Tuesday March 9, 2004
The Guardian
By Julian Borger [/u][/b]

He masterminded George Bush's transformation from boozing brat to national leader, and has been called the most powerful adviser in the White House. Now Karl Rove is in charge of the $150m campaign to re-elect Bush. Who is the man the president calls his 'boy genius'?

In the autumn election season of 1970, a cherubic, bespectacled teenager turned up at the Chicago campaign headquarters of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running for state treasurer in Illinois. No one paid the newcomer much attention when he arrived, or when he left soon afterwards. Nor did anyone in the office make the connection between the mystery volunteer and 1,000 invitations on campaign stationery that began circulating in Chicago's red-light district and soup kitchens, promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" for all-comers at Dixon's headquarters.

As political dirty tricks go, it was minor league. Hundreds of the city's heavy drinkers and homeless turned up at a smart Dixon reception looking for free booze. Dixon was embarrassed but the plot failed to stop his momentum: he was elected state treasurer and went on to become a senator. But the teenager who stole his letterheads, Karl Rove, has gone even further.
Over the past week, Rove, now aged 53, has been in his White House office overseeing George Bush's $150m re-election strategy. The Bush camp was content to keep its powder dry while the Democrats were selecting their candidate, but now that John Kerry has been officially chosen, Republican campaigning proper has begun.

Steering it, and constantly at Bush's shoulder, is the president's "political adviser", Rove. The nerdy political brawler with only a secondary school education is now the man the president likes to call his "boy genius" - a testament to Rove's role in orchestrating Bush's rise from a feckless, hard-drinking politician's brat to Texas governor to president in barely a decade. And unlike other electoral svengalis who have gone before him, Rove has carried his power intact from the campaign bus to the White House.

"I think it's an enormous position of power, and it's hard to overstate. I think he's unique in the modern presidency," says Lou Dubose, a Texan journalist and Rove biographer. Rove's office is tight-lipped about the extent of his duties, but the few un-vetted memoirs to have escaped from this highly disciplined administration have all portrayed him as the single most powerful figure in it, with the (possible) exceptions of the president and vice-president.

"Karl is enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political adviser post near the Oval Office," John DiIulio, a former presidential adviser, wrote in a notoriously frank email to a journalist from Esquire magazine, after resigning in 2001. "Little happens on any issue without Karl's OK, and often he supplies such policy substance as the administration puts out."

Earlier this year, for instance, Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, gave an account of a pivotal cabinet meeting in late 2002 to discuss a second round of deep tax cuts, at which the president apparently had second thoughts about focusing so much of the benefits on the wealthy. "Didn't we already give them a break at the top?" Bush asks, according to O'Neill's account. Rove brings the president back in line, urging him to "stick to principle". Rove won the day, and O'Neill was forced out of the cabinet.

By his own account, Rove's sights are set even further into the future than Bush's re-election. He has spoken about strategic shifts of power that happen every so often in American history. The precedent he often refers to was set over a century ago by William McKinley, another Republican with brilliant advisers, who narrowly defeated a populist Democrat (William Jennings Bryan) in 1896 and established a Republican hegemony that lasted more than three decades.

The Republicans now control the presidency, the senate, and the house of representatives. Rove's task now is to consolidate that dominance of the White House and Capitol Hill and then use it to recast the Washington's third source of power, the supreme court, from its current cautious conservatism to a more red-blooded Republicanism.

To achieve that, Rove has to win the November elections for the Republicans. They have all the advantages of incumbency, but there is disillusion in the air over unemployment and the Iraq war, and a newly united Democratic party behind Kerry is making inroads in the polls. On the other hand, the Republicans have Rove, to whom no other campaign strategist comes close.

Rove prepared for the harder edges of US politics by surviving his youth. Born on Christmas Day 1950 in Denver, Colorado, he grew up in or near the Rockies, where his father worked as a geologist. On his 19th birthday, his father walked out on him. Soon afterwards, he found out that he was not his father after all, the news dropped into a dinner-table conversation by his aunt and uncle. Twelve years later, alone in Reno, his mother committed suicide.

At high school in Utah, Rove was known as a nerd and a motor-mouth, unpopular but irrepressibly opinionated. While his peers were fixated on girls he became obsessed with school politics, campaigning for student positions in a precocious jacket and tie. Although his parents were apolitical, he was a vocal Nixon supporter from the age of nine.

Like Dick Cheney, he avoided the Vietnam draft with a college deferment, but gave up his education to work on Republican campaigns, and never got a degree. He launched his political career by wresting control of the College Republicans, a radical group in the Nixon era. It was an unpleasant business. In an interesting precursor to the Florida battle 17 years later, Rove took on his opponent, Robert Edgeworth, principally on procedural grounds - challenging the credentials of every single Edgeworth delegate to the1973 College Republican convention and putting forward a rival delegate.

The aggressive tactics won the 22-year-old Rove a walk-on role in the Watergate saga that was consuming the nation. A report was published in the Washington Post on August 10, 1973, titled "[Republican party] Probes Official as Teacher of Tricks", gave an account, based on tape recordings, of how Rove and a colleague had been touring the country giving young Republicans political combat training, in which they recalled their feats of derring-do, such as Rove's Chicago heist at the Dixon headquarters.

At the time, Rove claimed the tape had been doctored to exclude a warning to the audience not to try to emulate any of his past misdeeds. Others present simply remember a caution not to get caught. The publicity forced the intervention of the Republican National Committee and its chairman, a former Texas congressman clinging on to his political career: George Herbert Walker Bush. After considering the case, Bush Sr took action. He drove Edgeworth out of the party on suspicion of having leaked the tapes, and hired Rove, bringing him to Washington.

The incident marked the genesis of the Rove-Bush axis and it was in Washington that Rove met the younger Bush. He fell, politically speaking, in love. "Huge amounts of charisma, swagger, cowboy boots, flight jacket, wonderful smile, just charisma - you know, wow," Rove recalled years later. In 1977, Rove was sent to Texas, in theory to run a political action committee, but according to one Texan political consultant who knew him at the time, "It was really to baby-sit Bush back when Bush was drinking".

While doing that, Rove discovered his true calling. He set up a "direct mail" operation, Rove + Company [sic], pinpointing potential Republican voters and sending them fundraising or voter registration letters written specifically to appeal to the target audience.

At this time, he married Valerie Wainright, a wealthy Houston woman from the Bush social circle, but the marriage could not withstand his consuming preoccupation with politics.(He married his second wife, Darby, in 1986.)

Rove was in Texas at a turning point in its political history. The Democrats' hegemony, inherited from the civil war era, was crumbling, as the party moved to the left and Republican northerners moved into the state's city suburbs. Election by election, post by post, the Republicans began to take over the state, and Rove was there to help them.

The 1986 governor's race was a prime example. The contest between Rove's Republican client, Bill Clements, and the Democratic incumbent, Mark White, was neck and neck, when Rove announced he had found an electronic listening device in his office, and cried foul. The furore swung the election to Clements and to this day Texan Democrats are convinced Rove concocted the whole episode.

Eight years later, another Democrat, Anne Richards, occupied the governor's mansion, but Rove was promoting another Republican candidate, George W Bush. Governor Richards' advisers laughed openly at the challenge, but they were in for a shock. "We did not believe that Bush would be as disciplined as he was. He was extremely disciplined," recalls George Shipley, who was then Richards' campaign adviser. "Karl gave him 10 index cards and said, 'This is what you are going to say. Don't confuse yourself with the issues.' It's the model for the presidency."

In its last days, the 1994 campaign also turned nasty. Texan voters began receiving calls from "pollsters" asking questions such as: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?" In the business, it is called "push-polling" and Shipley has no doubt who was behind it."Rove has used this kind of dirty tricks in every campaign he's ever run."

Only circumstantial evidence links Rove to the push-polling. In fact, his fingerprints have not been found on any dirty tricks since his College Republican days. Ray Sullivan, a political consultant who worked for Rove on a string of campaigns, argues that Rove is the target of "revisionist history" that portrays every low blow in every campaign to his orchestration. "He can be tough," Sullivan says, but insists he was always fair. "Politics in Texas is a contact sport. It is rough and tumble but those who cut corners and don't back up claims with facts don't last very long and Karl has lasted longer than anyone."

Last year, however, Rove's taste for personal politics entangled him in an extraordinary spy scandal. He is reported to have made calls to Washington journalists last July identifying a CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame, who was married to Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had called into question the administration's claims about Iraq's alleged nuclear programme. Rove allegedly told the journalists that Plame was "fair game" because her husband had gone public with his criticism.

A grand jury is now investigating the leak of Plame's name, a federal felony. Rove has denied being its source, and Wilson believes now he may have tried to push the story only after her name had already been published. Rove has yet to appear before the grand jury, but he has retained an expensive Washington lawyer.

It is a dangerous moment for Rove, but he has escaped from a litany of political scandals unscathed, and even enhanced. Bush's other nickname for the Boy Genius is "Turd Blossom" - a Texanism for a flower that blooms from cattle excrement. This year, there should be ample opportunity for him to earn the title

[jza10304]

It seems like other people are mad at Rove.

[quote]June 23, 2005
FOS11 Statement on Comments Made By Karl Rove
As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative, or any liberal stakes a "high ground" position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive. We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.[/quote]

[url="http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/news.aspx?s=5#1352"]www.familiesofseptember11.org[/url]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:46 PM']It seems like other people are mad at Rove.
[url="http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/news.aspx?s=5#1352"]www.familiesofseptember11.org[/url]
[right][post="106777"][/post][/right][/quote]



They must be Liberals ! [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/karl_rove_2005-02-02.JPG[/img]
[u]Karl Rove: America's Mullah
By Neal Gabler
The Los Angeles Times
Sunday 24 October 2004 [/u]

This election is about Rovism, and the outcome threatens to transform the U.S. into an ironfisted theocracy.
Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC Annenberg, is author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality."

Even now, after Sen. John F. Kerry handily won his three debates with President Bush and after most polls show a dead heat, his supporters seem downbeat. Why? They believe that Karl Rove, Bush's top political operative, cannot be beaten. Rove the Impaler will do whatever it takes - anything - to make certain that Bush wins. This isn't just typical Democratic pessimism. It has been the master narrative of the 2004 presidential campaign in the mainstream media. Attacks on Kerry come and go - flip-flopper, Swift boats, Massachusetts liberal - but one constant remains, Rove, and everyone takes it for granted that he knows how to game the system.

Rove, however, is more than a political sharpie with a bulging bag of dirty tricks. His campaign shenanigans - past and future - go to the heart of what this election is about.

Democrats will tell you it is a referendum on Bush's incompetence or on his extremist right-wing agenda. Republicans will tell you it's about conservatism versus liberalism or who can better protect us from terrorists. They are both wrong. This election is about Rovism - the insinuation of Rove's electoral tactics into the conduct of the presidency and the fabric of the government. It's not an overstatement to say that on Nov. 2, the fate of traditional American democracy will hang in the balance.

Rovism is not simply a function of Rove the political conniver sitting in the counsels of power and making decisions, though he does. No recent presidency has put policy in the service of politics as has Bush's. Because tactics can change institutions, Rovism is much more. It is a philosophy and practice of governing that pervades the administration and even extends to the Republican-controlled Congress. As Robert Berdahl, chancellor of UC Berkeley, has said of Bush's foreign policy, a subset of Rovism, it constitutes a fundamental change in "the fabric of constitutional government as we have known it in this country."

Rovism begins, as one might suspect from the most merciless of political consiglieres, with Machiavelli's rule of force: "A prince is respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy." No administration since Warren Harding's has rewarded its friends so lavishly, and none has been as willing to bully anyone who strays from its message.

There is no dissent in the Rove White House without reprisal.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was retired after he disagreed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the Army and then testified that invading Iraq would require a U.S. deployment of 200,000 soldiers.

Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he revealed before the vote that the administration had seriously misrepresented the cost of its proposed prescription drug plan to get it through Congress.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was peremptorily fired for questioning the wisdom of the administration's tax cuts, and former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III felt compelled to recant his statement that there were insufficient troops in Iraq.

Even accounting for the strong-arm tactics of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, this isn't government as we have known it. This is the Sopranos in the White House: "Cross us and you're road kill."

Naturally, the administration's treatment of the opposition is worse. Rove's mentor, political advisor Lee Atwater, has been quoted as saying: "What you do is rip the bark off liberals." That's how Bush has governed. There is a feeling, perhaps best expressed by Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address at the Republican convention, that anyone who has the temerity to question the president is undermining the country. At times, Miller came close to calling Democrats traitors for putting up a presidential candidate.

This may be standard campaign rhetoric. But it's one thing to excoriate your opponents in a campaign, and quite another to continue berating them after the votes are counted.

Rovism regards any form of compromise as weakness. Politics isn't a bus we all board together, it's a steamroller.

No recent administration has made less effort to reach across the aisle, and thanks to Rovism, the Republican majority in Congress often operates on a rule of exclusion. Republicans blocked Democrats from participating in the bill-drafting sessions on energy, prescription drugs and intelligence reform in the House. As Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) told the New Yorker, "They don't consult with the nations of the world, and they don't consult with Congress, especially the Democrats in Congress. They can do it all themselves."

Bush entered office promising to be a "uniter, not a divider." But Rovism is not about uniting. What Rove quickly grasped is that it's easier and more efficacious to exploit the cultural and social divide than to look for common ground. No recent administration has as eagerly played wedge issues - gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives - to keep the nation roiling, in the pure Rovian belief that the president's conservative supporters will always be angrier and more energized than his opponents. Division, then, is not a side effect of policy; in Rovism, it is the purpose of policy.

The lack of political compromise has its correlate in the administration's stubborn insistence that it doesn't have to compromise with facts. All politicians operate within an Orwellian nimbus where words don't mean what they normally mean, but Rovism posits that there is no objective, verifiable reality at all. Reality is what you say it is, which explains why Bush can claim that postwar Iraq is going swimmingly or that a so-so economy is soaring. As one administration official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.... We're history's actors."

When neither dissent nor facts are recognized as constraining forces, one is infallible, which is the sum and foundation of Rovism. Cleverly invoking the power of faith to protect itself from accusations of stubbornness and insularity, this administration entertains no doubt, no adjustment, no negotiation, no competing point of view. As such, it eschews the essence of the American political system: flexibility and compromise.

In Rovism, toughness is the only virtue. The mere appearance of change is intolerable, which is why Bush apparently can't admit ever making a mistake. As Machiavelli put it, the prince must show that "his judgments are irrevocable."

Rovism is certainly not without its appeal. As political theorist Sheldon Wolin once characterized Machiavellian government, it promises the "economy of politics." Americans love toughness. They love swagger. In a world of complexity and uncertainty, especially after Sept. 11, they love the idea of a man who doesn't need anyone else. They even love the sense of mission, regardless of its wisdom.

These values run deep in the American soul, and Rovism consciously taps them. But they are not democratic. Unwavering discipline, demonization of foes, disdain for reality and a personal sense of infallibility based on faith are the stuff of a theocracy - the president as pope or mullah and policy as religious warfare.

Boiled down, Rovism is government by jihadis in the grip of unshakable self-righteousness - ironically the force the administration says it is fighting. It imposes rather than proposes.

Rovism surreptitiously and profoundly changes our form of government, a government that has been, since its founding by children of the Enlightenment, open, accommodating, moderate and generally reasonable.

All administrations try to work the system to their advantage, and some, like Nixon's, attempt to circumvent the system altogether. Rove and Bush neither use nor circumvent, which would require keeping the system intact. They instead are reconfiguring the system in extra-constitutional, theocratic terms.

The idea of the United States as an ironfisted theocracy is terrifying, and it should give everyone pause. This time, it's not about policy. This time, for the first time, it's about the nature of American government.

We all have reason to be very, very afraid.

[Guest bengalrick]

instead of mentioning the comments that i posted, which were true comments, that prove that karl rove was speaking the 100% truth, we get the nazi comments again...

wow...

can't you guys see that he was talking about the moveon.org, micheal moore, george soros wing of the democratic party and not all the democrats that walk the face of the earth... instead of debating what he said, we get the same old bullshit...

how about what the comments i posted, especially micheal moore exactly one day after the attacks, sayings "... unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” "

if you believe that, why do you live in this terrorist country called america? seriously...

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushoz.jpg[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]instead of mentioning the comments that i posted, which were true comments, that prove that karl rove was speaking the 100% truth, we get the nazi comments again...[/quote]

Ok

[quote]"... unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” "[/quote]

[i][b]This is 100 % Factual , educated individuals are well aware of this.... The U.S. has done this in many countries, including training Al Qaeda the same fuckers who crashed the planes into the WTC.[/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

Yeah....post pictures and stories that are totally irrelevant
to the topic...go figure.


I like how a couple of posts that WERE relevant to the topic got
deleted too...that`s just beautiful...

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:54 PM']Ok
[i][b]This is 100 % Factual , educated individuals are well aware of this.... The U.S. has done this in many countries, including training Al Qaeda the same fuckers who crashed the planes into the WTC.[/b][/i]
[right][post="106785"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



100% FALSE.


We funded the Northern Alliance...NOT Al Qaeda.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)[/quote]


[i][b]Also True ..... regardless of whose numbers you look at over 24,000 Iraqis have been killed, and an estimated 10,000 civilians

10,000 > 3,500 on 9/11

and that is just in Iraq, there are thousands dead in Afghanistan as well. [/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:57 PM'][i][b]Also True ..... regardless of whose numbers you look at over 24,000 Iraqis have been killed, and an estimated 10,000 civilians

10,000 > 3,500 on 9/11

and that is just in Iraq, there are thousands dead in Afghanistan as well.  [/b][/i]
[right][post="106789"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



Your "Freedom Fighters" have killed more people than
our Troops have...


Saddam actually does what he is supposed to do...NO WAR IN IRAQ.

Terrorist don`t attack U.S. soil...NO WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]I like how a couple of posts that WERE relevant to the topic got
deleted too...that`s just beautiful... [/quote]

[i][b]Nobody is deleting anything..... [/b][/i]


[quote]100% FALSE.


We funded the Northern Alliance...NOT Al Qaeda.[/quote]


[i][b]I can't believe the total ignorance of the truth..... The United States funded Osama Bin Laden and many of his associates when they were Mujahadeen in Afghanistan fighting the soviets. Osama then formed an organization called Al Qaeda to take care of the veterans of that war. Initially it was not a terror group. Then the U.S. funded the Taliban government and supported them in power for decades, seeing them as a better alternative than Soviet domination. After the US had the veterans of the Afghan war rounded up and tortured in their home countires (EGypt, Syria etc) then they turned to Terror. This was made worse after Gulf War I when troops entered their holy land of Suadi Arabia,, The US trained Osama, he is using CIA tactics against US troops right now (if he is still alive).... and just like the Northern Alliance we supported him against the Soviet Union.


Does anyone have books or read anymore ?[/b][/i]

[jza10304]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 02:01 PM'][i][b]Nobody is deleting anything..... [/b][/i]
[i][b]I can't believe the total ignorance of the truth..... The United States funded Osama Bin Laden and many of his associates when they were Mujahadeen in Afghanistan fighting the soviets.  Osama then formed an organization called Al Qaeda to take care of the veterans of that war.  Initially it was not a terror group.  Then the U.S. funded the Taliban government and supported them in power for decades, seeing them as a better alternative than Soviet domination.  After the US had the veterans of the Afghan war rounded up and tortured in their home countires (EGypt, Syria etc) then they turned to Terror.  This was made worse after Gulf War I when troops entered their holy land of Suadi Arabia,,
Does anyone have books or read anymore ?[/b][/i]
[right][post="106793"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
They also supported the Taliban in the war on drugs to eradicate the opium market in Afghanistan.

[Guest bengalrick]

so, is this what you were thinking on 9/12/01 bj?? that is my point, not if these exagerated "facts" are true... when the towers were still smoking, and we had firefighters looking for bodies the day after 9/11, were you thinking "well, we did have this coming" or "we are also terrorists... i mean, we funded some terrorists 20 years ago" ?? is that what was going through your mind?

rove said that liberals (and he later mentioned moveon.org and micheal moore) thought about lawsuits and not going the fuck off when we were attacked... i felt like signing up for duty and losing it after that day... that is his point... if you felt like going crazy the day after, you are not an extreme liberal... if you (in general) thought that we are getting what we deserve, then i say "FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK YYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" i don't want to make it personal for anyone, but if you believe we got what we deserve, fuck you. period.

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 01:01 PM'][i][b]Nobody is deleting anything..... [/b][/i]
[i][b]I can't believe the total ignorance of the truth..... The United States funded Osama Bin Laden and many of his associates when they were Mujahadeen in Afghanistan fighting the soviets.  Osama then formed an organization called Al Qaeda to take care of the veterans of that war.  Initially it was not a terror group.  Then the U.S. funded the Taliban government and supported them in power for decades, seeing them as a better alternative than Soviet domination.  After the US had the veterans of the Afghan war rounded up and tortured in their home countires (EGypt, Syria etc) then they turned to Terror.  This was made worse after Gulf War I when troops entered their holy land of Suadi Arabia,,  The US trained Osama, he is using CIA tactics against US troops right now (if he is still alive).... and just like the Northern Alliance we supported him against the Soviet Union.
Does anyone have books or read anymore ?[/b][/i]
[right][post="106793"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



Don`t distort the truth to fit your beliefs...

Did we fund the Northern Alliance that was fighting the
Soviets in Afghanistan ?

Did some of those fuckheads become Al Qaeda ?


Yes to both ...but that doesn`t equal we funded Al Qaeda.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]Saddam actually does what he is supposed to do...NO WAR IN IRAQ.[/quote]

How was he supposed to get rid of something he didn't have

[b]Bush:[/b] [i]"Saddam get rid of the WMD's"[/i]

[b]Saddam:[/b] [i]"I don't have any"[/i]

[b]Bush:[/b] [i]"That's it we are going to invade and take them away from you"[/i]

[b]Saddam:[/b] [i]"Uh Bush, all my WMD's are used up, and you Americans haven't given me anymore, after you gave me all of those to kill Iranians with ... and with the extra I gassed the Kurds"[/i]

[b]Bush:[/b] [i]"Saddam We can't have you joining with Al Qaeda"[/i]

[b]Saddam:[/b] [i]"Actually extremist Mulsims don't like me, I am a stalinist secular fascist who cracks down on radical Islam"[/i]

[b]Bush:[/b] [i]"That's it Saddam we are invading to get those WMD's"[/i]

[b]Saddam:[/b] [i]"How am I supposed to give you something I don't have, I want them yes, but there isn;t another Reagen to give them to me"[/i]

(Bush invades 1,500 americans dead, terrorists then move to Iraq , and al qaeda sets up training there)

[b]Bush:[/b] [i]"Oh yeah guys I was just kidding about the WMD bit, he didn't have them, chuckles, but Freedom is on the March"[/i] (high fives oil executive)
[img]http://www.abolkhaseb.net/images/3loj/images/bush-dumb_jpg.jpg[/img]

(Oldschooler and others get a tear in their eye for Freedom)