Message-ID: <3F80A1AB.8060802@cfl.rr.com>
From: mikebrown at cfl.rr.com (Mike Brown)
Subject: Bush Bashing (use to be Has Verisign time arrived
 ?)

Official Troll, please move along. Or as you put it "Get the fuck out."

J.A. Terranson wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Dark Avenger wrote:
> 
> 
>>This isn't the place to discuss political and personal views of our 
>>country and leadership, but you 2 just opened the door.
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> 
>>This is typical liberal dribble attacking our president for an "immoral 
>>war" and being "weird".
> 
> 
> While I am personally familiar with "the liberal dribble" which acknowledges
> that Shrub has a propensity for immoral acts, I have yet to see the one that
> simply accuses him of being "weird".
> 
> 
>>Your only agenda is to try to discredit an 
>>administration that finally has some morals and integrity 
> 
> 
> Enron.  Halliburton.   Killing 7,000 innocent civilians in a war based on
> pure lies.
> 
> Ethis?  Morals?  Pass whatever it is you're smoking down here: I can't afford
> shit that good!
> 
> 
>>and does 
>>what's right for the country (and even for the ungrateful world 
>>community), unlike the prior administration.
> 
> 
> Just because Klinton was also a murderous piece of perjuring dogshit, this
> fact does not act in any exculpatory way for Shrub.
> 
> 
>>Where were your criticisms when the Clinton administation launched 
>>cruise missles into Iraq without UN approval?
> 
> 
> Personally, mine weere made public, in an open letter to the bastard
> himself.  You can find the letter on Google.  You can also find (if you look
> carefully) the followup report from the secret service.
> 
> 
>>Where were your criticisms when the Clinton administation attacked 
>>Serbia without UN, or even Congress' approval?
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
>>Where were your criticisms when the Clinton administation bombed an 
>>aspirin factory?
> 
> 
> Again, see above.  I have clean hands here - I publicly castigated each of
> these events.
> 
> 
>>Now this isn't about the Clinton administration, but it illustrates the 
>>level of hypocrisy of those that bash the current administration.
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy that is shown here is yours: your implicit argument is that if
> Clinton can get away with it then Shrub should be able to get away with it
> too.
> 
> 
>>Every nation in the UN agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, 
>>so you can't pin the label on the Bush administration,
> 
> 
> Really?  You are obviously listening to a different UN than the rest of us.
> 
> 
>>as if they lied 
>>about it and used it as the only reason to liberate the Iraqi people. 
> 
> 
> The fact is, they did lie about it - openly and brazenly, and then they
> weren't even smart enough to drop a couple of hundred packets of anthrax
> around to "prove" their filthy lies.
> 
> 
>>This was only 1 of many reasons for going into Iraq, and the liberals 
>>are trying to cast it as the only reason.
> 
> 
> The other reasons were so obviously overflowing with Truth that the entire
> world (the British Protectorate and Spain excluded) refused to act on Shrub's
> demands for mutilateral war.
> 
> 
>>People like you seem to forget or ignore the 17 UN resolutions that Iraq 
>>had violated. 
> 
> 
> And what about all of the resolutions that Israel has violated?  Why don't we
> go in and kill a couple of dozen Israeli's for *that*?  Hypocrite.
> 
> 
>>And how the UN doesn't have enough backbone to enforce 
>>their own resolutions.
> 
> 
> We never gave them the chance: we took it on ourselves to act unilaterally,
> and now that we're stuck in a war we can neither afford nor win, we're crying
> how unfair it is that the rest of the world won't help us.  Bullshit.  We
> deserve every body bag we get.
> 
> 
>>You seem to forget or ignore the routine and systematic torture and 
>>execution of political prisoners that Saddam's regime carried out.
> 
> 
> Neither.  It is not/was not/ cannot be our problem.  Besides, your Great
> Shrub never once claimed that this was a "reason" until AFTER it was obvious
> that he had lied (multiple times, places, and ways) to try and justify this
> slaughter, and had been caught with his pants down as far as his predecessor
> (of course for a different reason).
> 
> 
>>You seem to forget or ignore their use of chemical weapons against Iran 
>>that resulted in an estimated 600,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi Kurd's and 
>>Iranians dead in 1980 - 1988. 
> 
> 
> And where we YOU when this was happening (it was very common knowledge)?  Why
> were you not bitching and moaning then?  Not convenient?
> 
> 
>>This in itself proves he had weapons of 
>>mass destruction, and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Just because he had them in 1980, does not mean he has them today.  But,
> while we're on the topic, you seem to be forgetting something: Iraq is a
> SOVEREIGN NATION.  They have every right to all the WMD they can
> manufacture.  Just like Israel.  Just like the US.
> 
> 
>>They hid entire squads of 
>>fighter jets underneath the desert sands, showing how easy it would be 
>>to hide small barrels of chemical and biological agents.
> 
> 
> Again with the atraw arguments?
>  
> 
>>You seem to forget or ignore their invasion of Kuwait in 1990-1991.
> 
> 
> Which was a non-issue in 2003.  What's wrong - can't come up with anything
> they actually *did*, so you have to reach for ancient history?  If you want
> to go down that route, then we should all be nuked for refusing the Jewish
> emmigrants from Germany a chance to land here.  Yes, that's right, the US was
> directly and knowingly responsible for the deaths of *thousands* of Jewish
> "boat people".   Under your logic, we should be punished for this ~60 year
> old crime *today*.
> 
> 
>>You seem to forget or ignore the bloody mass killings of 30,000 to 
>>60,000 Kurd's and Shite's in 1991.
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
>>You seem to forget or ignore the Rape rooms and imprisoned children and 
>>execution rooms used regularly by this regime. And how the women were 
>>suppressed and made 2nd class citizens by not being able to be seen in 
>>public, or drive, or go to school, or vote (vote? what a laugh, even for 
>>those who could).
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
>>Thank God we finally have an administration that is willing to do what's 
>>right to protect us all.
> 
> 
> The only thing Shrub is "protecting" is his wallet: you and me don't count.
> 
> 
>>This new world we live in since 9/11/2001 (of 
>>course you've forgotten about that too, I'm sure)
> 
> 
> Oh.  The world has changed because Bush says so?  Or because the US finally
> got the bloody nose it has had coming for decades?
> 
> 
>>requires us to take 
>>the battle to the terrorists and their allies before they take it to us. 
> 
> 
> Every petty dictator and despot in history has used this "logic".  All Shrub
> did by adopting it was lose whatever moral authority he may have started
> with.  He's used this to make a mockery of entire concept of "justice".
> 
> 
>>Do you actually think for one minute that Iraq wouldn't hand over WMD to 
>>terrorists with the intent of using them on our homeland? 
> 
> 
> I believe they would have.
> 
> That said, we need to ask ourselves *why* this is the case.  Doctor, heal
> thyself...
> 
> 
>>This is a 
>>pro-active approach to warding off terrorism before it hits again.
> 
> 
> This is the schoolyard bully throwing his weight around.  And just like in
> school, he's eventually going to piss off enough folkes that they bring the
> "war" back to his doorstep - Shrub is leading the idiot cattle to the
> slaughter with this crap.
> 
> 
>>If 
>>this administration hadn't taken this approach, and then we had an 
>>attack on LA, or San Francisco, or any other place in the US, then you 
>>would have been bashing the administration for not protecting you.
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing Bin Laden and Hussein.  Common mistake among the "I
> just became a political expert by watching Bush crowd".  That aside, I would
> appreciate it if my government would stick to "protecting" me by not making
> me a target.  STop financing genocide around the world, and the world will be
> less likely to want to retailiate in kind.
> 
> 
>>If 
>>France, or Germany, or any other nation on this earth had been attacked 
>>like we were, then who do you think would be the first people they 
>>called upon to help them out? And we would have done it without hesitation.
> 
> 
> Um, yeah....  Riiiighhhttttt...
>  
> 
>>I could go on and on, but this has already turned out to be longer than 
>>I expected. 
> 
> 
> Yes.  And you have managed to make quite a fool of yourself while we were
> here.  
> 
> 
>>But we should all be grateful for the actions this 
>>administration is taking to make sure we are safer in our homes, despite 
>>the bashings of liberals like you.
> 
> 
> Safer in our homes???  Oh.  You mean, I'm safer, because instead of having to
> worry about "a terrorist" breaking into my home and killing me in the middle
> of the night, it's only likely to be a bunch of cops dressed in black Kevlar
> who shoot up the place while they pursue The War On <fill in your favorite
> boogeyman here>.  Oh, and if they shoot up the wrong place, maybe kill a
> couple of innocent people - it was worth it, right?  After all, if you
> werenet *really* a criminal, you'd have no complaints.  Hypocrite fuck.
> 
> 
>>God Bless the USA, and yes, the President too
> 
> 
> The USA needs a 200 megaton enema, with Ground Zero set firmly on Shrubs flat
> little ass.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists