Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today?

shushfilmseznospam DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:

>>David Totheroh wrote:

>>You sound just like Rumsfeld's pentagon
>>Office of Special Plans. Cherry picking
>>intelligence seems to be endemic on the
>>right. Haven't you learned anything from
>>the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
>>innocents?

>      But David! The influenza epidemic of
>1918 killed twenty million innocents, so >compared to that, our fiasco
in Iraq isn't
>all that bad. What's your problem?

>--Shush--

>Celebrating National

>Think-Like-a-Conservative Day

Pretty sleazy cheap-shot, to insinuate
that conservatives welcome war
deaths. Are you inspired by the
return of Moran, Shush. Is that
what makes you peddle this moral
tripe?

Now let's see if your political heroes
in the House have the guts to cut
off funds for the war...as they did
with South Viet Nam.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrot
> You stand with your Leader when he
> >says the Dems are collaborators with
> >terrorists.
> I don't think he ever said that

He said the Dems plan is for the terrorists to win.

> >>> and that support for an opposition
> >>>party is a vote for terrorists? THAT
> >>>kind of
> >>>"sleazy cheap-shot...moral tripe"?
> >>No, but the opposition party is weak
> >>on national security and the terrorists
> >>know it.
> >You know a lot about what terrorists
> >"know".
> >Hmmm...
> They've stated their views publicly.
> I quoted some here. Educate yourself!

CIA concluded Bin Laden's preelection video
in 2004 was designed to help Bush - by maligning him.

Reason would suggest the 'terrorists' statements as a whole be
read in this context - the statements are designed for the
purpose of shoring up whatever 'credibility' their prime recruiter has
left.

Don't be so stupid!
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> I am a nationalist first, but I sympathize
> with conservatives---who tend to
> be nationalists, too---and I don't like
> see them slurred and slandered.
> >You're simply one who welcomes a
> >President lying to his people
> He didn't lie.

Your Leader continually said he knew Iraq had WMD
the "Real" Leader Cheney said so as well
Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and Al Queda were partners.

They had no factual basis for these statements.

They were lies.

They were lies intended to make the American people fear
Iraq was an imminent grave & gathering danger and so
to scare them into war.

You can deny it into infinity.

But that's how it goes in the history books.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:
> >(Bush) said the Dems plan is for the
> >terrorists to win.
> I think that's true of some on the fringe
> (like you)

Okay, Joe McCarthy!

but I doubt that he ever said it about the majority of
> Democrats.

Look, he said the Dems plan is for America to lose and the
terrorists to win.

He didn't say "some" - as you know, liar.

Why you continue to lie about something that's a matter
of public record is beyond me.

But it's par for the course for Schelptz - stupidity and dishonesty
combined.


> But it is true that the Democrats--with a few exceptions like
> Lieberman--are simply clueless on the subject of terror.
> >>>You know a lot about what terrorists
> >>>"know".
> >>>Hmmm...
> >>They've stated their views publicly.
> >>I quoted some here. Educate yourself!
> >CIA concluded Bin Laden's preelection
> >video in 2004 was designed to help Bush
> > by maligning him.
> I am talking about the recent comments
> which I quoted here.
> How does gloating about the GOP defeat
> after the fact help Bush?
> >Reason would suggest the 'terrorists'
> >statements as a whole be read in this
> >context - the statements are designed for
> >the purpose of shoring up whatever
> >credibility' their prime recruiter has left.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

DTotheroh wrote:

>>Pretty sleazy cheap-shot, to insinuate
>>that conservatives welcome war
>>deaths. Are you inspired by the
>>return of Moran, Shush. Is that
>>what makes you peddle this moral
>>tripe?

>"Sleazy cheap-shot"? "Moral tripe"? You
>mean like stating (not just insinuating)
>that disagreements over foreign policy
>amount to treason

I never said that.

> and that support for an opposition party
>is a vote for terrorists? THAT kind of
>"sleazy cheap-shot...moral tripe"?

No, but the opposition party is weak
on national security and the terrorists
know it.

>Nope, sorry. Shush doesn't come
>anywhere close.

>But people who EXCUSE war deaths,
>whether they welcome them or not, are
>nuzzling right up to it, if ya ask me.

I do not excuse them.

But I am not a pacifist either, I follow
St Augustine's thesis of the Just War,

And the liberation of Iraq is a Just War.

Period.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
>
> >You can deny it into infinity.
> >But that's how it goes in the history
> >books.
> It goes in the books that no WMD's
> were found, not that Bush lied,

No; he and the people around him
continually and purposefully lied..
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:
>
> >>>(Bush) said the Dems plan is for the
> >>>terrorists to win.
> >>I think that's true of some on the fringe
> >>(like you)
> >Okay, Joe McCarthy!
> I know that's supposed to be brilliant
> riposte, but I don't think it removes the
> stink of anti-Americanism from your posts.

Yes, Senator McCarthy

> >> but I doubt that he ever said it about
> >>the majority of Democrats.
> >Look, he said the Dems plan is for
> >America to lose and the terrorists to win.
> >He didn't say "some" - as you know, liar.
> >Why you continue to lie about something
> >that's a matter of public record is beyond
> >me.
> Please provide the quote
> >But it's par for the course for Schelptz -
> >stupidity and dishonesty combined.
> You're the gold standard of both
> on this group. (Moran, at least,
> is intelligent)

If you take the statements of terrorists at face value
you are more stupid than even your blind (and
unAmerican) allegiance to the Decider suggests.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

bachusio wrote:

>>Pretty sleazy cheap-shot, to insinuate
>>that conservatives welcome war
>>deaths.

>What do you care? As you admitted
>upthread, you're no conservative.

I am a nationalist first, but I sympathize
with conservatives---who tend to
be nationalists, too---and I don't like
see them slurred and slandered.

>You're simply one who welcomes a
>President lying to his people

He didn't lie.


> as a pretext for a war which is
>ill-prepared for, ill-equipped, and poorly
>executed - with no plan.

Mistakes were made, but the cause
is just.

>And even when all these facts
>become undeniable, you press on,
>insisting more young Americans die for
>your Leader's pride and hold on power.

To prevent a nuclear 9-11.
Or are you for that?

>I suppose all those young guys and
>women can just keep on dyin' till you get
>a plan in place, right?

The soldiers themselves believe they
are fighting in a just cause, regardless
of whether or not things are going
smoothly.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com
wrote:

>>>"Sleazy cheap-shot"? "Moral tripe"?
>>>You mean like stating (not just
>>>insinuating) that disagreements over
>>>foreign policy amount to treason

>>I never said that.

>Yep, you did.

Nope, I didn't

>You stand with your Leader when he
>says the Dems are collaborators with
>terrorists.

I don't think he ever said that. But the Dems certainly make the
terrorists' job easier because of their wrong views.

>>>  and that support for an opposition
>>>party is a vote for terrorists? THAT
>>>kind of
>>>"sleazy cheap-shot...moral tripe"?

>>No, but the opposition party is weak
>>on national security and the terrorists
>>know it.

>You know a lot about what terrorists
>"know".
>Hmmm...

They've stated their views publicly.
I quoted some here. Educate yourself!
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> bachusio DeleteThis @rogers.com wrote
>
> >>>You're simply one who welcomes a
> >>>President lying to his people
>
> >>He didn't lie.
>
> >Your Leader continually said he knew
> >Iraq had WMD the "Real" Leader Cheney
> >said so as well Cheney repeated his
> >claim that Iraq and Al Queda were
> >partners.
>
> This was based on intelligence and
> other world leaders---like Tony Blair--
> agreed.
>
>
> >They had no factual basis for these
> >statements.
>
> >They were lies.
>
> They did have a basis in an intelligence
> estimate

OK, (for the sake of argument, I'll ignore the fact that a full reading
of that intelligence estimate shows it to be far more equivocal than
you'd like us to believe, but in any case...) that same intelligence
community was very clear in its analysis that bin Ladin ALWAYS speaks
for strategic purpose, and they concluded that bin Ladin's 2004 tape
was made to benefit Bush and particularly help in his reelection. So,
why is it you believe the one intel estimate (while ignoring all its
caveats) but totally discount the other UNequivocal analysis?
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:

>(Bush) said the Dems plan is for the
>terrorists to win.

I think that's true of some on the fringe
(like you) but I doubt that he ever said it about the majority of
Democrats.

But it is true that the Democrats--with a few exceptions like
Lieberman--are simply clueless on the subject of terror.


>>>You know a lot about what terrorists
>>>"know".

>>>Hmmm...

>>They've stated their views publicly.
>>I quoted some here. Educate yourself!

>CIA concluded Bin Laden's preelection
>video in 2004 was designed to help Bush
> by maligning him.

I am talking about the recent comments
which I quoted here.

How does gloating about the GOP defeat
after the fact help Bush?


>Reason would suggest the 'terrorists'
>statements as a whole be read in this
>context - the statements are designed for
>the purpose of shoring up whatever
>credibility' their prime recruiter has left.
>Don't be so stupid!

You've set the stupidity bar up pretty high
with that comment!
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com wrote

>>>You're simply one who welcomes a
>>>President lying to his people

>>He didn't lie.

>Your Leader continually said he knew
>Iraq had WMD the "Real" Leader Cheney
>said so as well Cheney repeated his
>claim that Iraq and Al Queda were
>partners.

This was based on intelligence and
other world leaders---like Tony Blair--
agreed.


>They had no factual basis for these
>statements.

>They were lies.

They did have a basis in an intelligence
estimate

>They were lies intended to make the
>American people fear Iraq was an
>imminent grave & gathering danger and
>so to scare them into war.

The American people should have
been scared of Saddam. He had every
intention of restarting his weapons
program after he had gotten rid of
the UN inspectors and the fly-overs.



>You can deny it into infinity.
>But that's how it goes in the history
>books.

It goes in the books that no WMD's
were found, not that Bush lied,.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:

>>>(Bush) said the Dems plan is for the
>>>terrorists to win.

>>I think that's true of some on the fringe
>>(like you)

>Okay, Joe McCarthy!

I know that's supposed to be brilliant
riposte, but I don't think it removes the
stink of anti-Americanism from your posts.

>>  but I doubt that he ever said it about
>>the majority of Democrats.

>Look, he said the Dems plan is for
>America to lose and the terrorists to win.
>He didn't say "some" - as you know, liar.
>Why you continue to lie about something
>that's a matter of public record is beyond
>me.

Please provide the quote

>But it's par for the course for Schelptz -
>stupidity and dishonesty combined.

You're the gold standard of both
on this group. (Moran, at least,
is intelligent)
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today?