Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today?

Huffington Post has obtained an internal Fox News memo written by the
network's Vice President of news. The memo details Fox's game plan the
day Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House.
FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The
Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled
Congress"...
| Posted November 14, 2006 06:50 PM
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >Huffington Post has obtained an internal
> >Fox News memo written by the
> >network's Vice President of news. The
> >memo details Fox's game plan the day
> >Democrats won control of both the
> >Senate and the House. FOX NEWS
> >INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout
> >For Any Statements From The Iraqi
> >Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of
> >A Dem Controlled Congress"...
>
> Oh, gee, golly, gosh, political bias
> at a news network!
>
> (The three networks, CNN, and MSNBC
> are, of course, totally neutral.)
>
> That aside, there is no doubt that the
> terrorists were happy at the election
> result. Their chief antagonist, Bush, was
> "thumped" after all.

There's LOTS of doubt about that (whether terrorists are happy, not
whether Bush got thumped), at least according to our intelligence
agencies. But of course you know better, right? Why is it that you see
intercepted early cold-war communications as definitive, but totally
disregard contemporary intercepted e-mails that reveal al Qaida
acknowledging that Bush interventionist policies are the best
recruiting tools they could ever hope for?
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>Huffington Post has obtained an internal
>Fox News memo written by the
>network's Vice President of news. The
>memo details Fox's game plan the day
>Democrats won control of both the
>Senate and the House. FOX NEWS
>INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout
>For Any Statements From The Iraqi
>Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of
>A Dem Controlled Congress"...
 
Oh, gee, golly, gosh, political bias
at a news network!

(The three networks, CNN, and MSNBC
are, of course, totally neutral.)

That aside, there is no doubt that the
terrorists were happy at the election
result. Their chief antagonist, Bush, was
"thumped" after all.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>>That aside, there is no doubt that the
>>terrorists were happy at the election >>result. Their chief
antagonist, Bush,
>>was "thumped" after all.

>There's LOTS of doubt about that
>(whether terrorists are happy,

Their statements say they are.


> not whether Bush got thumped), at least
>according to our intelligence agencies.
>But of course you know better, right?
>Why is it that you see intercepted early
>cold-war communications as definitive,
>but totally disregard contemporary
>intercepted e-mails that reveal al Qaida
>acknowledging that Bush interventionist
>policies are the best recruiting tools they
>could ever hope for?

I do not disregard that, but consider
it irrelevant. Evil regimes always
use their opponents as boogiemen
to rally the populace. Our goal remains to
defeat the terrorists and all their
"recruits."
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
> wrote:
>
> >>That aside, there is no doubt that the
> >>terrorists were happy at the election >>result. Their chief
> antagonist, Bush,
> >>was "thumped" after all.
>
> >There's LOTS of doubt about that
> >(whether terrorists are happy,
>
> Their statements say they are.

And Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said there were WMDs and 'nucular'
programs too. Are you really that gullib....? Never mind, I forgot for
a sec who I was talking to and how blinding ideology is for some
people.

>
>
> > not whether Bush got thumped), at least
> >according to our intelligence agencies.
> >But of course you know better, right?
> >Why is it that you see intercepted early
> >cold-war communications as definitive,
> >but totally disregard contemporary
> >intercepted e-mails that reveal al Qaida
> >acknowledging that Bush interventionist
> >policies are the best recruiting tools they
> >could ever hope for?
>
> I do not disregard that, but consider
> it irrelevant. Evil regimes always
> use their opponents as boogiemen
> to rally the populace. Our goal remains to
> defeat the terrorists and all their
> "recruits."

Hmmm, boogiemen like maybe the Iraqi citizens we subjected to shock and
awe? 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?
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> DTotheroh wrote:
>
> >And Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said
> >there were WMDs and 'nucular'
> >programs too. Are you really that
> >gullib....? Never mind, I forgot for a sec
> >who I was talking to and how blinding
> >ideology is for some people.
>
> Yeah, for you.
>
> But I quoted the statements collected by
> a respected journalist, Richard Miniter.
>
> >>I do not disregard that, but consider
> >>it irrelevant. Evil regimes always
> >>use their opponents as boogiemen
> >>to rally the populace. Our goal remains
> >>to defeat the terrorists and all their
> >>"recruits."
>
> >Hmmm, boogiemen like maybe the Iraqi
> >citizens we subjected to shock and awe?
>
> Compared to what we did to the Third
> Reich, shock and awe was targeted
> by "smart" weapons aimed at milutary
> and political sites. There was no
> carpet bombing of civlilans as occurred in
> Germany and Japan.

"Smart" weapons, you bought that one too, huh? A "smart" bomb, even IF
it actually hits its intended target does significant 'collateral'
damage. And as long as people like you allow politicians to 'define'
civilian neighborhoods and marketplaces as "political sites" then
"smart" is as meaningless as Intelligence in the Bush administration.

>
> We did not seek unconditional surreder,
> or conquest of Iraq, but simply regime
> change. If our terrorist enemies want
> to distort and exploit our justifiable
> outster of Saddam, there's nothing we
> can do about that except to continue
> to extirpate terrorism from the world
> wherever we find it and however it
> develops.
>
> >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?
>
> You mean the 300,000 that Saddam
> murdered?

Yes, those he killed over a 20 year reign AS WELL AS the 600,000+ we
killed in less than 4. I've learned that pointless murder is still
pointless murder no matter whose power and pocketbook it supposedly
serves.
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

David Totheroh wrote:

> Yes, those he killed over a 20 year reign AS WELL AS
> the 600,000+ we killed in less than 4. I've learned that
> pointless murder is still pointless murder no matter whose
> power and pocketbook it supposedly serves.

David! You've been reading my blog! :)

http://celticprogressive.blogspot.com/2006/10/some-numbers-to-ponder.html

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

DTotheroh wrote:

>And Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said
>there were WMDs and 'nucular'
>programs too. Are you really that
>gullib....? Never mind, I forgot for a sec
>who I was talking to and how blinding
>ideology is for some people.

Yeah, for you.

But I quoted the statements collected by
a respected journalist, Richard Miniter.

>>I do not disregard that, but consider
>>it irrelevant.   Evil regimes always
>>use their opponents as boogiemen
>>to rally the populace. Our goal remains
>>to defeat the terrorists and all their
>>"recruits."

>Hmmm, boogiemen like maybe the Iraqi
>citizens we subjected to shock and awe?

Compared to what we did to the Third
Reich, shock and awe was targeted
by "smart" weapons aimed at milutary
and political sites. There was no
carpet bombing of civlilans as occurred in
Germany and Japan.

We did not seek unconditional surreder,
or conquest of Iraq, but simply regime
change. If our terrorist enemies want
to distort and exploit our justifiable
outster of Saddam, there's nothing we
can do about that except to continue
to extirpate terrorism from the world
wherever we find it and however it
develops.

>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?

You mean the 300,000 that Saddam
murdered?
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

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

David Totheroh wrote:

> George Shelps wrote:
> > You mean the 300,000 that Saddam
> > murdered?
>
> Yes, those he killed over a 20 year reign AS WELL AS the 600,000+ we
> killed in less than 4. I've learned that pointless murder is still
> pointless murder no matter whose power and pocketbook it supposedly
> serves.

But David! Many of Saddam's Iraqi victims were tortured and killed.
But *our* Iraqi victims are tortured *or* killed! Pretty much just one
or the other. Why can't you just be happy that freedom's on the march?


--Shush--
Celebrating National Think-Like-a-Conservative Day
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

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?

I haven't found an effective vaccine against concussive force that
scrambles internal organs (or a more sure fire innoculation than the
Constitution against an overreaching Executive)?

>
>
> --Shush--
> Celebrating National Think-Like-a-Conservative Day

(Is it an act of providence that this day wasn't celebrated on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday of November this year?)
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

David Totheroth wrote:

>>"smart" weapons aimed at milutary
>>and political sites. There was no
>>carpet bombing of civlilans as occurred
>>in Germany and Japan.

>"Smart" weapons, you bought that one
>too, huh? A "smart" bomb, even IF it
>actually hits its intended target does
>significant 'collateral' damage. And as
>long as people like you allow politicians
>to 'define' civilian neighborhoods and
>marketplaces as "political sites" then
>"smart" is as meaningless as Intelligence
>in the Bush administration.

I don't claim that these weapons are
totally precisely targeted, but compared to to the blanket destruction
of cities
in WW2 they are "smart" weaponry.

And the terrorists often hide in civilian
neighborhoods, cynically bringing about
the deaths of their own people for propaganda purposes.

>>We did not seek unconditional surreder,
>>or conquest of Iraq, but simply regime
>>change. If our terrorist enemies want
>>to distort and exploit our justifiable
>>outster of Saddam, there's nothing we
>>can do about that except to continue
>>o extirpate terrorism from the world
>>wherever we find it and however it
>>develops.

>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?



These figures are in dispute and we
did not set out to kill civilians as terrorists do.

>>You mean the 300,000 that Saddam
>>murdered?

>Yes, those he killed over a 20 year reign
>AS WELL AS the 600,000+ we killed in
>less than 4. I've learned that pointless
>murder is still pointless murder no matter
>whose power and pocketbook it
>supposedly serves.

"Power and pocketbook," a Marxist
notion of this war,
 >> Stay informed about: Would Chaplin Be Gloating Today? 

George Shelps wrote:
> shushfilmseznospam RemoveThis @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?

"Sleazy cheap-shot"? "Moral tripe"? You mean like stating (not just
insinuating) that disagreements over foreign policy amount to treason
and that support for an opposition party is a vote for terrorists? THAT
kind of "sleazy cheap-shot...moral tripe"?

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