<p>Ha OpiefromMayberry! “Yellowcake Geranium?” There’s got to a good business in that, no? I couldn’t have even thought of that consciously. Guess I was in a hurry. Thanks for pointing that out…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, maybe nothing is better than what Bill Clinton did for our teenage children and grandchildren. Now they commonly and casually engage in oral sex because it isn’t really “sex.” Thanks, Mr. President. (Sorry, off topic)</p>
<p>so it comes back to SEX…OMG</p>
<p>yeah, like teens never thought of sex before Bill Clinton came around…</p>
<p>Well, BIsh has left a terrible legacy- schools, debt, health care, medicine, the environment, place in the world, but guess getting blow job is a bad compared to China owning our debt</p>
<p>it is almost laughable to say that…yeah, kids in the 50s weren’t having oral sex…not in the 1800s</p>
<p>even those that have taken the virginity pledge have oral sex and have</p>
<p>yeah Bill thanks for teaching teens about oral sex, cause none of them ever thought about it before</p>
<p>let me think, nope, nor porno magazines, nore movies, nor teens talking to each other ever discussed oral sex…not until Bill…</p>
<p>So, what no oral sex Pre- 1992? ahhahahahaha</p>
<p>"Now they commonly and casually engage in oral sex because it isn’t really “sex.” "</p>
<p>As if this never occurred before??? well, maybe for you.</p>
<p>Funny, I don’t see any teens commonly committing genocide and killing children lately…</p>
<p>Bay–My daughters were both teenagers during the Clinton sex scandal. They heard all the oral sex stories that circulated, but it didn’t make them want to try it themselves. I take responsibility for how my children are raised, not President Clinton, and thankfully, NOT President Bush.</p>
<p>Actually Opie, I do believe FF has something of a point when it comes to looking at the future attacks of Americans by terrorists here. I think he has the solution wrong, though. Iraq will have only served to enhance the likelihood of us getting attacked on our own soil, as I see it; it’s a hatred factory, not just within Iraq, but amongst the viewers of TV in the greater “Islamic” world.</p>
<p>In the 1990s a man named Rick Rescorla sat in the World Trade Center and said that the US would be attacked in much the same fashion that occurred on September 11th. He didn’t talk about airplanes, but he did talk about why we would be attacked and that the essential nature of the attack would be from non-state players. He said they might attack the WTC (not a huge stretch, given that it had been attacked in the early 90s).</p>
<p>No one would accuse Rescorla of being a liberal pansy. He fought in Rhodesia, he volunteered to go to Vietnam and fight for us although he was a South African citizen. But he says these attacks would be basically the chickens coming home to roost for Americans, that our own people often don’t know what we’ve done in the world. That it would be a kind of reckoning. Far from lacking patriotism, he was a proud American. But he was also a cold realist.</p>
<p>Watch him:</p>
<p><a href=“http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/voice_prophet[/url]”>http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/voice_prophet</a></p>
<p>Rescorla was personally responsible for nearly 3,000 people who worked for Morgan Stanley (I think it was) getting out of their offices on September 11 before the building collapsed. He was head of security and he had drilled the employees incessantly on what to do. And they did. And he died that day.</p>
<p>It is my view that another attack on American soil is inevitable. I am just afraid that one of the next times it will be nuclear. I am also of the view that the only thing we can do to decrease the likelihood that this happens is to withdraw from our ties as much as possible as quickly as possible from Middle East oil states which happen to be predominantly Muslim. </p>
<p>Iraq has done nothing to calm the rising animosity against us – quite the opposite – or to stymie the recruiting to the cause of hatred toward us that is actually stoked by our efforts in Iraq. Staying there will do no more to stymie it.</p>
<p>I am encouraged when I see the following kinds of activities, this one a $500 million investment in developing new fuels. And this is a private effort, although built upon the efforts of the Federal Govt. and the governments of California and Illinois.</p>
<p><a href=“TOTO MACAU - DATA TOTO MACAU - PENGELUARAN TOTO MACAU - RESULT TOTO MACAU”>TOTO MACAU - DATA TOTO MACAU - PENGELUARAN TOTO MACAU - RESULT TOTO MACAU;
<p>But we would have done a lot better to spend a portion of the money we’re spending on Iraq consolidating a win in Afghanistan, investing in energy independence, heck even in my opinion building some more nuclear reactor plants, and securing our ports from uninspected containers that arrive in from all over the world.</p>
<p>Yes, withdrawing from that part of the world will take a long time. And who knows the implications for Israel, but that’s a discussion for a different time.</p>
<p>This is an interesting interview with Chris Hedges who wrote the book," War is a force that gives us Meaning". It’s interesting how he holds the mainstream media accountable for our rush to war in addition to Bush. Pretty ironic since many Bush loyalists on this very site often refer to it as the Liberal Media. The information about the WMD was out there but not getting into the mainstream media. You had to be a political junkie and blog reader in 2003 to get to some of the information. Anyway, this is worth a read and might spur meaningful discussion. Here is the excerpt:</p>
<p>"Harris: Let’s start by talking about your 2002 book, “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.” In this text, you talk about nations and their behavior during wartime. Looking back at our behavior over the last three and a half to four years, as we’ve been at war with Iraq, how have our citizens and our president—how have we behaved?</p>
<p>Hedges: Well, the book, because I spent almost 20 years covering various wars around the globe, the book tried to explain the patterns of war—what happens to individuals and societies in war, and how they react. Unfortunately, we reacted in the way that most countries react when they go to war. It wasn’t just the Bush administration that pushed us into war. The media was completely in complicity with very few exceptions. The population at large got off on it; the cable news channels pumped out this garbage over 24-hour news cycles with graphics and drum rolls. And this was part of the whole sickness that happened to the country after 9/11, where unbridled nationalism—which I think is a disease—was unleashed. It brings with it—it really is just a form of crude, self-exaltation, but it brings with it a very dark undercurrent of racism—racism towards Muslims, towards anyone, including the French, who disagreed with us. And our society was really enveloped with this sickness. It really was a sickness that I had seen on the streets of Belgrade. It wasn’t a new sickness to me, but of course it was disturbing because this time around it was my own nation. And that euphoria lasted basically until the war went bad, or until people realized that it was going badly. And then we forgot about it. There’s a kind of willful amnesia that is also a pattern of wartime society—certainly something I saw in Argentine society after their defeat in the Falkland war. And now these very cable news channels and media outlets that sold us the war virtually don’t cover it. They pretend the war doesn’t exist, and they feed us this trivia and celebrity gossip that unfortunately in American society is consumed as news."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.truthdig.com/[/url]”>http://www.truthdig.com/</a></p>
<p>Well said Bedhead.</p>
<p>The thing with FF’s point and others is to justify being there to fight terrorism over there and not here as all the “other” reasons don’t hold up to the light of day. </p>
<p>I don’t think we’ll know one way or another if another attack will come. I don’t think we’ve done nearly enough in our ports to secure what flows into america. We also for some reason failed to follow the money that supports terrorism. It’s possible for us to do this and go after the dollar providers. However, that would mean going after family members or our allies. </p>
<p>A war on terrorism is not a war for conventional troops. It isn’t putting feet on the ground, it’s doing intelligence work and digging into the muck to find the people who fund it. </p>
<p>My point is while we have mortgaged our future to fight in Iraq, we’ve also saved the terrorist groups alot of money. We’ve made it too easy to kill americans, not harder. It’s just these americans are in olive drab.</p>
<p>I agree with your points on foriegn policy. We’ve often befriended the wrong side internationally and then paid a price backing them up in these “little wars”.</p>
<p>I think you and I basically agree. I am going to paraphrase Bush here or someone in the Administration to make my point: “The terrorists only have to get it right once; we have to get it right 100% in order to avoid an attack.” They’ll get to us eventually. But you’re absolutely right we don’t know the particulars. I just differ on the “whether” question. Yes, we have mortgaged our future on Iraq. Remember that Al-Qaeda attacked us largely because they think we protect the House of Saud – the very kingdom that allowed the heathens to maintain a base in the land of Mecca.</p>
<p>"House of Saud "</p>
<p>and who if we looked deep enough, we’d find them underwritting some of this nosense. </p>
<p>We do agree on alot of things. </p>
<p>“The terrorists only have to get it right once; we have to get it right 100% in order to avoid an attack.” "</p>
<p>I’ve heard this before in another context. </p>
<p>Ah, the difference between a good striker and a good goal keeper. 
</p>
<p>A good goal keeper can keep the sheet clean by knowing the game, seeing the field and punishing anyone who dares enter the area around goal. </p>
<p>Also a good goalkeeper can also make the attackers overcommit making them vunerable to a quick counterattack, which they trigger with a well placed kick or throw. </p>
<p>It all starts with a good defense. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh dear…did I catch you in another untruth…now it’s only one poster, not the “posters” you accused…only one poster who likely doesn’t exist (any more than the rest).</p>
<p>Let me remind you that I caught you in a lie in the Presidential Race thread, so I have no reason to believe your unsubstantiated and self-serving allegations about other posters.</p>
<p>Yup, very easy to kill Americans, and we have rallied millions of people in the war against America. Invasion and occupation of Iraq has really brought nothing but loathing and hatred of Americans, and most of them want to kill us now. They didn’t before, but they do now.</p>
<p>Way to go, in the “War against Terror”.</p>
<p>Allmusic: They did, some of them, hate us before. Now more of them hate us, I don’t know if it’s most of “them,” meaning people who might be open to the ideology of pro-Wahhabist militants (or maybe “jihadists” as a whole). But your basic point that this was a strategic misstep in a so-called War on Terror is true.</p>
<p>We may have to fight wars from time to time to secure our security, but we need to measure the value of doing so with cold, hard realism. There was a lot of frivolous ideology, flimsy thinking, and bad information that went into planning Iraq.</p>
<p>Oh **** already.
If I remember correctly, one person made the accusation and others agreed.</p>
<p>Not one of the people who supports the escalation has disclosed whether his or her state is providing less or more than its fair share of National Guard and Reserve units. So I don’t think they’re petitioning for more troops from their states to be sent if (as is likely to be the case) their state is doing less than the median.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising, I guess. But I wonder how many would rethink their support for the war if their state had to do its part.</p>
<p>John McCain’s state? Near the bottom. It’s not even half of the median. Easy to prosecute a war when you know that by and large, someone else’s constituents will have to fight it.</p>
<p>ETA: Sorry, HH, “If I remember correctly” does not meet any standard of proof of which I am aware, so I’ll have to write off your self-serving attempts to smear other posters as another example of your false witness.</p>
<p>The argument has been made, over and over again, that the notion that Saddam was trying to obtain materials for a nuclear weapon were manufactured by Bush in order to get us into the war in Iraq. Yet, in 2004, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee refuted the assertion that idea. Why is this still on the table? <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9?language=printer[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9?language=printer</a>
</p>
<p>Because these allegations are hardly related merely to Wilson’s allegations, because this was a Republican controlled Senate doing making these findings in an election year where they had a lot at stake, and because the allegations are broadly known to be true.</p>
<p>But apart from these notions, what does it matter ultimately? Have statements made in public since the war started been accurate or truthful? “We know where the weapons of mass destruction are.” “The insurgency is in the final throes.”</p>
<p>A bit of skepticism is called for far beyond the arguments that were made, mendaciously, to get us into war. Pronouncements by a friendly Senate hell-bent on disproving these things does not “take them off the table” as issues.</p>
<p>The question is why would you be so convinced by one report about a small sliver of the issue?</p>
<p><a href=“Web Page Under Construction”>Web Page Under Construction;
<p>SJ, even if every senator agreed with the war, pre-invasion (they didn’t, but let’s pretend they did, for the sake of argument), many now realize that there was faulty intelligence, or whatever. They see the facts on the ground. </p>
<p>Most intelligent people can admit they were wrong, once they have the appropriate information. It is those who keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, who need to have their heads examined.</p>