Really?
She is talking about Jeb Bush.....a Republican.
Can you point out any fallacies in her article?
Jeb Bush
- Thread starter weaselwords
- Start date
Really?
She is talking about Jeb Bush.....a Republican.
Can you point out any fallacies in her article?
"We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the "rush to war.""
To be fair, that'd only take Ann Orexia about three hours.
Here's one:
"Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him."
There were only three stated reasons to get rid of Saddam:
1. WMDs - demonstrably, and demonstrated, false.
2. He was a terrorist supporter - oddly, as a secular Muslim, he was arguably the Middle East leader LEAST likely to support terrorism.
3. He was a bad man - Ya think? Never stopped the U.S. from cozying up to a dictator before. Including Saddam.
There was at least one good reason to keep him. He kept a lid on Iraq. I know y'all like to fantasize that Ali Akbar Jefferson was just inches (centimetres) away from establishing domestic peace, republican government, and the Republican Party in Iraq, and apply for U.S. statehood, after we gave Saddam the push. and that the EEE-vil Kenyan Muslim Socialist stabbed us all in the back because he hates Murka, but then again, Annie and friends belive that slavery was a blessing to the slaves and that Indians benefited from the coming of the Europeans, so this is just a mildly swivel-eyed fantasy for wingnuts.
Is every one on Canada's left coast, a bloody left wing nut?
Except for pgs of course;-):smile:
And if you substitute Ann Coulter and Republican with Hillary and Democrat the statement rings just as true .
But But But those republicans are all really just ugly nasty people who only care about themselves .
Lets see here on the left coast people can not be totally faulted . Our main newspapers The Vancouver Sun ,The Province ,the Victoria Times Colonist ,our main talk radio CKNW
And television news CTV all have a leftist bent and most people cannot be bothered to filter out the BS these publications offer .
Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories!
I have just one question for you, Walter about your "thumbs down" re my last post.............."Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories! :icon_smile:"
I just can't imagine how any observant person with a smattering of common sense could object to that statement, UNLESS the person is radically politically biased! Perhaps you can explain, Walter.
rash told him to do itNice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories!
I have just one question for you, Walter about your "thumbs down" re my last post.............."Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories! :icon_smile:"
I just can't imagine how any observant person with a smattering of common sense could object to that statement, UNLESS the person is radically politically biased! Perhaps you can explain, Walter.
Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories!
I have just one question for you, Walter about your "thumbs down" re my last post.............."Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories! :icon_smile:"
I just can't imagine how any observant person with a smattering of common sense could object to that statement, UNLESS the person is radically politically biased! Perhaps you can explain, Walter.
I thought at first walter left me out of a red, but just checked, I have it now, so that is a victory
for me, my post was as it should have been, successful, without that red, I would have wondered.
Well he is . What else is new ?Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories!
I have just one question for you, Walter about your "thumbs down" re my last post.............."Nice people and unnice people don't divide evenly along party lines. Both "princes" and A$$holes are found equally in all poltical categories! :icon_smile:"
I just can't imagine how any observant person with a smattering of common sense could object to that statement, UNLESS the person is radically politically biased! Perhaps you can explain, Walter.
Jeb Bush declares 'ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president,' gets mugged by reality
Jeb Bush declares 'ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president,' gets mugged by reality
Just one week after a 19 year-old college student rightly informed Jeb Bush that "your brother created ISIS," the 2016 GOP White House hopeful apparently decided one historical beat down wasn't enough. At a gathering in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on Wednesday, Dubya's brother doubled down and declared:
"ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was President."
As Jeopardy's Alex Trebek would say, "Oh, no. I'm so sorry."
Head below the fold for all the reasons why.
As I documented Sunday in exhaustive detail, the development of the Islamic State was well underway while George W. Bush was still warming the seat in the Oval Office. Evaluating the claim of Nevada student Ivy Ziedrich regarding the paternity for ISIS, I explained:
For her to be right, ISIS--the dangerous movement combining Saddam loyalists, former Al Qaeda members and disgruntled Sunni fighters--would have to have emerged as a direct result of the war Bush launched in 2003. The disbanding of Saddam's 400,000-man army would have to be laid at the feet of "The Decider." Foreign fighters must have flocked to Al Qaeda--a non-factor in Iraq before the U.S. invasion--specifically to target American troops. And while those unlikely allies forged ties in U.S and Iraqi prisons, Sunni tribesmen once paid by American forces would have to have become alienated by a sectarian Shiite strongman in Baghdad beholden to Iran. The inevitable outcome of such U.S. mismanagement of post-Saddam Iraq, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld privately warned his boss on October 15, 2002, would be that "Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Sunni, Shia, and Kurds" with the result that "it could fracture into two or three pieces, to the detriment of the Middle East and the benefit of Iran."
Sadly for Jeb Bush, Ms. Ziedrich is right on every point. But you don't have to take my word for it. As Liz Sly ("The hidden hand behind the Islamic State militants? Saddam Hussein's") revealed in the Washington Post on April 4:
Some of those Baathists became early recruits to the al-Qaeda affiliate established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Palestinian Jordanian fighter who is regarded as the progenitor of the current Islamic State, said Hisham al Hashemi, an Iraqi analyst who advises the Iraqi government and has relatives who served in the Iraqi military under Hussein. Other Iraqis were radicalized at Camp Bucca, the American prison in southern Iraq where thousands of ordinary citizens were detained and intermingled with jihadists.
Zarqawi kept the former Baathists at a distance, because he distrusted their secular outlook, according to Hashim, the professor.
It was under the watch of the current Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that the recruitment of former Baathist officers became a deliberate strategy, according to analysts and former officers.
As Der Spiegel explained, it was President Bush's "de-Ba'athification" and disbanding of Saddam's military that meant that "thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen."
Among those who subsequently partnered with self-proclaimed ISIS emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were Haji Bakr (a colonel in Saddam's air force intelligence service), Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (another former Iraqi officer) and "King of Clubs" Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.
The origin tale (or, at least some of it) of the Islamic State isn't recent. In November 2007, Greg Bruno of the Council on Foreign Relations penned "Profile: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia)" for the Washington Post:
In 2006 AQI was believed to have helped establish the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an umbrella organization of Sunni insurgent groups with similar aims as AQI. Experts believe ISI was formed to strengthen AQI's credentials as a domestic movement. But Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the reported new head of ISI, was soon declared fictitious by the U.S. military. Analysts say al-Baghdadi was a persona actually created by al-Masri to give foreign-led AQI activities the illusion of Iraq-born legitimacy. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said in July 2007 that al-Masri "was essentially swearing allegiance to himself since he knew that Baghdadi was fictitious and a creation of his own." Further complicating AQI's status were reports in October 2006 and again in May 2007 that al-Masri himself had been killed, claims jihadi groups have denied. Al-Masri appears to have survived.
As it turned out, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi wasn't fictitious at all; he was killed in a U.S. air strike in 2010.
That's the civil war in Syria during President Obama's tenure provided fertile ground and a geographic base for the Islamic State is clear. But all the elements for ISIS's expansion—leadership from Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters who flocked to Iraq to target U.S. forces and disgruntled Sunni "sons of Iraq" alienated by the Shiite Maliki regime in Baghdad—were in place before Dubya ambled out of the White House for the last time. President Bush admitted as much during a December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News:
BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -
RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.
BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.
Some of those same fighters are still at it, this time under the Banner of the Islamic State. And many of their leaders in military operations, logistics and economic affairs are some of the same men who survived what President Bush in August 2004 called his "catastrophic success" in Iraq:
"Had we had to do it [the invasion of Iraq] over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."
Alas, among those consequences was the creation of ISIS.
As Alex Trebek might say to Jeb Bush today, "Thank you for playing."
COULTER-BUSH IN 2016!!!
Jeb Bush declares 'ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president,' gets mugged by reality
Just one week after a 19 year-old college student rightly informed Jeb Bush that "your brother created ISIS," the 2016 GOP White House hopeful apparently decided one historical beat down wasn't enough. At a gathering in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on Wednesday, Dubya's brother doubled down and declared:
"ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was President."
As Jeopardy's Alex Trebek would say, "Oh, no. I'm so sorry."
Head below the fold for all the reasons why.
As I documented Sunday in exhaustive detail, the development of the Islamic State was well underway while George W. Bush was still warming the seat in the Oval Office. Evaluating the claim of Nevada student Ivy Ziedrich regarding the paternity for ISIS, I explained:
For her to be right, ISIS--the dangerous movement combining Saddam loyalists, former Al Qaeda members and disgruntled Sunni fighters--would have to have emerged as a direct result of the war Bush launched in 2003. The disbanding of Saddam's 400,000-man army would have to be laid at the feet of "The Decider." Foreign fighters must have flocked to Al Qaeda--a non-factor in Iraq before the U.S. invasion--specifically to target American troops. And while those unlikely allies forged ties in U.S and Iraqi prisons, Sunni tribesmen once paid by American forces would have to have become alienated by a sectarian Shiite strongman in Baghdad beholden to Iran. The inevitable outcome of such U.S. mismanagement of post-Saddam Iraq, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld privately warned his boss on October 15, 2002, would be that "Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Sunni, Shia, and Kurds" with the result that "it could fracture into two or three pieces, to the detriment of the Middle East and the benefit of Iran."
Sadly for Jeb Bush, Ms. Ziedrich is right on every point. But you don't have to take my word for it. As Liz Sly ("The hidden hand behind the Islamic State militants? Saddam Hussein's") revealed in the Washington Post on April 4:
Some of those Baathists became early recruits to the al-Qaeda affiliate established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Palestinian Jordanian fighter who is regarded as the progenitor of the current Islamic State, said Hisham al Hashemi, an Iraqi analyst who advises the Iraqi government and has relatives who served in the Iraqi military under Hussein. Other Iraqis were radicalized at Camp Bucca, the American prison in southern Iraq where thousands of ordinary citizens were detained and intermingled with jihadists.
Zarqawi kept the former Baathists at a distance, because he distrusted their secular outlook, according to Hashim, the professor.
It was under the watch of the current Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that the recruitment of former Baathist officers became a deliberate strategy, according to analysts and former officers.
As Der Spiegel explained, it was President Bush's "de-Ba'athification" and disbanding of Saddam's military that meant that "thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen."
Among those who subsequently partnered with self-proclaimed ISIS emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were Haji Bakr (a colonel in Saddam's air force intelligence service), Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (another former Iraqi officer) and "King of Clubs" Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.
The origin tale (or, at least some of it) of the Islamic State isn't recent. In November 2007, Greg Bruno of the Council on Foreign Relations penned "Profile: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia)" for the Washington Post:
In 2006 AQI was believed to have helped establish the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an umbrella organization of Sunni insurgent groups with similar aims as AQI. Experts believe ISI was formed to strengthen AQI's credentials as a domestic movement. But Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the reported new head of ISI, was soon declared fictitious by the U.S. military. Analysts say al-Baghdadi was a persona actually created by al-Masri to give foreign-led AQI activities the illusion of Iraq-born legitimacy. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said in July 2007 that al-Masri "was essentially swearing allegiance to himself since he knew that Baghdadi was fictitious and a creation of his own." Further complicating AQI's status were reports in October 2006 and again in May 2007 that al-Masri himself had been killed, claims jihadi groups have denied. Al-Masri appears to have survived.
As it turned out, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi wasn't fictitious at all; he was killed in a U.S. air strike in 2010.
That's the civil war in Syria during President Obama's tenure provided fertile ground and a geographic base for the Islamic State is clear. But all the elements for ISIS's expansion—leadership from Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters who flocked to Iraq to target U.S. forces and disgruntled Sunni "sons of Iraq" alienated by the Shiite Maliki regime in Baghdad—were in place before Dubya ambled out of the White House for the last time. President Bush admitted as much during a December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News:
BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -
RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.
BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.
Some of those same fighters are still at it, this time under the Banner of the Islamic State. And many of their leaders in military operations, logistics and economic affairs are some of the same men who survived what President Bush in August 2004 called his "catastrophic success" in Iraq:
"Had we had to do it [the invasion of Iraq] over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."
Alas, among those consequences was the creation of ISIS.
As Alex Trebek might say to Jeb Bush today, "Thank you for playing."
COULTER-BUSH IN 2016!!!
Wow! You actually wrote two sentences, short ones but two. The guy who hits the read button instead of debating and you say lefties have no dept of thought? Just freakin' WOW! Being insulted by a mental midget of your caliber is a trophy score.
All the above posts show is that the forum lefties are scared of ole Jeb....Just that... is a good enough reason for intelligent people to vote for him should he win the nomination.....:lol:
Jeb Bush Needs More Evidence for Climate Change Action Than He Does to Start a War
Jeb Bush had a lot to say about climate change this week, putting to rest prior speculation that he might take a more reasonable position on the issue than his Republican opponents. At a campaign event in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Bush said,
“I don’t think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted.” Though he said the “climate is changing,” Bush isn't convinced that mankind has contributed or that we have a mandate to do something about it. “For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you,” he continued. “It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t have a conversation about it, even.”
On foreign policy, however, Bush needs much less certainty.
The bar is so low, in fact, that he's said he would still have invaded Iraq, even knowing what we do today about the bad intelligence.
The White House subscribed to the hawkish war philosophy known as the One Percent Doctrine, which got its name from former Vice President Dick Cheney's post-9/11 strategy
. “If there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction—and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time—the United States must now act as if it were a certainty,” .
Cheney insisted that “our response” was more important than “our analysis.” The administration presented its severely flawed intelligence as a certainty, in order to convince the public that Iraq had nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities.
Advocates for government action on the climate often liken it to taking out insurance for a car or home. The point of investing now is to mitigate the most severe consequences of climate change. “Confronting the possibility of climate catastrophes means taking prudent steps now to reduce the future chances of the most severe consequences of climate change,” a 2014 White House report said. “The longer that action is postponed, the greater will be the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the greater is the risk.”
In another world, Cheney might have said something like:
If there’s a chance that we can forestall the worst impacts of climate change, the U.S. must do what it can. It’s about our response, not just our analysis. What if he had?
Compared to going to war, acting on climate change isn't a risky bet.
Jeb Bush Needs More Evidence for Climate Change, Less for Iraq War | The New Republic
Jeb Bush had a lot to say about climate change this week, putting to rest prior speculation that he might take a more reasonable position on the issue than his Republican opponents. At a campaign event in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Bush said,
“I don’t think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted.” Though he said the “climate is changing,” Bush isn't convinced that mankind has contributed or that we have a mandate to do something about it. “For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you,” he continued. “It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t have a conversation about it, even.”
On foreign policy, however, Bush needs much less certainty.
The bar is so low, in fact, that he's said he would still have invaded Iraq, even knowing what we do today about the bad intelligence.
The White House subscribed to the hawkish war philosophy known as the One Percent Doctrine, which got its name from former Vice President Dick Cheney's post-9/11 strategy
. “If there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction—and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time—the United States must now act as if it were a certainty,” .
Cheney insisted that “our response” was more important than “our analysis.” The administration presented its severely flawed intelligence as a certainty, in order to convince the public that Iraq had nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities.
Advocates for government action on the climate often liken it to taking out insurance for a car or home. The point of investing now is to mitigate the most severe consequences of climate change. “Confronting the possibility of climate catastrophes means taking prudent steps now to reduce the future chances of the most severe consequences of climate change,” a 2014 White House report said. “The longer that action is postponed, the greater will be the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the greater is the risk.”
In another world, Cheney might have said something like:
If there’s a chance that we can forestall the worst impacts of climate change, the U.S. must do what it can. It’s about our response, not just our analysis. What if he had?
Compared to going to war, acting on climate change isn't a risky bet.
Jeb Bush Needs More Evidence for Climate Change, Less for Iraq War | The New Republic
That 'plains why since righties are so scared of Hillary that even more intelligent folks should vote for her.
I was gonna reply that I didn't think there were enough stupid Americans to vote Hillary for President.......but then I remembered that they voted Obama in.........twice.......Oh Well!!!!!!That 'plains why since righties are so scared of Hillary that even more intelligent folks should vote for her.