gerryhatrick

More rightwing nitwittery. Nothing's changed.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002783.htm Truth to power is a beautiful thing. Poor Rummy thought he had a friendly croud. He did....mostly.

This is a surprise? They played up the idea that people were "fear mongering" over Harper....pretended that it was unfounded scare tactics. Now that he's elected they're smugly pointing out that the world hasn't ended...so all the scare tactics were lies. This is the kind of thing people were warning about, right here. Oh, but the world hasn't ended yet so we shouldn't worry...

You know what? He is a respected man. Why do you think you're not hearing an anti-Murtha drumbeat? Because it's political suicide. He is the real deal, and you make yourself look stupid making a comment like "he has gone off the deep end". You want to challange what Murtha says, do it. You want to insult him then you lose.

BTW Monty, you ignored this article: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5546 different source. Take the discussion there if you like. Remember, admitting a mistake is admirable.

delete

You are correct, and the point is quite obvious from looking at this WP example. What editorials often WILL reflect is a partisan bias, and in the case of the WP it seems to be a definite pro-Bush administration bias.

I think your statement is somewhat true, most Canadians do support our troops verbally, but thats were it ends. there have been polls done on this forum and else where where our troops don't even rate in the top ten priorites of Canadians. So while Canadians will say they support thier troops, they are not willing to support them if it means cutting other programs or projects. Some Canadians have even written there MP's in regards to the shape our military is in. But the majority have not even done this small step. because they know that the funding will have to come from somewhere. My piont is supporting your troops means more than rah rah rah, go troops, "although it is part of it" it means ensuring that they have the equipment and supplies to carry out the tasks we ask them to do, It means sending them on the right missions, it means we look after them when they are sick,tired, or in need. It means once a year we give an hour out of our time to remember the fallen, shake the hand of a vet and say thanks. It means that we fight for them as hard as the fight for us. I think if you run a poll asking Canadians if they want the troops to be funded and have all the supplies they need, Canadians would overwhelmingly say yes. The comment I made was sarcastic. It was meant to highlight the false narrative being foisted on us by the government and a complicit media that any questioning of the Afghanistan mision equates to not supporting the troops. You're opening a larger debate about funding and priorities (ie. "Do you want troops, or healthcare??") which doesn't really do justice to the current climate of accusing everyone who isn't saying "rah rah Afghanistan". My questioning of the detainee policy had me roundly accused here of not supporting the troops. What could be more supportive of the troops than wanting them to have clearly defined policy? It's become the argument of this new government....ask us questions and you're not supporting the troops. What's disgusting is using the troops as a political tool.

Yes. The media is the enemy. The media is eeeeeeevil. I searched EVERYWHERE and couldn't find even ONE story that wasn't about his jacket!!! Man, when he went to Afghanistan, ALL THEY WROTE ABOUT was his fat stomach!!!

Monty, I thought surely YOU would find this interesting. See what your "Liberal" WP is up to!

Oh that's right. Saddam didn't get the 1991 fax that said to destroy his WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation. Did he get the other ones or maybe the UN didn't provide the necessary communiques telling him what he had to do in order to be in complience with the fourteen resolutions? After all that, what was Bush supposed to say? "Get rid of your WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation?" Think that was said more than a few times so, your point is hubris. There was no need for an invasion of Iraq. Politics aside, we both know that. The "WMD" that "everyone agreed" he had were also understood to be (if anything) old chem shells that had been lying around since gulf war 1. Nobody really beleived he was an immient threat. The idea of it being a "pre-emptive" war is a lying joke. A UN resolution is not an excuse for any nation to unilateraly begin an invasion. Sorry.

Hard to forget that with Bush holding the biggest set of reigns around. He never even bothered talking, with anyone.

Stratfor Assesment Why the H do you waste our time? Yours and mine? I'm tired of answering these simple logical misses you keep making. Iran and North Korea could hurt the US or it's allies in the area. That is a simple undeniable fact. What straw man are you debating with? Whether North Korea or Iran would win or not? Who cares?

Gerry, do some mild research on Iran's militay capability. They cannot mount scale sustaining offensive operations beyond their borders. It's not bravado, it's realism. "scale sustaining offensive operations"? WTF is that supposed to mean? You miss the point anyway. I predicted the irreverent response you provided because I knew our resident rightwingers would miss the point. It doesn't matter if Korea or Iran can hurt the US or it's allies in the area (which they both could, btw. Even you won't claim something that ridiculous). The point is that the idea of a pre-emptive strike is now being touted by enemies of the USA. Iran should begin talking about striking pre-emptively if they feel threatened. It's every nations right, no?

That was about the most insensitive ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Insensitive? Like, not PC you mean? Oh yeah, almost no Canadians support their troops. Haven't you heard?

If they kill enough there won't be any left, then there'll be nobody for Stephen Harper to accuse of not supporting the troops. Yay.

Oh yeah, I loved it Monty. Danced in the streets just like all the Palis did after 9/11.

Hey, I was right. That sounds a lot like the "Let 'em try" meme I predicted. You didn't eat your crayon too did you?

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/pre...t_id=1002314409 Bush will always have his defenders. This situation is pretty funny though, an editorial written by person(s) who seemingly weren't aware of the news emerging. Or just ignored it.

Holy sh#t, are you ever out of touch. That's incredible. Besides you obviously not being familiar with the editorial writings of the WP, you're not familiar with the much talked about contradictions in the issue your editorial appeared in. Basically the Post news controdicted claims in the editorial...more than once. I'll post it for you. Anyway, in answer to the repeated comment here that Bush didn't do anything illegal, I'd like to draw your attention to this point by Greg Palast: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=490&row=0 There ya go.

Question on this for all the "Oh, the troops just don't understand" types. Your argument is that the troops don't know the "bigger picture" and so they're not able to realize the implications of leaving Iraq like the civilian leadership does. If that's the case, then why does the civilian leadership keep telling us that they bow down to the commanders on the ground? Wanting and eating cake at the same time.

http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-wor... Let me guess the smug rightwing neo-con responses: "Let 'em try!!" "It will be his last mistake" "I ate my crayon!" Anyway you slice it, the idea of "pre-emption" is one which if adopted widely would make several nations feel justified in attacking the USA. But, wait. Bush has made us all safer! Right?

If they had the constitutional authority to do so...yes! You would excuse a Liberal for leaking classified information for crass political reasons? You lie.

Name us a few people who do things because Bush has some sort of power over them other than by his office. No. If you're too out of touch to have seen the cult-like behaviour of many of his followers (crying at a rally, for example....defending him in the face of the truth, for another) then I can't help you. People are amazed he got elected for a second term. They shouldn't be, the power of the cult was strong. It was no accident, it was manipulation

Krusty, your posts are too long and pointless.