gerryhatrick

Oh I have it Gerry, you seem to be about a year behind though. See, Bush actually began planning this war a year and a half before this meeting took place so, this is only part of the process. You keep repeating the same nitwittery, and I keep telling you the same simple logical fact. This is different. It's different medium - firsthand. And it's different content - seeking to provoke a conflict through dishonest means. This is not planning. Planning takes place all the time. They got plans for the invasion of all kinds of places. This was sneaky, dishonest, coniving to start an invasion through a lie. And then he walked out of the office and lied some more, saying he didn't want to start an invasion. That it would be a "last resort". Last resort? HA! He was thinking about how he could make it happen!! Quit repeating the same nitwittery for petesake. It's foolish.

Not saying anything about how he talks. It's the content. This is too funny. This is why I don't bother debating folks like yourself on global warming anymore. You're like a person who has some unseasonably cold weather and jokes with everyone about where the heck is that global warming. You went out and got a little bit of information that's useful to you and from that pretend there's still "debate" about global warming, and yet you're so ignorant you don't even know even the basic facts about global warming. Like how it's expected to affect the gulf streams, which would trigger another ice age. It simultaneous certitude and ignorance ya'll have on the subject is stunning. And a little depressing. I think many folks willfully take the position you and KK do because they're more concerned with their personal comforts (which they think will be affected by government action on greenhouse gasses) than they are with the health of the world. It's a selfishness that permeates the Conservative right.

Poor Ezra. How he suffers.

ecause you said to So, I was mesrely trying to show you that I was in fact well withit. So much with it in fact that you cannot keep up and are recduced to name calling and actually ignoring points like the entire point of the last post which I will post for you again so you don't fall further behind than the two or three days you already are now. Oh goody, now we get to spend more time watching Krusty play lawyer with what he's said previously! Can I play? That's a tangent. It's irrelavent to the point of the topic...the point I'm making. It's not worth discussing. And you continue to do it with this latest: So? Listen closely KK, it doesn't matter that Saddam wasn't supposed to fire at stuff. It doesn't matter what flight path the plane Bush was talking about would have taken. None of what you want to talk about matters. What matters is this: BUSH TALKED ABOUT WAYS HE COULD PROVOKE AN ATTACK TO PROVIDE AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN AN INVASION ALMOST 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION BEGAN The fact that his proposed plan was to paint US planes in UN colors to trick Saddam into firing is interesting, but don't get tripped up in the details of that. The details aren't important, it's the dishonest, coniving, stunningly irresponsible intent expressed by the POTUS. Get it yet?

That's already the case, and if the US leaves the largest of those fighting factions and the impetus for some of the others to fight will be gone. You're argument is that they're somehow keeping the peace or holding back the fighting. It's ridiculous. In the end you're emotionally attached to the war. You see it as a necessary part of the "war on terror"...the same rhetoric that keeps getting repeated by Bush and his monkey show. Iraq has made the "war on terror" far more difficult to fight simply because the US military is fighting large numbers of previously peaceful people. They are tied up fighting a primarily nationalist war and the only refuge left for the political leadership is to claim that it's a war on terror. And you swallow it.

Very entertaining. I especially like the "the world hasn't ended yet" point. The absurd idiocy brings a wide smile to my face! I'd just like to repeat what the idiot-in-Chief had to say: ""Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural." Important for everyone to see that this POTUS has about as much insight as the typical rightwing blogger!

You're under the impression that you provide material worth debating. You don't. You play silly literal games and not much else. Half the time you're playing lawyer with what you've said previously...churning out pointless multi-layered responses to establish nothing except that you can split hairs.

You pointed at "several killer hurricanes" as being nothing new and that was something I was supposed to respond to? It's pointless. Irrelavent, like the rest of the rightwing psycopathic denial of the issue of global warming. You and Krusty can sling around whatever you want. I'm putting the * SCOTUS words out there, that's all.

Yes Gerry. I knew that all when you asked me the first time. Then why the hell are you heading off on tangents? That is the crux lad.

Nothing to that effect!! You don't need to worry yourself about the details. It's enough for you to understand that Bush was talking about painting US spy planes in UN colors to provoke an attack that could be used as an excuse to invade. And this was on Jan. 31 2005. Get your head wrapped around that first of all.

Ha ha! Sorry George, that debate is over. The political debate is probably how much longer can you lie about it, but I'll leave that up to you.

I would ask you what yours is also, if I cared. I think I know anyway. Bush=good. War=good. Insurgent=terrorist. ad naseum.

Actually, the primary issue of this post is global warming. Bush is a speck of dirt on a crabs a$$hole in importance compared to the health of our world. He will die soon enough, but the damage he could help prevent will live on. Global warming sharkman. Topic is about global warming. If it makes you feel better we won't mention his name. Replace all references to "Bush" with "POTUS" and start over.

Net about $1200/2 weeks.

In Iraq where US is trying to install freedom that spells enemy of freedom or, bad guy. Which of course goes back to the origional terrorist definition. So in your mind all insurgents in Iraq are terrorists. Bush uses the word "terrorist" about 20-1 over the world "insurgents" when he talks about Iraq, even though terrorist to insurgent ratio (by US estimate) is about 1 to 20. In spite of that dishonest wordplay, even Bush wouldn't condone what you're saying.

Nonsense. I don't care that he's a bad speaker, which is what you are blabbering about. I didn't have anything to say about it. This is about global warming and Bushs Katrina-like incompetance and dishonesty at suggesting it could be "natural". Unless that's what you're agreeing with you're sorely confused.

Dishonest step like painting your own aircraft? Then flying it along a route you are permitted to? Ooooooo. How evil. What "route"? You don't even know what route he was proposing to fly the plane over! You want "dishonest"? Let's pull out the mirror. You portray this as "painting your own aircraft". A seemingly innocuous endevour, surely. You leave out the part about painting it to look like it's not your own aircraft. Suddenly not so innocuous. You leave out the part about WHY the aircraft would be painted to look like it's not your own. Suddenly dishonest. If you want to lie alongside Bush go ahead. Hitching your wagon to this batch of lies only paints them on yourself!

Who cares. More importantly he's a terrible leader. He's proven himself willing to lie to start a war and now we see he's willing to lie (perhaps not technically, but close enough for any intelligent person) about global warming....something that threatens the entire world. Downplay global warming and the neccessary steps to avoid it, that's his game.

Nope. Bush speak: terrorists = anyone who attacks a US soldier. Dishonest bushit, just like the Gulf of Tonkinish coniving of his to provoke a war with Iraq.

Gerry, it's the same shit, saying the same thing from a different source. No, it's not, Krusty. First of all, it's first hand. That's an important point. That other "shit" was second hand heresay. Second and most important, it's NOT the same "shit" or "thing" or information or whatever you want to call it. Let me put it in bold so it's perfectly clear: Bush is talking about painting a US spy plane in UN colors to try and provoke an attack from Saddam thereby giving the US an excuse to start the invasion!!! Where, in your old "shit", does it talk about Bush actually wanting to take dishonest steps to induce hostilities? Thanks.

When asked what his plan was for global warming after a speech he said: "Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural." Before all you Bush defenders fall all over yourselves to throw up articles from "scientists" about global warming, don't bother. I just wanted to expose Bushs words to as many as possible.

I would bet two paychecks he'll be in Parliament after the next election. And if he's not, he's dead (in which case the bet's off).

Actually the Bush admin says terrorists would fill the vacuum in Iraq and launch attacks from there if the US left. Bush says they will use Iraq as a base to overthrow ME governments and launch attacks on the US. Sounds like they're saying the region will explode. They also say that they're not leaving until peace and security is created, which implies that if they leave it would not be created...thus continued violence. How they're going to be able to create peace and security while they remain in Iraq is....well, perhaps not planned yet! The US is the lightning rod for the violence there...and it's mostly insurgent violence rather than terrorist violence. Anybody who works with the US is targetted by insurgents. If they leave, the violence drops. Now Bush has said if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists win. What mindless rhetoric considering that the vast majority of the enemy in Iraq are not even terrorists.

They need a television ad detailing his little Jan.'05 conivings about painting a spy plane UN colors to provoke Saddam to attack and thereby give him an excuse to invade. All this almost two months before Bush launched an attack. Before Powell went before the UN. Before Bush said was was a "last resort". Anyone remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution History repeats.

Hardly. You've completely ignored the fact that this is new information. The musing by Bush about painting a spy plane blue to provoke an attack shows more than just a decision to go to invade. It shows a callous desire to create a reason to invade in the most dishonest of fashions. It's the behavior of a lying thug more than a President who deserves any respect.