MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Thursday, April 17, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 39.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

Answers please, Mr Bush

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

How many Iraqis were on the planes which flew into the WTC and the Pentagon?

More than one
0
No votes
One
0
No votes
Zero
12
80%
Saddam Hussein
0
No votes
It doesn't matter. Somebody had to pay for it.
3
20%
 
Total votes : 15

Answers please, Mr Bush

Postby shoeless » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:53 am

Michael Moore fired his opening salvo against George Bush and his rightwing cronies with his bestseller Stupid White Men. Now the president is in his sights again. In this second extract from his new book he asks his old enemy seven awkward questions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 00,00.html
shoeless
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:42 am

Postby Ned Flanders » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:30 pm

How many Shoebaccas does it take to change a light bulb?
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13041
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Postby dalschaef » Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:09 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:How many Shoebaccas does it take to change a light bulb?


How many desperate Ned Flanders does it take to try to change the subject?
dalschaef
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:03 pm

Postby shoeless » Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:19 pm

What is Bush hiding? I am told over and over again that Americans trust Bush on national security issues. Could it be that if the truth were known, the public would lose their blind trust?
President Bush declined on Monday to commit to turning over highly classified intelligence reports to the federal panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, despite threats of a subpoena from the bipartisan panel.

Bush's remarks on Monday and subsequent comments from his press secretary suggested that the White House might refuse the commission's demand for access to the documents, setting up a possible showdown with the panel.

Last week, Kean said for the first time that he was prepared to issue a subpoena and risk a courtroom battle if the documents were not turned over within weeks.

Officials for the commission say the documents include copies of the so-called presidential daily briefing--a summary prepared each morning by the CIA for the Oval Office--that Bush received in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House refused to give the briefing reports to House and Senate investigators last year, citing executive privilege.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... nworld-fea
shoeless
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:42 am

Postby True Blue » Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:29 pm

I like this latest, from the Wash Post today:
"Experts in public opinion said it would be difficult for Bush to convince Americans that the violence was a byproduct of success."
True Blue
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:28 am

Postby kurt_w » Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:57 pm

True Blue wrote:I like this latest, from the Wash Post today:
"Experts in public opinion said it would be difficult for Bush to convince Americans that the violence was a byproduct of success."


I wish I could have seen the expression of the reporter who wrote that sentence.

On the other hand, Bush did say that he wanted them to "bring 'em on!" Now, per his request, they're bringing 'em on. So he's getting what he wanted. I guess that's one definition of success.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Postby Ned Flanders » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:06 pm

Why is it hard to understand that out-of-power Baathist crybabies are throwing fits? This isn't quantum physics people.
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13041
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Postby m_venk » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:16 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:Why is it hard to understand that out-of-power Baathist crybabies are throwing fits? This isn't quantum physics people.


You wouldn't call it an organized resistance? It's not just Baathists or former military people. Muslims seem to be flocking through the borders in this new persuit, killing what the pentagon estimates to be an average of 3-6 US soldiers per week, wounding exponentially more, many of whom later end up on that same casualty list due to extensive wounds and fatal injuries. Looks like a hornets nest to me. And judging by the quote, it seems like GWB got exactly what he asked for. MV.
m_venk
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 6:45 am

Postby naked pagan » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:19 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:Why is it hard to understand that out-of-power Baathist crybabies are throwing fits? This isn't quantum physics people.


Actually, its military science...

This was a remarkably well planned attack. Using basic off the shelf technology and precises intelligence, they just about shot a rocket up Wolfowitz ass.

This was not desparation, but the execution of pragmatic planning. Eventhough the primary targets escaped, the OPFOR, who ever they are, scored a dramatic PR victory.

Dont underestimate these people...just wait till they use those WMD their suppose to have
naked pagan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 9:44 pm

Postby kurt_w » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:27 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:Why is it hard to understand that out-of-power Baathist crybabies are throwing fits? This isn't quantum physics people.

From the breaking news section of the Wisconsin State Journal website:

    Pfc. Rachel Bosveld, 19, was killed Sunday during a mortar attack at a Baghdad police station, said her father, Marvin Bosveld. She was a member of the 527th Military Police based in Giessen, Germany. She was the fifth soldier from Wisconsin to die in Iraq. Bosveld said his family was notified of his daughter�s death about 9:30 a.m. Monday. She joined the Army after graduating from Waupun High School in June 2002. [....]

I personally would not want to be the one to tell Rachel Bosveld's parents that their daughter was killed by ... crybabies.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Postby shoeless » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:29 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:Why is it hard to understand that out-of-power Baathist crybabies are throwing fits? This isn't quantum physics people.


Bush should have gotten his story straight before he circulated his White House talking points memo to Fox News and the talk radio shows.

Iraqi and U.S. authorities in Baghdad blamed the coordinated quadruple blasts on foreign fighters intent on targeting those they accuse of collaborating with U.S. forces. One captive would-be bomber was said to carry a Syrian passport.

But in Washington, Pentagon officials said they believed loyalists of ousted President Saddam Hussein were responsible. President Bush said insurgents had become more "desperate" because of what he said was progress in Iraq.

The tactics suggested a level of organization that U.S. officials had doubted the resistance possessed. In past weeks, bombers have carried out heavy suicide bombings but in single strikes.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/breakin ... 110976.htm
shoeless
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:42 am

Postby illuminated_photographe » Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:48 pm

US soldiers are being killed on a daily basis. We're told on a daily basis that the US Military or intelligence sources say that the attacks came from this group, or that group, or another group. All of these groups are either former Saddam people or "terrorists" coming from outside Iraq.

Really? I haven't heard one name of any one of the individuals responsible for any of these attacks. I haven't heard one number of "attackers" either killed or captured in our response. Nada, nothing, zippo, zilch, zero. So, one could easily assume, especially since our beloved military and intelligence people have not been lax whatsoever on relaying their successes, that we would be hearing about how many "attackers" we're gnabbing immediately following these attacks.

Because, if we're able to immediately identify whodunnit on a daily basis, this necessarily means that we must have some sort of first hand knowledge of the who's and the dunnit's, right? It would be pretty hard to report on the exact same day (almost in real time now) that Saddam loyalists were the ones responsible for bombing X or shooting Y if we in fact don't catch or kill anyone ... wouldn't it? Or are we just digging into our local dirtbag sources for answers, and they're somehow remarkably able to know immediately following every incident exactly who was responsible?

My point - it's all a load of horse crap that the military/intelligence community is feeding us through the media. If they're taking people down every time after a soldier gets blown away, we'd be hearing about it ... "10 US soldiers killed today in a grenade attack, and US commando forces immediately captured/killed X number of BLAH BLAH people responsible". Fact is, the reports on US deaths are never followed by reports on how many we took, or took out, in response.

And that, my friends, in no uncertain terms, means one of two things:

1 - We don't know shit, we're making up the "who's responsible", and we're doing it just to make sure we look like we know what the fuck we're doing over there.

2 - We're responsible, and our lovely CIA/NSA/Black Ops people are the ones killing our own soldiers, going on Presidential orders, and doing so only to further the interests of the military industrial complex. After all, the more of our men and women that die over there, the harder the hammer has to strike, i.e. the more money we have to spend.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of $67 billion oughta cover it, don't ya think? (I'm of course deducting the $20 billion that's supposed to go to "rebuilding" Iraq.)

Flanders, please flog yourself before responding, thanks.
illuminated_photographe
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby shoeless » Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:53 am

Well, Bush has finally figured out how to avoid those uncomfortable questions about his veracity. This is a great idea. I wonder why no other president has ever thought of it.

The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.

"It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."

Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."

Campen's e-mail wording suggests the policy may extend to other inquiries about the functioning of the Executive Office of the President,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Nov6.html
shoeless
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:42 am


Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar