Comments on: Radicals In Power

By: walter

walter — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:58:09 +0000

first off, it wasn't just democrats, it was also libertarians.

the invasion of Iraq wasn't a bad idea….it was just flat out illegal. If the invasion was illegal, then so was the occupation.

Where you and your fellow republicans are not bothered by having war criminals like Bush/Cheney/Boehner running the country, some of us are

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:58:44 +0000

Leaving Iraq in chaos and anarchy AFTER deposing Saddam is what would have been cowardice. It's also what the Democrats tried to do for years.

By: walter

walter — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:34:07 +0000

I could see somebody being for the war and when the facts came out and those facts turned out to be nothing more than fabrications withdrawing that support. But to support a war AFTER thinking it was a bad idea in the first place and AFTER learning all the facts had been fabricated? Now that sounds like cowerdice

By: walter

walter — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:36:31 +0000

King, you sound kind of desparate….you were against the war before you were for the war …is that about right

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:47:11 +0000

walter, the problem is that you CAN'T read. How could I be against the Iraq War but for the invasion ? That doesn't even make sense. I think I'm done with you. You're just too absurd.

By: walter

walter — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:39:36 +0000

speaking of radical leftist neocons……..here's Philip Giraldi at a true libertarian site antiwar.com

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/09/02/the-best-congress-aipac-can-buy/

By: walter

walter — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:41:05 +0000

King sez….."Van Jones resigned." Hey, it worked for Palin.

By: walter

walter — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:34:13 +0000

King sez….."Oh, Rev. If Bush lied about wmd, so did everybody else…" That's why the U.N. weapons inspectors were there, to verify those claims. Iraq was ALLOWING the U.N. weapons inspectors access to those suspected sites.

That's a fact

By: walter

walter — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:30:01 +0000

King, where did you ever say you were against the invasion. You said…."The democratization of Iraq was also a stated reason for the war, stated by Bush himself. I thought it was a huge mistake…." Nothing in that statement says you were AGAINST the invasion. I can only read what you write.

I never said anything about any comments you made about Ross. I quoted a section of Ross's bio showing Ross being a radical leftist neocon.

about Bush's "famous" Cincinnati speech……..it was about the AUMF. the AUMF was sold as a way to force Saddam into compliance on the issue of wmds.

only a republican apologist would suggest the reason for the AUMF was for the democratization of Iraq

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:50:19 +0000

Van Jones resigned. One less radical in the White House. Hurrah !

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:48:27 +0000

Oh, Rev. If Bush lied about wmd, so did everybody else – the CIA, the previous administration, GOP, Democrats, foreign intelligence agencies. Saddam's own generals thought he had them. Give it up already.

And in case you haven't noticed. Iraq is a democracy.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:49:39 +0000

I think our fearless "comrade" leader and the ruling Politburo will pass any legislation that only our communist government can control. Workers of the world unite! Our glorious Revolution has just begun!

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:02:58 +0000

Yes, Bush said those things. Along with the other things he, and his minions, said about an Iraqi threat, WMD and all the rest of it. All of it was bullsh*t.

Take this specific piece of your last quotation from the Bush speech….

" If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors…"

When this speech was given, the Downing Street Memo had already been written. The deceptive "If military action is necessary", was misleading. The decision had already been made and the intelligence was being cherry-picked by Cheney to fit the invasion….there was no "if".

Can't believe anything Bush said……but what is common knowledge to all non-neo-con nuts is that Congress and the American people were sold on invading Iraq through the repetitive fraud lines of ominous danger about a country that didn't have the ability to tie their own shoes.

The war of choice was sold not on the basis of democratizing the region, it was sold on the false premise that Iraq and Saddam posed a threat to the U.S. That was the lie. No revisionist history about oh-such-deep-concern about "freeing the oppressed" is going to change that lie.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:57:53 +0000

Roy,
The PowerShift '09 conference ? Who is the power shifting to ? You have a link to that Lisa Jackson speech ?

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:46:56 +0000

walter says, "and yet you still supported the [Iraq] invasion….what kind of conviction is that?"

Walt, I'm trying very hard not to be rude to you, but these thickheaded lies of yours aren't making it easy. I told you I was AGAINST the Iraq invasion, soooooo, how could I freaking support it ? Can you read ?

Being against the Iraq invasion doesn't mean I wanted the USA to lose the war after we went in and deposed Saddam, however. That is an entirely different matter. Had we lost, it would have been a disaster.

Thickheaded comment #2 – "then backed up my claim about Ross being a radical leftist neocon by citing his bio. then along came King doing what he does best…….being a republican apologist"

I didn't say a single word about Ross, and I certainly didn't apologize for anything. I just responded to your comment that you didn't know a goal of the Iraq War was to democratize the area. So, you're 100% off the mark again.

But at least you spelled my name right. I'll give you a point for that.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:33:56 +0000

Rev,
You're telling tall tales again. You accused larry of fabricating when he said "This [democratization of the area] was a clear goal from the start, walt. Bush talked about it in his most famous speech." larry is not fabricating, Rev. You are. Here's part of Bush's pre-war Iraq speech:

"The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin…America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq…When [our] demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin. Iraq is a land rich in culture and resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors…The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something…Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day."

Tsk, tsk, Rev. Democratization of Iraq, Afghanistnan, and surrounding countries has always been the goal. As I said before, Saddam's wmd misdirection and his numerous atrocities were the excuse.

Then again, maybe Keith Olbermann's transcript of that Bush speech says something different.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:21:11 +0000

alchemist,
That link didn't refute anything. It mostly just spun what Beck has actually said. Every accusation Beck has made against Van Jones came from Van Jones' own mouth or deed. There's nothing to refute, unless by "refute," you mean Van Jones apologizing for what he said and did. Jones has already apologized twice in the last week.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:51:06 +0000

roybot….King brought up Bush. I wondered why King didn't list radical leftist neocon Mideast Policy Czar and Iran envoy Dennis Ross as a radical. I then backed up my claim about Ross being a radical leftist neocon by citing his bio.

then along came King doing what he does best…….being a republican apologist

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:29:03 +0000

I thought that King wrote an article about radicals in government and how they think and speak and all of a sudden I find that walter and the good Rev Red have switched it to something about Bush, Iraq and all the problems entailed therein. If that is not left leaning radical, change the subject to something we can handle I sure don't know what it is.

This morning those fools who continue to expose the leading radical in the group, Van Jones, made a speech in which he said that you never see a Columbine type incident about blacks. No, a black kid may go to school and shoot another black but never do they try to shoot the whole school. There are those who really think that this is not racist because it is "true". I think it is a wonderful example of racist talk.

I also think that as I look for more Jones racism I continue to find this administration full of pure racists who were appointed by Obama after making purely racist speeches. Yesterday I found the speech by Lisa Jackson, the boss of EPA, at the PowerShift '09 conference. Here whole speech is rife with racism. Then I punched around on some of the other YouTube programs on the same page and found Nasty Nancy bragging about the youth involved in that conference. Also, others talking about youth movements like that one. I think that everyone should look into that conference to see if there was a whole lot of difference in it and other socialist gatherings in history.

Whoops, I forgot, what I learned as history in the 50s and 60s has been completely changed in schools all over the nation as more and more socialist revisionism has become the standard in textbooks and in teachers' minds. The minds of our young have been invaded by Jones types for too long and we have lost at least one generation of kids who are now in their young adult days and passing on their crap.

Fox will repeat their show about what is in textbooks tonight at 9:00 EST in case anybody missed it last night. Surprise, surprise, surprise. One after another on that show.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:42:50 +0000

Apparently the fabrication fooled only lefties like you and Reverend, walt, as you fellows constantly repeat how wmds were the reason for the invasion. I suppose that puts you in the fool category.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:13:10 +0000

King sez….."The democratization of Iraq was also a stated reason for the war, stated by Bush himself. I thought it was a huge mistake,……."

and yet you still supported the invasion….what kind of conviction is that?

King then sez….."The wmd's and other reasons for the Iraq war were just the excuse." They were a fabrication to fool the…….fools. Neocons would call it the "good" or "noble" lie.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:13:18 +0000

Go back and read Bush's big speech, Reverend. It's all in there. You fellows have been repeating lies about Iraq and Bush for so long that you've forgotten they're lies.

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:06:08 +0000

alchemist, I will only tell you that I first read that "white wash job" for Van Jones at Huffington Post. They are about as left leaning as is alternet so one would expect to read those lines in either of those blogs.

Let me suggest that Jones' speech at the Power Shift '09 should blow this whole thing all to hell. He made that speech sometime in early March and I guess if you want to hear it in its entirety I can point you at it. Beck is not involved in this one in any way. You can hear Jones whole speech right here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlOv8RCkcXE Pay particular attention at the 10 minute mark and about the 16 minute mark. Very interesting, very racist speaking there, I can promise you.

Do you really know what Powershift '09 was. Do your own googling and listen to the speech that EPA Director, Lisa Jackson made. I think on the same page of the YouTube stuff you can hear Nasty Nancy Pelosi talking about one minute to the conference and a very informative YouTube about what is Powershift '09. I really think you need to bring yourself up to speed on these things and these words.

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:07:17 +0000

King, I just heard a Democrat strategist say that Van Jones will likely be standing in the unemployment line by Tuesday of next week.

If Jones is still employed by then I think the Republicans will rip at Obama more than it could ever be worth. Beck has done a great job on Jones and I think mostly because his group, ColorofChange pulled off their attempt to boycott Beck.

Anywat when Beck said that somebody is in real trouble with that vetting job of Jones he spoke more truth than Rev can handle. The speech at the Power Shift '09 conference should have been enough to disqualify him since it was made in March, 2009. That is one of the most hate filled, racist speeches I have ever heard a public figure deliver.

Obama was ill served by whoever vetted that man. It should have been the Secret Service for him to get into the White House, but also the FBI should have been involved. As Beck says, Obama is in trouble because of that shoddy work or because he didn't allow vetting and just took Joness in. I think that the appointments of Holdren, Sunstein and some others prove that very little vetting took place. Just having some of those people in the White House as close confidants of the President tells me too much about what is going on there.

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:57:58 +0000

Fred, you need to take advantage of your seeming opportunity to find out if the Communist Party is really dead. I will make it so easy that only ignorance or just plain old refusal to check it out is running your life. http://www.cpusa.org They may be dead but you need to tell them about it because they don't seem to know it, yet. Yep, they are still there and you might be amazed, or gladdened at the front page. Lots of hate America on that page.