dorbie

Alas, my attempts at humor fall so short sometimes. I got the joke.

I wasn't. I was arguing that banning guns does not reduce crime. That's silly, if almost nobody has a gun and you ban guns you're inevitably going to have almost no effect. Since you're talking about all sorts of crime how could anyone expect any evidence correlation. The machanics matter. I think you've mistaken me for another poster. I personally think that with so many weapons in the US banning guns inevitably leaves the arms in the hands of the criminal. You're faced with a dilema, but equally importantly there is a cultural tradition of self reliance and 'revolutionary' spirit tied to the constitutional right to bear arms. Americans wouldn't stand for a lot of stuff taken for granted in the U.K. and rightly so, but the same is true in reverse. There are some very real cultural differences that aren't apparent to the casual observer.

No, just the first of lots that I was able to find. Want some more? "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html Is there some reason you doubt the credibility of the Washington Post? Or do you have some different excuse for it? More misrepresentation. The Cheney claim was of loose ties to al Quaeda the article even states that, this for my money has not been settled either way even to this day but there's evidence loose ties existed. The phrase used a lot is collaboration and collaboration on the attack but that's a deliberate reformulation to a claim that was never made, longstanding high level contact did exist and isn't even challenged. It's openly conceded by the comission. As for ties and support for international terrorism, as Kerry agreed existed (even according to the article you mention), that has been established conclusively. Doubtless you disagree, but international terrorists were given safe harbor there while Saddam offered open incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers and more recently nurtured Ansar al-Islam. Interesting that the Prague meeting is in there and Cheney is quoted as saying it couldn't be proved or disproved after stating it happened, wow that's pretty damning stuff, ALL of that happened before the invasion of Iraq. At best an objective reading of the actual information and not opinion shows an agnostic attitude towards the information, and you claim they were beating the drum all along saying it was definite. Yep the comission thinks it didn't happen, BFD, can't be proven or not proven is still a good description. They can't prove it didn't happen they merely formed an opinion based on conflicting FBI evidence. It's also interesting that they single out Cheney the most hawkish cabinet member, others were even more reticent that him and he was pretty reticent about the meeting. It seems though that you never read the second page of the article because that seems to confirm a lot of what the administration has said. Beyond this the article attempts to discredit obvious statements of links between Zarqawi and al Qaida merely because they are loose networks, but that's what all terrorist networks are, in fact more recently Zarqawi has been confirmed as an al Qaida deputy, given that the text claims dwindling links and strong links in the past (another contradiction) the proclamation as deputy seems to devastate the thesis. The last two paragraphs of the article while showing glaring flaws with hindsight even contradict the first half demonstrating the nurturing and networking of terrorist organizations. The whole tenor of this article, and your posts is to overstate the administrations claims about Saddam & 9/11 when a claim linking Iraq to the attacks has never been made (your original post and assertion was clearly false), and then use the lack of evidence that a strong direct connection existed as proof that the administration was lying all along. You set up your own straw man, beat it all you want it proves nothing.

Why not, it's amusing. You can't beat the comic irony of a left wing atheist quoting scripture at someone they think is a Christian to try to make a point.

No you're the kidder, you have to take hearsay of a bitter General who's stabbing Bush in the back as he seeks the democratic candidacy. That's you're strongest evidence. You do know that Clarke was removed from command for reasons of integrity according to his superiors. I trust him about as much as I trust Moore. His statements also contradict the denials I heard w.r.t. the Prague meeting. If the claim were true Prague would have been seized upon to bolster this effort to pin it on Saddam. Where's the public pronouncement? A private call to a general is not what you asserted, nor is it even consistent with other information we have.

This letter to congress does not claim that Iraq even helped pull off 9/11. It says Iraq poses a threat, and and seeks the enforcement of UN resolutions. It separately and aditionally seeks the right to pursue international terrorists and (but not exclusively) all those involved in 9/11. This is a classic example of the kind of colored interpretation of the facts that I'm talking about.

It is true. There's absolutely nothing there. No statement of any sort, only the claim that there's a hint, and a claim of pressure to make a connection. That this si the best you can do and it's so flimsy shows you're making this stuff up. Rumsfeld ordering a contingency plan is not a public statement claiming a link of any sort it's a politically motivated leak. I on the other hand specifically remember explicit statements saying there was no link even in the face of the Prague meeting before the invasion.

That's just not true, they said repeatedly that there was no connection all along. Do you really think I have no recollection of these events? I was here watching and unlike you I was paying attention. Geeze dude I wonder if you make this up or if you actually believe it. Your reality distortion field colors everything. Not only do you judge Bush on his actions but you judge him based on a false version of those actions. You make false accusations here and stand by them and you'll libel anyone to support other flights of fancy including the interceptor pilots.

Between 9-11-02 until the invasion, Shrub repaetedly told us how SH was partially to balme for 9-11-01. I guess we live in parallel universes because I specifically remember statements directly contradicting your claim and explicitly stating there was no claim of a connection. We even had official statements that discounted evidence from a foreign intelligence source of a meeting between Atta and Iraqi security (in Prague I think). So even in the face of evidence we had clear official denials of any link, something I thought rather strange at the time but I guess they didn't see the Prague claim as credible. If you're going the take fantasy as fact we have no basis for any kind of discussion.

The circumstances of 9/11 don't even begin to stress the capabliities of SOP of our air defense systems. Here try checking out some facts: "The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types. * Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times. * Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases. * Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds. * Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them. Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters." http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/ I know that at least some of these "facts" are directly contradicted by statements I have heard directly from the pilots in interviews calling into question the credibility of others. Not to lend credence to this nonsense by engaging it but the golfer's plane flew at altitude with a working transponder until it ran out of fuel.

It was made clear by the administration that Iraq was not directly about 9/11. I really don't know what more they can do than explicitly state that they have nothing to link Iraq to 9/11 before the conflict. You can keep making the accusation and ignore the well documented facts but that won't make it true. When asking a question it helps to be objective and open minded. If you ask a question and ignore all answers and evidence other than what you want to hear then you're going to think there are a lot of questions unanswered in life, especially with your world view. P.S. w.r.t. investigating what happened there are two classes of actions that are of primary interest to us, the enemy actions and ours. We pretty much have the former down and it's actually easy for the administration to know what the latter is. You're talking about a witch hunt pursued to your satisfaction. You say Bush is not willing to investigate but that's not the case, it's you who wants to investigate Bush.

Even the article suggests that it's a few formerly retarded economies that have improved rather than ours getting more restrictive. I do think there are issues with our economic freedom, but historically it has a lot to do with the "War on Drugs" that's been promoted for years. I see taxes is on their list of criteria (and I'll bet you dollars for donuts that less tax = more freedom in their formula), are you therefore arguing for less taxation? It does raise the question of which leaders would actually move us up or down that list.

Again, you are taking me out of context. I absolutely am not taking you out of context, this is the discussion we had when I first called your question deranged. There's a direct quote from you that questions why we went to war citing the 60% spike in deaths involved per day. It's 100% in context and gets directly to the core of the kind of irrationality you're espousing. You asked several questions but that was one of them and I'm entitled to cite it. Here's the full quote: Me raising the issue of Afghanistan as the immediate conflict resulting directly from 9/11 is entirely reasonable, you're the one taking an entire war out of context not me taking your question out of context. There are so many tricks in your question that it's unbelievable you'd complain about a mere quote. From downplaying the effect of an attack, ignoring that it was a spearhead of a terrorist campaign, citing revenge not national security as a motivation, conveniently skipping an entire regional conflict and implying that the answer isn't obvious and self evident. In the process you also misrepresent what the administration actually said, they explicitly said there was no Iraqi connection to 9/11, the opposite of what you claim. It's been explained a thousand times for both conflicts, that you don't like the answer doesn't mean the question should be repeated ad nauseam. Finally you use your outlandish distortion to raise some pet peeve w.r.t. SOP an NORAD as if you've made a point about the lack of justification when you haven't.

After a quick google: http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4055639/detail.html I think the victim in this video is standing on the seabed where the tide receded prior to the wave returning.

I didn't forget about it. I wonder why it isn't the focus actually. What did Iraq have to do with anything? It is Shrub who would like us to forget about Afghanistan. Staying focused on Afghanistan then, you're the one who's saying you don't understand why we went to war after 9/11 when the effect "objectively" (your words) was a 60% spike in US daily deaths. When you promulgate silly questions like that you lose credibility. Being evasive when pressed on such an deranged question doesn't buy you that back. Your world view is founded on this kind of nonsense. Saying this sort of question needs to be answered by the President and taken seriously by anyone else is just ludicrous for the reasons I've stated.

I just saw a new video of the Tsunami hitting another beach in Thailand and it gave a different perspective on things. It reminded me of a flash flood, but hitting a massive portion of one beach. There was a wave front viewed from an hotel balcoy and at first it looked like the waves you've seen in other videos, then it zoomed in on the beach and there's this guy in a swimsuit standing there and he's TINY and it hits you how big the approaching wave is. The front on this thing was just a wall of froth and the guy just stands there looking at the wave, he either knows he's toast or he's in shock then it just engulfs him in an instant and the water just keeps coming like a river and getting deeper, and when I say like a river it's like class 4 rapids, it's roiling. The video ends with a shot of the water almost as if it's reached equilibrium or is maybe starting to flow back and there are massive eddies in it, and they're moving with the power of rip tides in all directions. The power and scale seems unimaginable it just looks deadly even when the wave front has passed, I've never seen water look like that on that scale. Just chilling.

This is where we inherently disagree. If Bush was an incompetent failure on that day, that is forgiveable, but it appears to more closely resemble a cover-up, which is far more serious in my mind. And using September 11 as a motivation to invade Iraq is misleading the public, at best. Are you forgetting Afghanistan and the deposing of the Taliban or just skipping straight to Iraq because it disguises your question as credible? The truth often seems like a coverup to the conspiracy buffs. If you want some light reading try Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

It is the responsibility of the fourth estate to ask such questions. If asking about oral sex is not damging to the press's credibility, certainly serious, pertinent questions regarding failures in our national security. I am not a statist, I am not willing to give up transparency in government. Once again you ignore the question you actually asked, this is not about oral sex or other pet peeves or about transparent government. The answer to the actual question is self evident. There's no lack of accountability in not asking why we were so keen to go to war over 9/11. I suspect if we hadn't any sitting president would have been impeached and rightly so. The American people demanded this and infact that was reflected in congress. You don't want to ask serious questions, that's the point. You want to ask outlandish fringe quastions that play to your politically motivated conspiracy theories and your multiple choice statements about Bush's culpability betray that.

leeching incentive is a huge cost, government interference and federal mismanagement would be a huge cost. Beyond this even if it were the same cost, which is nonsense, it would be blatantly unfair. Some families would no longer be able to pay for their own kids education due to the increased tax burden to pay for other kids. Aside from being a huge injustice this has a detremental effect on the economy because of the reduced incentive and increased taxation.

I fail to see how to ask why we did not implement plans already in place to deal with just such a situation, is derranged. Your conspiracy theories aside that wasn't the question we were discussing or that I quoted, here once again is your question we were discussing: Like I said it's a derranged question, your other questions are conspiracy nonsense that few people see as credible, you might as well ask why we don't spand billions landing probes on the Mars "face" & "pyramids". In politics credibility matters and so it should, when you squander it nobody listens.

The intent is exactly that, it's called incentive by allowing people to keep their earnings instead of taking it away and giving it to someone else's kid for their education. Many people want to go to college, who decides who gets to go when the government takes the money from everyone and gives it to the student. Should I pay for my neighbours kid's education while the government says my child doesn't qualify to go? I mean after paying for their kid in addition to the existing tax burden I probably won't be able to pay private tuition. You talk as if money paid to you doesn't come from someone else and possibly their kid's education, it does, even once your system is up and running. You're only talking about boot strapping the dependency so everyone thinks they owe the government for their education when they don't have to owe anyone now and they'd be paying for it now anyway. Why would I bother with a career at all if I can't reap a benefit like educating my kids. Where's the incentive to be productive in your society. I'm not saying there is none but you've erroded it, enough of those errosions and you're in trouble. And having the government pay for everyone's college education is going to help ballance the budget how? I've already illustrated how it removes incentive. The deficit would grow to pay for it and of course taxes would grow leaving the economy suppressed. There's probably be fewer college places ultimately because you're taking money out of the system to get this going.

That is what is so appalling. It is afair question It would be apalling if we had one. In all seriousness it's a derranged question that must mischaracterize the event in the asking. It doesn't even require asking it only needs some intelligent ponderance of the circumstances and consequences to see this. It's not someone else's responsibility to explain perfectly obvious and comprehensible actions to you. Fortunately you're in a tiny and extreme minority. Yep no party affiliation there, if only the Democrats would take an even more radical shift to the left, you'd have a party you could comfortably get to the left of, sigh.

It's a lot more than that, it was state supported mass murder of US citizens (and others) on an unprecedented scale and had a seriously negative effect on the economy. It was also merely the first attack of an intended campaign (in fact not the first but the first on US soil) as the planners themselves proclaimed. I don't think you'll find a candidate for president who would even take your question seriously never mind not have gone to war over this. If it was a Democrat in power they would have gone to war at least with Afghanistan (and Kerry claimed Iraq too and you value his integrity) yet you wouldn't be asking that question, illustrating that your perspective has nothing to do with objectivity.

That is one of many problems. The underlying one is the man himself. I realize you disagree with that, but it is my perception based on four years of observation of his policies and practices. I do not feel that way about the Republican Party in general, even though I generally disagree with Republican views. I wasn't proud to call Clinton the President of my country, but I am completely ashamed that we have bestowed that title upon Shrub. I hardly feel that I can silently let him work his mischief. That's OK you didn't bestow it, but there's an interesting paradox here. You make an accusation that Bush doesn't invoke confidence in the economy yet a post later you undermine it. At every opportunity since Bush got in office the public statements of the party and candidates you've supported have done as much as they can to undermine that economy. The jobs record really comes down to when you sample as everyone knows. We had a depression and a terrorist attack in the period immediately preceeding and following Bush taking office. This is obvious yet you expect the accusation of poor performance to stick. I don't blame Clinton entirely for the boom bust he presided over nor give Bush undue credit for the climb out of depression, but every time recent economic growth is mentioned the left delights in highlighting the negative when clearly that doesn't reflect recent performance and not just a quarter or two but a solid couple of years of encouraging results that are consistently ignored. The economy is climbing but it's climbing from a low point, just like employment figures.

There you go again undermining the confidence you're complaining Bush isn't supplying. If a lack of confidence is a problem as you claim then why contribute to the problem?