idrankwhat

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by idrankwhat

  1. idrankwhat
    First thing I heard this morning was that Gonzales was three months late in delivering his homework. That may be cause for a diversionary spin.
  2. idrankwhat
    LOL The good old days! Now they've done it. That's it, I'm sick of the way the Brits handled this. I mean they used quiet diplomacy to get those prisoners released when they should have attacked Iran and killed a few thousand innocent people, while insuring the death of their comrades and starting WWIII. I'm with the talk radio folks on this one. The Brits are nothing but a bunch of appeasers who want to embolden the enemy and undermine the Bush's policy of not talking to his adversaries. Damn it. I swear, I'm writing my Congressman over this one. No more "English Muffins" in this patriot's cabinet. From now on, it's "Liberty Loaves" for me!
  3. idrankwhat
    I think that going after the Taliban in afghanistan was not a very stupid move since the U.S had the support of most of the world, even if none of the terrorists responsible were afghans. Anyway, I would have investigated more thoroughly the Saudi connections, even if it meant to discover something ugly about your oil buddies. I wouldn´t have spent all the "political capital" in something thas was not related to the 9/11 incident like the war with Iraq. I think that if you really had to piss people off it would have been much more productive to invest in intelligence to catch/kill terrorists than began a full scale war where a lot of civilians would get killed or maimed and their families would most likely join the terrorists ranks. You clearly have no possible future in American politics. Too bad.
  4. idrankwhat
    Yea, Iceland. Damn terrists. Using all of that geothermal energy instead of oil. Why, that's un-American and must be socialist 'cause it sure aint capitalist. Let's attack those heathens before they bring their dangerous alternative energy ideologies here. Where should we take 'em on, Venezuela?!??!
  5. idrankwhat
    Go after them in Afghanistan, and pursued them aggressively as opposed to squandering the vast majority of our military, economic, and foreign good will resources in an unrelated nation building exercise.
  6. idrankwhat
    The US has: more enemies fewer allies weakened military economic strain and probably the most important of all, a patient and adaptable adversary. For example, even without all of the money/programs that we've recently thrown at homeland protection, how many years was it between attacks on the WTC? Seven?
  7. idrankwhat
    Like I've always said, the Bushies don't do much that hasn't been done in the past. They just take it to much higher level. Bubba commandeers the back nine, Bush shuts down a 30nm region of airspace. Clinton launches a missile, Bush invades the entire region. Clinton screws a girl, Bush screws the country. P.S. Nice playing of the troop card in that one I'm working on an "Oh, but da children...." version for the next volley.
  8. idrankwhat
    Oh my God! Politicians profiting as a result of their political influence. Say it isn't so! When did THIS happen?!?!?!?
  9. idrankwhat
    Yea, he screwed our DZ over a few months back by visiting the Dems at a conference. They shut down all the airspace in the area for half of a Saturday. I'm telling you, this man's bad for the country if you have to shut everything down any time he's around. He's like a Roveing cancer
  10. idrankwhat
    Sorry man, Iraq is 100% Bush (43) baby. The assumptions of the late 90's were based on lack of access to Iraq. Bush had "unfettered" access, didn't like what they weren't finding, swept the truth under the rug, made up a scary story and then launched their new product line in Sept of 2002, because "everyone knows you never launch a new product in August".
  11. idrankwhat
    More expensive too.
  12. idrankwhat
    Yea, but he's a real asshole.
  13. idrankwhat
    Anyone else find it ironic that the head of "Focus on the Family" openly supports a man who divorced his wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery and who said "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." Nice guy. And Dobson should rename Focus on the Family to Focus on THE family.
  14. idrankwhat
    You're probably right. I guess I was just holding on to the glimmer of hope that our unpopular administration, which has a long history of making many bad decisions, might err on the side of caution....instead of just erring
  15. idrankwhat
    I guess that depends on whether or not they knew that the intel had been cherry picked and laundered through the OSP. If they knew, they lied. If they didn't, then they just repeated a lie.
  16. idrankwhat
    Iran is a state controlled by radical Islamic fundamentalists ... I think that might be a bit of an over statement. Iran isn't Afghanistan. Is it headed by a verbose leader with a flare for firey dramatic speech yet can be pelted with eggs by his critics without killing anyone? Yes. Headed by a religious leadership that has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons? Yes. Is the angry orator in jeopardy of losing his job in the next election as evidenced by the result of the recent elections? Yes. Will it increase stability in the middle east or increase western security if Israel and/or the US launch a military strike on Iran or will it have the opposite effect?
  17. idrankwhat
    An interesting read. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501459.stm
  18. idrankwhat
    I would, but I'm too busy reading about the Office of Strategic Influence, the Office of Global Communications, the Counter-information team, fake news releases about Medicare and No Child Left Behind, and listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly on the radio, Tony Snow, Bush, Gonzales, Cheney, Novak and Kristol on the TV, reading the Washington Times...............
  19. idrankwhat
    I've been reading the thread but I wasn't sure how to reply. I guess my take is that the title of the thread should be "how far will they push back". Clearly we've been doing the pushing, and they're responding. And I don't know about any of you folks but I thought that this sort of confrontation was precisely what was expected. I mean, how many of you were surprised when you heard about it?
  20. idrankwhat
    I'll agree with that. Hopefully they have learned their lesson along with the media. But I want to go on the record stating that I think that it should be illegal to deliberately misinform Congress in order to start a war.
  21. idrankwhat
    But what if that bad intel was the result of all of information from our intelligence communities being culled through the VP's Office of Special Plans in order to suppress intelligence that contradicted the pro-war argument?
  22. idrankwhat
    This reminds me of a Bond movie, "The world is not enough" I think.
  23. idrankwhat
    Not true. Our economic policies could continue to put more power into the hands of countries like China, which could then crush the dollar. But that would only happen if we pissed off everyone else in the world by waging wars of aggression and imperialism, isolated ourselves behind fences, reneged on our treaties, violated human rights and tried to force our double standard wielding econopolitical system on the rest of the world. Fortunately, we have a system of checks and balances which would keep that from hap.........oh.........nevermind.
  24. idrankwhat
    Good luck with that. Don't forget, they've got God(R) on their side.
  25. idrankwhat
    Anyone over the age of 35 can be president. How's THAT for a flaw? Correction, anyone over the age of 35 who can raise at least a quarter of a billion dollars might have a chance to be president if they agree to put (D) or (R) after their name. All others need not apply.