On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:06:19 -0600, clifto wrote:

Greg wrote:
From: clifto
We don't. Putting underwear on someone's head does not constitute torture.

Is that what they're doing in those secret CIA prison camps in Eastern
Europe? I wonder why they're doing that? And how do you explain the
prisoners that died from "underpants on their head"? Most unusual! I wish I
had your insight.

Putting underwear on prisoners' heads was listed as one of the tortures
inflicted on the Iraqis during the earliest accusations.

Look at the "tortures" poor Pfc. England is going to spend years in prison

Just the lesbo rape she so well deserves.

for inflicting; putting leashes on people, pointing at them while they're
naked.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:11:53 -0600, clifto wrote:

If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

May you get what you deserve for your vote.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:14:02 -0600, clifto wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Funny, it was Clinton and his enforcer Janet Reno who were the only ones
in America using armed troops to stifle dissent. No, wait; these people
weren't even dissenting, they just held other viewpoints and wanted to
be left alone to live in peace. It wasn't Bush who sent troops to kill
them.

Only because he wasn't given the opportunity.

Funny, it was the Ashcroft DoJ which changed the policy on
FOIA requests.

Under Reno, it was, "Absent a national security reason to
withhold, release the information.'

Under Ashcroft, it became, "Absent a court order to the
contrary, withhold the information."

****ing Bush hyper-secret cabal.

Heck,I can't even get them wimmins I email to send me their panties so I
can wear them on top of my head.
cuhulin

Carter-K8VT wrote:
clifto wrote:
Carter-K8VT wrote:
clifto wrote:
Everything he [Powell] has said since the start of the Iraq war confirms it.

Do you even remotely consider the possibility that Powell "saw the error
of his ways" and was man enough to want to set the record straight?

Doesn't fit his actions as well as my explanation.

Well, if you say so...but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I
just have too much trouble accepting your explanation that dubya would
give the highest (or one of the highest) appointed posts in the land to
"a flaming, Bush-bashing, card-carrying liberal" for four years.

Bush has angered a lot of conservatives by what appear to be conciliatory
moves, like Powell; backing Arlen "Here's The Blade, Where's Your Back?"
Spector over Toomey; and several others.

Now,
you *could* make the case that after a few years, Powell changed his
tune, going from a Bush loyalist (loyal enough to get the job) to being
a "Bush-basher".

You can say many things about Powell, but not that he is dumb. So, even
if the (unlikely) scenario I described above of Powell changing his
spots is true, then you *have* to ask WHY he changed from a loyalist to
a basher. Did he just finally get sick of the lies and corruption???

He wasn't getting enough spotlight. He figured the Democrats would offer
more spotlight.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

John Barnard wrote:
Ad hominem attacks are usually the first sign someone gives that he's
completely out of relevant facts and salient points.

That statement explains D-Ex-Ace and Tracy Nancy Fort.

The Clifto Clavin remark was yours.

And all you can say is
that Powell, in your opinion, is a flaming liberal. I guess that you are
conveniently ignoring Powell's role in the Bush I government and the role Powell
has played in the Bush II government. How many liberals do you think Bush II has
appointed to his government?

Include liberals he's backed, like another backstabber Arlen Spector, and
if you look, you'll find all too many.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Greg wrote:
From: clifto
Greg wrote:
From: clifto
It's certain Zinni is a liberal because (1) he's bashing Cheney and (2)
he claims to know more about running things than everyone else.

Cheney has an approval rating of something like 12%. Isn't it's gratifying
to think that 88% of Americans are liberals!

Probably 88% of the people most pollsters try to get political answers
from are liberals, the other 12% are surprises to the pollsters. For
example, you'll find countless political polls in downtown Chicago,
but you'll seldom if ever find one in the suburbs, not even the more
liberal ones like Oak Park and Evanston.

So the polls are wrong, people really like Cheney?

More than you'd like to believe, certainly.

If that's the best you have, give up now, avoid the holiday rush.

It's not just General Zinni, there are a lot of military people in the
Pentagon who are at odds with the way your politicians are pursuing the war.
And he wasn't really bashing Cheney, just expressing his astonishment at
what Cheney was saying. But you're a lot smarter than General Zinni, aren't
you? (And I wouldn't waste my best on you cliffy.)

And here again, the ad hominem is the mark of the man without a valid
argument.

Which man, Me or Zinni?

Whichever one said "I wouldn't waste my best on you cliffy." Look up
"ad hominem".

My point is that the administration hyped the
invadion of Iraq and now people are disillusioned with the results (or lack
thereof). "People" includes the public, the Congress, and members of the
military. I can't speak for Zinni, but he speaks quite well for himself.

"People" includes liberals only. They and you and the liberal press are
trying to inflate their numbers and relevance to make it seem as though
there's a good reason to abandon the cause now.

If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Not surprising. Nor clever. Nor funny.

If McCain gets the Repub nomination, and we know certainly that whoever
gets the Dem nomination will be somewhere miles left of Karl Marx, then
we might as well all vote for some true leftist instead of the phonies
we'll have been offered.

Doesn't warrant a serious answer.

It wasn't said seeking an answer. You remarked on it, I explained it to you.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:14:02 -0600, clifto wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Funny, it was Clinton and his enforcer Janet Reno who were the only ones
in America using armed troops to stifle dissent. No, wait; these people
weren't even dissenting, they just held other viewpoints and wanted to
be left alone to live in peace. It wasn't Bush who sent troops to kill
them.

Only because he wasn't given the opportunity.

Bill and Janet didn't wait for opportunity, they seized the moment and
went right in a-shootin' and a-torchin'.

Funny, it was the Ashcroft DoJ which changed the policy on
FOIA requests.

Even if this is true, what does this have to do with anything?

Wait, I got it. This is a stupid liberal attempt to equate liberal
mass murder with conservative aggravation at supercilious paperwork.
In your mind, the mass murder is the lesser offense because it was
performed by liberals.

Not ten minutes before you posted this idiocy, you were expressing
your hope that Pfc. Englund would be lesbian-raped for putting
underwear on Iraqi's heads.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Greg wrote:

From: clifto
Organization: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:14:51 -0600
Subject: the church of bush

"People" includes liberals only. They and you and the liberal press are
trying to inflate their numbers and relevance to make it seem as though
there's a good reason to abandon the cause now.

Simply not true. Congressmen on both sides of the fence are asking for a
plan, a timetable, regarding when we can turn this mess over to the Iraqis.
Wasn't that the original stated goal? I don't know of anybody demanding we
cut and run (the cynical Republican sham resolution aside). I'm not saying
there isn't someone with that attitude - I just don't know who it is. The
consensus among Dem leaders is that we need to see this thing through, but
with some sort of exit plan.

The exit plan is that when the job is finished, we leave.

Pretty simple isn't it, Dummycrat?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

The exit plan is that when the job is finished, we leave.

Pretty simple isn't it, Dummycrat?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Yeah, it's simple and good on its surface - but define "finished." I
don't care whose definition, I'd love to hear *just one.* Steve,
what's your definition? It's probably as good as any Bush has come up
with...assuming he's got one.

Bruce Jensen