Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I won't touch the "moron" label (sure, those Bushisms are embarassing sometimes, but it's hard for me to swallow a Yale and Harvard MBA graduate as a "moron" ;)), but I would label Kerry with the same murderous tag. Shooting a fleeing Vietnamese in the back as well as the unknown (or known [streamload.com] {from Kerry's own lips}) atrocities that Kerry participated in, over in Vietnam deserve the same judgement.

    Of course, it depends on who you listen to, the Swift Vets gang [swiftvets.com] or the Democrats (and the mainstream media that
    • Yes of course :)

      WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

      As for Kerry's competence, it simply doesn't matter: no matter how incompetent you just can't be worse than Bush. It's never been seen in any major country before, and, with any hope, won't be seen again in our lifetimes. The Democrats could run a monkey for presidency, I'd still support the monkey -- because he'd still do a better job than Bush.

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • Incompetent is probably not the right word ... an incompetent President would have done nothing after 9/11 and allowed for more terrorism of that magnitude to take place.

        ...starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

        Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11. Even John Kerry believes we did the right thing, by going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq (though he wanted a different approach). Maybe if he sho [factcheck.org]

        • Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Or rather, it would have been the right thing to do right. It has been left mostly to its own devices, and large tracts of the taliban movement and al-Qaeda are still operating there because of that. Iraq had no link whatsoever to terrorism. Now it's become the most convenient way to attack american interests, and therefore a terrorist hotbed.

          Small things can be indicative. For instance, there may be reasons why after 9/11 98% of Europeans said they were extre

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

          • If you think Bush eradicated more terrorism than he created, go argue your points to a Madrilene.

            Sorry darobin, there is not a jot of evidence that Bush's actions contributed to 3/11. You actually believe what they say? Talk about "moron." Bin Laden said he attacked on 9/11 because of U.S. support of Israel, which is something he never mentioned years before when he was attacking the U.S. They change their reasons to whatever they think will garner them the most support. Don't buy into the foolishnes
        • Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11

          Just out of curiosity, what has that got to do with the war in Iraq? You know, seeing as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
      • WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

        The problem is that the latter never happened. First, even if you believe the WMD was a lie, that doesn't mean the entire war was based on lies. We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions which threatened force, including that Iraq aided
        • We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions...

          But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it? We were told that Iraq was a imminent threat to the US. We were told that they had WMD and were just itching to use them.

          Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.

          Bush or Bush
          • But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it?

            It absolutely was. The administration made reference to "material breach" of Resolution 1441 early and often.

            I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but you have to admit those nice no-bid Haliburton contracts make you think don't they?

            Eh, not really, when you consider all of the factors: the shift in recent years to hiring one contractor to do all the work, the fact that