|
|
Post by CactusJack on May 13, 2004 20:49:19 GMT -5
read this here: www.hughhewitt.com/index.htmNevada Senator John Ensign has condemned Ted Kennedy's repugnant statement that "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management." John Kerry, on the other hand, said this about Kennedy on the Imus program: "No, I don't agree with the framing of that, uhm, he's my friend, and I respect him enormously, but I don't agree with the framing of that, but I know what he's saying, and so do you." I do know what Kennedy is saying: Kennedy is saying that America has reopened Saddam's torture chambers. Kennedy is a bile-filled, failed oaf, quite obviously off the wagon. But Kerry can't say that, can he? Kerry has to say that he doesn't "agree with the framing of that." Kerry wants to be the Commander-in-Chief but he will not rise above politics to defend the reputation of the men and women he wants to command? Kerry's shame should be as great as Kennedy's, but neither will fell any whatsoever. Privilege never does. ---------------------------------------- great stuff. shows the moronic and HARMFUL actions of a could be cantidate and his left wing buddie. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 13, 2004 23:37:46 GMT -5
Good ol' Ted the lifeguard. What a hot steamy pile o'... And his bed wetting buddy Kerry.  |
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 14, 2004 1:08:45 GMT -5
Kerry, why the long face?  |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on May 14, 2004 23:42:53 GMT -5
He's just making an analogy to draw attention to the problem, and to the way it could be viewed. If he's "insane" for being sensational, Bill O'reilly is even more so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Kocina on May 19, 2004 18:03:30 GMT -5
In my opinion, Ted Kennedy, is one of two things:
AT BEST: A useful idiot, unknowing how his words effect the morale of our soldiers and more importantly the morale of the terrorists killing them.
AT WORST: A power hungry politician, using set backs in the War on Terror to further his party’s control in government with no regard to the effects his words have on our soldiers safety, the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the safety of America in its war against terrorism.
Senior Senator Ted Kennedy has to know that his comments give our enemies something to be angry about. Just because he believes America is a horrible country, it doesn’t mean it is. In fact I believe we are a great country.
When the prison scandal (not exactly a scandal) was revealed, our government did everything it could to fix the problem, not hide it. While the things done to Iraqi criminals were horrible, get some perspective on the situation and realize the actions of 7 idiots in our Military is nothing compared to truly brutal torture that went on in those prisons under Saddam and the acts of the terrorist insurgents in Iraq still today.
I am all for holding our nation to the highest standard of excellence and I understand that is why the story is bigger than the beheading of civilian, but taking advantage of this situation does less to change American opinion than it does to change the world view.
By the way, in case you didn’t know, Bill O'reilly is not an elected official. His statements are not printed in every newspaper in the world. Think about it – who truly is doing their best to ruin the reputation of our country in the world at large?
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on May 20, 2004 6:08:12 GMT -5
They already are angry. They don't listen to Ted Kennedy, the enemies in Iraq as well as ordinary Iraqis see the pictures of torture and come up with their own comparison. The prison was notorious for torture while Hussein was in power, and now it is notorious for torture while US forces are there. Indoubtedly some Iraqis would make that comparison without Ted Kennedy's help. He's stating the obvious. Yes he's being sensationalist when he does it, and he's taking a jab at the whole operation, but it ain't news to anyone that has already made that comparison. It also ain't news that Kennedy never liked the whole operation in the first place, and his "I told you so's" or a sarcastic "smooth move Bush" or "Great. Look what he's got us into now's" is because he thinks Bush is an butthole.
I'm sure (or at least I really hope) that Bush considered that this could be the reaction that some Iraqis and even some Americans would have. Obviously Bush is not going to say "omg kennedy is right, we're done for" and start sulking, and he's not going to say that this is a setback in shaping opinion, because it isn't really his job to comment on his own strategy. So, Ted Kennedy is commenting.
Kennedy is reassuring those of us who came to the conclusion that definitely some Iraqis would think something like "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management." In a way, he is showing that the reaction must be and is being considered, and at the same time, showing his 'displeasure' with a jab at Bush by implying that this situation is a result of Bush's strategy. He's 'owning' the opinion to make a point, he doesn't actually think this, it's more satiric or sarcastic or something. It's like a hyperbole-ironic-sarcastic-satire combo. (multi combo x 4) Sort of like saying to someone who loves, I don't know, raisins, and saying "Why don't you just buy the raisin factory?" or for a super-combo, if they have invested in the raisin factory, you could add something like "Oh that's, right, you did buy it."
Ok back to politics instead of trying to explain what wit is., ask Seinfeld I'm sure he can't tell you either.
Hmmm, I wonder when he said that? He probably thinks Bush is a horrible president and the Bush administration is doing a bad job as well as believing America is a great country just as you do.
First of all, "not exactly a scandal"?! Members of the army tortured and assaulted and probably raped prisoners. To me, that's a scandal. Second of all, I was surprised the government didn't lie and hide per usual and was impressed that Rumsfeld appeared to take it seriously (though Bush said he was "doing a superb job" so much that I bet even Rumsfeld thought it was a little weird after a while). Third, yes, the torture that occurred there under Hussein was far more brutal.
However, Ali baba of the Iraqi street is not going to care about that. He'll probably think "oh great, torture again. I thought this was what the US was ending. I knew things wouldn't change. First I think we're getting freedom, and now it's just the same old oppression and torture. Figures." It's pretty damn difficult for Ali baba to see the bright side of things in a situation like that, and not be cynical. "It's just a teensy-weensy bit of torture, Mr. baba, won't happen again." to which he'd reply "yeah right" because that's the way it's been his whole life.
True. Maybe that was a bad comparison. I just don't like O'reilly and everyone here seems to be in his fan club, so I thought I'd demonstrate to those people that he is at least as sensational as Kennedy. (In terms of media coverage, I might add that Kennedy can get a line or two in the newspaper, but O'reilly has his own TV show.)
I think my answer is obvious: George Bush.
The only reason I wrote so much is because I get annoyed when people take everything a politician says so seriously that they completely miss the point of what was said, and just use it as their own "I told you so's". It's like liberals analyzing every little thing Bush says so they can "catch him" being a fascist or something. The US is too polarized, the least we can do is agree on things that are obvious. Bush obviously thought the same thing as Kennedy, he just didn't say it. Kennedy said it because he wanted to say it, and many people are glad that he said it. It actually gives them more trust in government that he's acknowledging the obvious. Condemn Ted Kennedy for being an butthole if you think he is one, but he said it for a reason, and it wasn't to help terrorists. Kerry is crazy for not calling it for what it is (though considering how much I wrote about it, it's actually really hard to explain) and instead saying "he doesn't agree with the framing of that" like Ted Kennedy was being completely matter-of-fact instead of.. well.. doing what I said I think he did, which was taking a jab at Bush and stating an obvious opinion some might have.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on May 20, 2004 8:32:10 GMT -5
He's just making an analogy to draw attention to the problem, and to the way it could be viewed. If he's "insane" for being sensational, Bill O'reilly is even more so. The last time I checked, Bill O'reilly was not a U.S. senator. Kennedy seems to make a lot of analogies, most of which are merely transparent, angry proclamations of hatred towards the Bush administration. His "analogies" are all he has left, because he's a big loser. It is a ridiculuous analogy to compare Hussein's atrocities to millions of people to what a few idiots did under poor supervision. Anybody who believes that Ted Kennedy has one shred of credibility, has not one shred of credibility with me. I mean, Is that all you got? Please. |
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on May 20, 2004 17:48:35 GMT -5
No, it's not all I got, and if you had bothered to read the post above yours you'll see I have a lot more to say than just that. |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on May 20, 2004 17:57:01 GMT -5
I did read your tired post. I've seen most of your droning drivel all over this board, and it's all the same pathetic spewing that you've been doing for the last few weeks. GIVE UP! You have NO argument that makes sense. You Hate America, but love Ted Kennedy- so what?
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on May 20, 2004 19:56:22 GMT -5
I don't hate America. I like Ted Kennedy.
The point of the post was to say that Kennedy's comment was misinterpreted because it was not recognized for what it was. The comment does not aid terrorists. Ted Kennedy is not "insane" for making the comment. He is using caustic wit to draw attention to the effect the torture scandal will have on Iraqi opinion of the US. Call him an ***hole for pointing out the negative effects of the scandal and taking a jab at the whole operation, but taking the comment as a purely matter-of-fact statement is grasping at straws.
Kerry actually got it right at the end of his comment to Senator Ensign: "I know what he's saying, and so do you."
CactusJack doesn't know what Kennedy's saying, Jason doesn't know what he's saying, and scummybear, you don't know what he's saying either. I bet Bush and Rumsfeld do know what he's saying, and while they may not appreciate the jab, they've probably already considered what Kennedy was implying.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 1, 2004 1:48:43 GMT -5
Let me just add that he's right too, the statement isn't false. And, now that I read it again, my defense is really too much of a defense. While I still think the rest of my opinions on it are right, I didn't mean that what Ted Kennedy said was in any way false. "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management." Yep, that's what happend, and I agree with that perspective, and agree that it is sound perspective. Now what is the U.S. management going to do about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 1, 2004 9:14:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KGBagent on Jun 5, 2004 20:29:55 GMT -5
In my opinion, Ted Kennedy, is one of two things: AT BEST: A useful idiot, unknowing how his words effect the morale of our soldiers and more importantly the morale of the terrorists killing them. AT WORST: A power hungry politician, using set backs in the War on Terror to further his party’s control in government with no regard to the effects his words have on our soldiers safety, the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the safety of America in its war against terrorism. You speak of Bush... right?  Kennedy is right, our army has just replaced one dictator with a milder dictator. One that is benevanlent enough to actually try to establish a democratic gov't (only b/c the world is watching, ONLY) and establish a few schools/hospitals here and there. Oh yeah, could it be the ones they already destroyed? Good may come of the Iraq invasion, but not while the carrier of the flag "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is allowed to command it. *disgust* |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 6, 2004 13:28:00 GMT -5
What's the underlying motive then? What would he try to do if the the world were'nt watching?
It sounds like you need to re-line your hat with tin-foil.
Hurry! They'll read your thoughts!
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jun 13, 2004 15:47:31 GMT -5
Subject: SEA MONSTER SCARE ON CAPE COD
Sea Monster Scare on Cape Cod
By Rufus Martinez
Austin Academic Liberal Intelligencer
HYANNIS - A sea-monster story is unfolding today in this tiny Massachusetts village on the sandy peninsula known as Cape Cod. Details are sketchy. A news blackout is in place, and the beach areas involved have been sealed off by local law-enforcement officials. Rumors are circulating that Federal Officials, perhaps including the FBI, are on the scene.
Thursday, two local fisherman off the coast in a small boat observed a large creature, a half mile from them, drifting in the shallows off the beach near the low tide line. Dave Miller, one of the men, described the creature as "large, massive, pink and pasty white, with patches of what looked like gray moss attached to it, moving in the shallows like some gelatinous animal, a gargantuan jellyfish, maybe." His companion, Duke Griswold, claimed that he smelled a "sickening, incomprehensible stench" in the offshore breeze.
The two said the creature appeared to be foraging in a patch of flotsam that had drifted into shore. Pollution here is a regular problem, with large quantities of liquor bottles and snack food leavings mixed in patches of floating seaweed. The pollution is confined to one area of the Hyannis shore, and local environment officials are puzzled as to the source. "We found sixteen empty steel kegs in one day alone, and a lot of other disgusting stuff you don't want to know about", complained Aaron Clark of the Massachusetts EPA. "For one thing, it attracts gulls and vermin, and now it's attracted something we can't even identify", he went on to say.
Miller piloted his boat closer to shore after the sighting, and claims the creature emitted a loud, baying noise, "like the Sasquatch in 'Harry and the Hendersons"', said Miller, and it thrashed wildly in the water as the boat approached. "It was warnin' us off, it was", said Griswold. "It just ain't holy, I tell ya', it just ain't holy". Marine animals are not known to possess vocalization abilities, which lends additional mystery to this event.
The two then contacted the Coast Guard at Chatham, where a cutter was dispatched. When it arrived, Miller and Griswold were ordered out to sea. A launch piloted by a tall, gray-haired civilian with dark glasses and, according to Griswold, a false beard, was lowered from the cutter. "The beard weren't real, I tell ya'. The chin part didn't fit right". The launch was piloted to the beach.
The unidentified gray-haired man, perhaps a marine biologist from the nearby Woods Hold Oceanographic Institute, was seen by other witnesses to actually touch the creature. He covered it with a tarpaulin and appeared to be whispering into one end of the shapeless beast at his feet. These witnesses also claim that they were ordered off the sand dunes by "dangerous looking men in black suits and sunglasses". "The smell from the beach was unbelievable", said one reporter. "It also had a whiff of Dewar's Scotch about it, mixed up with a potato chip and Twinkie aroma", the reporter recounted.
Further information is being sought by reporters in the region and with worldwide wire services. One concern is that the sighting and encounter occurred near the Kennedy Compound, but spokesman for the Senator said that he was not in the state at the time. Junior Senator John Kerry confirmed Kennedy's whereabouts. "He was with me all the time", said Kerry.
|
|
