Um. . .no title quite fits this.

adam atherton · Post by **adam atherton** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:18 pm

waiting on your documentation as a "non-partisan".

i can't wait to see what happens eventually when there is a liberal president, and it becomes 'cool' to hate him.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:29 am

And let ignorance shine through. . .

Iraq was bombed on the allegations that they were harboring WMDs. . .not because they were tied to Osama (who VEHEMENTLY denies having anything to do with Hussein) and his plane tricks.

Here's a site: http://www.lexisnexis.com

Find your own documentation of the dozens of articles supporting that information including direct quotes from Bin Laden himself!

[edited for typos and slight exaggerations and to add the following]

. . .and another thing, man, this isn't party-based at all. It's making fun of the ignorance of people (or stupidity, if you will) of people who trust the crap information or implications given to them by the media, in particular: FoxNews who has a reputation for misreporting information.

This comic has nothing to do with the president in any way, and for you to jump to that says something to me in the way that guilty people jump to defend their innocence. I think our leader is an idiot with questionable motives and actions. I think our last leader was responsible for what I call the "antibacterial soap" mentality of our current culture.

If I happen to find comments or comics knocking the people on the other side of the fence, I'll be the first one to post them.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:45 am

Since I'm a bit miffed about this. . .take a quote from our leader found on the WHITE HOUSE website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 30322.html

THE PRESIDENT: wrote: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

This was TWO years after the attacks on September 11. This was has little, if anything to do, directly with those attacks. Before people go spouting off for documentation, maybe they should have something to back their claims that there is none.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:28 am

FOX News has a reputation for misreporting??? Dan Rather anyone? How about NBC placing explosives in a truck for a report on the propensity of the thing to blow up during impact crashes? What about CNN? FOX certainly didn't report that Iraq was behind 9-11. Plus, that 80% line is complete horseshit. I'd be surprised if it was 20%.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:06 am

Found in the top three results of a google search with the keywords:

fox, news, and spin.

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/f ... xnews.html

That search, by the way, netted me about two pages worth of supporting results and over 2 million gross results.

Atherton's own speaking out against this comic by demanding documentation only serves to substantiate the statement that it makes.

Furthermore, since when does a comic statement have to be documented or supported with hard facts? That's like saying that a cover-song has to be note for note like the original. Are you kidding me?

But. . .take me to the mall this weekend, stand with me for 8 hours and let's ask nothing but these two questions:

Do you watch Fox News? Do you believe that the war in Iraq was predicated by the September 11 attacks?

Wanna see how many double yeses we net?

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:41 am

bassjones wrote:How about NBC placing explosives in a truck for a report on the propensity of the thing to blow up during impact crashes? .

sh*t, all they had to do was watch a James Bond movie to know that cars explode under any and all impact!

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:41 am

Predicated by... it certainly was, but that's not saying Iraq was behind 9-11. 9-11 showed us what happens when you don't deal with terroristic threats. In light of that, we dealt with Hussein. That's not the same thing as saying you believe Iraq was behind 9-11.

BTW, since when do Bin Laden's denials have any credibility??? Oh, well, Bin Laden says he didn't get support from Hussein. That just settles it right there.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:08 am

bassjones wrote:BTW, since when do Bin Laden's denials have any credibility??? Oh, well, Bin Laden says he didn't get support from Hussein. That just settles it right there.

What reason does he have to lie about this? I'll pull an Atherton and demand your documentation proving that his statements are not credible. We're talking about a guy (albeit a psycho mass murdering guy) who, despite hiding, has stood behind his actions and the statement he's making with them.

Just because someone did this thing that is horrible in our eyes does not make him a liar and it's faulty and irresponsible logic to assume that it does. My impression from the snippets I've seen or read is that he's ashamed to be linked to Saddam and is embarrassed by the man's behavior.

This is akin to calling Stalin a liar because he was a war-mongering-p.o.s. You call someone a liar if they lie. You debate their credibility when they've created a precedent on which to doubt it.

About the only thing that you could really cite to support this is his initial denial of having anything to do with it. You are probably one of the people who still believes that the attacks were aimed at us because of our freedom. 9/11 happened because the terrorists hate our freedom!!!

Um. . .no. That's not the case at all. It has nothing to do with American freedom. . .and ten minutes worth of reading and searching might (emphasis on might) find those results, but I'll warn you: you'll probably have to go to sources OUTSIDE the American media. Try going here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ to get some real news once in a while.

Man, I'm on a rant now. I'm doing what you guys do and twisting the argument ten miles away from the initial issue. I better stop.

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:47 am

Is ABC News a trustworthy source?

No, Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11.

And Garr, should I start pulling out pictures of Cindy Sheehan and her buddies in Cuba and Venezuela?

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:17 pm

That video, though educational, is speculative at best. How much of it is a straw house to say that a- because Saddam has supported other terrorists in the past that he has supported Bin Laden b- because he said he would grant asylum to Bin Laden, he did and c- that Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on the towers.

Bin Laden has said about our war in Iraq that it is taking one tyrannical power out to replace it with another to claim Iraqi wealth.

Before you start slinging around accusations or insinuations that I am in any way unpatriotic or an extremist fool like Sheehan, you better think twice. That's a hefty claim to make when you can't substantiate it. I don't like it when politicians lie to their constituents and allow misinformation and misconception to spread and then use it to their advantage.

WMDs? If they were there, and they weren't, great. War. Get rid of them. I'm not for war, but I understand military need.

Saddam supports terror? Yep. Take action. I wouldn't see it any other way.

Free Iraq? Did anyone ask them what they wanted? I think that's a part of freedom right? So, now, the US is in there telling them what type of freedom they are required to have. bullsh*t! That's not freedom. If our real purpose was to free Iraq, we would not be sending MORE troops over there now that they are free to make their own decisions on their governing.

War should be honest, and I don't think this one is. American revolution? Needed it. Get away from the Church of England's horrid grip and excessive taxation. Great! American Civil War? Yup. Needed it. World War I? Yup, needed it! WWII? Don't insult me. Yes, it was needed. Viet Nam? Tell the French to handle their own problems.

I can't go on. This is making me angry. . .and I don't think clearly while angry.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:27 pm

The snow is falling, and I'm ready to go home and I'm tired...
so I'm giving this one last shot.

all news organizations have their faults, some slant
more/less than others, some with political agendas
more/less that others.

You hate Bush and virtually everything he
does and stands for, I get it, got it, noted and logged.

We're in Iraq fitting terrorism because that's where
they (the terrorists)are at. Whether we ever get
Bin Laden or not, doesn't really matter anymore,
there's going to be another one of these dudes
to take his place anyway.

We either have the cahonies to back our men in uniform
or we don't. To lose this one, is going to make it even
worse for this country, more that you or I could imagine.

I'm tired of the debate,... the similarities to Vietnam are
the same in the following manner (I remember this one well)
Politicians and the populace not having the belly for what
comes with war.(Hence we lost one that could have been
won easily) Are we going to fight or argue.

It'd be wise to figure this out, with the 08 elections creeping
up, the enemy is waiting for us to fold and go home.

Listen to Hillary lately, her statements alone, for one, scare me.

OK checking out!

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:56 pm

Man, I agree with a LOT of things you just said. I don't hate Bush. Really, I don't. I think he lies to the American people. I also think that he uses his buddy Murddoch to perpetuate those lies and misconceptions. I was happy, though, to get my $300 check a few years back.

Fighting terrorists (who aren't that great in number) doesn't require the level of occupation that we currently have. According to FOX news, we won the war already. Win and get out. This administration is gonna drag this sh*t out way too long.

Strike. Win. Get the f**k out. Nagasaki those bastards so we can go home and get out of Iraq's business so that they can create their own government.

sevesd93 · Post by **sevesd93** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:47 pm

Garr wrote: Strike. Win. Get the f#ck out. Nagasaki those bastards so we can go home and get out of Iraq's business so that they can create their own government.

I love you, nuke em'

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:17 pm

Garr wrote:
Strike. Win. Get the f#ck out. Nagasaki those bastards so we can go home and get out of Iraq's business so that they can create their own government.

"Strike. Win. Get the f**k out", I do not disagree with. Nagasaki them? What? That's insane. Do you think we just left Japan after we bombed the living daylights out of every major city in their country (I'm not talking just the Nukes...we fire bombed every forking major city in that country destroying between 20 and 99% of each one of the cities before we ever dropped a Nuke) we just walked away and said, "there ya go. Rebuild yourselves assholes!" No, we still have troops there. And we were there for a long time assisting in rebuilding and restructuring that country. Who knows how much that ended up costing us. Were the Nukes necessary? I don't know. That's a different topic all together.

There are far more strategic ways of retaliating against terrorism than occupying a country or Nuking them. But at the same time, when fighting the war we're currently fighting most things are going to be futile. When we Nuked Japan, we stopped an army. Their government stepped in and said they were done. In Iraq we have taken down their leadership and we've devastated a good chunk of the country. But these people aren't going to stop. We would have to kill every last one of the insurgents before that would ever happen, and that isn't going to happen. Do we Nuke a majority to get a minority? While we're at it, we should Nuke ourselves. Because there was another crazy kid that shot 5 people at the mall today. There are other crazy angry teens out there that could commit a similar act of terrorism, so we better destroy all the teens in this country. Those stupid kids want to take my freedom of living and carousing in the mall. I want my pants from the Buckle and they want me DEAD!

Aside from occupying a country or Nuking it, there is the option of strategic attacks and systematic take down. The same crap we've been doing forever in response to the Taliban and corrupt governments that we're not allied with. Has it worked in the past? Has this war worked? It doesn't seem like we've made any progress either way.

Bottom line? We messed up. There is no going back, and hopefully they can find a way of fixing it.