Dick, You hit the nail on the head, my thoughts exactly. To date, neither Proud Liberal 7 or Gordon has responded with substance to anything that has been directed to them, in support of their claims. Moreover, all I see, is them spewing out hateful rhetoric, that is pretty much non-sensical, but meant only to inflame.
Typical far left, socialist-elitist Moonbats, who are ill informed and haven't a clue about the issues, nor our history. On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:38 AM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > Zeb, You don't need to bother. ProudLiberal7 is using the "Progressive > Dictionary" for his terms, You know, the one where up = down, in = out, yes > = no. That is the only explanation for his verbal diarrhea. I guess he > feels that if he buries you under his outpourings you won't notice that > there is no substance there at all, that he really has nothing!! > > BTW Gordon Urquhart is doing the same thing. All kinds of verbal spewings > but he will never respond to a request to prove what he says with anything > remotely making any kind of sense. > > Reminds me of some of the people who respond to other blogs the same way. > They will keep pouring out the krep, which is what it is, but will never > answer those who question what they put out there nor can they really prove > what they say. If the thing they are responding to is so obviously true > and damaging to the "progressive" viewpoint, then an attempt will be made to > say "well, your side did it first" or an attempt will be made to change the > subject totally. Common MO for the "progressives," who should really be > called "regressives." > > > Zebnick wrote: > > Have we been attacking terrorists who are IN Pakistan with drones? > Answer: Yes we have. That's not a war, kiddies. > > > Dropping bombs and firing missiles that destroy buildings, vehicles > and some innocent bystanders is not war? What is it? A police action? > LOL! > > On May 17, 8:35 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Obama ATTACKED AND INVADED PAKISTAN? When did that happen? When did he > even TALK ABOUT going to war with Pakistan? > > Answers: He hasn't done any of that. > > Have we been attacking terrorists who are IN Pakistan with drones? > > Answer: Yes we have. That's not a war, kiddies. > > Oops. > > In a message dated 5/17/2010 5:31:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > What a curious, and sudden, _reversal_ (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/State > mentonIraq91202.html) : now we have Democrats claiming to have “inside” > information that justifies a war, whilst Republicans are skeptical. Well, not > so curious, really, since the Democrats now have a war of their own, the war > against Pakistan, to defend. > > Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin > A war of their own: Democrats target Pakistan > by _Justin Raimondo_ (http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/) , May 17, > 2010 > > The claim by the US government that the Times Square would-be bomber, > _Faisal Shahzad_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad) , was > “trained” > and “directed” by the Pakistani Taliban is looking more bogus by the > moment. _The latest_ > (http://www.necn.com/05/14/10/Employer-Suspect-arrested-in-Maine-raid-...) : > one of at least > three people arrested in connection with the alleged “plot,” Mohammad Shafiq > Rahman, hadn’t seen Shahzad in years, and even admitted to his employer that > he knew the accused. One Larry Adlerstein, who had hired Rahman to do some > computer work for his art business, told reporters: > > “Just a few days ago he had a conversation with Rahman about the attempted > bombing in New York City [in the course of which] his employee made a > surprising admission. ‘As a matter of fact’ [said Rahman] ]I know this guy > accused of trying to bomb Times Square. I haven’t seen him in 8 or 9 years > but > I know him.’ > > “Adlerstein says Rahman described the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad as ‘ > an undirected person….no political positions, just a drifter.’” > > Rahman has been _arrested_ > (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineHeadlineNews/tabid/968/ctl/ViewItem/mid...) > on trumped-up > immigration charges, but ask yourself: if you were part of a terrorist plot, > and > had assisted someone already in custody, would you admit to knowing the > accused? This is just plain ordinary common sense: but that’s not what > inspires our intrepid G-men. > > In an _attempt_ > (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gv0gQgNBrtPjYTx4Xu...) > to follow the money trail, and find – or invent – > a foreign link, US investigators have spread their net far and wide, > apparently including any individuals who ever had significant financial > dealings > with Shahzad over a ten year period. This has led, so far, to arrests – all > on immigration charges – in Brookline, and Watertown, _both in > Massachusetts_ > (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100516suspects_link...) , > and one in Maine. There is no > information coming out of the immigration cops, since they aren’t > answerable to anyone – and refuse to even confirm the identities of those > being > held. The authorities often use vague and constantly-shifting immigration > laws, > easily violated by non-lawyers, to wring information out of green card > holders and non-citizens in general. No need to ship them off to Guantanamo, > or Bagram – just let _ICE_ (http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman260410.htm) > deal with them. > > Yet as those who know the detainees are coming forward to present _a > fuller picture_ > (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/15/de...) , > it looks like there’s nothing at the > end of the money trail but the administration’s Taliban conspiracy theory > asserted as fact. > > It took a Republican senator, _Kit Bond_ > (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTdeCWcpX_vafLRF2J...) , > to point out the obvious: > that US Attorney General Eric Holder is “playing games” – political games > – with the case. The senior Republican on the Senate intelligence > committee, Bonds averred that he has seen no convincing evidence “so far” of > Shahzad’s purported link to the Pakistani Taliban. Holder “is only interested > in looking tough on terrorism on TV, since he’s now told the intelligence > community to skirt the national security law and give only the details he > wants and when to Congress.” The administration is invoking “national > security > ” to shield what it knows about the alleged plot from Congress, while > _going on television_ > (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/09/holders-long-delayed-sunday-tal...) > announcing the “link” had been > established. > > Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, > _claims_ (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/13/gop.senator.times.square.probe/) > she has definitive evidence of the Taliban link, but refuses to debate the > matter with Bond “in public.” What a curious, and sudden, _reversal_ > (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/StatementonIraq91202.html) : now we have > Democrats > claiming to have “inside” information that justifies a war, whilst > Republicans are skeptical. Well, not so curious, really, since the Democrats > now > have a war of their own, the war against Pakistan, to defend. > > This war, covert up until _a few months ago_ > (http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan) , first reared its > head when Hillary Clinton > paid a _tempestuous visit_ > (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/11/01/hillarys-ill-will-tour/) to > Pakistan and directly accused her hosts of > sheltering Osama bin Laden. The resulting firestorm marked a new low in > US-Pakistani relations, and one has trouble believing it was merely a random > temper > tantrum on Hillary’s part. You’ll recall that during the presidential > campaign, Obama openly _declared his intention_ > (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR200...) > to go into > Pakistan, given the chance to do so, and it’s entirely unsurprising he’s > doing > just that. > > First, however, his administration must come up with a rationale, and > apparently they’ve settled on the _pathetic_ > (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100506_Faisal_Shahzad_bought_fire...) > act of a demented “ > _ lone wolf_ > (http://www.newser.com/story/88110/gen-petraeus-times-square-bomber-ac...) ” > – as Gen. David Petraeus characterized Shahzad – > as being good enough for government work. In short, the Shahzad case is > Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin incident. > > The parallels are striking, and instructive: in both cases, the government > constructed a completely made up story in order to pursue a preordained > path to war. Just as _there was no attack_ > (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M0fIthbvQC8J:sea... > sberg/e/9781429506953+site:search.barnesandnoble.com+Ellsberg+Sample+Chapter > &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) on any US ship in the Tonkin gulf, so there was > no attempted Taliban plot to blow up Times Square – just another American > nut who went _postal_ > (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/...) . > And this time, too, the > media is falling down on the job, refusing to question what increasingly > looks > like a crude fabrication. > > As for the Pakistanis, they too _believe_ > (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\12\story_12-5-2010_pg7_33 > > <http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C05%5C12%5Cstory_12-5-2010_pg7_33>) > Shahzad was a lone nut: > Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN, Hussain Haroon, described him as a “ > misguided soul” who acted alone. While acknowledging Washington may have > other > intelligence, in an interview with CBS News Haroon averred: “All I am saying > is that the evidence I have points in one direction that it does not have > the signature of the Taliban. This is not, and I repeat not, a Pakistan > terror threat.” > > The ambassador went on to note Shahzad is not even a Pakistani citizen, > and he brought up Hillary’s accusation – _reiterated this month_ > (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7711099/Pakis... > ow-where-Osama-bin-Laden-hiding-Hillary-Clinton.html) – that his > government is hiding bin Laden. Haroon and the Pakistanis see the looming > threat of > direct and massive US intervention in Pakistan, and are doing everything > possible to stave it off. Yet the floating of this absurd conspiracy theory > is a clear signal that the Obama-ites are hell-bent on war. > > The irony here is that, as Haroon reminded his American audience, Pakistan > has captured and handed over to the US more actual terrorists – i.e. top > al-Qaeda operatives – than _our own FBI_ > (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._11_C...) , > or any other law > enforcement agency anywhere. This is how we thank them – by setting them up > for an invasion on bogus charges of “harboring” terrorists. > > When it comes to reporting the Shahzad case, it’s incredible that the “ > mainstream” media isn’t challenging the administration’s narrative. Although > maybe, given the media’s longstanding _infatuation_ > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMevMJLdtE) with the President, this is > just a case of love > being blind. > > As it turns out, Shahzad was fingered in a _leak to the media_ > (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004355-503544.html) even before he > was > arrested. This has all the earmarks of a manufactured story, straight out of > the Bush administration’s neocon-written _play-book_ > ... > > read more » > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
