How to Deal with Irritatingly Good News

[Gawain 0]

Are you a Democrat, left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-American, or all of the above?

Then here is the "How To" manual of the decade for you!!

By clicking this link, you will learn what to say if:

---Saddam refuses to co-operate with his interrogators.
---Saddam admits to having had weapons of mass destruction all along and gives a detailed account of
...a) where they can be found,
...b) how and when he destroyed them.
---If Saddam's trial is conducted by Iraq without outside interference.
---If Saddam's trial is conducted under American and British supervision.
---If Saddam's trial, by whatever agency, produces previously unknown evidence of crimes against his own people that is so horrific that it shames those who resisted his forcible removal.

And of course, most perplexing of all..."What to do if the arrest, trial and possible execution of Saddam results in a free and Democratic Iraq."

--Transcribed without permission from http://www.insomnomaniac.com/

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[juanesky 0]

Damn Gawain, not a single peep yet.

It is funny how on the other thread, now they are putting these advices into excercise. Now it is a matter on how this guy should get a "fair trial" disregarding decades of "documented" atrocities, and real hatred of his own people to this "poor" guy. It is just not fair. They are even starting to concede that yes, it was fair to assume that his government had WMD, how dare we not trusted his word when he stated it was all destroyed.

Well, who figured?

LMAO, thanks for this post.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Damn Gawain, not a single peep yet.

It is funny how on the other thread, now they are putting these advices into excercise. Now it is a matter on how this guy should get a "fair trial" disregarding decades of "documented" atrocities, and real hatred of his own people to this "poor" guy. It is just not fair. They are even starting to concede that yes, it was fair to assume that his government had WMD, how dare we not trusted his word when he stated it was destroyed.

Well, who figured?

LMAO, thanks for this post.

Can you say "Convienience Duality"
or is that Selective Memory?

Could be out right "Oh Shit, they Really did catch him, Oh Fuck! now we have to go and say that they were right, but we will do it in a way that makes them look bad, ok ABC. . . CBS. . . NBC - You guys know what to do."

But of course you would never see anything like that.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[juanesky 0]

Ah, the master of subtlety....

So is it now ok to call the terrorists towel heads?, or better yet, should we hope they have a booming holiday?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[ripper0289 0]

Quote

or better yet, should we hope they have a booming holiday?

Here's hoping the terrorists wise up and turn themselves in to the proper authorities peacefully (namely, the US Armed Forces)
Failing that, here's hoping the terrorists each have a grenade detonated in close proximity to their lice ridden heads.
I have no problem wishing bad things happening to bad people.

[Kennedy 0]

Hell, right now I'd be happy if they all just stopped.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

What are they going to say if we catch OBL next?

I really wonder what they'll say if by some miracle [curse?] they elect Dean or Clark, and they don't catch OBL.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

What are they going to say if we catch OBL next?

I really wonder what they'll say if by some miracle [curse?] they elect Dean or Clark, and they don't catch OBL.

Something like " Oh well, Bush and his administration pushed him so far underground that it was impossible to rectify thier mistakes and properly continue the search."

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Something like " Oh well, Bush and his administration pushed him so far underground that it was impossible to rectify thier mistakes and properly continue the search."

So far it has been chirp chirp in this thread...........

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[turtlespeed 212]

Not much said in "Go Figure" either

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Shark 0]

What's this?! A net meeting for the Hitler Youth?!

[MrBester 0]

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Are you a Democrat, left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-American, or all of the above?

Gawain, are you insinuating that none of these people would be happy if any of these things were to come to fruition? Sarcasm definitely intended.

_________________________________________
Chris

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Saddam refuses to co-operate with his interrogators.
The arrest of this man is a sideshow. He clearly knows nothing about the current state of resistance and has played no role in the planning of insurgency. His trial will simply be an exercise in vengeance with no constructive outcome for Iraq.

No...I'm glad he was captured. However, it is true that it has had no effect on the attacks against Americans in Iraq.

Quote

Saddam sings like a canary, identifying the perpetrators of insurgency.
Saddam is obviously being tortured by his American captors. Or else, they are lying about his testimony and justifying their own persecution of innocent Iraqis on the basis of his alleged "confession". (Note to broadcasters: these hypotheses need not be stated baldly. They can simply be hinted at or implied by leading questions and incredulous facial expressions.)

I doubt he will be tortured, too much scrutiny. If he sings, it will be to cut a deal for himself. And judging from the lies told so far to justify war in Iraq, I wouldn't put it past the administration to do it again.

Quote

Saddam admits to having had weapons of mass destruction all along and gives a detailed account of a) where they can be found, b) how and when he destroyed them.
If a) then switch the focus immediately to the role that America (with particular reference to Donald Rumsfeld personally) played in the past in allowing Saddam to develop these arms. Avoid if possible any tactless references to the much more recent contributions of our European partners in building Saddam's armoury. If b), float the idea that Saddam is lying - simply telling his captors what it would suit their political purposes to hear, in the hopes of cutting a deal for himself.

If A, I'll be happy to eat crow and be glad that my faith in our gov't has been restored. That they haven't really been lying to us all along.

If B, he's been saying all along that they've been destroyed. It's Bush who's been saying they haven't.

Quote

If Saddam's trial is conducted by Iraq without outside interference.
This is nothing more than a kangaroo court: a lynch mob bent on tribal vendetta, licensed and abetted by America, which has, typically, waged an irresponsible war and then walked away, washing its hands of the consequences.

I hope he is tried in Iraq by Iraqis.

Quote

If Saddam's trial is conducted under American and British supervision.
This makes a mockery of the hope that Iraq is becoming a self-determining democracy. It is now nothing more than a neo-colonial satellite of American imperialism. The United States has, typically, set up a puppet government in Iraq in order to establish control over the region.

I'd question by what authority we try him?

Quote

If Saddam's trial, by whatever agency, produces previously unknown evidence of crimes against his own people that is so horrific that it shames those who resisted his forcible removal.
No one (certainly not you) ever said they thought Saddam was a hero, or that they wanted him restored to power. They just wanted international law to be permitted to take its own good time to decide how and when he should be stopped.

That's the truth. International law should have handled it. I'm not embarassed to say that.

Quote

If the arrest, trial and possible execution of Saddam results in a free and democratic Iraq.
This is irrelevant to the War on Terror. Iraq had no links with al-Qa'eda. Bush and Blair will never defeat terrorism until they catch Osama bin Laden.

The result for Iraq will be good, but it won't have any effect on terrorism (other than possibly fueling it more). And Bush and Blaire won't stop terrorism whether they catch OBL or not.

[billvon 2,400]

>Damn Gawain, not a single peep yet.

You're right! Hard to believe that in all of 35 minutes in the middle of the night, no one replied. It must mean you're right.

In any case, here's a handy guide for right wingers, if they are confused by possible upcoming events:

-Saddam reveals WMD hiding places.
Response: Told you! It was all about stopping the spread of WMD's, just like Bush said!

-Saddam reveals all, but no WMD's exist in Iraq.
Response: It wasn't about WMD's, it was about freeing the people of Iraq.

-Saddam does not reveal anything, and the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate
Response: It wasn't really about freeing Iraq, it was about fighting terror - and look at all the terror we found in Iraq! It proves us right.

-No serious terrorist incidents happen in the US for a while
Response: All our plans worked! Take that, whiny liberals who question our plans!

-Another serious terrorist incident happens in the US
Response: We were right to worry about terror; it's everywhere! We must invade Iran to stop it. Take that, whiny liberals!


Just remember - no matter what happens, you are right, you always were right, and you always will be right. Never admit mistakes, and never consider if what you're doing is right. By definition, it is.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>Damn Gawain, not a single peep yet.

You're right! Hard to believe that in all of 35 minutes in the middle of the night, no one replied. It must mean you're right.

In any case, here's a handy guide for right wingers, if they are confused by possible upcoming events:

-Saddam reveals WMD hiding places.
Response: Told you! It was all about stopping the spread of WMD's, just like Bush said!

-Saddam reveals all, but no WMD's exist in Iraq.
Response: It wasn't about WMD's, it was about freeing the people of Iraq.

-Saddam does not reveal anything, and the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate
Response: It wasn't really about freeing Iraq, it was about fighting terror - and look at all the terror we found in Iraq! It proves us right.

-No serious terrorist incidents happen in the US for a while
Response: All our plans worked! Take that, whiny liberals who question our plans!

-Another serious terrorist incident happens in the US
Response: We were right to worry about terror; it's everywhere! We must invade Iran to stop it. Take that, whiny liberals!


Just remember - no matter what happens, you are right, you always were right, and you always will be right. Never admit mistakes, and never consider if what you're doing is right. By definition, it is.

[Wipes tear]

He finaly got it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

-No serious terrorist incidents happen in the US for a while
Response: All our plans worked! Take that, whiny liberals who question our plans!

-Another serious terrorist incident happens in the US
Response: We were right to worry about terror; it's everywhere! We must invade Iran to stop it. Take that, whiny liberals!

If no more terrorist incidents happened, the right would rejoice. Would the left? Would they claim that there was no danger anyway?

If 500 incidents are prevented, but one slips through, most adults would understand that you can't prevent everything.

In project management, I have never found a flawless plan. The left seems to find unending glee in focusing on one failing instead of the larger number of triumphs.

The sad part is that there never seems to be a proposed solution by the left, just political posturing and naysaying. I don't regard inactivity as a plan.

Quote

Never admit mistakes,

So if there was no more terrorist incidents in the US, would the left admit that the plan worked and they were wrong? Ummm... nope. I don't hear the left admitting a lot of mistakes.

[billvon 2,400]

>If no more terrorist incidents happened, the right would rejoice.
>Would the left? Would they claim that there was no danger anyway?

I suspect they would be happy -and they'd try to take credit for it.

>If 500 incidents are prevented, but one slips through, most adults
>would understand that you can't prevent everything.

I think you give adults too much credit. If the adult in question is personally affected by the event they will want to blame someone; it's the american way. If their favorite political party is not in charge, they will blame the party that is. If their favorite political party IS in charge they will generally blame the previous one.

Note that this is a characteristic of both democrats and republicans.

>In project management, I have never found a flawless plan.

So does that mean you deny that there are any flaws, and push ahead no matter what goes wrong? Or do you acknowledge the flaws, say "hey, that plan was wrong, we have to fix it" and proceed from there?

>The left
>seems to find unending glee in focusing on one failing instead of
>the larger number of triumphs.

I don't know about the left, but personally I would be very impressed by Bush if he made a speech and said "Look, we made a mistake with the WMD thing; the UN was right. But we did do a good thing getting Saddam out of there, and now we need help stabilizing the country."

People who never acknowledge their mistakes can't learn, and people who never learn tend to make the same mistakes over and over again.

>The sad part is that there never seems to be a proposed solution by
> the left, just political posturing and naysaying. I don't regard
> inactivity as a plan.

So you would be for the democrats taking control of the military and "having a plan?" The reason Dean (for example) hasn't solved all the problems in Iraq is that he has no power to do so. I notice you haven't solved all the problems either; I suspect it's because you don't run things in Iraq, rather than because you don't care that soldiers are dying.

There have been several plans proposed to help ameliorate the problems in Iraq. Most right wingers seem to be too busy gloating or proclaiming "the left has no plans, they just complain!" to actually pay any attention to the plans.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Most right wingers seem to be too busy gloating or proclaiming "the left has no plans, they just complain!" to actually pay any attention to the plans.

I know...that line ticks me off. Just because someone proposes doing something differently, they don't have a plan.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

What are they going to say if we catch OBL next?

That OBL is a really a nice guy he just had a bad childhood.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

So you would be for the democrats taking control of the military and "having a plan?"

The problem with the democrats and the military is one of perception. Ever notice who the bully picks on? The one they perceive as weak.

Clinton never followed through when Bin Laden car bombed the WTC in '93. Plan - do nothing. Perception created - the Americans will not retaliate. We can do this again later.

Clinton failed to commit tanks in Somalia. Setup for failure. Then, backed out. Perception? the Americans will leave if you shoot one. They lack will.

ME journalists said that SH never expected the US to do anything when he invaded Kuwait.

Quote

I notice you haven't solved all the problems either; I suspect it's because you don't run things in Iraq, rather than because you don't care that soldiers are dying.

There have been several plans proposed to help ameliorate the problems in Iraq.

The plan was to catch SH. It took some time.

Cut off the head of a snake, the snake dies. Cut off the cash supply and the leadership, an army stops. Saddams capture will solve both problems. Even if he had WMD, why would he admit it? He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. He will probably divulge his leadership support people.

The old Iraqi regime will lose its leadership and control. People will not fear its return.

Mao said "The guerilla is a fish and the people are its sea". The new regime will remove the popular support and fear of SHs govt. The sea will dry up.

I think the current plan is going well.
I don't think we have the time or energy to clean up after another Democrat "plan".

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Clinton failed to commit tanks in Somalia.

First of all, the US was not in command. It was a UN operation. Secondly, the operation was to feed starving people. The US then decided they should capture Aidid. Do you think Clinton came up with that plan? Or possibly the military convinced him they could do it with an elite strke team.

[AndyMan 7]

You have a very interesting idea of history.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

First of all, the US was not in command. It was a UN operation

Do a search on google. Tanks, Somalia, Clinton. This is the one rare case where everyone on the internet agrees on one thing.

report

Quote

Bill Gertz; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his deputies rejected sending needed tanks and armored vehicles to Somalia because they feared a political backlash would undermine their pro-United Nations policy, says a Senate Armed Services Committee report.

The armor, as well as AC-130 gunships that also were withheld, was sought by commanders to protect U.S. troops, the report stated.

Send an unarmed military in? Why send them there if that is the case. Bad plan. Why was Clinton kissing up to the UN? Who was in charge of the US military, him or the UN?

Quote

"Only compelling military - not diplomatic policy - reasons should ever be used to deny an on-scene commander such a request," he said. "Those officials who advocated and approved this policy must bear the ultimate responsibility for the events that followed."

Quote

Armored vehicles may have saved lives and reduced casualties during the raid and subsequent rescue, the report concluded. The report was released late Friday in an apparent effort to mute its stinging critique of Clinton administration foreign and military policy. Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, is the other co-author.

To answer your other question:

Quote

The US then decided they should capture Aidid. Do you think Clinton came up with that plan? Or possibly the military convinced him they could do it with an elite strke team.

Answer:

Quote

It also lays out how U.N. officials pressured the administration into sending 450 Rangers to capture Gen. Aidid, against the advice of senior U.S. military commanders who saw little chance of success.

Quote

"The policy shop was a mess with all those assistant secretaries overlapping each other," Gen. Powell said. "Nothing happened."

Nothing happened. Do nothing.

This is a bi-partisan Senate report that took two years to complete. Thorough and bi-partisan.

I have never read one report of Somalia that is not totally critical of Clinton.

[captainpooby 0]

Eventually, after Clinton had sat on the paper work for eight weeks, two of the slain soldiers, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randall Shughart, were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. As usual in such cases, the medals were presented to the next of kin.
Following the May 23 presentation at the White House, the families of the two men were invited into the Oval Office for a private visit with Clinton. Inside the office, the father of Sergeant Shughart refused to shake Clinton's hand, then looked him in the face and calmly told him that he was responsible for his son's death, that it was for no purpose, that he was not fit to be President, and not fit to be Commander in Chief.

Clinton was visibly shocked, amazed, and momentarily speechless. It is revealing that he was surprised that the man should feel that way. Clinton really doesn't think the way most people do, seeming to lack a sense of personal responsibility. After a brief, awkward silence, Clinton caught his breath. Becoming angry, he turned to the mother of the dead soldier and said, "What's he jumping on me for? I didn't kill the kid!"

Yes, he really did say that--to the bereaved mother--he really did! It was an eloquent demonstration of Clinton's insensitivity, and of his absolute inability to understand sacrifice and responsibility.



http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Ldotvets/Bubba_99_1.html