The Cellar - Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=9631)

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 416043)

Bt the question I posed remains to be answered, doesn't it?

You really must learn to read with care. Why do you see a "question" when even a question mark does not exist? What question? Maybe I should requote it for you? Naw. That would only create more questions without question marks. The world is confusing enough. [And who is Bt?]

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 415566)

What? Why would they give the rape kit to the accused?

That one perhaps. actually its those two.

China made the problem so obvious that everyone, even in the Cellar, would see it. A Chinese intentional destruction of a satellite means the number of dangerous space junk tracked by the US increased to over 6000+ items. 2000+ were created by that Chinese demonstration. Numbers intentionally created to make it impossible for anyone (except extremists) to justify the mental midget's denials.

Responsible nations desperately want restrictions so that this problem does not worsen. Only one nation (under extremist god) is stifling this effort. President Cheney would rather solve everything using pre-emption. America needs space for more battlefields.

From the NY Times of 13 Feb 2008:

Quote:

U.N. Weighs a Ban on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects
The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a Russian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States.

Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space, a threat underlined by China last year after it shot down one of its own aging satellites.

Responding to previous American assertions that there is no arms race in space and therefore no need for a treaty,

Show me one thing from the mental midget that indicates intelligence.

Quote:

The White House responded to the proposal on Tuesday afternoon, saying it opposed any treaty that sought "to prohibit or limit access to or use of space."

Oh. George Jr will find bin Laden in space? Even Nixon was not this anti-American, anti-Australian, anti-Thai, anti-German, anti-Tanzanian, anti-Brazilian ...

See also USA pwnz space..

What does that have to do with giving the rape kit to the company/employer of the accused rapists?

That simply makes no sense.

From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2008:

Quote:

Bush Says Iraq War Was Worth It
President Bush says he has no doubts about launching the unpopular war in Iraq despite the ''high cost in lives and treasure,'' arguing that retreat now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States.

Bush is to mark the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq on Wednesday with a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts of his address were released Tuesday night by the White House.

At least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war in 2003. It has cost taxpayers about $500 billion and estimates of the final tab run far higher. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated.

Meanwhile neither Iran, Iraq, or N Korea was a threat. A wacko extremist has a political agenda to serve. Honesty is not George Jr - a problem when told what to do by god. All those 'axis of evil', it turns out, were not until George Jr began threatening them with 'Pearl Harbor' actions justified by a crusader's mentality. Guess who pays.

Curiously, this was also the 40th Anniversary of the My Lai massacre where American soldiers even used babies for target practice. All for the glory of another lying president.

From the Washington Post of 2 Apr 2008:

Quote:

Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators
Justice Dept. Official in 2003 Said President's Wartime Authority Trumped Many Statutes

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

Torture and international kidnapping of any non-American was declared legal by our wacko extremists. Another example of how corrupt one will be when a political agenda justifies action. Another example of why extremists are so dangerous since only an extremist would see nothing wrong here.

"It was legal. Therefore it is not 'evil'."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 443140)

Another example .... since only an extremist would see nothing wrong here.

Where?
:eyebrow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 439791)

From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2008: Meanwhile neither Iran, Iraq, or N Korea was a threat. A wacko extremist has a political agenda to serve. Honesty is not George Jr - a problem when told what to do by god. All those 'axis of evil', it turns out, were not until George Jr began threatening them with 'Pearl Harbor' actions justified by a crusader's mentality. Guess who pays.

Curiously, this was also the 40th Anniversary of the My Lai massacre where American soldiers even used babies for target practice. All for the glory of another lying president.

Which lying president would that be?

Answer from wiki

Quote:

During 1968 there were many questions about the presidency. On March 31, 1968 in a decision that stunned political friends and many others, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not seek, nor would he accept the nomination of his party for president. Johnson said he was withdrawing in the name of national unity. This sparked many questions throughout the nation. People wondered who would become the next president of the United States. Their questions were answered very soon. In August of 1968, Richard Nixon, the "old pro" of the Republican Party, was nominated for president. On November 6, 1968 Richard M. Nixon was elected President of the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon (Post 448393)

Which lying president would that be?

From ABC News of 19 April 2008:

Quote:

No Al Qaeda Policy: Congress Wants Answers
Congress plans to press the Bush administration aggressively to justify its policy in Afghanistan following a nonpartisan report that concludes that the administration "lacks a comprehensive plan" to take on al Qaeda in its stronghold. ...

Berman has scheduled a hearing for May 7 to grill administration officials.

His concern follows a report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, that concludes, "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals ... has been developed" in Pakistan's lawless tribal region along the Afghan border.

Such a plan requires a White House that works for America; not for a political agenda. These are mutually exclusive objectives.

There is not and has not been plans to get bin Laden. Those who have long understood this also ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Now the GAO says same.

Quote:

The Bush administration does not have such a plan, even though it was called for by the 9/11 Commission and was mandated under a 2007 law, the GAO report said.

The report pulls no punches. It concludes that six years after President Bush pledged to take Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," al Qaeda has "regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven" in Pakistan's border region.

Is the GAO some kind of communist conspiracy? Only useful plans to end "Mission Accomplished" also came from the 9/11 Commission. But when the president is even a liar, then keeping a bogeyman alive is good politics.

Which is good for America? A political agenda or getting bin Laden? Keeping bin Laden alive is good for wacko extremist politics. But the patriot asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?" GAO has finally moved Congress to work for America? How many Cellar Dwellers also feared to ask what only a patriotic Congressman (or presidential candidate) would ask. When DO we go after bin Laden? A lying president will not.

Let me help. The lying president wasn't named Bush or Nixon. My Lai occurred March 16, 1968.
Old lying liberal Democrat LBJ was the lying president during My Lai. How many thousands of civilians and US military died because of his lies and micromanagement? GWB has no chance of finishing up his eight years in office cathing up to LBJ's five years of criminal activity.

We've had lots of liars. LBJ is right there with Wilson and Bush in shear criminality.

Can you attempt to adjust for inflation?

It says, in 2007 dollars.

$4 billion in 1776 dollars would have been impressive.