Pass The Ammo

Hindsight isn’t 20/20 in this case—we already knew he was a dangerous terrorist. That was the whole thing: Bush used the fact that Zarqawi was a dangerous terrorist as an argument for why we had to invade Iraq.

But we didn’t have to invade and occupy Iraq to kill Zarqawi and his organization, we had three seperate chances to do exactly what was done yesterday—drop a bomb on his filthy head. Years ago.

The Pentagon at three different times could have killed Zarqawi before the invasion, but the White House wouldn’t let them—Bush needed to be able to say “there are terrorists in Iraq.” If we killed Zarqawi when we should have, Bush wouldn’t have been able to say that, and would have lost one of his major “justifications” for invading Iraq in the first place.

It was a purely cynical political decision, and who knows how many Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops would be alive if we had taken him out then. He wouldn’t have been able to saw Nick Berg’s head off of his body, that’s for sure.

One thing I know for sure, he is doing the backstroke in a Lake of Fire right now.

All I can say is. “Well done boys!”

PS… No man, your previous layout was way better and this darkness man! We have enough power cuts in Seffrika, no need to remind us when we visit your site dude!

RobC: As Chad correctly noted, I’m not anti-war, I’m anti-Iraq war. Huge difference. I find it odd that you wish I was dead simply because I am stating that we should have dropped a bomb on Zarqawi’s evil head years ago when we first had the opportunities rather than four years later. What exactly is your stance here? That waiting four years was wise?

Are you even thinking about what you’re saying, or is that just your knee-jerk reaction anything critical that is said about the way this war has been prosecuted? Use your head, not your gut—guts can’t think.

JJ: As you know, I’d be perfectly happy to discuss Osama bin Laden and 9/11 and Clinton with you, but this isn’t the thread to muck up with that. Osama isn’t and wasn’t in Iraq, and 9/11 was not planned in Iraq. It was planned in Afghanistan, the invasion of which I supported.

For the sake of argument, let’s say I agreed with your assertion Clinton caused 9/11 by failing to kill Osama—WTF does that have to do with Bush’s decision to let Zarqawi live on three seperate occasions? Nothing. It has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t justify or validate it at all. So stay focused on the topic of the thread: Zarqawi getting blowed up real good.

[...] I’m sure you’ve found plenty of news feeds on it…I’m kinda late on this one. But PTA’s got a fun little discussion goin on. Join that one all of you intellectual types! [...]

I just read this

While Zarqawi’s al Qaeda group has been decimated, it is only one of 14 major insurgent groups operating in Iraq.

“Different groups that operate independently and are not controlled by al Zarqawi, they don’t need him, and they will continue their attacks in the long term,” said Sajjan Gohel, an International Security Expert at the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

Authorities this morning are bracing for retaliatory attacks, and all vehicular traffic is banned in Baghdad and Baqubah, near the place where Zarqawi was finally tracked down. Read More »

John Madden: OOoooo. And Conservative team player JJ pulled the New York card on the libertarian teams best player, Guavo.

Other guy: wow. That was a bit below the belt. Let’s see how Guav is going to play this one out.

John Madden: I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be a factual beginning on Bush, then followed by an extremely homo-erotic comment on their love/hate relationship.

Fighting Falcons, Vipers, Lawn Darts, call ‘em what ya want….I call em….ON TIME, ON TARGET… Once in awhile, intell does get it right.

You’re right JJ, I shouldn’t tell you not to deflect the conversation into completely irrelevant territory. I apologize.

Look, I criticized Bush’s handling of Zarqawi because Bush is the president right now. Why the heck would I bring up some Clinton crap when we’re talking about Zarqawi getting peaced out? It’s got nothing to do with it.

I mean, you are aware that Bill Clinton is no longer president, right?

And throwing stuff Clinton did or did not do is not only irrelevant, but silly when it comes to me—I’m very critical of Bill Clinton on many grounds, and although I think he was a far better president than Bush, I’m wasn’t a huge fan. I could criticize many things that Clinton did: NAFTA, the 1996 Telecommunications act, the bombing of Kosovo, cheating on his wife and lying about it, etc.

But why would I, when we’re talking about Zarqawi? Bringing up Clinton is just what Bush-worshippers do when they’re faced with one of the president’s many failings, they deflect things to some unrelated Clinton matter.

Every president is responsible for their own mistakes.

Hey Chad, I like the new colors much better. Good touch.

What’s really odd is how you call me a Bush-crony when all I did was mention Clinton. I was just making an observation, not trying to subvert your brilliant thesis on Zarqawi. Get over yourself dude.

I said you were doing what Bush cronies do, not that you were one. Perhaps you’re as ambivalent about Bush as I am about Clinton, but I haven’t gotten that feeling from you based on past discussions.

And you weren’t just “making an observation,” you told me that I COULDN’T criticize Bush’s previous inaction on Zarqawi without making some obligatory condemnation of some arbitrary decade-old Bill Clinton mistake—”you can’t Bush bash and not mention how Clinton….”

It’s only acceptable to criticize Bush if I also criticize Clinton in the same breath? Sorry JJ, that’s nonsense. If we were discussing Osama bin Laden and 9/11 then your claim would be relevant and I’d address it. But we’re not, so it’s just a typical deflection of criticism of our Fearless Leader.

(I think this the part where I’m supposed to make some vague homoerotic comment about you, right?)

Yes, after a long string of your typically irrelevant comments, full of false information and ad hominem attacks—usually right after you accuse me of doing something that you just did yourself.

Ad hominem is a commonly used term, you don’t need to speak Latin to be familiar with it. An ad hominem attack involves responding to an argument or assertion by attacking the person making the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

It’s generally the only type of argument you ever present, and this thread is a perfect example of that.

Of course you are, JJ, you’re always “just kidding.” That’s how it goes:

1. I make an assertion with which you disagree.

2. You respond by making ad hominem attacks.

3. I take exception to it, so you say you were “only kidding” and call me self-righteous for having the audacity to call you on it.

It’s very rare that you actually engage the arguments themselves. And come on, JJ—you’re not kidding. Nobody thinks you’re joking when you make those comments to me, least of all me … It’s how you really think of me, so why the charade?

Dude, my first comment on this thread was just making a rational observation about your tendency to Bush-bash. This, like any other comment I make, puts your po’ lil’ heart into a tizzy. So I like agging you on…sue me. I think it’s rather entertaining to say the least. You get so matter-of-fact, and then away goes your ego.

If you wanna call me a Bush-crony, ad hominem arguer, or a blowhole go for it man. I think its funny. I like coming back at you. And yes, I am just kidding around on this website. You want real discussion go over to my website http://www.GodGunsGlory.com and poop your little nuggets of “truth.” But don’t think you are gunna fool everyone on here into believing you are better than me. You aren’t.

Any arguement you would like to engage in lets have it. Granted, it won’t be as fun, having to click on all you hyperlinks to New York Times articles but I am willing to make that sacrifice for my cute little tattooed yuppie from New York.