To Paul’l
Paul’l I thought you might have given up, not that you don’t put up a good argument at times.
Yet the one about the Surge, as I’ve mentioned more than once before, when I also told you to get onto the Washington Post and learn the real truth about the Surge.
Like every good picture tells the story, could reckon a journalistic camera cameo tells the truth much better.
No need to prolong the later hidden news story about a group of Iraqi government Shias about to arrest a group of Sunnis outside Baghdad who appeared to be acting suspiciously –
when lo and behold in swoops a US gunship and rather than arresting the Sunnis, the marines poked their guns at the Shias.
Of course this startling piece of news was soon successfully blackened out by the Murdoch Media et al, similar to foot and mouth infected Brazilian beef being landed in New South Wales a year before, the Murdoch Media soon able to force George Negus to shut up about it, as such cancerous spin is the way of our Western official mouthpiece today.
Certainly it is no surprise about Saddam’s Sunni Shaiks hobnobbing with the US top brass, very likely also including Georgie Dubya.
Makes one wonder why America ever moved into attack Iraq in the first place, when a takeover could have even been arranged with the Saudi Sunni top brass, with Saddam simply very wealthily paid off.

Missed reading your note, Fractelle, too much after my old adversary, Paul'L - come back to worry us.

Yep, got Ron Suskind's book, Way of the World, in fact.

Also as you'll see in my thread to Paul'L, I've had a fair bit to do with the Washington Post which was recommended years ago by our Murdoch School of Humanities, which Paul'L reckon's is run by the Loonie Left.

Going by many of our OLO's, it seems our major study areas contain mostly spin merchants.

Well now, as we might ask, where is truth most likely to come from.

That is why I am sticking to the Washington Post, in fact.

As I said, recommended by our Murdoch School of Humanities.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

'You have put in much astute effort in trying to persuade Keith, maybe Keith is a quantum leap from our own universe in one of his own where Bush Jnr is wise and just ... well it is one explanation as his blind support for Bush defies reason in this universe.'

Well if you'd read what I'd originally asserted, and it certainly wasn't that George was wise and just, you'd understand neither Yabby nor Bushbasher have actually challenged my original asertion. Which if one applies logic may mean they cannot debunk the points I raised in support my assertion.

The have cherry picked a few minor related issues and tried to debunk the overall assertion by attempting amateurishly to debunk those. They have failed miserably and Yabby is reduced to now saying, 'I think that bushbasher is correct on this one' or in other words: what bushbred said ... He's gone from light comic relief to a laughing stock.

If you think that astute ... well what can I say.

Your simple unsupported assertion is that George wasn't wise nor just and is something neither I nor history is likely to bother judging... it's way to subjective when such generalisations are made. But show me how he is unlikely to be viewed as successful and I might spend some time in responding to you.

"Well if you'd read what I'd originally asserted, and it certainly wasn't that George was wise and just, you'd understand neither Yabby nor Bushbasher have actually challenged my original asertion."

say what? i responded to your nonsense point by point. have i "cherry picked a few minor related issues"? yes, i guess, if fibbing us into a needless war resulting in more or less a million iraqis dead can be considered "minor". of, if you consider making the u.s. a full-blown torture nation is "minor". or ... oh what's the point?

enough. you're not arguing, you're simply playing rhetorical games. others can continue, but i think life's too short to respond to content-free crap.

fractelle, excellent quotes: it perfectly summarises the surreal, psychopathic nature of bush and his fellow criminals.

*The have cherry picked a few minor related issues and tried to debunk the overall assertion by attempting amateurishly to debunk those. *

Ah of course Keith. Why should a minor issue like a few hundred
thousand women dying in the third world, be a major issue to you
or to George?

They are not Americans after all. Much more serious is 3000
people dying in 911, because of course American prestige was
at stake here. Never mind that about 20'000 Americans die from slack
guns laws. They kill each other, so its not the Arabs.

8 years ago, Clinton left America in pretty good condition. The
budget was in surplus, the economy was doing well, relations
with the rest of the world were improving. His major blunder was
enjoying a bit of nookie on the side, a major crisis it seems,
for the Republicans.

8 Years of GeorgenDick and what do we have? A 1 trillion $ deficit,
the economy on the ropes, a non functioning banking system, the
Fed printing money as fast as they can to keep America's head
above water.

America is hated around the globe, as GeorgenDick have the people
skills of a couple of pitbulls. The only ones sad to see them finally
go are the comedians, as few presidents will provide them with
as much material as those two clowns.

Around the globe, journalists mostly agree that the Bush regime
has been a disaster. The American people have learned the hard
way and they too see the disaster.

But Keith tells us that history will see it all differently and that
George will be seen as a hugely successfull prez. Keith, you are a troll.

Just come clean, the game is over.

dagget

firstly, i did cite my source, saddam's KILLER FILE. most murderers in history have a profile at KILLER FILE. anyone who is interested in the subject and who knows anything about it would have gone to KILLER FILE.

secondly, your source justforeignpolicy.org obviously inflates its figures. i'd trust the UN even over that site, which puts the figure much lower. if 600000 iraqis have died VIOENTLY, then that leaves about 300 a day dead. also, it is illogical to count deaths that would not have been caused if the war didn't happen. for god's sake, a woman could have tripped over some rubble and hit her head!

you have to realise that freedom isn't free.

now dont the 500000 dead children show that sanctions DON'T work? how else do you expect to deal with a power-obsessed dictator? unless your morals are flexible enough to negotiate with such murderers.

what was this uprising? i've never heard of it but if it is true, then planning the overthrow of a dictator who has the power of life and death over every one of his citizens isn't easy and can be thrown off track. the repression of the rebellion is not the fault of the US because that type of thing is what the US tried to stop.

the reason for the war was simple - saddam was a threat in a post 9/11 world. he was a threat to our victory in the war on terror. in fact, the day after 9/11, there was talk of overthrowing saddam

but this link can answer your theory on the million dead iraqi children from sanctions - http://pages.prodigy.net/thomasn528/blog/2001_10_07_newsarcv.html#6228606

and this one can answer your doubts over saddams terror - http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001629

you have to realise that freedom isn't