kapkomet

Hypothetical. Rex, you're a swell guy. Balta, you're a real jackass. (now I'll be the fall guy... ) Kap, you're a swell jackass. All three have different meanings but by word association things can be taken differently. I've read several times today that you all are trying to say the Bush Administration said that Iraq had to do with 9/11. On a strict interpretation, no, that was NEVER said. Was it inferred? It was, if and only if, you then say Al Queda was involved in Iraq. Or another sentance construction: Iraq = Al Queda 9/11 = Al Queda You all are trying to say that BushCo said therefore, 9/11 = Iraq, and that was never said. Only the first two elements were said, and that does not mean Iraq = 9/11 like you all keep saying it does. Holy s***, it's reading. NOT INFERRING, READING.

BP has done a lot of hazy crap long before now. Of course, so has US Steel, and everyone else in Gary, Indiana.

Again, not one quote that says Saddam Hussein or Iraq WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. NOT ONE. Was Al Queda and Iraq linked? Possibly. That's two different things. Linking Al Queda and Iraq vs. Iraq and 9/11 are two completely different things.

So what? It still does NOT link Iraq and September 11 (none of these posts do), it simply says that Iraq was a "terrorist state" and that they will link THAT ELEMENT in the greater war on terror. You can use imagery all you want, but it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the Bush Administration never said they were linked. So, IMAGINE IF Saddam Hussein coordinated a terrorist attack SIMILIAR TO 9/11 - funded and done by Saddam... it STILL does NOT say that they were linked to 9/11. Yes, people, it's semantics, but you're trying to twist something that was NEVER said. There's a BIG difference.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) Great post on the trib today from a reader: That's true. I wish he did have more balls then he now has... to do exactly what he said he would. He wimped out.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 09:03 PM) I would have to say you have the selective memory. Every single speech leading up to the war included the words "9/11", "Al Qaeda", "Bin Laden", and "Iraq". They kept using those words in the same speeches to hammer into our heads that all 4 are somehow connected. It was, is, and always will be that they NEVER said they were linked in any way to the attacks. It amazes me how much people want to distort things to pin particular "fact" on this administration. I don't give a s*** what poll said what, they NEVER EVER said that they were linked, yet everyone jumped to that conclusion, and they REPEATEDLY said that they knew there was ZERO evidence linking the two together. It is a fact, though that Al Queda and Iraq were linked. That's completely different then saying 9/11 and Iraq were linked.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 08:39 PM) They mentioned them together deliberately to link them in the minds of Americans. They knew that by constantly mentioning them together, people would link the two and support the war without question. If that wasn't their intention, they would have clarified it when something like 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible/ linked to 9/11 around September 2002. They did! Holy s*** you people have selective memories. The White House said OVER AND OVER that 9/11 and Iraq were NEVER directly linked... yet you people STILL want to focus on something that was a MEDIA phenomenon.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) Which is exactly the dodge the Bush administration used. You prevent Saddam's forces from going into an area of his country, allow a group tentatively linked to Al Qaeda to set up there, and then say "See, there's an Al Qaeda linked group in Iraq". Never mind the fact that Saddam has nothing to do with that group. Seriously, how in the world that could have been used as a justification for a war would absolutely bewilder me, if not for how I already felt about this country's news media. I also think that's a part of the MSM's hard on to go to war. I mean, really, how much CRAP did we have leading up to it? For at least a year, it was "are we going to invade Iraq?" They wanted a news event to cover, and now they backtrack, just like the rest of the country, when BushCo actually did it. Or Mrs. Bill Clinton's line of "I really didn't know what I was voting for..." Please. The reality is, for most Americans, this is a "play station" war. It doesn't effect a damn thing to nearly everyone over here, and that sucks. People don't understand that we are trying to win an idealogical battle as well, and team BushCo is TERRIBLE at relaying that point. "They'll be sacrifrices..." BY WHO? About 500,000 people, MAYBE a million, have to sacrifce while their loved ones do our dirty work. That's all part of the problem. People here don't get it, except for about 6 months after 9/11.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 05:50 PM) There has been an online petition up at Environment Illinois on this. Sounds like it may alrteady be a done deal but here's the link. https://www.environmentillinois.org/action/.../bp-epapetition Rahm Emanuel co-sponsored a resolution last week that was overwhelmingly approved by the House that condemned BP's plans to increase the pollution load. Not that it seems to have done much good but at least people are aware what's going on. Fun Fact: The Indiana BP facility is also one of only two plants that still dump mercury directly into Lake Michigan. Nice place to do business, eh?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 05:05 PM) So, I think we're coming to an agreement on that part, but it's going to force me to ask this question; if the thing that each leader in Iraq cares about is himself, his sect, and his future power, and they have therefore very little reason for reconciliation, and at the same time even Petraeus is saying that the most important thing is political reconciliation...aren't we pretty much just screwed? If they aren't going to do the single most important thing, what else is left? I think the "surge" was to try to buy more time to get these people to see that they have to get along... Now, there's the arguments that "for 5,000 years, these people have fought"... really? I guess. There's a larger, more sussinct (sp) deal here that if there's stability, the parties can find a way to live together. How do we know that they "aren't going to do the most important thing"? It's not really been given a chance to succeed... and that is largely due to BushCo's handling of things. This all should have been realized in about, oh, the fall of 2003.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 04:44 PM) Wow. Seriously dude. Zarqawi's group was actually in the area of Northern Iraq where they were only fighting the Kurds at the time of the invasion...and tha area of Iraq was basically a no-go zone for Saddam's entire armed forces because it was protected by the No Fly zone. And beyond that, MSNBC reported a few years ago that the U.S. had plenty of chances to go after that group before the war, but chose not to do so. Blaming Saddam for Zarqawi being in Iraq makes about as much sense as blaming the U.S. for 9/11 because the hijackers were in this country before they did it. He was not operating at all in cooperation with the Iraqi government; he was only able to operate at all because of the no-fly zones. I didn't. But I did say he was there. Even if implicitly, he was there, and a part of the larger Al Queda structure. I know that's subtle... but the larger point remains the same.

Ah, got it. He's whining about having to pay for his own flights? WAAAAAAH. Dirty assbag.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) But here's the issue...you can't bomb away an insurgency! No country has ever been able to successfully do that. Because every bomb you drop, every home you destroy, every person you kill winds up creating more insurgents than you kill. That's why the army has had to avoid casualties...not because of those nasty, mean Democrats. The Bush administration stopped the first assault on Fallujah back in 04 not because of those mean Frenchmen or those mean Democrats and their nasty words; they stopped it because it was creating so much more hostility towards the U.S. throughout Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Couple other points; first, it is simply foolish to do things because it's the opposite of what an opponent says they want you to do. Heck, I can produce as many quotes from Al Qaeda leadership saying they want to bleed the U.S. dry in Iraq as you can produce statements showing that a U.S. pullout from Iraq would be claimed as a victory. And next...ok, fine...so what evidence do we actually have that Iraq itself is going to do its part? In 4.5 years, their government hasn't done jack. Their leaders are vastly more interested in keeping their own positions strong than in maintaining that country. Their government has made virtually zero progress on any of the benchmarks set for it by us at the start of this year, and is now on a monthlong vacation. As far as I can tell, that country and its leaders pretty much just preparing for the bigger civil war to follow, and aside from the people currently running the show, virtually none of them have anything riding on the success of that government. I've said this for 3 years now. BushCo SUCKS at getting the right message out. And that is most of the problem... you can't "stay the course" or whatever else BS cliches they use... it's a "political" or "marketing" campaign, which is crap, but that is really what this boils down to. You're right, you can't "bomb away" an insurgency, but you can get rid of it through other means. This, IMO, is BushCo's biggest downfall. Your last paragraph, I agree, largely, but how do you get these people to want to invest in their future? That's part of the BushCo problem as well.

And most, if not all, of this link is pure bulls***. Zarqawi WAS affiliated with Al Queda, and he WAS in Iraq... so that part is bunk. I could counterpoint all of this, but that's a worthless endeavor. "could never be confirmed" is my new favorite phrase of the day - again - and I'll be VERY clear here, as my first post was - Al Queda had operations in Iraq. But that is MUCH different then saying Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) was responsible for 9/11. HUGE difference. The links were there in terms of operations ... the responsibility for 9/11 was not, and they NEVER said that. That is a clear distinction that must be made. I realize that's semantics - but on this point it needs to be clear. If you're saying that they were linking Al Queda and Iraq - I agree. If you are saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, you're wrong - they never said that.

Wow, so the loophole is that it's an "increase" and not new? Blech. Let's drink some more ammonia! And I don't even want to know what "suspended solids" mean.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 04:10 PM) You know what? Even with Jose's long pre-game rituatl and the fact that he wouldn't be used to it, how in the world does it hurt to try him in the pen at this point? My opinion is it is probably even more fruitless then him starting at this point. They need to "find" an injury and open up that roster spot for another looksie.

What is it that they are trying to dump? And is it really an increase in pollution levels? It's a big lake, you know... - and yes, I'm kidding. I see that you're saying "1500 pounds of NEW pollution"... is it different or truely new? Either way, it's bad, and I understand that... but why would they directly ignore federal law on this? (waiting for the - he does it with everything else, so why not this, response...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) They NEVER made these claims when making a case for invasion. Iraq and 9/11 were a direct link. At least that's what they wanted us to believe. Every speech Bush and Cheney made up until the invasion mentioned the words 9/11 and Iraq. They kept beating it into our heads that in order to fight the terrorists that attacked us on our soil we needed to get rid of Sadam Hussein. No, they didn't. They may have said the two ideas in the same speech, but they NEVER said that 9/11 and Iraq were directly connected. Now, they did say that Iraq was a part of the larger war on terror. That is TOTALLY different then what you are trying to insinuate and the distinction needs to be crystal clear here. Again, that is more on the MSM. It's called a bait and switch... by both sides.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) The moment Iraq was brought up after 9/11 this administration lost me, regardless of their so-called intel. How many times, DIRECTLY, has this administration said that they understand that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Yet, the point keeps getting brought up, like it's some badge of rotten lying... the MSM had more to do with that then the adminstration did. Now, they have said that Al Queda operated in Iraq, but on different grounds, then the 9/11 attacks. That is true. And there's a big difference then what you're trying to allude to with your post.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 03:57 PM) Maybe because we think that "blowing s*** up" won't help matters. Hasn't worked well so far, has it? We picked the wrong target. Why keep throwing bodies and money at it, when those could be used so much more effectively elsewhere? But we haven't picked the wrong target. To use Bin Landin's own words, the "war front" is now Iraq. According to their own plans, if they wait us out, they will win, all because the American people can't stand to be in a real war. And we haven't "blown s*** up" - not the way we need to. Too messy... and *gasp* we can't have CASULTIES. The truth is, we will, and in order to justify what's happened already, we have to make this work, like it or not, and getting out of there now is not the answer. By many accounts, even those coming from the MSM (*GASP*), the "surge" is starting to work. The idea of securing areas and not letting control of it go is making progress and stabilizing what they can. If it's stable long enough, things will start getting done (which is why the electricity/water issues, etc. - people can't get out to work on it due to instability). We're in a position that we have to hold the security long enough to raise the standard. Iraq must do its part. If they don't then it doesn't matter. I can't think that most ordinary citizens over there wants to keep going like it has. If they see themselves that stability is coming, they'll respond.

So THAT ALONE is what will cause future attacks... everything that happens, EVER, is because of the Bush Administration's decision to go into Iraq? Come on. That's so lame. The evidence was there - even the Democrats said the same thing. And before you tell me that the evidence was cooked, EVERYONE had access to the same evidence, and I don't care what you tell me - our government doesn't work like that and you know it. Iraq's initial premise was right on. It's what has happened since about 3 months in that has been a travesty - all because everyone's scared of how we'll look conducting a real war.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) No kidding. If we are the policemen of the world trying to rid all evil dictators then perhaps we should invade North Korea and Iran, heck even China. If we want to actually fight the "war on terror" then we should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hey, now we agree on something... sorta (on the Pakistan/Afghanistan bit). I know the "snake" can operate without it's head, so to speak (the old Al Queda mantra), but destroying the head is so symbolic... that it needs to be done at any cost. I guess what bothers me is that we were going to chase down the enemies, and we haven't done crap - now again - because of the "political ramifications" of said actions. Political drama be damned. Get over there, take care of the issues, and get back home.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 03:29 PM) You do realize the irony in even asking that question, yes? Sqwert disagreed with the war from the beginning, said it was a bad idea. The war happens, and goes badly, as predicted. Then someone who supports the war (your "camp") insists that Sqwert come up with an answer, and further says, but don't give me your previously stated answer. To use one of your lines, Kap... come on, you know better than that. Fine... "bad war"... ok, whatever. I disagree, but whatever. Every time someone, anyone, says just go in there, blow s*** up, get things under control on the ground (after all, the army was made to blow stuff up, not be a peacekeeping, rebuilding group), and restore order enough that the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet (that is what I mean by "get it right" instead of this half ass, "don't offend anyone with my policies" crap we see now) we see this sarcastic, "what do you know we don't" line from BS. Offer some substance to it, just don't throw the "neener neener neener I was RIGHT !!!111!1!!!" stuff that's out there.

See? You totally understood, then. Now you know why I put it that way.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) He has over 100 innings in the majors. Most with his results never get another opportunity. He is regressing every season. Why doesn't Haegar or Gio or someone else get a shot then. If Floyd warrant signficant stretch in the major league rotation, there are a lot of guys just as worthy. Give them a shot. Why not say to Floyd, look you have been awful. You're lucky you're getting a major league paycheck. Get someone out and keep the ball in the park and we will then, and only then give you a shot at a role in the rotation? I guess where I'm coming from is you flat out tell him this is his last chance and no matter how bad it gets, he gets his shot - if he gets roughed up, he'll get another shot in 5 days. Pitch with confidence... go get them, the whole rah rah rah speech. If he doesn't cut it, DFA. Goodbye. Haeger has been just as bad, IMO, lately. And Gio, let him pitch in Charlotte and give him a look next year. He's up and coming, not coming and down, like Floyd. It's put up or shut up... and let's get it figured out one way or the other. Bullpen roles is not what we have him for, so this is it.