Wren wrote:
I have used Decaf's material in my classes from time to time to expose shameless pandering, demagoguery, and lack of critical thinking.

Some of my more conservative students have stated to me that they share some of Decaf's goals but are horrified to be identied with kooks like him.

I tell them how to research critically and objectively, and then how to make their case to the 4th level of analysis without personalzing the debate and demeaning their opponent.

I also counsel them to never try to exclude such as Decaf from the public forum. For such as those who believe like him, through their darkness illustrate the light of truth.

I've often imagined the looks of horror Wren's students would get if they read how their beloved professor is nothing more than an atheistic hypocrite, who attempts to belittle certain Herald forum members with equal disdain.

It took Clinton 2 years after the WTC bombings to finally issue a directive declaring terrorism "a potential threat to national securiy" he also pledged to "deter and pre-empt" would be terrorists. Since that time, your beloved adulterer proved ineffective in combating the following attacks:

November 1995: Van bombing at army training headquarters, Riyadh, killing 5 Americans.

January 1996: U.S. government requested Qatar's assistance in capturing Khalib Shiekh Mohammed, who was suspected of planted bombs on U.S airliners. He vanished and later became a key planner in the 9/11 attacks.

And my personal favorite: Slick Willey waving bye-bye to bin-Laden, and 150 of his top aides, while en route to Pakistan -- after the Qatar offered their refueling location. It's all there in best-selling author Gerald Posners' Why America Slept: The failure to prevent 9/11. For your reading pleasure

Oh, and let's not forget Clinton Justice Department's Jamie Gorelick, whose genius spawned "the wall of separation" -- a simply spectacular legal device which obstructed information sharing between the CIA and FBI.

At first I was surprised that you even challenged me on this. But then, I also realized that the thought of you losing an argument to me agitates the hell out of you, and makes you become irrational. Would you like me to go on? Or will you concede that Democrats and national defense have no business working together?

OK Professor, why has liberal scrutiny always been on Bush, and never on Hussein?
Because Bush started a war against a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, screwed it up royally, started a class war inside Iraq, let bin Laden get away, let bin Laden and the Taliban get stronger again, and let Iran become more powerful? Yeah, that's it.
Thus making Saddam Hussein an innocent bystander after all, yes?
The point is, we've moved their fight to their own backyard, instead of on America's streets -- which is where we would be fighting them if an idiot peacenik like you were in power.
Backyard? We had the fight in the Taliban and bin Laden's front yard to begin with,
We've never taken our eye off Afghanistan, you silly goose.
until our dimwit-in-chief pulled the troops off to divert resources to Iraq...the country that had nothing to do with 9/11.Queue Hurtstruth tears ....

That would be because Saddam Hussein posed absolutely zero threat to U.S. national security, and was an innocent bystander after all?

The bombing in Riyadh was Khobar Towers, and was an USAF barracks.

On a side note, by your logic, Bush Sr. should have stopped the WTC bombing and Bush Jr. should have stopped 9/11. Point is, the president's aren't necessarily responsible for an attack occuring, however, their reaction to one is what is important. Bush failed to bring the full weight of the military against the 9/11 camps. Compare how many troops are in Iraq versus Afghanistan and where the money is going. It is obvious where his priorities are.
If we requested Qatar's assistance, did they provide it? We give Qatar quite a bit in money and protection, you would think they would help us. Are you advocating that we have invaded Qatar to find that individual?
Sadly, Saddam was an innocent bystander to 9/11. Yes, he was a grievous dictator responsible for many heinous crimes, but so are many others. He had no WMD's, his military was a shell of itself, and he was completely contained by the No Fly Zones instituted by the coalition. Why we have spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives on just another dictator makes no sense when Bin Laden and his cronies roam free.
We have let Afghanistan go on the backburner. Witness the resurgence in violence. Had we sent 150,000 troops there instead, Afghanistan might have been a distant memory. By the way, the fight has not been brought there so we don't fight them here. Have you not noticed the cells that have been caught here in the US, as well as the resurgence of training camps in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia? If anything, they are draining our economic resources with a few thousand insurgents over there.

Decaf wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
I made the mistake of taking you seriously, Decaf. In the words of your hero, GWB, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me, er." You know how it goes.

Why Eric, you never told me about your conversion to Islam! Why don't you share your story with us?

The uninformed might correlate a person's middle name with a particular faith. Surely Decaf is using something else to divine my supposed conversion?

Nice change Eric! I bet Woody gets excited seeing your new middle name!!

utocoman wrote:
Nice change Eric! I bet Woody gets excited seeing your new middle name!!

Thanks, that's worked out better than changing my name to "Everybody Loathes Raymond." That one confused Dumbya. He asked me if I was LDS?

eric hussein miami wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Nice change Eric! I bet Woody gets excited seeing your new middle name!!

Thanks, that's worked out better than changing my name to "Everybody Loathes Raymond." That one confused Dumbya. He asked me if I was LDS?

Dubbs doesn't catch on to things very quickly . . . it took him over a week to notice the extra 'z' in my name.