Jamez sources FOLLOWED BY HIS DECLARATION

[Defekted]

Ian Bishop (NYPost)

John Podhoretz (NYPost)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podhoretz

AMIR TAHERI (NYPost)

ROBERT F. TURNER (WSJ OpEd)

Rick Maze (navytimes.com)

fake article by Ruzbeh Hosseini



And im much more of a libertarian (not liberal lol) than a conservative and def not a neo-con republican..these brainwashed sheep cant tell the difference between the 3 different factions..all they scream about is right wing evangelicals ..where are they? lol Rudys killing in the red states right now.. they dont understand new school younger republicans are very diverse from north east so called Rinos to southern christian conservatives to country club snobs and blue collar working class and lets not forget GW got 49% of the hispanic vote! ...they love to portray a image of me as some wacko right wing nut ..its great though the people who read these boards must see how ridiculous they sound..


lol, i barely had to break a sweat with this one..... for someone who discredits the neocons and says he is far from it...... he loves to use them entirely for his source.... hoping a simple email address at the end of the article will be overlooked

[jameznyhc]

I dont discredit them at all you dick.. I agree we had many legitment reasons to go into iraq besides WMD ..Every democrat was salivating to go into iraq and only one voted against the war..he shot at planes for 12 years committed genocide against the kurds, and shia, Corrupted the oil for food program and bribed french , russian and chinese govt officals with billions in oil vouchers.. As for WMD britain, the saudis, russia, japan , intelligence determined he had wmd, He kicked out weapons inspectors, And he used WMD in the past ..he attacked 2 countries and tried to assinate Bush sr. ...So the man was very dangerous and psychotic shall we go into detail about his torture chambers?? how he would feed people feet first into these chopping machines..raping women ,, murdering children ..

That does not make one a NEOCON..As for Amir Taheri he is an iranian born journalist living in britain..he is syndiicated so his columns appear in newspapers everywhere ..He was the editor of Irans largest daily newspaper and is fighting the mullahs and the nut job who denys israels existence..he does not want military action only as the very last resort and that would be a surgical strike on the nuclear development plants ..he against invading and mass bombing tehran.. So you need to educate yourself..as ruzbeh he post and writes articles on many differernt pro western iranian websites that i had gone back thru all my posts and googled so i could give you morons the link..

Also theres alot of Republicans such as Pat Buchanan who is the polar opposite of a Neocon..he allways condems israel and was against this war..But he agrees that Petraus plan was the right thing to do ..he believes victory is the only solution..to stabilize the country before we just pull out and let it turn it over to al qaeda as the sunnis and shia butcher each other.. His views mirror mine and he is no neo con

You just dont understand because your a left wing brainwashed sheep ..you bash bush for having relations with the saudis yet you praise peloss's asskissing to a man who tried to oppress the people of lebanon ..please kid go back to bed ..this obsession with me is really consuming you lol..

[ShaE]

I dont discredit them at all you dick.. I agree we had many legitment reasons to go into iraq besides WMD ..Every democrat was salivating to go into iraq and only one voted against the war..he shot at planes for 12 years committed genocide against the kurds, and shia, Corrupted the oil for food program and bribed french , russian and chinese govt officals with billions in oil vouchers.. As for WMD britain, the saudis, russia, japan , intelligence determined he had wmd, He kicked out weapons inspectors, And he used WMD in the past ..he attacked 2 countries and tried to assinate Bush sr. ...So the man was very dangerous and psychotic shall we go into detail about his torture chambers?? how he would feed people feet first into these chopping machines..raping women ,, murdering children ..

That does not make one a NEOCON..As for Amir Taheri he is an iranian born journalist living in britain..he is syndiicated so his columns appear in newspapers everywhere ..He was the editor of Irans largest daily newspaper and is fighting the mullahs and the nut job who denys israels existence..he does not want military action only as the very last resort and that would be a surgical strike on the nuclear development plants ..he against invading and mass bombing tehran.. So you need to educate yourself..as ruzbeh he post and writes articles on many differernt pro western iranian websites that i had gone back thru all my posts and googled so i could give you morons the link..

Also theres alot of Republicans such as Pat Buchanan who is the polar opposite of a Neocon..he allways condems israel and was against this war..But he agrees that Petraus plan was the right thing to do ..he believes victory is the only solution..to stabilize the country before we just pull out and let it turn it over to al qaeda as the sunnis and shia butcher each other.. His views mirror mine and he is no neo con

You just dont understand because your a left wing brainwashed sheep ..you bash bush for having relations with the saudis yet you praise peloss's asskissing to a man who tried to oppress the people of lebanon ..please kid go back to bed ..this obsession with me is really consuming you lol..
I'm sorry, I know it seems silly, but I got as far as "legitiment" and couldn't bear to go on lol :lostit

- left wing brainwashed sheep who might vote for giuliani
:heythere

[Defekted]

what you dont seem to understand son, so let me teach you .... is dont throw stones when you live in a glass house.....

you post how you are this enlightend republican with liberal social views and a libertanian..... not a neocon, yet ALL your fucking sources are neocons from the pathetic nypost and the likes......

THENNNNNN you have the audacity to call out Spano and Shae for being fake independents who are left of Bill maher of whatever the fuck you said, dont make me quote your posts, i did it three time already today, one more and ill have to take a 2 hour shower.....

oh so you mirror Pattys beliefs? lol, so your share his views on Israel? hmmmm, kinda contradicts every article you have EVER posted..... DO YOU KNOW THAT PAT BUCHANAN BELIEVES EVERYTHING WE DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS AT THE SERVICE OF THE ISRAELIS AND THAT WE NEED TO CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD..... be careful son, you are entering a dangerous waters by saying your mirror his opinions....

[ShaE]

one more and ill have to take a 2 hour shower.....


:LOL

[jameznyhc]

I'm sorry, I know it seems silly, but I got as far as "legitiment" and couldn't bear to go on lol :lostit

- left wing brainwashed sheep who might vote for giuliani
:heythere


Giuliani is my favorite candidate i agree with him on

Foreign policy and terrorism, Crime fighting, Lower taxes, Decreased spending, Welfare and how govt programs do not solve peoples problems, he anti affirmitive action, very pro-bush, he very pro business and his economic policys turned nyc from bankruptcy to a multi million dollar surplus, made it the safest big city in america, saved manhattan as business were fleeing and hookers were sucking dick and smoking rock up on 42nd st..You think Bush is hardcore?? lol Rudy had the NYPD escort Arafat from Radio City music hall he was also fiercly anti Castro in the Reagan Admisistration...he for merit pay when dealing with teachers, and is the furthest thing from a liberal besides bein pro choice and civil unions.. .What boggles my mind is what on earth do you have in common with me politcally where we would vote for the same candidate..so please why would you consider voting for him id love to know

[Defekted]

i do bash bush for having relations with the saudis cause they are just a tyrannical as Saddam..... and have one of the worst human rights records in the world.... so if we want to spread freedom and morality to the middle east, some consistancy would help....

and again, pelosi is going there on a fact finding mission, to see how is it possible to improve conditions for all players, including the Israelis, lebanese, palestinians, and most of all our troops in iraq...lets see what she comes out with..... she isnt inviting Assad to her ranch in texas, and has billions of dollars in economic ties with syria, it was just a one day trip to talk like adults, not whine like children...dont compare our relations with SA to this one day trip to syria, doing so makes you look even more incoherent than you already have proven yourself to be.....

As for the iranian authors.... Darius already tore that into a new asshole, with factual, credible sources LIKE HIS MOTHER, lol...... and also the fucking AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHO HAD TO SAY ON NIGHT-CLUB-CITY THAT IT WAS A FABRICATION.........

so please son, save it....... you need to reevaluate your strategy..... the paste-a-thon from bullshit sources, relentlessly, calling out other people as fake, and doing the countless of other pathetic things is doing little good for your crusade to getting neocon converts and rudy in office in 2008.... lol

[ShaE]

what on earth do you have in common with me politcally where we would vote for the same candidate..so please why would you consider voting for him id love to know

Then pay attention the next time I tell you. I will not repeat myself AGAIN. This is like the 3rd time IN TWO DAYS you've asked me to explain or clarify something I already HAVE to you. Previously it was in the same damn thread and you still asked.

Not my fault your reading comprehension sucks as badly as your grammar and spelling :disgusted

[jameznyhc]

what you dont seem to understand son, so let me teach you .... is dont throw stones when you live in a glass house.....

you post how you are this enlightend republican with liberal social views and a libertanian..... not a neocon, yet ALL your fucking sources are neocons from the pathetic nypost and the likes......

THENNNNNN you have the audacity to call out Spano and Shae for being fake independents who are left of Bill maher of whatever the fuck you said, dont make me quote your posts, i did it three time already today, one more and ill have to take a 2 hour shower.....

oh so you mirror Pattys beliefs? lol, so your share his views on Israel? hmmmm, kinda contradicts every article you have EVER posted..... DO YOU KNOW THAT PAT BUCHANAN BELIEVES EVERYTHING WE DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS AT THE SERVICE OF THE ISRAELIS AND THAT WE NEED TO CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD..... be careful son, you are entering a dangerous waters by saying your mirror his opinions....

once again your too fuckin stupid i have to spell it out for ya ..Pat mirrors my beliefs about the WAR!! .. He was against it from the start and allways gives israel grief..Im very pro israel and i thought it was a legitimet reason.. I was pointing out to your shallow simplistic childish mind the are republicans who are not neo-cons yet agree with neo cons on how to go about policy in Iraq..how do you make it thru the day being so dense?

[jameznyhc]

Then pay attention the next time I tell you. I will not repeat myself AGAIN. This is like the 3rd time IN TWO DAYS you've asked me to explain or clarify something I already HAVE to you. Previously it was in the same damn thread and you still asked.

Not my fault your reading comprehension sucks as badly as your grammar and spelling :disgusted

No you didnt im talking specific policys.. Rudys policys are very close to bush so why on earth are you supporting Rudy?

[ShaE]

once again your too fuckin stupid i have to spell it out for ya ..Pat mirrors my beliefs about the WAR!! .. He was against it from the start and allways gives israel grief..Im very pro israel and i thought it was a legitimet reason.. I was pointing out to your shallow simplistic childish mind the are republicans who are not neo-cons yet agree with neo cons on how to go about policy in Iraq..how do you make it thru the day being so dense?

Jamez, it really makes you look foolish when you write and think how you do all the while calling everyone else here simpleminded, foolish, brainwashed, and looney. I'm sure WE'RE all the problem...

The call is coming from inside the house :yourcrazy:callme

[ShaE]

No you didnt im talking specific policys.. Rudys policys are very close to bush so why on earth are you supporting Rudy?

Ahem...I said I could get on board w/ moderate republicans. verbatim. I searched my posts with "giuliani" as keyword, you're welcome to do the same.

Bush is no moderate republican, bush is no republican period.

Last reason, and I'm keeping it simple, how many times have I told you my primary concern is about the intelligence, persona, and ability of the CANDIDATE not the party? Bush is a fucking moron who cannot form a sentence, surrounds himself w/ idiots, and cannot take constructive criticism from anyone. He's a poor leader, and a poor thinker.

Rudy is a seasoned politician, capable leader, INTELLIGENT man and would 100% put the right people in the proper positions to help him govern. Not "yes" men to whom he owes favors. He admits mistakes, admits his fallibility, and can adapt well and change course when needed. He's tough w/o being stupid. Bush is stupid.

Unlike you, who votes along party lines, I give a fuck about the PERSON not just policies. I will not vote for a fuckin moron, of any party, and I will support an excellent candidate w/ the proper qualities over somebody spouting the "proper policies" first.

[Defekted]

once again your too fuckin stupid i have to spell it out for ya ..Pat mirrors my beliefs about the WAR!! .. He was against it from the start and allways gives israel grief..Im very pro israel and i thought it was a legitimet reason.. I was pointing out to your shallow simplistic childish mind the are republicans who are not neo-cons yet agree with neo cons on how to go about policy in Iraq..how do you make it thru the day being so dense?

He was against this war because he thought that we were doing it for Israel and not our own interests...... so obviously he doesnt mirror you about the WAR!!!! lol.... he has been against this war completely from the beginning and has continued to do so up until this last surge.... so maybe you agree with him the last 3 weeks..... but mirroring pat buchanon, an isloationist who thinks US should stop meddling with affairs outside the 50 states is far from your ideology .... which is cut and day neo con......

[Defekted]

Iraq
Buchanan was a passionate and outspoken critic of the 2003 Iraq War from the earliest days. He argued it was a useless war based on deception and imperialism, largely fought to defend Israeli interests and the interests of American oil firms. Buchanan has also been critical of the war from a realpolitik perspective, arguing Saddam Hussein was a more stable leader for Iraq than any American alternative


taken from wikiepedia....pat buchanon

Mirrors your beliefs on the WAR!!! my ass

[Defekted]

Still One More Card to Play
By Patrick Buchanan

Wednesday night, George Bush seemed to play his last card in the Iraq war. It was not impressive. Consider.

First, he warned of the awful consequences of a U.S. defeat: "Radical Islamic extremism would grow ... in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Bush then warned of the awful consequences of the Baker commission proposal to "announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces." "(T)o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."



Yes No
Yes No

Yes No


Twin those two warnings, and what is Bush saying?

His critics favor a course in Iraq that risks the fall of Baghdad, Iraq torn apart, slaughter of our friends, a surge in Islamic terror, the toppling of moderate Arab states, chaos in the Gulf, billions in oil revenue flowing to al-Qaida killers and a nuclear Iran.

And how do we avert so monstrous a calamity?

A "surge" of 21,500 troops, 15 percent of the U.S. forces already in Iraq, to pacify the capital. And even that troop commitment is "not open-ended."

This is just not credible. For, if the situation is as dire as Bush says and the potential disaster as horrific as he describes, the logical course would be to treble the number of troops in Iraq and commit to fight indefinitely.

How explain the disconnect? Is Bush absurdly exaggerating the consequences of a pullout?

No. U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East are indeed at risk because of the hubristic folly of our political elite in putting them there, when they launched this insane war.

But Bush cannot now commit to fight to victory, because the war is lost in the United States. Two-thirds of the American people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to save Iraq. Though they do not want a defeat and may not realize the consequences of a defeat, they are willing to risk a defeat, rather than continue to read of American kids being IED'ed to death and dismemberment in Baghdad and Anbar. The people want out and are saying to hell with the consequences.

That is the political realty that underlay the president's modest proposal of a "surge" to avert what he warns is a strategic disaster.

But Bush has to know the card he played is not going to save the pot into which he has plunged his legacy, the credibility of his country and America's standing as a superpower.

Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?

Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to -- Tehran.

To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.

So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.

Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation -- widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.

"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."

But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.

What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.

And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill. At first.

And Bush would have another legacy than a lost war in Iraq. Like Menachem Begin, only big-time, he would have his own Osirak.

[jameznyhc]

isnt that what i said he was aginst the war he is anti israel he had no support for invading iraq lol!!!!!!!!!! But we agree NOW her ill spell it out in caps for you THE PRESENT, CURRENTLY, SUPPORTING PETRAUS PLAN AND THE SURGE, BELIEVES WITHDRAWING WOULD BE A DISATER..are you getting it yet?? your really making yourself look pathetic

[Defekted]

Mirrors my ass

[Defekted]

isnt that what i said lol!!!!!!!!!! But we agree NOW her ill spell it out in caps for you THE PRESENT, CURRENTLY, SUPPORTING PETRAUS PLAN AND THE SURGE, BELIEVES WITHDRAWING WOULD BE A DISATER..are you getting it yet?? your really making yourself look pathetic

read the article and see what he says about the surge of 21,500 troops

[ShaE]

read the article and see what he says about the surge of 21,500 troops

you mean the surge of 21,5 that turned into 31+??

Yea, that was great.

[Defekted]

but to avoid getting off topic....

back to the point of this thread....

you are a hypocrite, and a complete neoconservative....your posts and sources have proven that......

and what makes it so bitter to you, is that the neocon movement is one and done with the american public, you have had your one experiment, and it turned out to be shit in your mouth....... my deepest condolenses

[jameznyhc]

Still One More Card to Play
By Patrick Buchanan

Wednesday night, George Bush seemed to play his last card in the Iraq war. It was not impressive. Consider.

First, he warned of the awful consequences of a U.S. defeat: "Radical Islamic extremism would grow ... in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Bush then warned of the awful consequences of the Baker commission proposal to "announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces." "(T)o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."




Yes No
Yes No

Yes No


Twin those two warnings, and what is Bush saying?

His critics favor a course in Iraq that risks the fall of Baghdad, Iraq torn apart, slaughter of our friends, a surge in Islamic terror, the toppling of moderate Arab states, chaos in the Gulf, billions in oil revenue flowing to al-Qaida killers and a nuclear Iran.

And how do we avert so monstrous a calamity?

A "surge" of 21,500 troops, 15 percent of the U.S. forces already in Iraq, to pacify the capital. And even that troop commitment is "not open-ended."

This is just not credible. For, if the situation is as dire as Bush says and the potential disaster as horrific as he describes, the logical course would be to treble the number of troops in Iraq and commit to fight indefinitely.

How explain the disconnect? Is Bush absurdly exaggerating the consequences of a pullout?

No. U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East are indeed at risk because of the hubristic folly of our political elite in putting them there, when they launched this insane war.

But Bush cannot now commit to fight to victory, because the war is lost in the United States. Two-thirds of the American people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to save Iraq. Though they do not want a defeat and may not realize the consequences of a defeat, they are willing to risk a defeat, rather than continue to read of American kids being IED'ed to death and dismemberment in Baghdad and Anbar. The people want out and are saying to hell with the consequences.

That is the political realty that underlay the president's modest proposal of a "surge" to avert what he warns is a strategic disaster.

But Bush has to know the card he played is not going to save the pot into which he has plunged his legacy, the credibility of his country and America's standing as a superpower.

Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?

Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to -- Tehran.

To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.

So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.

Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation -- widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.

"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."

But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.

What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.

And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill. At first.

And Bush would have another legacy than a lost war in Iraq. Like Menachem Begin, only big-time, he would have his own Osirak.


your using old outdated articles my friend..ya see pat thought the surge would be a military escalation..an excuse to invade iran and syria.. he was wrong and now supports what petraus is doing there.. i kept telling you fools this surge is way more about persuading insurgents, training iraqis, negotiating, etc.. even petraus himself says it can not be solved militarily ..stop posting old shit like you accuse me of

[Defekted]

your using old outdated articles my friend..ya see pat thought the surge would be a military escalation..an excuse to invade iran and syria.. he was wrong and now supports what petraus is doing there.. i kept telling you fools this surge is way more about persuading insurgents, training iraqis, negotiating, etc.. even petraus himself says it can not be solved militarily ..stop posting old shit like you accuse me of

How old can it be, lol, the surge is barely a month old.....

he was against the surge, now he thinks that we should let the chimp get one last card and not stop him short..... big deal..... what a huge change in policy.

I know Pats policies well, i never miss a McLaughlin group

i think the surge is doomed to fialure.... some people want to end it tomorrow, and some in august and some in 5 years...... all are going to have the same results