Vice President Reaches a New Low

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]

The VP was 100% correct.....as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
--Dick Cheney March 16 ,2003 on Meet the Press

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
-- Dick Cheney May 31, 2005 on Larry King Live

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
-- Dick Cheney March 16, 2003

"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more."
–- Dick Cheney November 7, 2003

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
If al Qaeda was to plant a mole in the US Congress/US Senate with the mission of undermining the morale and will of the USA to win in Iraq.....the actions of this mole would be identical to the behavior of the Democrat leadership. Bush/Cheney say they are not questioning their patriotism...only their judgement. I QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM....


[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at recent actions fron the majority party and ask "What exactly would they do if their goal was to undermine our war effort and insure victory for AQ and the insurgents and maybe Iran as well?", there'd be damn little difference from what they've just done.

Their every action is fully calculated for political gain, American security and military success be damned. There's a special place in hell for backstabbing traitors.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Their every action is fully calculated for political gain, American security and military success be damned. There's a special place in hell for backstabbing traitors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait....you're talking about Democrats? Get a clue.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
The resistance has been MINIMAL! Over 25% more soldiers died under President Clinton's first four years, DURING PEACE, than have died in Iraq. (DoD website

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? You mean like WWII vets having heart attacks or something?

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq isn't a mess. We are winning, have been winning, will win eventually

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really think of anything to say. Good luck to you, man.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what he said is way overdue. Under Lincoln, these "peace" democrats would have been thrown in jail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you support such an action? Why or why not?
[ QUOTE ]
we can maintain stability in a region that would be a lot more unstable if we weren't there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Orly? What planet do you live on? The region is unstable now and was stable before we got there.

It's hard to do, but I think we found us someone who actually still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
"Pretty disgusting stuff from a man who's policies and lies about them have led to zero attacks in the US by Al Qaeda since the start of the war on terrorism"

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a tiger repelling rock I want to sell you.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq isn't a mess. We are winning, have been winning, will win eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good! Now, can you tell me what the hell your defintion for winning this war is?
[ QUOTE ]
I hear a lot of, "We are not them, we are peaceful. They want nothing but war." from Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, do you live over there or something?
[ QUOTE ]
There is more stability in the region than there has ever been. Iraq isn't invading its neighbors anymore. Saddam isn't slaughtering and starving the locals anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you brought up killing of innocent civilians. Here's something that might educate you.
[ QUOTE ]
If we leave Iraq, Iran invades Iraq, overthrows the government, and Israel lays waste to the whole effin region for security. Talk about instability.

[/ QUOTE ]
If a junkie stops shooting up, he goes through terrible tough withdraw. The logical answer therefore is to shoot up the rest of his life.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that Felix dreams about being Slim Pickens sitting on the A-bomb as it leaves the bomb-bay in "Dr. Strangelove"

[/ QUOTE ]

You All Know This Song (scroll about halfway down to player: hit play)

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arguing that a very, very rare event which occurred once but not again, as of yet, proves something (anything -- that the Bush policies are good or that the Bush policies are bad) is stupid beyond the pale.

[/ QUOTE ] There has been exactly zero attacks since 9/11. This is irrefutable evidence that there has been exactly zero attacks since 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]Strange thing. I did not dispute this. And how could I ? This is indeed a fact. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So, your point number one is an irrelevancy.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, one can say without a doubt that the Bush administration's actions have not increased attacks on US soil by Al Qaeda because there has been exactly zero attacks.

[/ QUOTE ] I will only say this, as a hint: It takes more evidence than the mere "passage of time" to show cause. You bump my car once every month or so when you drive off with yours. I paint my car yellow. I complain to the police. I poison your dog. You change jobs. And I start a low calorie diet. You stop hitting my car. What caused you to? Wouldn't you agree that merely the fact that you stopped hitting my car proves little, if anything, without any deeper analysis? mmm

Onwards to the only valid point you are making, i.e. Bayes and if indeed you are hitting my car often enough, or extremely rarely.

[ QUOTE ]
You are treating 9/11 as some sort of rare occurrence or as some event in a predictable pattern. But, the occurrence of the event itself changes the probability of future attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
You were the White House Adviser and you made predictions on threat assessment. You made an assessment on 9/10/01. You also made an assessment on 9/12/01. Did the threat go up, down, or stay the same on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]Up.[ QUOTE ]
Did your 9/12 report argue, "No need to worry anyone. This was just a freak rare event and an obvious one time attack. All you idiots panicking obviously don't understand basic probability theory."

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, this was the Bush team stance, post-WTC bombing and pre-9/11. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The attack changed the equation and it greatly increased the likelihood we would be attacked again.

[/ QUOTE ]Again, you are not arguing here with an anti-Bayesian! The a posteriori probability of a terrorist attack on the U.S. increased, indeed, after 9/11. But a very, very rare event did not suddenly change to an event with a probability so high of happening again that its subsequent non-occurrence proves something by itself.

Is this clear enough, please ?

Especially not when it comes to causation! I'm guessing there must have been millions of Americans who "took measures" against an event like 9/11 occurring again. Millions must have prayed to their God. Thousands must have held on tight to their rabbit foot. Others must have chanted pledges of allegiance to Satan. Bush attacked Iraq. Who can tell for sure which measure has ( if it has ) prevented another 9/11?

Show cause, councillor.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure 9/11 greatly increased the likelihood we would be attacked again.

[/ QUOTE ]Pearl Harbor did not increase by too much the likelihood of such an attack occuring again as it did. But it did increase the probability that the Japanese were in attacking, belligerent mode. Most probably, the U.S. would go to war against Japan. (In fact, Pearl Harbor made that a lock.)

After 9/11, the probability that islamic extremists had declared "war" against the U.S. was a virtual lock. The probability of further attacks against the U.S. by islamic terrorists increased. The threat to airline safety increased. The threat to the overall safety of installations and citizens increased. The threat from Saddam Hussein did not increase at all.

The Japanese declare war against the U.S. and the U.S. goes to war against Australia. Hell, they are in the way.

Mickey Brausch