Timetables send the wrong message.

He thinks our troops are cold-blooded murderers. And Clinton lied about a blowjob.

Since when can Cheney shoot flashes out of his fingers?

That's Rummy. Cheney's the one in the black helmet.

Got it.

let's not forget

Anatomy of an Acosta Post: try to sound smart by copying a news article and changing the pronouns.


Handover to Iraqi Army 'set for the end of next year'
By Ned Parker, Michael Evans and Richard Beeston

The Times
November 10, 2006


American and Iraqi officials have set a date for giving Iraq?s forces responsibility for security across the country.

And yet, just three days after the election, one hears that Under a plan to be presented to the UN Security Council next month, the Iraqi Government would assume authority from coalition troops by the end of next year.

Only hours after Donald Rumsfeld was replaced as US Defence Secretary, American, British and Iraqi officials spoke openly about accelerating the handover process.

Baghdad made clear that it would is saying that it will use the Democrat victory in congressional midterm elections to push President Bush for concessions. Confidants of Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, said that they hoped defeat would make Mr Bushmonkey-boy more open to ideas that he had previously rejected.

However, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, sought to play down the impact of both the Republicans? mid-term election losses and the dismissal of Mr Rumsfeld. She said that it was unlikely that there would be a ?major upheaval? of US policy in Iraq.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute think-tank she said: ?We will leave when they are confident that they can take the role of security in the country on their own shoulders.

?I ask those who are calling for more precipitate action to consider the consequences of such action: we would be leaving the Iraqi Government without the means to prevent a further escalation in the violence, without the tools to enforce the rule of law and without the authority to prevent their country from turning into a base for terrorism.?

All sides said They are claiming that Mr Rumsfeld?s departure provided an opportunity to set a clearer timetable for withdrawing all foreign forces. Ha!

A new tone was set by President Bush. He said that he was open to ideas that would help the US to achieve its goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq?s democratic Government succeeded.

The way I read it, The plan being drawn up in Baghdad, with Washington?s approval, seeks a one-year extension of the UN mandate for foreign forces in Iraq.

But it also states that by December 2007, security in the country?s 18 provinces, apart from the most violent, be handed over to the Iraqi Army and police. US and British troops would play a support role.

The process has already begun in the South, where British forces have handed over two provinces this summer and hope to complete the transfer of a third by the year end.

British military sources said that the downfall of Mr Rumsfeld had given the coalition a golden opportunity to ?rebrand? its strategy in Iraq. Under his era at the Pentagon, one senior British official complained, there was ?very little flexibility?.

The two key aims of the strategy, training the Iraqi Army to take over security and helping the Baghdad Government to spread its influence throughout the country, remained unaltered. But it would be possible now to make clear to the whole Middle East that US and British forces intended to leave Iraq and that the countdown had begun.

Until now Washington and London have Bushco has rejected setting out a timetable for a withdrawal of their forces. But yesterday British military officials suggested that it could be completed in the next year and a half.

Haidar al-Abadi, an Iraqi MP and member of Nouri al- Maliki?s inner circle, said that the Government hoped to raise the issue of a timetable with the US Administration, which rejected it during negotiations in June. Iraqi officials believe that Washington will be more receptive now because the Administration is ?weaker? and less stubborn.

Mr al-Abadi said that a timetable would help to destroy the popular support of armed groups, who claim that American troops will never leave the country. Insurgent groups have repeatedly called for a date for a US withdrawal as their precondition for stopping attacks.Yeah, that Murtha is a crazy SOB.

Have you nothing to do?

Busted! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Uhh, yeah, because we were all thinking that Acosta knows confidants of Nouri al-Maliki.

Round Two: I could take a few minutes for the markup, but just take out everything that sounds smart and what's left is Acosta's.

America ?Pearl Harbored?

Fanatical Warhawks Drafted Blueprint for Bloody U.S. World Domination Years Ago

The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a ?transformation? of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A ?catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor??was seen as necessary to bring this about.

Exclusive to American Free Press

By Christopher Bollyn

The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administration?s ?war on terrorism? and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the group?s long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.

A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.

One of the organization?s documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.

The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as ?a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.?

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush?s ?war cabinet.?

Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.

The group?s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. ?We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,? the statement?s first principle reads.

The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: ?to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values? and ?to accept responsibility for America?s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.?

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,? reveals that the current members of Bush?s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: ?The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.?

?Even should Saddam pass from the scene,? the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, ?may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.?

A ?core mission? for the transformed U.S. military is to ?fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,? according to the PNAC.

The strategic ?transformation? of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to ?a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,? the PNAC plan said.

?The process of transformation,? the plan said, ?is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event?like a new Pearl Harbor.?

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for ?a new Pearl Harbor.?

?They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,? Maletz said. ?Without some disaster or catastrophic event? neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The ?new Pearl Harbor,? in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the ?war on terrorism? shortly after 9-11.

A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense.

The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget.

Similar significant increases in defense spending are planned for 2003 (to $365 billion) and 2004 (to at least $378 billion) in line with the PNAC plan.

Veteran journalist John Pilger recently wrote about one of PNAC?s founding members, Richard Perle: ?I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about ?total war,? I mistakenly dismissed him as mad,? Pilger wrote. ?He recently used the term again in describing America?s ?war on terror.? ?No stages,? he said. ?This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don?t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.? ?

?This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination?a new world order of their making,? Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian and critic of the war policy from the Labor Party said. ?These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.

?This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,? Dalyell said, ?men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war.

I know I will never copy and paste again, not with inspector RDW around!

Does your dog bite?

C-I-L my landlord.

Ha! And you guys said I couldn?t get under RDW?s skin. It wasn?t easy, but it was worth the effort. I was beginning to think I was being too subtle. The added bonus of having turfman attached to RDW?s tit is too good to be true. Alright, pay up!

And I?ll make another side bet. I?ll bet they can?t let it go. The attacks will continue. Let me practice my response: "Whatever!"

I know I owe you 5 bucks....
But you're right, it was fun watching it happen.

RDW's just deflecting from his sorry attempt to plagiarize PC's Santorum fetus joke.

Nice try to play it off, you were trying to look smart and ended up looking pretty stupid in the process. Personally, I don't really care if you are so devoid of intellect that you have to edit newspaper articles and pass them off as your own. You can't even plagiarize competently, that's kinda funny.

But maybe you shitwits should speak to a mod about why flagrant copyright violations might bring the kind of attention that CJ doesn't want to deal with given the nature of this board. Idiots.

Yes....all that profit Acosta is raking in by taking liberties with pre-printed articles is right up there with a Junior High student copying his science report right out of the encyclopedia.

And for the love of boeboe, get those damn Coffee Club banners down at the concerts. The Board's very existence depends on it!

Sounds like someone needs a cookie.

This just gets better and better. A personal insult and a veiled threat. Yes, I'm not satisfied with "ruining" OT. I want to bring down a lawsuit on CJ. You know better. That's the sad part. This started months ago with the Dutch/Katrina post, then the "Big Dig" (Spinny fell for) which seemed to piss you off, etc. You became more and more irate until you treated us to your "shit list" nostalgia post about how great this place was before us "shitwits" ruined it for you. Now yesterday (I even prefaced that one with: ?This is something from a few months back I never posted. I can't remember why.?) and now today's hook, which was the most blatant. You've been had. Be a man about it. It?s all in good fun.

RDW is the smartest robot in the world. There's no use arguing with him.

He might be from the future too.

Maybe he just gets faxes from his future self.

You're trying too hard; it's starting to get pathetic. Which is more likely?

1) Acosta hatched an elaborate secret plan spanning months where he would copy articles and edit them to appear as if he wrote them, all so that he could lure an occasional poster who rarely reads or responds to his posts into calling him out on it in a thread that has nothing to do with him.

2) Acosta tried to look smart, but ended up looking stupid.

"Mr. CJL, after reviewing your guilty plea for copyright violation on the forum you own, and after reviewing sentencing laws and taking inventory of your possessions, I hereby award damages and remedies to the vicitmized media corporations as follows:

You must relinquish your Rising Tour bootlegs, and, you must personally provide all of the loinal pleasure Mr. Gob of Maryland desires, to compensate for the sexual neglect of his wife.

Court is now adjourned."

So, I guess the cookie is out?

You're getting quite petulent. Some milk and cookies?

Libs saw nothing wrong with sticking classified documents in underwear or lying under oath...what's a little plagiarism?

No disrespect to Acosta, whose "sinister" posts make for some of my most enjoyable reading on this board, but did you just figure that out today?

That's a bald-faced blatant lie!!! (He stuck 'em in his socks.)

He's been busy seeking arrest warrants for the entire Massachusetts legislature. Citizens Arrest! Citizens Arrest!

It depends on your definition of what constitutes underwear.

Never even made it to his socks, pockets only. But then again, Turf wouldn't be the first Republican these days to imagine stuffing things in another guy's underwear.

trying too hard. Below your standards. Just a suggestion.

Standards? When?

true

What Turfy said.

It's not like publishing nuke instructions, in Arabic, to the web, eh?

Brilliant! That'll rally the base.