You're Joking, Right?

[Gray 0]

If more people would have united and supported our President during this war my son and many other sons and daughters would have been home by now. Your vile support of the Iranian Leader and others like him are what hurts my son and puts him in harms way. I can't even begin to tell you how much I despise you now. Everytime I see you in a poker tournament I will route for your downfall.

Do people even think before they type? How exactly would Americans supporting the War in Iraq have made it end more quickly? How does the opinion of anyone here put troops in Iraq in harms way? Like Iraqis are sitting there reading DN's blog doing "Oh ****, he's right, the Iranian president RAWKS (Iraqis don't like Iran, btw). Let's go kill Americans!"

Tony Blair, elequent speaker...leaving office. People who think like you have cost us an important supporter. What do you think Iran is doing with the uriaum they are making, self defense or possibly to blow us up?

Does anyone really believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons against us if they got them? Please. Nuclear weapons would be a barganing chip for them in diplomatic relations, like they've been for everyone for the last 50 years.

Bill Clinton, elequent speaker...let Bin Laden get away. Too busy with his own problems to care about what was really going on in the world. First Twin Tower bombing, the USS Cole, Mogadesu....1996 when war was declared on the US by Bin Laden. No American Response. Perhaps had he taken action like Bush has 9/11 would not have happened. Talk is cheap.

This is blatantly false conservative propaganda. Clinton did respond to Bin Laden, several times. It was Republicans at the time who were criticizing Clinton for going after him, claiming that he was using it as a diversion from the Lewinsky thing (a la, Wag the Dog). But to say there was no American response is absurd, and if you don't believe me, you can read Richard Clarke's book...you know...the guy who was in charge of terrorism under four administrations.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is blatantly false conservative propaganda. Clinton did respond to Bin Laden, several times. It was Republicans at the time who were criticizing Clinton for going after him, claiming that he was using it as a diversion from the Lewinsky thing (a la, Wag the Dog). But to say there was no American response is absurd, and if you don't believe me, you can read Richard Clarke's book...you know...the guy who was in charge of terrorism under four administrations.

Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added]As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added]reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added]

[gobears 0]

Link to responses when Clinton went after Iraq - great "support" from the RepublicansRepublicans skepticalProminent among the skeptics: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and House Majority Leader **** Armey (R-Texas)."I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.""The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons." Rep. Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was unaware that U.S. airstrikes were planned against Iraq until he saw them under way on CNN.Goss (R-Florida) expressed anger that he was never notified by the White House that a strike was imminent and that no members of the House Intelligence Committee were brought into the loop."To be cut out at the eleventh hour is annoying, and it's certainly not helpful," Goss said.He called the fact he was not contacted "a bad mistake of judgment or an oversight by the White House. ... Today the White House should be looking for friends. It's not a good idea to ambush people.""It's certainly rather suspicious timing," said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). "I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office."

[mrdannyg 274]

context means nothing to you. So your links mean nothing to me.

i'm pretty sure your version of context means that you would have no problem if, per se, the government was to admit something one day, then deny it next year, you would accept that it was never true.actually, that's pretty much the only way you can ignore those sources and believe that the government hasn't lied to consistently.

[All_In 0]

Speaks form the heart? About wiping israel off the map and how the holocaust never happened?

find me a reputable source for this claim.get a quote.

[Gunnarr 0]

The thing I like the most about being a fan of Daniel Negreanu is that his demeaner and ways of interacting with people around him make you feel like he is your friend. He is just a regular guy just like you.I enjoy his blogs because they reaffirm this belief I have. This blog is no different. There is no "political correctness" here. Its some normal guy with opinions. Ive disagreed with ALL of my friends at one time or another. There is nothing wrong with that. This isnt the first time I disagreed with some things Daniel stated , but sometimes a friends statements which seam wrong to you can reaffirm what you believe.That is also a good thing. Dialogue is a good thing. This thread is a good thing. For the people who actually take the time to read everything and see opposing views- maybe someone will change their views slightly or just reaffirm what they already believe. Unfortunately, most of us have blinders on. The vast majority dont even know or care who the president of Iran is...to me that is the scary part. Get educated about the world today and have an educated vote. That is the most important thing an American can do IMO.Anyhow some of the things Daniel has stated reminds me of another very similar debate.Remember when Marge Schott said........Hitler was good in the beginning, but he went too far. Gunn

[princeof56k 0]

find me a reputable source for this claim.get a quote.

I'm not trying to defend the guy you were responding to, but that has been widely reported and pretty much accepted as fact.You can find the info with links to sources at the following linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

[alf13 0]

i'm pretty sure your version of context means that you would have no problem if, per se, the government was to admit something one day, then deny it next year, you would accept that it was never true.actually, that's pretty much the only way you can ignore those sources and believe that the government hasn't lied to consistently.

it is about what you want to believe.All the sources cited through links are not the record.The record shows a circumstantial case for war. When you guys learn the definition of "circumstantial"....I will then read those links...for THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME.

Wow...you really are trying your best not to read the time line and the unadulterated sources it links to, aren't you? I provided context along with sources, which you did not read. I then provided sources without context (but still, not undecipherable) which you did not read. Obviously you do not actually want to see something that contradicts your beliefs. If you don't believe that this administration lied or at the very least bent the truth about certain aspects of the Iraq threat, you are extremely naive and uninformed. Even a little amount of research on your part will show you the same. So, unless you don't want your pride/ego to be hurt, look it up for yourself.

See above.

[What is 7x6 0]

find me a reputable source for this claim.get a quote.

Wow........just Wow.Way to go Kid POker, i hope you see who your staunch supporters are. This guy here who wont even accept comments attributed to the Iranian president because its western media reporting it. BTW, i am working on the source. Also, i think i will have some conclusive proof soon about Gravity and Air........i agree with you, they are clearly made up to hold us down by the western media.Do us all a favor, please go move to Iran and live in that utopian society so you can get away from the lies of the west.42

[blueodum 0]

Don't waste your time with Alf - he's an idiot.

[seriousjoker 0]

Frankly, the guy kind of blew me away.

The guy has a master and a P.H.D,what did you expect? Bush only got a bachelor in arts. The thing is,that people are underestimating Iran's Government. They are smart,cunning,and charming when necessary. That's how they have been Jerking U.S.,U.N., E.U. around for the past 5 years over the nuclear issue. They are master at making you walk in a circle.

He came off as extremely intelligent and friendly. It was easy to understand why the people of Iran seem to be so supportive of him as a leader.

Intelligent,you probabely could say that. Friendly,on special occassions.The thing is, he sounds much more inteligent when they translate him into English.You don't belive me,ask your friend Josh Arieh,he can understand Farsi.Don't belive everything you see on T.V. or read off the internet. A small percent of Iranians might have supported him,but hey 53% of voters, voted for Bush after that terrible 4 years of his presidency.And the thing that I find ridiculous is when people say Bush is killing this country, Ahmadinejad is a big threat. You know when people take it to the personal level and put one person at fault. Both Bush and Ahmadinejad are tools. They are just Speakers,the people who write their speeches are the people you really want to go after. DN,I know you got a lot of Iranian friends as there is a bunch of them at the poker scene,ask them about Ahmadinejad.I would suggest that you watch Bill Hicks since you hate Bush(the dad,same thing) so much,but he also pokes fun at Christians so I guess he won't suit your taste.

[KONGOS 0]

it is about what you want to believe.All the sources cited through links are not the record.The record shows a circumstantial case for war. When you guys learn the definition of "circumstantial"....I will then read those links...for THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME.See above.

What do you mean they're not the record?? The IAEA reports are not part of the record? The declassified Iraq NIE reports are not part of the record? The videotaped interviews with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. are not part of the record? I'd sure like to see this singular "record" that you speak of. There are two common meanings when using the word "circumstantial". One being this: - Marked by careful attention to detail : abounding in factual details. And the other being this (when describing evidence): - evidence pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.Unfortunately for you, neither definition accurately describes "the record". One the one hand, we know for a FACT that it was not "abounding in FACTUAL details". In FACT they selectively rejected details provided by their own intelligence agencies in order to strengthen their case. Read through the links and you will see this. On the other hand, this administration did not propagandize this war by saying all they had was circumstantial evidence. They pretended to have definitive proof, which obviously was not the case.So, now that I've learned the definition of "circumstantial", go back and read through the links and sources I provided, come up with a real argument instead of just avoiding the issue by using short, irrelevent comebacks, and finally, ask yourself why you are so afraid to actually view something that contradicts your beliefs.

[alf13 0]

Don't waste your time with Alf - he's an idiot.

How sweet. You can't debate and have no brain, so I must be an idiot. boo hoo.

What do you mean they're not the record?? The IAEA reports are not part of the record? The declassified Iraq NIE reports are not part of the record? The videotaped interviews with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. are not part of the record? I'd sure like to see this singular "record" that you speak of. There are two common meanings when using the word "circumstantial". One being this: - Marked by careful attention to detail : abounding in factual details. And the other being this (when describing evidence): - evidence pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.Unfortunately for you, neither definition accurately describes "the record". One the one hand, we know for a FACT that it was not "abounding in FACTUAL details". In FACT they selectively rejected details provided by their own intelligence agencies in order to strengthen their case. Read through the links and you will see this. On the other hand, this administration did not propagandize this war by saying all they had was circumstantial evidence. They pretended to have definitive proof, which obviously was not the case.So, now that I've learned the definition of "circumstantial", go back and read through the links and sources I provided, come up with a real argument instead of just avoiding the issue by using short, irrelevent comebacks, and finally, ask yourself why you are so afraid to actually view something that contradicts your beliefs.

I didn't want to do this...I am sick of wasting time with people that don't know wtf they are talking about....But I must.If you don't know ****....don't pretend to know.There was cause BEFORE Bush went to the UN. There was cause to enforce the treaties and UN resolutions that Iraq was in breech of.Then Bush obtained resolution 1441:http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htmThat resolution was voted on and passed. The evidence presented was stipulated by every Intelligence agency on this planet.At the end of this resolution..there is this little gem:13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;Iraq breached this resolution as well.Thus...the "serious consequences"Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

The guy has a master and a P.H.D,what did you expect? Bush only got a bachelor in arts.

And a little thing called an MBA from Harvard.

[mtdesmoines 3]

The thing I like the most about being a fan of Daniel Negreanu is that his demeaner and ways of interacting with people around him make you feel like he is your friend. He is just a regular guy just like you.

QFT

[pokerfan1080 0]

What I don't understand is how ANYONE could accept a terrorist regime's opinion over anyone else's.DN has blindly thrown his opinion into the hat with this nut job. That is exactly what these goof balls want people to do. They use unfounded propaganda to persuade those who blindly accept illogical conspiracy theories. Think for yourselves, don't accept propaganda at face value. Do some research, know the facts, think about those facts and then draw your own conclusions.The US in not "forcing" there way of life on anyone. They are giving people the means to bring forward a way of life that is desired by many more people than you think. The only people who don't want this to happen is the greedy, oppressive, self-righteous who somehow believe they are here to bring forward their God's will by killing those who don't obey them while filling their own pockets with riches.Tell me again why this guy should be trusted.

[Tigerlite 0]

How bout a couple million? Think about it, you short sighted moron.So you of course link to left wing commie BS, to prove your point.

I love you Bushies. When you have nothing substantive to say or you feel cornered by your ineptitude and failure, you resort to calling people names. Moron, I am not, sir. I have a law degree from one of the best schools in the country which you probably wouldn't even be allowed to visit. Again, take the challenge and name one thing. Be substantive or shut the hell up.

[DoTaSh 0]

Daniel = Dixie ChicksI have always thought of Daniel as a great business person in addition to a great poker player. He does not rely on poker alone for his income. However, I believe that he made a tactical error by stating, "Bush sucks." People on all parts of the political spectrum play poker. I believe that he may suffer the same financial repercussions as the Dixie Chicks when they said that they were, "ashamed that Bush is from Texas." Hopefully it won't.We can probably guess where Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods' political views are, but they have never said anything as divisive. They know that everyone buys shoes or golf clubs.

[alf13 0]

I love you Bushies. When you have nothing substantive to say or you feel cornered by your ineptitude and failure, you resort to calling people names. Moron, I am not, sir. I have a law degree from one of the best schools in the country which you probably wouldn't even be allowed to visit. Again, take the challenge and name one thing. Be substantive or shut the hell up.

Say no more. Now I know for sure that you are a moron.

[Balloon guy 158]

I love you Bushies. When you have nothing substantive to say or you feel cornered by your ineptitude and failure, you resort to calling people names. Moron, I am not, sir. I have a law degree from one of the best schools in the country which you probably wouldn't even be allowed to visit. Again, take the challenge and name one thing. Be substantive or shut the hell up.

Lawyers are scum sucking bottom dwellers that sell their soul cheaply.Generally speaking.

And a little thing called an MBA from Harvard.

I heard they give those to anyone who's father is associated with the government though.Along with the keys to high performance fighter jets.Man I wish I was connected.

[mrdannyg 274]

it is about what you want to believe.All the sources cited through links are not the record.The record shows a circumstantial case for war. When you guys learn the definition of "circumstantial"....I will then read those links...for THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME.

just to be clear - most of us know exactly what circumstancial means, the context in which it should be used, and the context in which you are trying to use it; where it becomes meaninglessly strict. by not examining those links you are ignoring valid information that will contradict your viewpoint, thus making your own arguments nearly meaningless.edit - there seem to be a bunch more posts since i read the last one. oh well, keeping up with this thread is annoying.

[wiljay 0]

from all i've read and heard (including actually hearing the guy speak) the iranian leader seems quite intelligent and speaks from the heart.funny how americans can jump on the bandwagon of what THEIR MEDIA TELLS THEM TO THINK, and be proud of it.

I love it when canadians and brits try to make the case that our media (cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, fox, msnbc, cnbc, headline news, bloomberg, etc. not counting the fish wrap media) is monolithic and one minded, controlled by the neo-cons and by the government. And they have what?...the BBC. Which incidentally is state owned. And by the way the media isn't exactly kind to Bush.

[KONGOS 0]

I didn't want to do this...I am sick of wasting time with people that don't know wtf they are talking about....But I must.If you don't know ****....don't pretend to know.There was cause BEFORE Bush went to the UN. There was cause to enforce the treaties and UN resolutions that Iraq was in breech of.Then Bush obtained resolution 1441:http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htmThat resolution was voted on and passed. The evidence presented was stipulated by every Intelligence agency on this planet.At the end of this resolution..there is this little gem:13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;Iraq breached this resolution as well.Thus...the "serious consequences"Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

There is no argument that Saddam had violated UN resolutions in the past, but are you trying to suggest that Resolution 1441 authorized war?? Because if that's the case, you are terribly mistaken - it absolutely did not. A lot more discussion was needed and an agreement was never reached. Besides that, Hanz Blix, the UN's chief inspector, refused to endorse Bush's insistence on war because of the nature of the ongoing inspections and the debatable (emphasized) cooperation by Saddam. Bush then rebuffed the UN security council and went to war in violation of the UN Charter. Also, this resolution was drafted based on the assumption that the evidence (with regards to Saddam's seeking of uranium, aluminum tubes etc.) presented by the Bush administration was verified and indisputable in the first place - an idea that has already proven to be false. Sorry to confuse you with the facts.Anyways, I have now become bored with this argument - as usual, it's not going to go anywhere.

[alf13 0]

There is no argument that Saddam had violated UN resolutions in the past, but are you trying to suggest that Resolution 1441 authorized war?? Because if that's the case, you are terribly mistaken - it absolutely did not. A lot more discussion was needed and an agreement was never reached. Besides that, Hanz Blix, the UN's chief inspector, refused to endorse Bush's insistence on war because of the nature of the ongoing inspections and the debatable (emphasized) cooperation by Saddam. Bush then rebuffed the UN security council and went to war in violation of the UN Charter. Also, this resolution was drafted based on the assumption that the evidence (with regards to Saddam's seeking of uranium, aluminum tubes etc.) presented by the Bush administration was verified and indisputable in the first place - an idea that has already proven to be false. Sorry to confuse you with the facts.Anyways, I have now become bored with this argument - as usual, it's not going to go anywhere.

You are wrong...but yeah, I am sick of this argument as well.

[Tigerlite 0]

Say no more. Now I know for sure that you are a moron.

Your debating skills aptly prove that your use of the word "moron" is mere projection. Get some psychological help quick.

[alf13 0]

Your debating skills aptly prove that your use of the word "moron" is mere projection. Get some psychological help quick.

LOLI now rest my case.Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I move for a mistrial. My opposition has incompetent council.damn... you are stupid.