The good guys are winning in Iraq

We (the good guys) are winning the war in Iraq and establishing a better system. The terrorists are able to do some very nasty evil things. In their frustration, they are killling more civilians and losing the battle for hearts and minds. Next year at this time it will be very clear that things are going our way. When that happens, the critics will say that they knew it all along. This is what I think and you can quote it next year. Please go ahead and tell me why I am wrong, so that I can quote THAT next year. It is the curse of people that they forget, sometimes willfully.

So let's go on the record. Some of you can call it a quagmire; others can say it is Vietnam. And let's not forget Halliburton. I want to have it all next year so that when someone asked me to prove that not everyone knew we would get a good outcome, I can cut and paste.

Posted by Jack at October 21, 2005 10:33 PM
Comments
Comment #87204

I will take your bet with these predictions:
1. The US Military will still be in Iraq next year.
2. The body count will be 3 GIs dead per day at a minimum.
3. The Shias and Kurds will begin to oppress the Sunnis.
4. The total US dead will exceed 2,500.
5. There will never be an investigation on what happened to the $8 Billion the US stole from Iraq.
6. Americans will forget that Iraq exists if there is still no Draft.
7. The Benefits of Veterans will be cut once again.

Posted by: Aldous at October 21, 2005 11:03 PM
Comment #87207

Jack,

C’mon Jack, we all know that Iraq was lost before a single shot was fired. It’s a war of lies after all. Made by a President that was never elected. Forced upon us so that Republicans could establish a fascist theocratic state. As well as get profits for Hallibuton.

Damn, Aldous still beat me to it.
;)

Posted by: esimonson at October 21, 2005 11:14 PM
Comment #87209

I expect that the U.S. will still be in Iraq next year. Three dead GIs each day, I don’t believe is probably. It depends on what you mean by oppress. Total dead depends on if you count non-combat accidents. There should not be an investigation because it is a red herring. There will not be a draft. Veteran benefits will not be cut.

But the question remains, will Iraq on November 1, 2006 be significantly better than today and will it be among the most democratic regimes in the Middle East. I believe yes to both.

I agree with your point that Americans will forget about Iraq but not for the same reason you state. I think they will largely forget because it won’t be such a news generator after things are working okay. The Bush critics will be the ones who want to forget about it.

Posted by: Jack at October 21, 2005 11:17 PM
Comment #87249
will Iraq on November 1, 2006 be significantly better than today and will it be among the most democratic regimes in the Middle East.

Jack, As Americans, we have to keep hoping that things will get better in Iraq, but you fail to define “win” or even “better.” We can already argue that things are better in Iraq, if we use certain criteria. We can make an equally convincing argument things are going badly wrong, using a different data set.

As for Iraq being one of the most democratic regimes in the Middle East, the bar is set very, very low there. It can be argued that Iraq has already achieved this goal.

I think it’d be more interesting to make definite, quantifiable predictions we could check on in another year. Will the number of Iraqis who are being killed in the violence be more or fewer by next year? Will more or fewer people have access to stable electrical power and other utilities? Will Iraqis, especially women, have more or less social freedom in another year? Will there be more or less freedom of religion? Will GDP be up or down? Will satisfaction be up or down?

Personally, I think it’s likely there’ll be a mixed picture. GDP will rise, social freedom for women will decline, satisfaction rates will stay low due to sectarian tensions, security will still be dicey (I don’t know if slightly improved or worse), a more authoritarian figure will be on the horizon as people demand better security, American soldiers will be less and less welcome (their actual safety will depend on whether they can pull back into garrisons), infrastructure will improve slightly as more redundant systems are built, and freedom of religion will be enshrined in law but virtually nonexistent in much of the nation.

I think this is actually one of the more promising scenarios. The more gruesome alternative involves much more ethnic cleansing, growing chaos as in Yugoslavia, and a movement toward religious facism and civil war.

So, “winning” will be in the eye of the beholder. If we had put a signficantly larger number of boots on the ground after the invasion, the country might be relatively peaceful now. Alas, it didn’t happen and any future progress will be slow. Our best hope is that there will be any progress at all.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at October 22, 2005 12:21 AM
Comment #87265

It is possible that we will still have a good outcome in Iraq in spite of the incompetence, lies and amorality of this corrupt administration… however if we do have a good outcome, 100% of the credit belongs to the courageous American soldiers and to the noble intentions of the American people who may win this in spite of President King George the Second. It steadily becoming increasingly unlikely… less troops then the Generals wanted, Rumsfeld setting the preconditions for torture at Abu Ghireb and Gitmo, failing to train Iraqi security forces fast enough, disbanding the Iraqi Army, giving no bid contracts to Haliburton instead of local Iraqi contractors, failing to rebuild, failing to create a real coalition, lies, lies and more lies, and on and on,

Posted by: Ray at October 22, 2005 12:49 AM
Comment #87276

Jack,
By who’s standards do we measure this improvement? The Whitehouse has completely overblown the facts and Congress has no earthly idea on what plan of action is in play. Shot according to the latest hearings, we are still trying to get armor in the field. I think the newest word is called situation awareness training for the troops.

No, a year ago the Republican party said that the Democrats were wrong in the way they viewed Irag, yet when you looked at the Congressional Hearings of that time who was right? Even after 2 years, Iraq has only one fully trained unit that can stand and fight on its own. Conservatively speaking, the country would have to have about 15 units to allow American troops to withdraw and we want that done in a year? IMO I don’t think that will happen by real numbers. Maybe President Bush’s numbers, but we know that they are not accurate.

Given the fact that if peace would break out in Iraq tomorrow, America would find itself without a battlefield to fight terrorism do you really think that our leadership wants that? No, IMO Al is right. To feed the fire of hate America keeps the war on terror alive and off American shores. Also, the Middle East gets to keep the oppressive governments in place. So why would the leaders even want peace in Iraq?

A year from now or five years from now, the people of Iraq are pawns in a war bigger than just a few terrorist or their history and until they stand up on their own feet and kick all players out of their Nation things will not improve.

Now do I hope that I am wrong? Absolutely! However, given Human Nature and the lack of a native born national leader in Iraq with a workable plan for peace this time next year things will most likely be about the same.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 22, 2005 4:57 AM
Comment #87281

Jack said:

Next year at this time it will be very clear that things are going our way.

That’s quite a goal post there, Jack. Rock solid criteria for assessing winning. :-)

As long as the US and or coalition forces are required to babysit the Iraqi’s and the integrity of their nation, there is no winning. There is only a persistent drain on American taxes, American voter patience and tolerance, and of course, sadly, a drain on America’s youth in the armed forces, not to mention recruting replacements.

You can quote me next year, or in 2015 which Rice says is possible for our continued presence in Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 22, 2005 7:17 AM
Comment #87288

Reed,
Excellent. You hit the nail on the head when you called for Jack to quantify his statements.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 22, 2005 10:18 AM
Comment #87293

1. The Iraqi government will be up and running at it’s full potential.
2. The Iraqi military will have taken over at least 90% of the defence of Iraq.
3.US troop will be starting to come home.
4. The liberials will STILL insist that we should’ve never gone onto Iraq, and that we lost the war.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 22, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #87295

Here’s another prediction - George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents in United States for liberating Iraq and for dealing a death blow to Al Qaeda.

Another prediction - the 2000-2008 Democratic Party will go down in history as the most worthless collection of incompetent, corrupt and treasonous political hack scum to ever disgrace this nation.

Posted by: Brian at October 22, 2005 11:22 AM
Comment #87304

“Next year at this time it will be very clear that things are going our way.”

I doubt it. We heard this same prediction after Saddam was captured, after sovereignty was transferred, after the first round of elections, and after the ‘04 US presidential election.

When things are objectively bad—daily terrorist bombings, massive defections and inability by Iraqi forces, widespread fear flowing from the lack of security—more ambiguous metrics of victory such as elections have been pointed to. But a democratic government that cannot govern is worse than no government at all. Unless the new Iraqi regime harshly whips the crap out of the Sunni insurgents and begins to restore security, then it will not only discredit itself but it will discredit the democratic political model. There is now not a victory strategy; at most there is a withdrawal strategy. Our leaders have explicitly said that we won’t win the counterinsurgency, the Iraqis will. But that does not say how they will do so or what we will do in the meantime to make that possible. A coherent counterinsurgency strategy has yet to emerge and the only real “hearts and minds” effort is through political processes to guarantee the new government legitimacy. If those governments cannot actually secure the goods, the limited legitimacy that democratic procedures bestow will be turned upside down.

I supported the war initially, but I see little indication anything is going better today than a year or two years ago.

Posted by: Roach at October 22, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #87311

Predictions

One year from today

1.Iraq security levels at 225,000 with 12 battions at Level 1 readiness

2.New Iraq leadership elected in December will continue the politicial process started with the Sunnis

3.Most if the current Iraqii insurgency leadership killed or captured.

4.Brave American and coalition will continue to sacrifice their lives for freedom not only in Iraq but probably else where too.Unfortunalely the theater of war moves during a world war.

5.Democrats still will be howling about something but in the final analysis the currently supressed Able-Baker testimony will sink the Clinton legacy once and for all and lay the blame for 9/11 where it belongs.

6.The left will try unsucessfully to make the Rove-Libby thing into another Watergate.

7.No matter what,they will lose the White House again in 2008.McCain or Guilliani will be called Mr. President then.

8.We will go into a recession next year but bounce back thanks to high tech.

9.Additionial alternative energy sources will be developed and marketed by private enterprise.

10.Math and reaging score will continue to go as they did this year under No Child Left Behind.

11.Dean will embarrass the party 8 times in twelve months,almost matching Keddeny’s record of monthly embarrassments.

12.The Bush Library Committe will beging to accept donations.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 22, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #87316

Here’s my prediction for next year. The anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-american crowd will (still) be blaming Bush and saying the war was illegal and based on lies.

How did I come to this conclusion? Simple. They’ve been doing this since Bush took over in 2001. Nothing has changed for them. However, plenty has changed. Let’s look at Bush and the “coalition”.

After two and a half years of the Iraq War, with all the hateful things done and said about Bush and his coalition, Bush was re-elected, Blair was re-elected, Howard was re-elected, Poland and Italy’s Leaders are safe, Schoeder is booted out, the U.N. is a laughing stock and the boycott has been on with France and Spain. And yet, the haters are sitll spewing out the same old crap! Why? Porque?


If you (still) hear anyone complaining about why we went into war with Iraq, you know that person is filled with hate and can’t (and never will) see the big picture. My advice, just walk away from them. Hell, run! Or, just don’t take them seriously, even though that’s what they want.

With all that has been going on in the last few years and what has transpired (Bush and the colation being re-elected), it’s ridiculous to recite the same crap over and over (and over) when the people have spoken up and sided with Bush and the coalition. The anti-crowd will not be able to turn popular opinion with the same “conspiracy” theories.

Give it up and walk away! I said, walk away!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 22, 2005 3:48 PM
Comment #87320

Yes it is hard to be precise. Sicilian Eagle did a decent job, I thought.

Let me be simple as possible.

Security
There will be 272,000 Iraqi Security Forces, who will do most of the day-to-day security in place of U.S. and coalition troops.

Oil
Oil production peaked at 2.5 million barrels a day under Saddam. We will exceed that next year.

Iraqi GDP during the last years of Saddam was $18.2 billion. By next year, it will be MORE THAN DOUBLE that - $37 billion.

Average electricity production during Saddam’s last year was 3958 megawatts a month. We will reach 6000 by November 1 next year.

Telephone
Under Saddam 833,000 people had telephone service. We will easily reach 5,000,000 by next year.

Internet
Under Saddam there were 4,500 Internet subscribers. By next November there will be 50 TIMES that much 225,000

Independent Newspapers and Magazines
Under Saddam there were none. There are now 170. That number will remain the same.

U.S. Casualties
Fewer than an average of one a day from hostile action.

Democracy
Some of you have pointed out that Iraq is already one of the most democratic countries in the Middle East. The fact that it has gone from one of the most oppressive to one of the most democratic since 2003 show the success we have already had. This progress will continue.

I also predict that the current critics of the Iraq war will just say that all this is nothing much.

Posted by: Jack at October 22, 2005 5:55 PM
Comment #87322

I agree that a year from now liberals will still refuse to see anything postitive at all in Iraq regardless of what happens. On the other hand, Republicans will still refuse to acknowlege that we went into Iraq under false pretenses - whether Bush knowlingly lied or truly fell victim to bad intelligence, there will be no acknowledgement that the Amercian people supported the war ONLY because they believed that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the security of the United States (and many believed that S.H. had an active role in 9/11) and would NOT have supported sacrificing 2000+ American lives for the goal, however admirable, of spreading democracy and deposing a despot.

While I applaud the idea of asking people to put their predictions on the record, let’s not get too comfy with the idea that one year from now means anything.

If the clock stopped right now I don’t think any rationale person could argue that the war was worth it. We’ve lost almost as many citizens as died on 9/11 and had far more families destroyed. Substantially more Iraqi citizens died in the last year than died under any given year under S.H. and the infrasturcture of the country is in worse shape. Fear of oppression has been replaced by fear of civil war. But the clock hasn’t stopped and Iraqis do have something they didn’t have before: hope. Every American who cares about freedom, democracy, and national security should share in the hope that one year from now the insurgency has been quelled, Iraqi battalions are combat ready, the Iraqi government is self sufficient and running smoothly. If so, many will say we’ve won, but the clock still will not have stopped.

The truth is that we have shoehorned democracy into an area where it has not historically taken root. What if, after five years, Sunnis are feeling marginalized and plunge the country into a civil war destroying everything they are currently building? What if it happens in 10 years? Every American should believe that democracy is a cause worth dying for, but can anyone say just what the tradeoff is? Is 5,000 deaths worth 5 years of freedom? 10 years?

Anybody; liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, who tries to claim victory or defeat in this within the next few years is kidding themselves. (Sadly the only way we can have a definitive answer is if we cut and run and let the country to go to hell). Only history will tell whether this war was a success.

Last thought - here’s what our President should have said: “We went to war due to mistakes. We thought Iraq was a threat to our national security and clearly it wasn’t. But now that we are at war we have a chance to turn this error into something positive. Saddam Hussain was a terrible, cruel, tyrant and, with our country providing temporary support, his people can have a much better future without him.”

or something like that.

Posted by: Adverbal at October 22, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #87337

IF the Chimp can admit a mistake as Adverbal says, which we all know that he will never do, then we will be better off than we are now. If he can learn from his mistakes, also never gonna happen, well what a glorious day that would be.

Posted by: ray at October 22, 2005 10:15 PM
Comment #87339

What republicans just can’t seem to COMPREHEND is Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9-11…Why arn’t repugs screaming for Bin Ladens head? He was head of 9-11, not Saddam…bunch of stupid friggin lemmings…tell them Bush’s shits gold and they lap it up!
I still don’t understand of how/why the republicans are all gung ho for wars, and yet they won’t fight or have military sign up drives to go fight for their holy god they call Boosh…
Republicans show more and more everyday, they are the true party of CHICKENHAWKS!
Go run repugs…bird flu is coming to get YOU!

Posted by: Lisa at October 22, 2005 11:14 PM
Comment #87343

Lisa:

The connection between 9/11 and Iraq is indirect. The suicide bombers from 9/11 were mostly Saudis. Suicide bombing is only carried out to remove occupation combat forces from native lands. 9/11 was and attempt to have the US remove it’s forces from the Persian Gulf.

Why were our forces on Arab land to begin with? To protect Saudi oil from Iraq and enforce UN resolutions with regard to Iraq such as the no fly zone. If Sadaam were not in power, the US would not have needed forces in the Persian Gulf region, and suicide bombers would not have targeted the United States.

If we had only gone into Afghanistan, the reason for 9/11 would still exist. Aqaeda could be eliminated, and a new terrorist group would simply spring up and take their place because US troops on Arab soil is a big no no.

The only answer is to remove Sadaam from power and put in it’s place a peaceful government. This had been the policy of the United States since Clinton signed a bill that was passed by Congress in his term. The bill Clinton signed made it the official US policy to change regimes in Iraq. The bill prohibited the use of armed forces. After 9/11 President Bush authorized the armed forces to enforce the Clinton policy.

Should a peaceful Iraq come out of this, the US hopefully can remove it’s troops to the pre 1991 level and we should be safer from a threat of suicide bombings in the future. This is safer because pre 1991 levels of troops were carried on ships.

In the end it is all about protecting the free flow of oil.

Unless you have a better explaination as to why the suicide bombers were Saudis. But if you look at suicide terrorism across the globe you will find, it is a military tactic to rid lands of occupying combat troops of a democratic society of a different religion.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 22, 2005 11:51 PM
Comment #87347

Craig,
If the suicide bombers were Saudies, how did the Iraqi citizens get to be the lucky ones we kill?

We have already spent almost 3 BILLION dollars…
How come Republicans DON’T care about their kids/grandkids future? Don’t give me that they are safer now bullshit, if anything, Bush has made usa alot more ENEMIES and has ensured they are not only going to pay for his stupidity, they will also be in fear for the rest of their lives…

Your words….
Why were our forces on Arab land to begin with? To protect Saudi oil from Iraq…

Tell Cindy and the other 2000 families they lost their kids to protect Saudi’s, you know, the ones who are terrorists…

Republicans are such lemmings!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 12:30 AM
Comment #87348

Going into Iraq may have been based upon false causes, but now our intentions are good, we are helping them to establish a democratice government. They are on their way to being a democratic nation. I am not saying that this will happen over night, but as they say all good things come in time. Also once Iraq is able to support themselves with their own government, that will give us a friend in the middle east and area that we are definately lacking in the friend department.

Posted by: drew at October 23, 2005 12:38 AM
Comment #87349

Gosh, who are we to ‘save’ next?

Cost of War calculator is set to reach $204.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005)

We most certainly can afford to save the world, eh!

Hmmmm….lets see…who else has oil that we crave? Ahhhh, Saudi Arbia…time to bomb the Saudi’s…cuz Bush can just say…gosh, I got more bad intelligence…heh, heh!

Whether Bush knowlingly lied or truly fell victim to bad intelligence…

Lets give him more chances to lie or be stupid enough (again) to trust ‘bad intelligence’ MANY INNOCENT HUMANS HAVE DIED BECAUSE THE PINHEAD CAN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND ‘BAD INTELLIGENCE’

Like I said…tell a Republican Bush shits gold and they lap it up…gosh our god shits gold…


Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 1:09 AM
Comment #87350

The interesting thing - again - is how so many resort to name calling so quickly. I ask people to put their predictions of the future where their predictions of the past are, and we get all sorts of misguided passion. I have always believed that the resport to anger and name calling indicates that the person has no logical argument to make. That is still true.

At least Aldous went on the record without name calling.

Posted by: jack at October 23, 2005 1:15 AM
Comment #87353

Prediction?

Crystal ball is cloudy. Why? Too many major domestic developments in the near term can dramatically affect the situation in Iraq a year from now.

Indictments this Fitzmas day could result in the resignation of Cheney or nothing whatsoever. Withdrawal of the Miers nomination could cause enormous loss of face for the Bush administration.

Saber rattling games with Syria and/or Iran could get out of hand, and result in another war. There could be a very intentional provocation. This eventuality becomes more likely the worse the domestic situation becomes.

Remove those obscuring mists from the crystal ball, and…

Since 2004 I’ve been predicting economic recession next year, summer or fall time frame. I’ll stick with that prediction.

The domestic economic downturn, critical military manpower shortages, and an upcoming midterm election, will combine to provide motivation for the US to substantially draw down troops beginning late spring 2006.

Iraqi elections this winter will result an overwhelming SCIRI victory, a consolidation of their power, and a crowning achievement for Iranian foreign policy. Al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, caught between unfriendly Sunnis and the Hakim clan’s control of the government reins, will find themselves in the process of being slowly absorbed by SCIRI.

The US & SCIRI will coordinate announcement of the US withdrawal. It will be presented to the US audience as a victory. Saddam Hussein will have been removed from power, and, by this time next year, executed. An Iraqi democracy will be in place. The US can save face, declare victory, and go home.

The Baathists/secularists/Sunnis and foreign jihadists will continue their fight against the Shias.

We wanted a democracy in Iraq. We’ll have one. The ruling Shias will push for US withdrawal, including permanent US military bases. It may take more than a year for the Shias to ramp up their military- the police and what little Iraqi Army exists are already predominantly Shia organizations- but eventually the Shias will use the police, Iraqi Army, and Badr Brigades to settle scores with the Sunnis.

It will be a thoroughly nasty piece of work. There won’t be pitched battles between set armies; the civil war will take the form of midnight arrests, assassinations, mass executions, etc.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 2:07 AM
Comment #87355

And as long as we’re putting predictions out there for all to see…

There will be no major terror attacks in the continental US in the next year.

An increasing realization among Americans will develop: The War on Terror ended on a military scale at Tora Bora; as an intelligence/Special Forces operation, it ended with the capture of Sheik Mohammed Khalid in Pakistan.

OBL & Zawahiri, however, will remain at large. While unable to participate in planning or operations, their words will continue to incite wannabe nutjobs around the world.

In a moment resembling a scene from the movie “The Godfather,” in which Vito Corleone slaps Johnny Fontaine and admonishes him to ‘be a man,’ the conservatives will overcome their War on Terror fears, and rediscover their manhood. The metaphorical slap will come with the midterm elections-

possibly administered by… who else?

Dean.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 2:24 AM
Comment #87449

Get real, of course we will be in Iraq, We are still in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Kosovo arent we. What is so much different being in Iraq. I hope and pray we stay there to keep the radicals coming to be killed. Wake up and smell the roses, WE ARE IN WORLD WAR THREE and remember what OUR GREAT PRESIDENT SAID. THIS WAR WILL BE A LONG ONE AND WE MUST STAY THE COURSE. SO GET ACCUSTOMED TO US BEING IN IRAQ. BETTER THAT THAN THEY BEING HERE BLOWING UP YOUR LOVED ONES.

GET OFF OF BUSH’S BACK AND BACK HIM HE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS IN MY LIFE TIME AND I AM 74 YEARS OLD. HE HAD THE GUTS TO DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF GOING ALONG WITH THE RADICALS LIKE TRICKY DICKEY CLINTON DID FOR 8 YEARS.

I HATE TO SEE ANYONE DIE, BUT DIEING TO PROTECT YOUR LOVED ONES AND THIS COUNTRY IS A GREAT CAUSE. YES, I SPENT 14 MONTHS IN COMBAT IN KOREA AND WOULD GO BACK NOW TO KEEP THEM FROM TAKING OVER THIS COUNTRY.

DON’T YOU PEOPLE REALIZE WHAT IS HAPPENING, THE COMMUNEST IS TRYING TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY OVER THROUGH THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THEY WILL IF THIS COUNTRY LISTENS TO ALL THE BLEEDING HEARTS CRYING WE SHOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ. WE HAVE THE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN JAIL AND GOING ON TRIAL.

BY THE WAY, I AM ASHAMED TO BE CALLED A DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: Walter Flatt at October 23, 2005 10:08 AM
Comment #87453

Two stories I came across today add another dimension to this discussion. It seems that in much the same way that drowning swimmers sometimes kick and fight their rescuers, a substantial percentage of Iraqis believe that attacks on US and UK forces are justified **

Further, as this article points out, there is growing consesnus that even if democracy does flourish in Iraq it may not diminish terrorism.

So I put the question out there - If, at whatever future point you want to set as a benchmark, Iraq is a self reliant, fully functioning democracy but still harbors extreme anti-western sentiment and is a breeding ground for terror - will it have been worth it? In other words, if Iraqis are much better off but our country is no safer, will our sacrifice have been justified?

**re: the drowning swimmer analogy - I realize some will object to my use of the term rescuer and say it was us who threw them into the water in the first place. That may be so, but it’s irrelevent. The fact is right now they are dependent upon us for their survival and if they succeed in driving us out thier nation will dissolve into chaos.

Posted by: Adverbal at October 23, 2005 10:59 AM
Comment #87457

Craig,
It sounds likie you are saying a butterfly flaps its wings in Iraq and a Republican launches a smart bomb in Washington. Of course Iraq is INDIRECTLY related to 9-11. Ask any Buddist - all is oneness. If Bush the Second had done the job in Afganistan instead of outsourcing the job to a bunch of warlords who been comrads in arms with Bin laden against the Soviets, then he could have demoralized the Wahabist Islamist and significantly reduced the threat against us the U.S. Instead he encouraged the Wahabist and let them know that they can stand up to the U.S. and get away with it. If the Republicans had not crippled the Clinton Presidency with their obsession about whether Clinton got his cigar licked and then turned a blind eye to treason in the Bush White House… But that is history… elections have consequences… Americans are getting the government they deserve.

There are two of us Rays posting here. I changed mine to Ray G.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 23, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #87459
I agree that a year from now liberals will still refuse to see anything postitive at all in Iraq regardless of what happens. On the other hand, Republicans will still refuse to acknowlege that we went into Iraq under false pretenses

This is a generalization but is likely to be true in its broad strokes. Still, around the edges, there are plenty of moderates and liberals who badly want to see positive developments in Iraq and there are clear-sighted conservatives who already admit the nation was misled into a war, whether for good or bad reasons.

The domestic economic downturn, critical military manpower shortages, and an upcoming midterm election, will combine to provide motivation for the US to substantially draw down troops beginning late spring 2006.

This seems fairly likely to me as well, though I’m not sure about the economic downturn. We need to be careful to withdraw for the right reasons and not for strictly political ones.

eventually the Shias will use the police, Iraqi Army, and Badr Brigades to settle scores with the Sunnis.

Seems likely and will impede progress on other fronts.

There will be 272,000 Iraqi Security Forces, who will do most of the day-to-day security in place of U.S. and coalition troops.

Thanks for the specifics, Jack. One problem with the security forces numbers is that it’s hard to get an accurate count. Still, if they’re doing most of the day-to-day security and aren’t just militia groups, then that’ll be real progress.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at October 23, 2005 12:07 PM
Comment #87461

Jack,

Your post is redundant. Bush’s teleconference with the GI’s last week firmly established that the good guys are indeed winning. I mean, if the well-rehearsed GIs said it, it’s GOTTA be true. Right?

Posted by: Andrew L. at October 23, 2005 12:15 PM
Comment #87468

Isn’t it ironic that we’re all debating the victory of a war based on what MIGHT happen a year down the road instead of what HAS been happening these past two years? Apparently, hope has become a new military strategy.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 23, 2005 1:32 PM
Comment #87469

Jack,

I hope you’re right that in one year’s time the situation on the ground will have vastly improved and Iraq will finally be functioning as a democracy. I can only speak for myself, but I always hope for good results regardless of whether they buoy the arguments for “my side” or not.

When we attacked Iraq I was convinced it was a terrible mistake and the wrong method for removing Saddam (which I did believe ought to happen), but I sure was hoping we would find those WMDs and quickly. Otherwise the ill will generated toward America would be huge - and indeed that turned out to be the case.

I hoped we would be greeted as liberators.

I hoped we would be able to quickly train Iraqi security forces and get out quickly.

I hoped that we would welcome more foreign nations in the effort to secure Iraq.

I hoped that we would capture Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi and bring them to justice.

Had all of these things come to pass I would have been happy for them, but I still would have thought the war in Iraq was a mistake and the wrong way to accomplish a worthy mission. Still too many innocents would have died, too much depleted Uranium would have littered the Iraqi landscape, and too much dishonesty would have tainted the effort.

But the naivete of the neocons (and I AM talking about the Project for the New American Century crowd), has been pretty thoroughly exposed, and as Adverbal so aptly pointed out:

While I applaud the idea of asking people to put their predictions on the record, let’s not get too comfy with the idea that one year from now means anything.
and
Every American should believe that democracy is a cause worth dying for, but can anyone say just what the tradeoff is? Is 5,000 deaths worth 5 years of freedom? 10 years?

I agree with you Jack that resorting to name calling does nothing to further one’s argument, whether the epithets are deserved or not, but name callers abound on both sides of any debate, they don’t lend credence to their opponents any more than they do to their own side.

Some liberals, not me, do wish for bad news. Some conservatives do the same sort of wishing when the shoe is on the other foot. But what people wish for is irrelevant to what makes the best policy. I can’t pretend to predict what 1 year, or 5 years, or 100 years will bring in terms of what forces will prevail in this world. There are simply too many variables. One prediction I WILL make is that history will not judge George W Bush kindly. His presidency is already a disaster, regardless of what transpires in the Middle East in the coming decade. There WAS a better way than escalating violence and alienating those who should be our allies.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 23, 2005 1:32 PM
Comment #87470

Hey Grandpa Walter

Your one confused lil fella ain’t cha?

You say:
GET OFF OF BUSH’S BACK AND BACK HIM HE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS IN MY LIFE TIME AND I AM 74 YEARS OLD. HE HAD THE GUTS TO DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF GOING ALONG WITH THE RADICALS LIKE TRICKY DICKEY CLINTON DID FOR 8 YEARS.

(HE TOOK A HUGE SURPLUS & MADE IT INTO A DEFIECT THAT OUR KIDS & GRANDKIDS & GREAT GRANDKIDS WILL BE PAYING FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES…NOW THATS DOING SOMETHING FOR THE FUTURE, EH GRANDPA?)

And then say:
BY THE WAY, I AM ASHAMED TO BE CALLED A DEMOCRAT.

By sucking up to the monkeys balls, your a REPUBLICAN! Shows how stupid Republicans are,
they don’t even know who they are!

By the way, the military has lowered its enlistment standards…they WILL take you…
join tomorrow since your so gung ho on killing innocent woman & children.
Chickenhawks love getting their daily death reports…makes em feel
so chickenly!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #87471

Lisa you seem to be a very stubborn person who only see things your way and does not want to see it any other way, Lets say we did not go into Iraq, hey we would not have spent soo much money, but we most likely would have gotten bombed again. Most likely Saddam was in it with Bin Laden so you can believe what ever you want. If we did not go into Iraq then more American civilian lives would have been lost on American soil. So whether you choose to see this or not is up to you

Posted by: Drew at October 23, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #87472


Poll shows Iraqis back attacks on US, UK forces

Sat Oct 22,

Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.

Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were “strongly opposed” to the presence of the troops.

YUP…CHENEY’S RIGHT…THEY ARE GREETING US WITH FLOWERS AND SO HAPPY TO BE LIBERATED BY GETTING KILLED FROM USA BOMBING!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #87474

But we most likely would have gotten bombed again. Most likely Saddam was in it with Bin Laden so you can believe what ever you want.

Dude, you have got to stop watching Faux news!
There is NO evidence what so ever Saddam was with Bin! Thats as real a fact as Saddams WMD!
So your saying…its ok to kill/seriously injure
100’s of children in Iraq? Face reality…
Boosh is creating terrorists! He is creating more anger and hatred and yes, that will create bombing in the USA to your kids and grandkids in their lifetimes BECAUSE of Boosh…wake up…please?

Wait till this week is over…Boosh & Co. WILL be busted for their lies and the Republicans are going to see how gulliable they were for ‘believing Boosh’s lies’ Where’s your outrage of the war killing 2000 more Americans?

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 1:50 PM
Comment #87476

SO what your saying is that the men and women who gave their lives died for no reason. Oh yeah and if that poll is so accuarte then why is it such a big secret, a secret poll I am starting to wonder if you are reading the National Enquiere. Yuo have no idea what is going on over there, its real easy for you to just sit here typing bullshit and making fun of the president, and what if Kerry won the election every country would love us? You bullshit, Kerry would have pulled out of Iraq in a heartbeat, and we would be seen as weak and be an even bigger target to terrorists. So let me know what else they write about the war in the very accurate national enquirer

Posted by: Drew at October 23, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #87477


“Jack, Your post is redundant. Bush’s teleconference with the GI’s last week firmly established that the good guys are indeed winning. I mean, if the well-rehearsed GIs said it, it’s GOTTA be true. Right?”


You know what’s so funny about the media’s response to that teleconference is they focused on the negatives and conspiracies of that event rather than what the troops were saying. The President asked the same questions that were spread around by the media and the anti-Bush groups (Iraqi’s don’t want there country, are they being trained, the morale of the US troops, etc.). The media has been lying to the American public about these issues and the troops, the same troops that the liberals “support” (yeah right). It was a good thing to listen to the troops respond, rather than the President or his Administration.

And yet, the media just wouldn’t listen to them, just like they didn’t want to listen to them in the 2000 election when the military ballots were thrown out in Florida; just like when they volunteered to enlist after 9/11 and the Iraq war; just like when they said there was no desecration of the Koran at Gitmo; and, of course, just like when they voted for this president (4 to 1) in 2004, even with all the hateful things said about this President.

That’s it media, keep up the lies, laziness, incompetence and divisiveness like you’ve been doing. We’re smarter than you and we won’t let you get away with this; at least the people who are smart and not hateful will, anyway.


Posted by: rahdigly at October 23, 2005 2:01 PM
Comment #87478

you seem like the type of person who will always complain about what the president is doing or should be doing not matter who would be in office, whether it was kerry or bush, or anyone you would probually find the bad in everyone, and who are you to say that there was no connection between Saddam and Bin laden, we know its true that other countries are helping bin laden, whos to say he was not?

Posted by: Drew at October 23, 2005 2:03 PM
Comment #87479

More predictions from the one and only Sicilian Eagle:

1.Syria will finally relent and disclose the locations of Iraqi fugitives in return for being let up off the ground over the Lebanon assassination.

2.Iran will relent due to combined EU-USA pressure and some type of comprimise will occur over their nuclear program.

3.North Korea will make significant movement as South Korea begins to take the lead.

4.Japan will have its supersonic airplane get past the development stage that will take air travelling to a new era.

5.The bird flu will eventually get to the USA but we will get a handle on it.

6.FEMA,after the NOLA embarrassment,gets its act together and learns something from the nightmare.

7.The Fed,with its new chairman, will raise interest rates thru the end of the second Q 2006.

8.Both McCain and Guilliani announce.

9.Kerry,Edwards
and Blyth announce.Hillary wavers because of the Able-Baker thing.

10.Stephen Donahue,AP,Burt,Siegal,ElliotBay,Lisa,Mister Magoo all have ephifanies and swing to the right is a mass outing.In disgust,David Reamer puts yet another addition on his west Texas home and calls it Shangri La

Posted by: SicilianEagle at October 23, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #87480

I do not think ANYONE is winning in Iraq =/

Posted by: Mike Tate at October 23, 2005 2:32 PM
Comment #87481

Drew, how would you respond to this claim:

“Who are you to say that there was no connection between Global Warming and Hurricane Katrina, we know its true that Global Warming causes Hurricanes, who’s to say it didn’t cause Katrina?

Now, given that this is true, we should spend $200+ billion and risk thousands of lives to ensure another disaster doesn’t happen, because it surely will.”


Posted by: Andrew L. at October 23, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #87482

Since my baseball predictions sucked, I’ll try again.

I predict that one year from today, Republicans will still be predicting how great things will be in another year.

-Burt

Posted by: Burt at October 23, 2005 2:37 PM
Comment #87483

No not the National Enquirer…
but yahoo news AND the British The Sunday Telegraph.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051022/ts_nm/iraq_britain_dc

Its not a secret poll, just turn away from Boosh/Faux news and get the REAL news!

Christ, they would be gung ho if Bill O’Reily ran for president and Anny Coulter for his VP!

“Kerry would have pulled out of Iraq in a heartbeat, and we would be seen as weak and be an even bigger target to terrorists”.

AS TO BUSH MAKING TERRORIST TO LAST YOUR KIDS THEIR LIFETIME? DUDE…VIOLENCE DOES NOT STOP VIOLENCE…IT ONLY CREATES MORE HATRED (FOR USA)

AND GOD SAID…BEHOLD ONTO YOU REPUBLICANS…
FOR YOU SHALL BE THE POLICE OF THE WORLD…

AS TO NATIONAL ENQUIRER…They say Mista Boosh is hitting the ol bottle again…suddenly everything makes $$$ sense now! (Notice how the republicans didn’t outcry the boosh drinking stories! Even NY Times ran them! And you know NY Times is republican)

we know its true that other countries are helping bin laden, whos to say he was not? (Saddam)
Cuz he said he wasnt’ and if he was…you know he’d be PROUD to be associated with the 9-11 job…

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 2:38 PM
Comment #87484

Adverbially,
“So I put the question out there - If, at whatever future point you want to set as a benchmark, Iraq is a self reliant, fully functioning democracy but still harbors extreme anti-western sentiment and is a breeding ground for terror - will it have been worth it?”

Well said. It’s the issue at the heart of the matter for the Bush administration Middle East policy.

Curiously absent from this threead is the issue of Israel. Well, let that be for now… to answer the question: will it have been worth it?

In the long run, and by this, I mean decades, yes, it will be worth it. Democratic regimes will do a better job of providing opportunities for freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Representative democracies will undermine the religious insanities behind fundamentalism in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Yes, Israel. Until we recognize the same forces at work there as at work in the rest of the region, we’ll never make progress.

Globalization and technology will do their work, peacefully, but it will take a looooong time.

The problem with the Bush administration MIddle East policy & vision is twofold: 1) the time frame is impractically long to implement this liberal, progressive vision for the Middle East, and 2) transitioning authoritarian Middle East governments by force simply doesn’t work. It creates more resentment than amicable progress.

Furthermore, a mercantilist approach by democracies, a colonialist competition for fixed raw resources such as oil & water, could fuel conflict between democracies despite their shared political ideals.


Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 2:41 PM
Comment #87486

AND GOD SAID…BEHOLD ONTO YOU REPUBLICANS…
FOR YOU SHALL BE THE POLICE OF THE WORLD…

Spend all the money it takes…
Kill at the people it takes…
For you are my killer Christians

Republicans are against abortions
yet are for killing Iraqi kids
and pregnant woman…
Go figure!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 2:46 PM
Comment #87491

Walter Flatt
Thankyou for serving the greatest country on earth. Your service and sacrifice is GREATLY appreciated by my wife and me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Comment #87492

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html

Posted by: why do they get away with this? at October 23, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #87498

And now Mr. Brown you can repay Mr. Flatt by joining the Republican military
and fight/kill those bad woman and kids in Iraq, after all…they are terra-rists…
who are going to bomb your grandchildren in the future…

Run chickens…run…bird flu is coming to getcha!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 3:45 PM
Comment #87499

Another “National Enquirer” article of that
Iraqi Poll…Hmmmm…just where are those flowers?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #87500

I find it difficult to understand why we forget (intentionally or not) that at the beginning of the war, Bush stated it was going to be a long war. Not quick but long. The American fast food mentality is that if we can’t have our Mac-war in the same time frame as our MacDonald’s hamburger, it simply isn’t good enough.

Of course all Americans on this post get to enjoy and take for granted the freedoms that other people paid for with their lives. We have no real understanding of struggle because of the lack of liberty. Very few Americans even understand real sacrifice (other than the real men and women of this country who serve for the benefit of the rest of us - even the idiots of this country). We get to sit on this chat board and throw biased BS opinions back and forth to each other like we really understand this stuff.

In reality, none of us understand what it is like to live under a dictator who slaughtered over 200,000 innocent people. Where there is no freedom to disagree without loss of life. Where there is no real education or basic facilities of modern life.

The people of Iraq and the rest of the world will appreciate in time what freedom and liberty brings with it. Our own freedom didn’t happen in a year either in the first war (American Revolution) or the second (Civil War). Ultimately, Afghanistan and Iraq will be the catalyst for change for the good in the most depressing area of the world that for decades has only produced (other than oil) terrorists in any quantity for its contribution to the world. 911 taught us that. How quickly so many of us forget.

So, for those of you who feel that we should have continued to let terrorism reign on the world and continue for the next targets in the US, keep espousing your “we made a mistake by going to war on those who want to kill us.” Is your ego being so easily bruised really worth allowing terrorism to grow and more of our own innocent people getting killed here and abroad? Are you that ignorant of what has been happening in the Middle East for decades and what it has built up to? Is either your party affiliation or your hatred of an elected official so intense, that you throw intelligence and reason out the window just to shore your own opinion?

Oh and let’s remember, we did not start this war. So keep on with your bias BS like you know what real struggle is about and what is right for people who have no freedom, no liberty, no modern conveniences of life, no hope for a future, and a dictator or religious fascist group who will severely punish you without much thought for wanting and striving for any of these things.


Posted by: Scott at October 23, 2005 3:54 PM
Comment #87501

Scott I totally agree with you, and anyone who disagrees with that is very self centered and does not care what happens in other peoples lives jsut in their own life.

Posted by: drew at October 23, 2005 4:11 PM
Comment #87503

Scott & Drew,

“Oh and let’s remember, we did not start this war.”

Oh, yes we did. We invaded Iraq. Remember?

If you’d like to go further back in history, you might look into the creation of the nation of Iraq, or oil companies’ Red Line of 1928.the Red Line Agreement.

The Red Line agreement “. . is an outstanding example of a restrictive combination for the control of a large portion of the world’s supply by a group of companies which together dominate the world market for this commodity.” In a confidential memorandum, the French described the objectives of the agreement: “The execution of the Red Line Agreement marked the beginning of a long-term plan for the world control and distribution of oil in the Near East.”

You write:
“… At the beginning of the war, Bush stated it was going to be a long war. Not quick but long.”

Tsk, tsk. How quickly we forget the declared end of major military operations, and “Mission Accomplished!”

Never mind. Refuting this kind of thing is waste of time. Do some reading. Please.

” So, for those of you who feel that we should have continued to let terrorism reign on the world…”

So many conservatives have been utterly unmanned by the fear mongering of the Bush administration. Truly, I pity such people. I encourage those poor people, crippled by fear, to come out of their shell-shocked paranoid, xenophobic shells, and look around.

It’s ok. Really, it’s ok. Smile. There are no Iraqi terrorists lurking outside your doors. None in your neighborhood. Never have been.

Tiptoe out to the street in front of your houses, and look up and down the avenue. No Iraqi terrorists in sight. Feeling better yet?

Go to work. Look around the workplace. Check the closets. Check the basement. No Iraqi terrorists there either.

It’s ok. Relax.


Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 4:45 PM
Comment #87505

Fitzgerald has a possible 22 indictments THIS WEEK!
Christmas comes early this year boys & girls!!!

The truth will now come out…
The lies to start the Iraqi war
will come out…

Reports are coming out that the White House
is preeeeetttty nervous about this upcoming week…

Just hope Bush doesn’t mix his
anti-depressents with ol Jack Daniels!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 4:49 PM
Comment #87506

“If we do have a good outcome, 100% of the credit belongs to the courageous American soldiers and to the noble intentions of the American people who may win this in spite of President King George the Second.”

Ray- 10/22/05

Amen to that…

Personally, I am tired of people saying a person is anti-American if they don’t drool over Dubya. I support our troops to the fullest, but I do not support them being used as mere numbers and fodder by the powers that be.

I believe our country would be in terrible trouble if our leaders themselves had to physically duke it out with other world leaders… We certainly wouldn’t be a “super-power” if disputes were settled in this way.

MJShaw

Posted by: MJ Shaw at October 23, 2005 5:07 PM
Comment #87507

In general, I do not doubt the patriotism of conservatives, or their devotion to the same ideals as moderates and liberals. It’s not always obvious, but we agree on far more than we disagree. Always have.

The difference of late has come about because of 9/11 and Iraq.

My point? We’re foolish to determine our foreign relations & foreign policy based upon 9/11 and terrorism. It should be obvious to any unbiased observer that neither 9/11 nor terrorism present enough of a concern for us to make them the cornerstone of relations & policy.

Most Americans approved of the Bush administration & the invasion of Afghanistan.

The wheels came off with the invasion of Iraq.

Now we find our policies and relations driven by fear.

Time for conservatives, as well as moderates and liberals, to act with confidence. Time to size up our fears, recognize them for what they are, assign them their proper proportion, and believe in the rightness of what we represent. Our strengths dwarf our weaknesses. Our strengths completely and utterly dwarf our vulnerabilities to terrorists.

What we represent does not depend upon oil or military force to prevail.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 5:08 PM
Comment #87510

Bush wants urgent U.N. meeting on Syria.
Got to Grab Those Headlines Away from TreasonGate!

Chickenhawks now want to bomb Syria?
Time to ENLIST Republicans…
more terra-rists gotta be taken care of!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #87514

Scott wrote: “at the beginning of the war, Bush stated it was going to be a long war.”

That’s what Bush said about the war on terror NOT about Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I distinctly remember the administration making statements to the effect that the conflict in Iraq would take, oh possibly 6 months to a year. Not to mention the whole “greeted as liberators” nonesense. Not to mention (as phx8 already did) “mission accomplished.”

We can argue whether or not the war in Iraq is even part of the war on terror. The problem is that if we begin to believe that the war in Iraq IS the war on terrorism (as is implied in your comment) then we risk diverting our attention and our resources from legitimate risks.

Posted by: Adverbal at October 23, 2005 6:06 PM
Comment #87516

Mr.Walter Flatt thank you and well said. lisa you still have your Kerry bumber sticker on your honda civic next to your gay pride flag? just keep on sending your money to move on.org and you will still be just as big a looser next year as you are now. you and your kind will never stop freedom it does not matter how many have to die on any one given side you can’t kill freedom you can’t get it over till you get it on and we are just starting to get it on. millions are yet to die on all sides. are you willing to die for your side? the wars will drag on for many years to come and we will see WMD’S you and your kind say were a lie kill americans and freedom loveing people around the world and thats when people like me truley really deal with people like you.

Posted by: angry white male at October 23, 2005 6:31 PM
Comment #87517

phx8,

You’re right on about the cowardice of the right. They are so overwhelmingly frightened of the boogey-man, that they really believe they need to send other people’s kids to die - like lambs to the slaughter - so that they won’t be exposed. It’s flat out pathetic.

This would be OK if their fear actually made them do the right thing to combat terror. But it’s unfortunately just the opposite. They’re weak-kneed, weak-willed, and weak on terrorism as a result.

Forget about terrorism? Not the democrats. It’s those on the right who have forgotten who is responsible for 9/11 and refuse to do what is necessary to bring them to justice.

Posted by: Burt at October 23, 2005 6:31 PM
Comment #87520

Burt,
Yes. Isn’t it interesting how the War on Terror and the Occupation of Iraq become confused? Amid all the talk of Iraq, the subject of Al Qaida and OBL rarely come up. We’re all quite sure we won’t find OBL or Zawahiri in Iraq.

But to return to the topic of fear, and the War on Terror…

Recently, an innocent human being was killed by a shark of the California shore.

In fact, more civilians have been killed in the US by sharks than terrorists in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Should we declare a War on Sharks? Should we drop carpet bomb the shores of countries harboring sharks with depth charges? After all, shark attacks are terrifying.

Of course, it’s silly. We recognize the existence of sharks, and as awful as it may be, we rationally accept and expect a few people to be killed by sharks every year.

By the same token, our fear of terrorists should be proportional to the threat.

If one shark ate a dozen people, it would be reasonable to pursue that particular shark.

And so we should pursue OBL, as a matter of revenge, as a matter of justice, as a way of preventing his inspiring other wackos.

And so, once again, I invite Bush supporters to turn their backs on fear. “Fear is the mind killer,” as Frank Herbert once wrote. Conservatives, gird your loins, take a deep breath, and rejoin the rest of us.

There’s so much to do. Let’s stop wasting time, and devote our energies to issues that matter.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 6:58 PM
Comment #87522


My you said that well…angry white man!

I actually have my “Impeach Bush” sticker on my
Dodge pickup truck. As for gay pride flag…yup, I’m all for FREEDOM of CHOICE…funny how the republicans hate gays and yet they masterbate to lesbians!

You say we will see WMD…yeh…A really stupid man who can’t tell fantasy from reality has them…his name is Mista Boosh…

As for freedom…it will come as soon as this week! Indictments are to be handed out to alot of Republicans…feels like xmas to me!

And…why in the world are YOU still here in USA? You should be in Iraq fighting your war! Chickenhawk!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 7:12 PM
Comment #87525

Why aren’t Republican’s children signing up for military service in droves to help Jack’s predictions become a reality?

Why aren’t the children of America in gerneral signing up? Afterall, the American people back this war despite what the liberally biased polls indicate.

Posted by: Rick at October 23, 2005 7:47 PM
Comment #87526

Lisa,

Why, oh why, did you respond to that? Don’t you know when you’re being baited? The only way we can ever raise the level of discourse is if we refuse to respond to or even acknowledge pointless posts that are written more to get a reaction then to actually state any kind of meaningful point.

As a side note, I would like to point out to anyone who cares that A) you can preview your writing before you post it and B) the Google toolbar has a spellcheck feature that you can use for this or other message boards and forms.

I’m not above a typo here or there, but shouldn’t we draw the line somewhere? I mean it’s one thing to have someone who is clearly ignorant have his/her writing reflect that, but there are some insightful, well thought-out posts above that are downright hard to read because of spelling, syntax, and grammar problems.

Posted by: Adverbal at October 23, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #87527

Lisa,
Thanks for taking these chickenhawks on. It does seem odd that none of your critics have come back at you with claims about their own military service or the service of loved ones.

It is interesting how these chikenhawks whore-ship a President who dodged Vietnam and went awol, but hated a candidate who actually served in a war zone and got wounded in action. They must truly be chickenhawks… Why don’t they join the military… or send their loved ones? My daughter is a combat medic.

They keep changing the justification for the war in Iraq.

I would like to see us turn Iraq into a better place. But that was no reason to invade. I would like to see us turn the U.S. into a better place… but with this chickenhawk as commander and cheif neither of those things are going to happen.

By the way… my daughter is a combat medic… and they still don’t have enough armor in Iraq… and these idiots whore-ship this chickenhawk - Bush the Second.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 23, 2005 8:06 PM
Comment #87528

Ray G.


If Bush the Second had done the job in Afganistan instead of outsourcing the job to a bunch of warlords who been comrads in arms with Bin laden against the Soviets, then he could have demoralized the Wahabist Islamist and significantly reduced the threat against us the U.S. Instead he encouraged the Wahabist and let them know that they can stand up to the U.S. and get away with it.

Let’s say you are 100% correct in this. US forces would still be in the gulf to protect the oil fields from Iraq, and another group would emerge to take us on.

Imagine if it were here in the United States and foreigners were on our soil. If one organization that was fighting them was wiped out another would emerge.

We have chosen to remove the threat to the oil fields, so we can return to our pre 1991 military positioning. Suicide bombing will continue as long as our combat troops are on arab land.

Part of the problem is the red verses blue debate on this whole thing. If Reagan would not have withdrawn the marines from Lebenon, of Bush the first would have finished the job, if Clinton would not have deployed combat troops to the region, if if if if. Or if we were were not dependent on oil from the region, 9/11 would not have happened. This is a 20 year problem.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 23, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #87531

Phx8.
Blow it out your ass, thats the problem with you liberals you are alwasy undecided and no matter who is in office you are going to have a problem with them. Do you recall the early party of the federalists, they are much like democrats of today. They only see things their way and if they do not get it then they try to worm there way into the government and try to impose their policies upon people. And how could you say the war started becasue of us? That statement is probually the dumbest I have seen on this message board. The anti-terrorist war has been going on for a number of years, in many different countries. You just neglect to relize that because this war might effect you more then the other problems did. And Saddam Hussien is not innocent no matter what you people belive he killed his own people just becasue he did not like them and that is not a very good reason, he would tocher his olympic athletes because they may have lost, so he is definetly not innocent. This war on terror has been going on for a number of years and will still be going on for a while, invading Iraq means we are one step closer to containing terrorism. You are not looking at the long term benefits, we will have a friend in the middle east, and we do not have many of them. I mean who do we ahve now? Sadui Arabia they would turn their backs on us in a heartbeat. Having Afaganistan and Iraq on our side or atleast friendly with us will definetly help us in the long run. Yes there is a huge debt that will be paid off by our children and grand children, but atleast they can live in a more peaceful world.

Posted by: drew at October 23, 2005 9:06 PM
Comment #87532

Ray and Lisa

The chickhawk line is very useful but logically invalid on a variety of fronts. First and foremost a person can be right about something without himself being personally involved or even virtuous in any way. It doesn’t matter who tells you 2+2=4. It is just right and your argument that this person is stupid in any other way is itself just stupid. In the classical sense, your first fallacy is called ad hominem.

Then you imply that people involved have some sort of superior morality or emotional ability to understand. That fallacy is the appeal to emotion.

You also have a simple problem in that most studies indicate that the military, especially those deployed to Iraq, are more likely to support U.S. policy than average Americans and that military voters voted more heavily for Bush.

Just so you know, I have several friends, but no close relatives serving in Iraq. My son is considering joining the Marines when he graduates from high school. I am encouraging him to do so, mostly because I think it would be a good experience for him. I won’t pretend that is not the most important consideration. I understand the political part of military better than the military part because I have studied it professionally and interviewed a lot of people about this. My expertise is not based on the suffering by me or anyone close to me. I support the policy to the extent I do because I think it is in the best interests of the United States. I regret all destruction and killing of war, even when it is my enemies who are being killed (with some individual exceptions). I understand that some of them operate from sincere (if misguided) conviction, and that some are brave and virtuous, even if I hate what they are doing. However, there are times that war or a particular war is the better alternative. You can think of me as a chickenhawk if you like. Such opinions mean little to me. If fact, I have been often be prouder of the reference to the people who don’t like me.

Posted by: Jack at October 23, 2005 9:06 PM
Comment #87533

Jack,
The problem with calling a person a chickenhawk or dove is that it misguides the public on what the military part needs from what you call “the political part of military.”

IMO the Powell Doctrine put it PC Correct when he said go in with overwleming force, have set objectives, and an exit plan. None which was followed by President Bush and Company. Although war is never a good opition, it is necessary. Thus, once a President takes that step, he needs to be ready to deal with taking the leash off the dogs of war.

Lisa and Ray want to bash Bush for what he did and did not do as well as the lack of thinking and action required to do something right. My question to them is simple. What if anything can be done know to put the spilled milk back in the glass.

Iraq is not the problem nor is it the solution to peace in the Middle East. Yet, as one with professional political military views can you honestly say that President Bush is not fighting a civil war in Iraq to avoid having a civil war breakout in all the nations of the Middle East?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 23, 2005 9:33 PM
Comment #87536

Can always tell a republican - Drew
(They have the hardest time spelling!)
I noticed that on another message board.

Once a chicken hawk always a chicken hawk…
esp. if they follow in Boosh’s footsteps.

When I totally believe in something…I JOIN
the forces and do something…example…
vegan (Which I’m not pushing here, only stating
to make a fact)
I would not say…rah rah rah, I support animals
right to life and then eat them!

Thats what chickenhawks do…rah rah rah…
we love war…as long as WE don’t have to
fight it….

IF this war is to “keep usa safe” why isn’t
ANY of Bush’s/Cheneys kids, nieces, nephews,
family friends proudly helping ‘Unka Boosh & Dickie’ fight his holy war on terra-rists?
Oh, right…
they are much to busy doing what they do best…
getting DRUNK (Just like Unka Boosh!)
The Kennedy’s all were in the military when
the war was going on…not sitting on their
million dollar porches drinking booze…
Kerry FOUGHT in the war…did Boosh?

And look how the chickenhawks do treat our
military that died for them (Cindy) They
scoff at her losing her son for their freedom!

Iraq Insurgency Shows No Signs of Slowdown
BAGHDAD, Iraq - With the grim milestone of the 2,000th U.S. military death looming in
Iraq, many wonder about the direction of the insurgency that killed most of them.

Experts think the country’s increasingly regional-oriented politics will fuel the insurgency and even spread it further inside Iraq. Others put forward a simple, disquieting scenario: So long as U.S. and other foreign troops remain in Iraq, the insurgency will continue.

“It will become more chaotic,”

BOOSH NEEDS HIS REPUBLICANS
TO GO FIGHT HIS HOLY WAR…
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE IN USA???

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 9:39 PM
Comment #87537

Adverb,

Good point about previewing. I’ll try to do better, it’s simple courtesy. Thanks for the reminder.

Drew,

“Do you recall the early party of the federalists, they are much like democrats of today. They only see things their way…”

Yeah, those founding fathers really sucked. And shall we compare the Republicans to Whigs? Come on.

“And how could you say the war started becasue of us? That statement is probually the dumbest I have seen on this message board.”

Mmm. Need I point out our military bases are in their countries? Our multinationals exploiting their resources? Our culture assimilating their culture?

Need I point out our battles are being fought on their soil?

What made 9/11 extraordinary was that, for the first time, a terrorist landed a lucky shot within US borders, killing thousands of civilians.

What made OBL extraordinary was that, for the first time, an enemy of US policy successfully played offense, rather than defense. While his ability to affect events directly has been curtailed, his words continue to inspire other fanatics.

If I may be so bold, it would be a very good idea to concentrate on taking him down.

It’s interesting, Drew, that you managed to write your last post about the War on Terror without once mentioning OBL.

As for Saddam, before the Invasion of Iraq, US public opinion was nearly unanimous in its disapproval of him, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative. The disapproval of the US public made the policy of ‘regime change’ easy to support. Unfortunately, that disapproval never translated into support for invasion. Hence, WMD’s, Saddam & 9/11, and so on.

Long term benefits of invading Iraqa? Well, one benefit nearly absent from this thread will be the friendship of the Kurds. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, that counts as a positive, a win.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 9:46 PM
Comment #87538

Lisa

Thanks for the confirmation, even if you didn’t intend it or know you did it.

Posted by: Jack at October 23, 2005 9:47 PM
Comment #87543

Yeah sorry about not spelling correctly and just to let you people know that you are fighting with a 15 year old, I am only 15, so you can give me a little credit considering that I do have a plauseable argument. Whether I agree with you or not does not make me a bad person or a good person. Different people have different beliefs, and thats a little stereo typing on your part by accusing all Republicans of being poor spellers, maybe its just us 15 yr old republicans. I just thought I would let you guys know thaT I may be young but I do stand strongly with my beliefs and I do understand where you are coming from which is probually more then I could say for most of you adults on this board.

Posted by: Drew at October 23, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #87544

Lisa,
“we know its true that other countries are helping bin laden, whos to say he was not? (Saddam)
Cuz he said he wasnt’ and if he was…you know he’d be PROUD to be associated with the 9-11 job…

“Cuz he said he wasn’t?!” You’re taking the word of a malevolent dictator now?! Geezz!! That’s digusting! The reason we went to war is b/c he had WMD’s (in the 80’s), along with a cease fire agreement from the Gulf War in 1991 (when we b*tch slapped his butt out of Kuwait), 17 U.N. sanctions he defied and the infamous words that Saddam ignored: “Disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences”. Well he didn’t and thank goodness we have a President that won’t just make accusations and not act on them.

And this goes back to what I’ve been saying for a while now, the WMD’s and why we went to war is not the issue anymore; except for the anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-American freaks. We’ve had numerous elections (counting the coalition leaders) and Bush and company have all been re-elected. That’s what democracy is all about, if you don’t like the leadership then you can vote them out. Well, it didn’t happen, even when all sides were heard. You have to be past this now.

The only thing that should be of paramount importance to you (and your anti-Bush friends) is winning this war. Period!!

And, by the way, I read your little comment about chicken hawks fighting the war so they should be in Iraq. We have an all volunteer military; the same military that voted 4 to 1 in favor of Bush. You should think before you speak. However, when people are full of hate, their not able use sound judgment and end up saying and doing disgusting things; just like the terrorists.

Figure out what side your on (ours or the terrorists) and then get on it!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 23, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #87546

well personally I agree with the opinions of Drew and scott. Why would somebody insult somedoby for a typo. its not spelling wrong if hes on a computer seeing as he probably just typed to fast, plus all you flip-flopers, pick a side and develop your opinion around it, no body likes a flip-floper…cough…John kerry…..cough

Posted by: anthony at October 23, 2005 10:40 PM
Comment #87547

see, i made a typo, that doesnt make me stupid…..and as for the war on iraq: the reasons may appear fuzzy to some of you liberals for starting the war, but Bush was in a tight spot and most americans would have done the same. You all just complain and you are never happy with what is being done. If Kerry was elected you all would have most likely had problems with his cabinet as well, so you all should re-think your positions….we are in war and as it stands, it is justified. Bottom Line

Posted by: anthony at October 23, 2005 10:45 PM
Comment #87549

Drew:

“Whether I agree with you or not does not make me a bad person or a good person.” Perhaps not, but writing “Phx8. Blow it out your ass,” says a lot about the kind of person you are, whether you’re 15 or 50.

As far as your being 15 (if you really are 15 - After all, I could say I’m a Scottish Belly Dancer and who could prove me wrong?), I’m not sure what your point is. You can’t sling mud around and then cry “I’m just a kid” when people throw it back. Besides, I teach kids younger than you and they all know how to use spell check.

Posted by: Adverbal at October 23, 2005 10:48 PM
Comment #87551

The reasons may appear fuzzy to some of you liberals for starting the war, but Bush was in a tight spot and most americans would have done the same.

President Gore would have gone after Bin Laden
NOT start a war in Iraq!!!

The ONLY reason Boosh started his war in Iraq
is cuz that mean, bad, man tried
to kill his daddy…
WAKE UP!

Hmmmm….so if say Russia does a attack on usa soil…we get to start a fight/war in Iran?
Ok I get the logic now!

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 10:52 PM
Comment #87552

Hmmmm….so if say Russia does a attack on usa soil…we get to start a fight/war in Iran?
Ok I get the logic now!
Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 10:52 PM

well first off i didnt even come close to insiuating that. Second, how do you come up with that, terrorists committed the 9-11 attacks, they were funded by Iraq, saddam is the leader of Iraq……YOU WAKE UP! ok! well as you can see if you lay it out like that a comparison of russia and iran doesnt hold piss in a tea bag, let alone water

Posted by: anthony at October 23, 2005 11:00 PM
Comment #87554

No body likes a lier…cough…George Bush…..cough
Cough…Dick Cheney…ahhhh……ahhhhh sneeze
Condy Rice….spit out the phlem….Donny Rummy…

Posted by: Lisa at October 23, 2005 11:03 PM
Comment #87555

and lisa, might i add, you are the perfect example of a true liberal: one minded, not willing to listen and an excuse maker…..WAKE UP!!!! (you can insult bush as much as you want, but guess what….your sitting at home, complaining about the past, while he is leading the greatest country in the world! sorry to inform you but,your just a few steps down on the social ladder; behind bush and republicans!)

Posted by: anthony at October 23, 2005 11:05 PM
Comment #87556

I take the comments about proofreading from Adverbal as applying more towards me than others. I won’t go into personal details, but in terms of background, I really don’t have an excuse.

Drew,
You deserve credit for intelligence & articulation beyond your years, no doubt; but no fair using age as a cop-out when it comes to arguing an idea. As a substitute for experience, use links to cite articles to back up ideas.

Question authority, and never trust anyone over 30… er, wait. Make that 48.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2005 11:08 PM
Comment #87557

Lisa,

I answered your question “why isn’t Bush/Cheneys kids fighting in war”, it’s because we HAVE AN ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY!! Sigh on that. They are courageous and deserve better than you filling up this blog bashing their commander in chief (whom they voted for overwhelmingly in 2004). And, don’t think I didn’t notice you ducking that response from my previous article, by the way.

You’re not on the US side if you think Bush & Cheney are bigger terrorists than our enemies. That’s the problem with the anti-Bush/War/Americans, you think you are courageous, and yet you’re not even close. In fact, you are a bunch of cowards. Let me explain.

Courage is our Founding Fathers (you probably hate them too, only remembering the bad and not the great things) signing a declaration of independence; which back then was a declaration of death with the big, bad English Army. And, how about the Afghanistan and Iraqi people going to the polling stations admidst terror threats, now that’s courage. Mouthing off to your leaders, who are taking on disgusting, despotic regimes, in a country where your speech (even hateful speeches) is protected, that’s not courageous. Also, you know you’re going to get publicity from this liberally biased media (there cowards too by the way).

So, once again, figure what side you’re on and get on it…

Posted by: rahdigly at October 23, 2005 11:12 PM
Comment #87559

Lisa:

Ok I get the logic now!
Posted by Lisa at October 23, 2005 10:52 PM

Having read a number of your posts in this thread, I humbly submit that your statement above is inaccurate. I’m not sure what you get, but I AM sure that it has little to do with logic.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 23, 2005 11:17 PM
Comment #87560

Adverbal, first off let me say how dare you insult my charcter, and unlike you think I am not a lier whether you believe it or not. All of you have no life apparently and you have the balls to talk about this stuff in here but I don’t see any of you running for president or trying to make the world a better place. At least Bush is standing up for what he belives is right and not running away from the issue because of people like you. I could care less what you think about my spelling or what you teach and that was not what I was trying to get at but yeah sure you go ahead and think that. All you people do is sit here and type away, let me ask you a simple question, what is that gonna do is it going to stop world hunger or stop the war? ,no its not soo stop bitching already, I am out

Posted by: Drew at October 23, 2005 11:17 PM
Comment #87561

Let us not for get the food for oil that Iraq cheated on.

Let un not for get females every single day were getting rapped by the Iraqs.

So when you go to sleep at night you thank your god and you can rest that your mom or your wife has never been stripped from your arms in day light and they were killed or never found again

IT TOOK THE U.S 5 YEARS AFTER WW2 TO WEED OUT ALL THE LITTLE CHEAP GERMAN FIGHTERS AND START OVER AGAIN.

I go over there I see what is really there and the fighters from other countries hate us, but the Iraqs they want us here, and the know that in time it will be a better place. D DOG

Posted by: marinedomyanic at October 23, 2005 11:18 PM
Comment #87564

Lisa said:

The ONLY reason Boosh started his war in Iraq
is cuz that mean, bad, man tried
to kill his daddy…
WAKE UP!

Hmmmm….so if say Russia does a attack on usa soil…we get to start a fight/war in Iran?
Ok I get the logic now!

————————————————————


Saddam tried and succeeded in killing millions of people’s daddy’s (and mommies and daughters, sons, grandparents,etc.). He’s called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason.

As far as the second (idiotic) comment. Yes, Russia is actually siding with Iran as we speak. And, we will be in Iran soon. Now, will you be on our side or Iran’s? Are you going to make the case for the Mullahs, like you do for Saddam? Are you going to blame Bush for concocting that war since he was fifteen, like you do for IraQ?

The terrorist have been defying the worlds super powers for decades. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have failed when it came to terrorism. Actually, H.W Bush did kick Saddam’s sorry but out of Kuwait; however, he didn’t have the fortitude to remove Saddam.

GWB is the only President that is taking the fight to them and will not give in. Even if that means taking crap and hearing the most outrageous things from his fellow americans (well so called americans).

Lisa, you’re stuck on stupid! USA is going to win, despite you and your anti-American crap. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 23, 2005 11:27 PM
Comment #87565

phx8,

“Question authority, and never trust anyone over 30… er, wait. Make that 48.”

No make that 53!

Posted by: Rocky at October 23, 2005 11:31 PM
Comment #87566

Lisa you are very wrong in just about all things you say, you are the type of person that just sits at home and thinks of things to complain about next. You need to look at he big picture, the war in Iraq is a longterm thing, and we need to stick with it. Oh yeah and by the way Gore was never really president other then in your dreams/ extensive fantasies. You are definetly a Kerry supporter I can tell how you flip flop on issues.

Posted by: Richard at October 23, 2005 11:41 PM
Comment #87567

Some of you folks scare the hell out of me. From both sides.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 23, 2005 11:41 PM
Comment #87568

Craig,
Thanks for your response to my post. I responded to your post because i thought that it was somewhat more intelligent and nuanced than most Republican posts - but still wrong. None the less it is still refreshing to see a Republican at least attempt to be nuanced. I just don’t think that you are very good at it. Of course sometimes I get a bit carried away by own rhetorical flair - so I am not always so nuanced either.

Yes Craig, you are correct, our forces would still be in the Gulf - and that would still provide impetus for jihad - defensive actions to defend Islam - like suicide bombers. But had we done the job in Afghanistan radical Islamists would be demoralized and threat would be reduced. Further more, sending even more troops to the Gulf will only convince even more Islamist that Islam is threatened and needs to be defended - so your logic is flawed.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the very start for many reasons - so many that I cannot articulate all of them here. One is that I have never liked or trusted Bush and I am not always very rational were he is concerned.

I believe that Bush has led this country in the direction of proto-fascism. Fascism - a strong word. Fascism is defined as a patriotic, nationalistic, militaristic, dictatorship with racist overtones. Well.. we certainly are not a dictatorship… but no one gets elected in this country without big money and no one gets big money without selling out. Big money owns and controls the media - mostly big Republican money - and big money buys access to the rest of it. The American people - including me - are manipulated and controlled by their access to information, i.e. the media. So how democratic are we? Yet, we are not a dictatorship, but, Bush has abridged civil liberties in name of fighting terrorism. He has refused to extend the Geneva conventions to our enemies. He has created the preconditions that has allowed torture to flourish even down to the present. He has created a military doctrine of preemption - which is tremendously destabilizing and has driven North Korea and Iran to seek the bomb. After all he did tell them they were next. So this country is certainly extremely militaristic under his leadership. We are certainly highly patriotic. We are nationalistic. We do not have overtones of racism - but we certainly do have undertones of racism. The main stream conservative right is a noble political tradition in the United States. The main stream liberal left is also a noble political tradition in this country. The extreme left is communist. The extreme right is facsist. We need to be careful about how far we go in that direction and I believe that we have already gone far to far to right in this country.

That said.

We are like Rome - a powerful military - corrupt political leadership.

I was opposed to the war from the start. Now that we are there, I believe that we need to win. I believe in winning. The difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that we really do need to win in Iraq. We did not need to involve ourselves in either war. Bush lied to get us into this one and Republican Eisenhower’s domino theory came from the wrong end of a bull (well I suppose that it is better than the end that charges at you - both ends are bad). But Iraq as a haven and training ground for terrorist is unacceptable. That is what it is now. Terrorist cut their teeth in Iraq. They become seasoned combat veterans. They fight the most powerful army in the world and become immensely more powerful as a result. I do not believe that we should involve ourselves in any war unless we are willing to sacrifice tens of millions of our own and kill hundreds of millions of our enemies. Watch the movie; Enemy at the Gates. That is the level of American commitment that should exist before we ever go to war. That is missing from the Powel doctrine. Of course, by that standard we never would go to war unless it really was as a last resort.

But now that we are in Iraq we really do need to win.

The problem is this: This worthless #$^%%# dry drunk piece of $%^$## incompetent commander and chief is rapidly creating a situation where we cannot win. As listed above the American people were not adequately prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to win. The American people are losing patience with the war and will soon demand our withdrawal. We went in without enough troops. We disbanded the Iraqi army there by leaving weapons all over the country for insurgents and creating millions of unemployed disaffected young men. We gave no-bid contracts to Haliburton instead of employing Iraqis. Bush either knew or should have known about the torture in Abu Ghireb. The list is just endless.

The point is this. We must win but Bush is creating the preconditions where we cannot win. Osama is winning. We are losing. But we must win… so in the end the only solution may be the facsist final solution and committing genocide against all Islamist. That is where this President has led us.

Bush wants Armageddon and he is creating the preconditions for it - you could say that he is a baby Antichrist - a precursor.

Let us all hope that it doesn’t come to that - but a dirty bomb in New York and the American people will want more blood than Count Dracula.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 23, 2005 11:44 PM
Comment #87571

phx8,
As an Anti-Authoritarian by self-nature, I say question everyone and only only believe what you know to be right.

Drew,
Considering the fact that on average Americans have a 5th grade reading level so what if you don’t spell correctly. The fact that a person can figure out the word is more important isn’t it?

Anthony,
If Bush is leading this country than where are we going? Even Congress and members of his own party speak out about his “Total Incompetence” in handling Iraq. And Katrina with New Orleans flooding is a real good example of his leadership.

As far as Bush “being in a tight spot” before attacking Iraq, well lets just say Bush didn’t have the balls to confront the real issues of why Saddam had to go. What about Saddam directly paying for attacks against Israel and her Allies? Didn’t that put the USA directly in the cross hairs of terrorist with a $25,000.00 hit fee? Even the Republican Party demanded from Clinton proof before they would allow airstrikes so why not their own President? Trust, but varify I think was the words President Reagan used. As of yet, no proof has been offered privately or publicly.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 23, 2005 11:47 PM
Comment #87572

esimonson

hehehehehehehehe!!!!!!!!
Illogical thinking like the sore loser Dems. Who will do anything to get to Bush because they hate him sooooo much even destroy our country. That’s alright just keep burying yourselves deeper and deeper. Do you think we are that stupid?????!!!!!

Posted by: vivian at October 23, 2005 11:50 PM
Comment #87573

Vivian wrote:

Illogical thinking like the sore loser Dems. Who will do anything to get to Bush because they hate him sooooo much even destroy our country. That’s alright just keep burying yourselves deeper and deeper. Do you think we are that stupid?????!!!!!


You’re right Vivian, good point. It’s as though the anti-Bush crowd sets their side up in a way that everything that is good for the US is bad for them and everything good for them is bad for the US.

“more US soldiers died— good”
“more Abu Gharib incidents— good”
“Jobs report is lower than expected— good”

“The US economy is strong and 100 billion dollars of debt was erased b/c of the Bush tax cuts—- bad”

“Iraqi forces are capturing and killing terrorists— bad”

“Bush takes credit for spreading democracy throughout the middle east, making that place tolerable—- bad”

It’s disgusting, isn’t it? Isn’t it!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 24, 2005 12:02 AM
Comment #87574

Several of you posters need to step back, quit smoking whatever, set the bottle down, sober up, put the vulgarity aside, and put forth an argument that makes sense

Posted by: tom at October 24, 2005 12:08 AM
Comment #87575

“why isn’t Bush/Cheneys kids fighting in war”, it’s because we HAVE AN ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY!!
————-
So…if its all volunteer, how come college republicans are NOT voluntering by the hundreds??? They have more drunk parties than enlistment parties…or how about republican fund raisers to repair ALL the horrible damage Bush’s bombs did on innocent Iraqi homes/business…etc…?

They were funded by Iraq, saddam is the leader of Iraq…

Famous words said by Anne Coulter! Change the channel dude and learn how to get the real news!
————————-
You cry Saddam killed alot of humans…true…but so did GEORGE BUSH! Oh, but because he’s the ruler of the world appointed by God, its ok…I get it!
———————-

I was only using Russia - Iran as examples…could be a attack on usa soil from Australians and once again…that would give Boosh the perfect excuse to kill even more kids in Iran…

I’m just totally against killing human beings…esp. innocent woman and children…
If only Republicans were…

What will we do if another country attacks hundreds of thousands of OUR civillians because they reason…Bush is a bad man…he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians…guess that makes it ok, right?

If only the republicans can put all their hatred and anger towards the real terrorist who killed 3000 americans on 9-11…
Bin Laden…NOT Saddam!

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 12:12 AM
Comment #87578

Tom,
“Several of you posters need to step back…”
Ok.
“… quit smoking…”
Stopped two months ago.
“…set the bottle down, sober up…”
Ok. For now.
“…put the vulgarity aside…”
But I live in Oregon!
“…and put forth an argument that makes sense.”
Well said. Critique the message, not the messenger. Save flames for other sites.


Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2005 12:24 AM
Comment #87579

“more US soldiers died— good”
BUSH DOES LOVE GETTING HIS DAILY DEATH
REPORTS…LOOK HOW MUCH HE LAUGHS AND
EVEN HAS A COMEDY GAG…OF LOOKING FOR
WMD…TWISTED MAN!

“more Abu Gharib incidents— good”
BROUGHT ON BY THEIR HATRED OF HAVING
BUSH’S HOLY ARMY THERE…

“Jobs report is lower than expected— good”
JOBS ARE BEING ALL OUTSOURCED OVERSEAS…
REPUBLICANS SAY THATS A GOOD THING!

“The US economy is strong and 100 billion dollars of debt was erased b/c of the Bush tax cuts—- bad”
CLINTON LEFT WITH A SURPLUS…BUSH TAX CUTS
IS GIVING YOUR GRANDKIDS THE BIGGEST DEFICIT
EVER IN THE HISTORY OF USA! THATS GOOD SAYS
REPUBLICANS.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 24 Oct 2005 at 04:25:42 AM GMT is:
$ 8 , 0 0 7 , 2 8 1 , 4 5 9 , 0 0 3 . 7 4

The estimated population of the United States is 297,514,454
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $26,913.92. (Pay up grandkids!)

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.62 billion PER day since September 30, 2004!

“Iraqi forces are capturing and killing terrorists— bad”
AMERICANS ARE TORTURING PRISIONERS, AMERICANS
ARE TRADING WAR PICTURES FOR PORN, AMERICANS
ARE KILLING CHILDREN…


“Bush takes credit for spreading democracy throughout the middle east, making that place tolerable—- bad”
YOU CALL ALMOST DAILY BOMBINGS MORE TOLERABLE?
WE WENT THRU 9-11 FOR A COUPLE HOURS…
IRAQI’S ARE HAVING 9-11 FOR 2 YEARS NOW!
BUT THATS GOOD SAYS REPUBLICANS…BETTER
TO HURT OTHERS SO THEY DON’T HURT US…

ALL WE ARE SAYING….IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE…
(Course peace isn’t $$$ to republicans!)

And with this posting, I’m off to bed to have
SWEET dreams…for this week…Fitzgerald is going
to bring the Bush adminstration to its knees and
baby…xmas is coming early this year! Thank you Santa!

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 12:32 AM
Comment #87580

(1) So are we going to leave Iraq after we “win” the war?
(2) Is anyone concerned about Iraq becoming an Islamic State?
(3) Do you think Syria will be next?
(4) Is Syria worth it?
(5) Do you think Iran will be next?
(6) Is Iran worth it?
(7) Is esimonson retarded?
(8) Should esimonson be institutionalized?
(9) Are we screwed no matter what, even if esimonson comes out of the closet?
(10) Do you think the Democracts would do anything different right now if they were in power?

Posted by: ericsucksballs at October 24, 2005 12:35 AM
Comment #87581

Jack,

Ask a stupid question….get 90+ stupid answers.

Posted by: Burt at October 24, 2005 12:37 AM
Comment #87582

Rahdigly,
IMO you and Vivian have your argument backwards.

“more US soldiers died— Bad; lack of personal armor and numbers prevent suring areas fought for”

“more Abu Gharib incidents— Bad; Shows weak leadership and high stress of troops”

“Jobs report is lower than expected— Bad; without a strong economy the dollar weakens causing all Americans to lose money.”

“The US economy is strong and 100 billion dollars of debt was erased b/c of the Bush tax cuts—- Wrong; March 2005 saw a 20% lose in the value of the dollar (not intended) and Bush believes that we can inflate our way out of the money problem”

“Iraqi forces are capturing and killing terrorists— Wrong; After 2 years only one unit can stand alone the rest are killing and being killed right beside our own troops”

“Bush takes credit for spreading democracy throughout the middle east, making that place tolerable—- Wrong; Iraq has yet to establish a constitution and in looking at the current one the word democracy does not come to mind.”

However, feel free to oppress your political opponents and tell them that they are no good and undeserving of any rights. Do it in the name of President Bush and your republican party, please. Because when reality hits the conservatives directly in the face, no one will be laughing.

You say you support the war, but offer your political opponent no better conditions to live under than you foe (do it my way or the highway). Governing is not about appeasement or oppression of citizens, but giving a vision that is greater than the whole sum of a nation. To use the President’s own words; “Who could imagine?”

True; who could of imagined we could go to the moon in less than a decade? Who could of imagined that we could win the Cold War without a shot being fired? Who could of believed that the world would make it to the 21st Century without blowing up the world? And worst of all who can imagine the War on Terror ending? Certainly the Almighty Republican Party has a Real Plan? For just imagine if they don’t!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2005 12:39 AM
Comment #87583

Critique the message, not the messenger.

I am so amazed at some of this thread!

Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2005 12:40 AM
Comment #87585

Burt,
Heaven knows, I did my part!
Seriously, I liked the thread, at least the part where people put predictions out there, mostly because it forces an examination of the practical, future implications of ideas. At least, it should.
Besides, Fitzmas will arrive in the next day or two, and that should dominate discussion for some time to come.

Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2005 12:44 AM
Comment #87586

Womanmarine,
I thought my last comment fit the question of the debate. If we are going to ask what Iraq is going to look like in a year or two shouldn’t President Bush and the republican lead Congress have a plan? Or do they lack the imagination necessary to kick in the power of Human Nature required to win the war on terror? A simple question with a very complex answer needed to solve it. Because staying the course is no longer an opition.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2005 12:53 AM
Comment #87587

Henry:

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to your post at all!!

I’m sure glad (or I hope) that I don’t meet some of these people face to face, LOL

Most of the posts are thoughtful, even if they disagree. The rest are scary as hell.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2005 1:03 AM
Comment #87589

Womanmarine,
None taken, political and diplomatic debate is good, it’s when the Beast of Nature stands up that should be avoided don’t you think?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2005 1:07 AM
Comment #87590

Henry:

That’s why I read here faithfully, all three columns. Because I know I can learn.

Absolutely, the diplomatic sharing of ideas and concerns is good.

I just get concerned with some of the vitriol, anger and hatred.

Although I guess I learn from that too.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2005 1:22 AM
Comment #87591

Womanmarine,
While the later part is also part of Human Nature, isn’t it funny how often the first one that resorts to those emotions is found to be wrong in the argument? Strange at how that works is it not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2005 1:46 AM
Comment #87596

Drew,
I am glad that you are thinking about these issues. That tells a lot about you. However your post also shows some other things about you. You are most definitely a young man. When you accuse everyone one this list, of being stupid Adults and then pout(stump our of the room so to speak) “OUT of here”, it shows that you are lacking in maturity.

You must also remember that this is the Democrat Blog site, so you really can’t expect every one here to agree with you.

As for what these people are doing to help change the world, I can assure you that writing and reading this blog frequently allows for a ‘Brain-storming’ and actually helping others to see another side of the issue. When we vote we will take the opponents’ view into consideration.

I doubt that anyone on this site has the money to run for president (I know I don’t)

Perhaps you will run for president someday and actually have the opportunity to change things.
Who knows, however I can almost guarantee that unless you learn how put your thoughts together co-coherently, give evidence backing up your opinion, control your temper,use grammar and spell correctly, especially the easy words, you won’t be likely to win.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 24, 2005 2:33 AM
Comment #87609

Jack,

“We (the good guys) are winning the war in Iraq and establishing a better system.”

I love the details you provided to back this vague, nonsensical statement up with.

I predict that we (the good guys) will build a time machine and clone really hot chicks and discover beer is actually good for us.
I, like you, have nothing to base this on but my fantasies are much cooler than yours.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 24, 2005 8:32 AM
Comment #87615

Andre

The reason I made this post is because I have been in this situation before.

Way back in the 1980s, people were making predictions about nuclear war, calling for freezes and calling Ronald Reagan stupid for believing communism could fall. When it did, they quickly started to claim that it was no big deal and that everyone knew.

During the Gulf War, people were predicting Vietnam scenarios. They said the Muslim street would erupt etc. When those things didn’t happen, they quickly started to claim that this was such an easy thing. Of course it worked out. It was like falling off a log.

When we planned to invade Afghanistan, people called it the graveyard of empires. They talked about the human catastrophe waiting to happen. Of course, the Muslim street would erupt. After it was successful, they talked about how easy it was and that anyone would have done the same thing.

During the initial plans to invade Iraq, we heard talk of Stalingrad, oil wells burning for years, the Muslim street again erupting etc. After it was done in a couple of week, well you know.

Before the Iraqi elections in January, some of us predicted a good turnout and a good result. We were right. Others said that there would be widespread violence and very low turnouts. I liked it that we are on the record. It keeps us all honest and prevents us from saying we anticipated events, when we did not.

My purpose then is to get people on the record. I wrote some metrics in my follow up. I think by next year, when things are working well, people will say that they knew it all along and that it was easy. You don’t think that now, I want to have something on the record so that you won’t be able “to have thought” it next year. So put up.

If it is a “quagmire” you all can quote my words back to me.

I have to credit Aldous, who usually just chimes in with you know. He at least put up something concrete.

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2005 9:25 AM
Comment #87616

just reading the liberal puke non-ideas are fun enough for me………

Posted by: steve at October 24, 2005 9:26 AM
Comment #87621

Jack
Bravo.

I have made two seperate sets of predictions that all can see in two previous posts on this thread above.

Here is my prediction:

1.The American military will place on the field technology that will totally disable all types of improvised devices and save lives.

This piece will then complete the transformation of US forces being the world’s best urban fighters as well as the world’s best “field” fighters.

Adaptation at its best by our splendid heros.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 24, 2005 10:29 AM
Comment #87624

Sounds like the “Neocoms” are rooting for the bad guys (yet again)

Posted by: Kyle Shanks at October 24, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #87625

The question is What would the Dems do? It must be a secret. They have no plans and do not contribute any. They are not proactive thats for sure. Clinton did nothing but play around when there were clear signs of terrorism brewing. Interesting how an impeached president is still in the limelight and now his wife is thinking of running in 2008. What kind of Dems are these? I think if the bad apples were removed there might be an improvement. But not a cure.

Posted by: vivian at October 24, 2005 10:51 AM
Comment #87628

In response to my own earlier post…

This incompetent commander and chief is losing this war, but I do not believe that is quite lost. There are positive things happening in Iraq in spite of Bush the Second. We could still win (leave Iraq better than we found it), but if we do win the credit belongs to our brave soldiers (like my daughter) and to the noble intentions of the American people. None of the credit belongs to Bush. We need to win, but, if the war has, or when the war does become unwinnable, then we may as well withdraw and keep our powder dry. We are creating millions more terrorist than we are killing and the idea that we will leave Iraq better than we found it looks as doubtful as “two spent swimmers that do clinge together and choke the art”. Many of the terrorist that we are creating are battle seasoned against the most powerful army in the world. You cannot buy training like that. It is priceless. It should be on a Visa commercial ($500 to buy a kalashnikov… training against the U.S. Army - priceless).

So…

Lisa is correct to call you chickenhawks. During World War Two, people believed in the war and they volunteered in droves. Military enlistment is way down. You good noble people do believe in this war. Either enlist or send a loved one - or shut up. This war does need to be won. It will only be won through the courage and noble intentions of our soldiers and people, because the commander and chief is incompetent. So… I am issueing a fatwha to all Republicans go and fight it… go and win it. Military enlistment should be up.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 24, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #87629

Jack,
I’ll wager that very little will have changed between the U.S. and Iraq in a year. More insurgents will come, more U.S troops will die, and very little will actually change in Iraq.

1. I’d like to add that invading a country doesn’t do much to change our image as ’ the policeman of the world.’ Now however we can be viewed as the ’ Big Bully of the world’. If anything it has strengthened that image - “If the U.S. don’t like it, then the U.S. will change it.”

see link :
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article321742.ece

“Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks on US and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.
Less than 1% of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security.
Eighty-two per cent of those polled said they were strongly opposed to the presence of the troops.”

2. I suspect Bush will take us to war with Syria and try to use the assignation as an excuse. (Heaven help us if we take on Syria, we really will start WWIII in the Mid-East)

see link or http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1242432

this link: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128767712817&path=!nationworld!article&s=1037645509161

“BAGHDAD, Iraq - With the grim milestone of the 2,000th U.S. military death looming in Iraq many wonder about the direction of the insurgency that killed most of them.
Experts think the country’s increasingly regional-oriented politics will fuel the insurgency and even spread it further inside Iraq. Others put forward a simple, disquieting scenario: So long as U.S. and other foreign troops remain in Iraq, the insurgency will continue.
“It will become more chaotic,” predicted Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm, Sweden. “It is obvious that the United States is in Iraq to stay. If this is the case, the Shiites will likely join the Sunnis in the fight.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D3CE96ED-799F-4707-81DB-B4A0E2FB085E.htm

“Syria, another neighbor, could succumb to mounting U.S. pressure to keep Islamic fighters from using its territory to cross into Iraq. But it also could respond by seeking to create more problems for the Americans by helping the militants to join the Iraq war.”

3. Many of our cities will be continue to become dilapidated because of lack of planning and/or no follow though by Federal and State Governments. ( see:gasoline ) (also think of La. levees; infrastructure, bridges, and the refineries, etc.)

4. Prices will continue to rise, and more and more lay-offs can be expected. (i.e. unemployment will continue to grow)

5. The wealthy/governmental friends will continue to find ways around the tax code, and the poor will need an increase in financial help, and the middle-class will be working harder than ever for either less money, and/or for higher taxes.
(i.e the rich will get richer and the poor will soon have the middle -class sitting outside it’s back door.)

6. The chasm between the President and the Republicans will continue to grow, as well as the line between the Democrats.
We’ll still be spouting stupid things such as, “Bush stole the election”, or “Bush won, deal with it”. Or calling names stating that those who oppose Bush are Communists, or those that love Bush are following party lines without being able to think for themselves.

7. Our Supreme Court will have more and more cases regarding the “Right to Privacy”, and they will start removing the ways that people are allowed to use this un-written law. ( Assuming it continues to recognize the “Right to Privacy”)

8. Homeland Security will use The Patriot Act as a reason to issue some sort of Identification Card to try to prove we are “true” Americans” (WASPS, perhaps) and not presumed terrorists. I never thought I’d be in favor of the NRA, but it may be the country’s only salvation. Hopefully the NRA will fight this as hard as they fight Gun Registration, because of course all guns and other weapons will have to be registered . The NRA wouldn’t want to appear to be a terrorist’s organization.

9. Children will continue falling behind on the Governmental tests, because TEXAS, under then Governor Bush, has already tried the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND program set up by Ronald Page, and found it lacking. Not only in substance but actual the learning of the subject.Most teachers not only hate it, they believe it is detrimental to the students actually process. (I could pass most tests if someone taught me the test too.)

10. And finally, Joe McCarthy’s clone will be alive and well and back in power again, setting all of us against the other, out of mistrust. Only this time it’ll be religiously related. I suspect the belief that “unless you are a Christian you will go to hell” will be the refrain. Implying that ” I’m a better Christian that you are”, or that “all people MUST believe in MY GOD” and follow what ever the extreme Conservative Republicans/Democrats think they believe.
Linda H.




Posted by: Linda H. at October 24, 2005 11:24 AM
Comment #87630

You are most definitely a young man. When you accuse everyone one this list, of being stupid Adults and then pout(stump our of the room so to speak) “OUT of here”, it shows that you are lacking in maturity.

Ahhh…Drew IS a Bush clone!


Hey how about that HUGE blast explosion in Bagdad this morning! Yeahhhhh….its getting better alright! Iraqi citizens CAN’T even go shopping or
just walk the streets without fears of being bombed to death….big progress! Oh right….in the Saddam days bombs were going off daily also….(According to Repuublicans)
It was a reporters hotel blown up….bet George is loving this day!

And Vivian….what are YOU doing here? Bush needs YOU to go fight his holy war on Iraqi citizens…go enlist!
Bush needs military fighters more than he needs his balls kissed…Lil Harriets taking care of those needs.

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #87634

I am supporting our country and the troops and expressing the opinion of the majority. All the men in my family have protected this country going way back to the civil war. And we have had loses all for freedom. A very little price to pay for a big reward of freedom.

Posted by: vivian at October 24, 2005 12:14 PM
Comment #87635

Jack,

You are quoting some people who have said that the war in Iraq will be a Vietnam situation for the U.S..
What I believe is that the war was a mistake.
A mistake that we’ve already committed to. We must immediately increase our forces and really take the fight to them. We will need to stop, not slow down, the number of foreign fighters entering Iraq. We need to end the war by ending the insurgency. We need to advance through areas in the same fashion as we did in the first(the only well planned stage)stage. We are not a police force or armed guards. We are a mobile military and need to be used as such. The Iraqi police and military should man the interior check-points around the country. We should control the borders. We should better utilize hellicopters and other aircraft to lower the number of ground troops.
We should reevaluate Haliburton-KBR contracts to eliminate all waste and sense of impropriety that has plagued the war. We should hold the Bush administration accountable for intelligence failures and manipulations.
We should begin to reach out to other nations and the U.N. to help fix this mess.
We need to end the war ASAP.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 24, 2005 12:14 PM
Comment #87636

Thanks Linda H. I don’t agree with much of what you wrote, but I respect that you thought it out and put it on paper (electrons).

Lisa and Ray

Logical fallacies. There is too much to write here. You may want to study up on the subject. You can google the topic and find out about your argument style.

Anyway, parents can’t send their children. Since we have no draft, people enlist in the military for a variety of personal reasons. It is an all volunteer force and it is a good life move for many. As I mentioned, I am supporting my son’s decision to join the Marines (or not because it is his choice)

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2005 12:14 PM
Comment #87639

Jack
Parents CAN send their children to enlist…Republicans should be enlisting their
college kids for the Republican holy war instead of drunk parties at college…we have no draft…YET…
You can bet your yellow ribbon sticker on your
SUV that Bush & Co are working on the draft…

Not enough military now as it is to fight holy
war in Iraq…need fresh faces for his other
wars cuz after all God tells Bush to kill…
(Bush really should get off his anti-depressants, he’s hearing voices now)

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 12:25 PM
Comment #87641

And I might add Lisa at least Bush HAS balls.

Posted by: vivian at October 24, 2005 12:30 PM
Comment #87642

at least Bush HAS balls. (To send thousands of innocent humans to their graves)

Yeah….walnuts are bigger though!

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 12:41 PM
Comment #87652

Lisa

I have a Honda Civic Hybrid, which I rarely drive because I ride my bike or take public transportation to work. Your prejudice is showing. The stereotypes are easier to deal with. When you are looking up those logical fallacies, check out “straw man”.

And - no, parents can’t send their kids to join the military. They can choose or not. As for a holy war, the only people who I have ever heard call it a holy war are the terrorists and you guys. I am not sure which logical fallacy you are hitting on that one.

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2005 1:09 PM
Comment #87654

Sure is fun reading from all those Nostradamus wantabes. Of course, Nostradamus was a failure too.

Posted by: tom at October 24, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #87656

womanmarine

I think I’m in love.

Jack

Like you, I certainly hope this works out well for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. We were deliberately misled into this (whether by Bush or others in his administration is not clear). An informed and aware guy like you knows that such adventurisms as Iraqi Freedom have had the dangerous risk of backfiring throughout our history and there have been many earmarks of such blowback in the course of the war. But people of good will have to hope that the situation will stabilize and no more US soldiers, contractors, or Iraqis (other than the violent ones) get killed. I am afraid that there are already hints that Shia death squads are operating (can’t find the link real quick; maybe someone can help me), but a stable working government could deal with that as long as its officials aren’t corrupt.

One small point. The failing of the military to enlist enough volunteers when half the country professes to believe in the righteousness of this war certainly signals the strength of such support, i.e., it is verbal and not visceral. This also makes me wary that things won’t work out, because the US has never been able to accomplish such tasks when there hasn’t been strong support from the citizenry.

For now let’s all just wait and watch and hope.

Peace.

I

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 24, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #87657

okay Lisa what about the 50,000 or so that killed the first day of WWII. Too young to realize my guess.

Posted by: vivian at October 24, 2005 1:40 PM
Comment #87663

Mental

Re: support for the war or anything else

You can support something and not be personally involved in its implementation. There are many reasons why you may not be involved. One is qualification. Somebody like me is too old. Others may be unqualified for a variety of reason. Some of us would just get in the way. Most of the fat 35 year olds would be more of a burden than a benefit.

If we had to be personally involved in everything we did, we couldn’t live in this world. We rely on the skills and expertise of others.

The morality is also a difficult one. As I mentioned to Lisa, who assumed that I drive an SUV because I am a Republican, I have a Honda Hybrid. I drive it probably once or twice a week. Otherwise I ride a bike or take the metro. Can I say that anyone who drives a less efficient car or uses it more often is a hypocrite to say that they are interested in environmental protection? Does anyone who drives even a Toyota Corolla three days a week have no right to address the subject when I am around? Of course not. That is a logical fallacy.

That is a silly example, but the one about the military is pernicious. Those of us who support the Iraq policy do it out of a conviction that the alternatives are worse. Few people love war. But the best way to get into big disastrous wars is to be afraid to fight in general. You can argue that the intelligence was flawed that got us into the war. But we are there now, and we don’t live in the past so the only important question is what should we do now? The ad hominem attack - that only Republicans should fight for their country if Democrats disagree with the policy is unbelievably craven. It is a bankrupt argument from the moral standpoint and it is a classic example of a logical fallacy.

I know that a lot of people hate George Bush, but you should not hate the President more than you love your country. As you say, it is in the interests of all Americans (and all civilized people) that we succeed in Iraq. We can talk about what success means and whether it is worth the price, but the alternative is much worse.

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2005 1:58 PM
Comment #87664

Jack

You misunderstood. I wasn’t attacking you or any other individual Republican or war supporter for not joining the military. The point I had hoped to communicate was that in spite of the near majority support this war has garnered for most of its prosecution, there has not been a great turnout of volunteers. This indicates that lip service is being paid where sacrifice is not evident.

Your last paragraph was uncalled for.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 24, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #87675

Henry,

You have so many problems in your blog to me that I’m just going to break it down without pasting your last rant.

Abu Ghraib:
you said it’s shows weak leadership and stress of troops. Wrong. For the troops, it shows that they are human and make mistakes. As good people that were are, it’s the US responsibility to punish the guilty and prevent it from happening again, which we have done. And, (most importantly) move on. Not print 50+ front page news articles on this over-played subject just to end the war. Actually try to win the war, rather than overplaying scandals. You think the terrorists are perfect and don’t make mistakes or spread atrocities? You’re wrong. They’ve been doing this long before Bush arrived. And they’ll continue to spread fear and terror on everyone (that’s all that don’t obide by their way of life; an intolerable way of life isn’t it?!) until someone stands up and fights them.

As for leadership, the definition of a good/great leader is someone who makes decision based on their convictions and what they believe is right (GWB,RR,JFK,FDR,HST,Abe,TJ,GW) and they don’t make them to be liked. Leaders include: CEO’s, Presidents, teachers, parents, etc. Jimmy Carter, Harding and Bill Clinton proved to be bad and mediocre leaders b/c they wanted people to see how kind and sensitive they were; especially slick willy, all he did was talk a good game and not act on it. Well, kind and sensitive is in the liberal world only, not in the real world. In the real world, it’s complex and ambiguous. Terrorists have been bombing us for all eight years of Clintons administration and he did nothing and bragged about 8 years of peace time. Baloney!


US soldiers died:
you said it’s due to lack of personal armor and numbers prevent surging areas… Once again, wrongo. Every war we’ve ever fought had lack of personal armor and troops. Every War. You must not have ever served in the military b/c when I was in, the saying was “a happy military is a military that’s complaining”, you make due with what you have; improvise and adapt. The real reason is liberal pukes always try to reduce funds for military spending. Clinton certainly did and Kerry voted for the war and then voted against (AGAINST!) the supplement funds for body armor and other supplies for the troops.

The economy:
You said without a strong economy the dollar weakens. Bush is the reason we have a strong economy. The tax cuts helped us keep from going into a deeper recession than we already had (inherited from the Clinton admin I might add).

You said economy was bad b/c March 2005 20% loss in $ value. As of July 2005 there’s been a reduction in this year’s deficit for over 100 billion b/c more tax revenues were generated from tax cuts; more people working (jobs!!) more revenue collected. That’s a fact!


Iraqi forces:
you said there’s only 1 force that can stand on their own. That’s incorrect. There are over a hundred battalion’s that are up and fighting the terrorists and they’re doing a good job. See you would have known that if you would have listened to the troops last week in that teleconference. You like the hateful cowards in the media focused on the preparation and scripted BS the media reported on, rather than what the troops (you know the ones you guys support—wink. wink. yeah right!) actually said was going on. What they said is that the forces are getting trained and doing well. You do believe our troops don’t you? Ha! Ha! You actually have to own up to all your liberals talking points.

Iraq Constitution:

You say that democracy isn’t in play b/c they don’t have a constitution yet. Well, democracy has been going on for over a year now, they’ve had two (DEMOCRATIC) elections and they’ll be voting for their Constitution on December 15, 2005. Aren’t you excited?! By the way, the Sunnis are now at the table and part of this process. Also, both Iraqi elections had higher turn outs than our elections. Even our 2004 election where we had the highest turn out ever in US history and more people voted for Bush than any other president in history; even with all the hate you and your anti-Bush/War/American forces have spread to the people. Ha! It didn’t work. The people aren’t stupid, we spoke up and GWB is our President and Commander Chief. The troops re-elect him 4 to 1 as well. But you conveniently forget that tidbit don’t you. The troops are the ones on the front line and they love this President more than Bill Clinton (you know, the peace time Prez. Ha!),

You guys should stand behind the President (not agree, just get behind) instead of doing the terrorist’s work and oppose every single tidbit about him. It’s funny how ridiculous and stupid you guys are, you can’t see that you stand out to us b/c your slander and hateful remarks are equal to the terrorist’s; you can’t separate yourselves from the terrorist unless you (first) denounce the terrorist, agree that they declared war on us, stop putting Bush ahead of the terrorists, and (actually) offer a solution. The problem you keep running into is that all your solutions are passive and have been tried countless times prior to Bush and they’ve all failed miserably. You fight terrorism with strength, not peace. The only way the terrorist can be defeated is through war and by spreading that hateful disease throughtout the Middle East known as democracy. Because the lack of democracy has breeded more and more terrorism throughout that region.

Remember, get this through your head that’s filled with a mental disease known as liberalism (I refer to it as cowardism), the terrorist don’t hate us for what we do, they hate us for who we are. They’ve been at war for thousands of years and all they want is the muslim way of life and nothing else. You’re not going to have freedom if you let them win. And, right now you’re impeeding this President who is fighting this war and stopping them from defeating us.

Why don’t you talk about the terrorists? Tell us how wrong and bad they are. Try that for a change. Try making hateful statements about the terrorists rather than Bush. As a matter of fact, that will be your homework assignment. Tell us what you don’t like about the terrorist and what you hate. This is of course if you do dislike and/or hate them. Maybe you don’t, once again, the American people can’t tell. You’ll have to convince us. Good luck. Ha!

This is why you and Lisa (by the way, I almost threw up at the love fest you two had last night with compliments you two were giving each other) and the rest of the anti-Bush crew don’t get through to the American people when it comes to the ballot box. We’re immune to your hate and lies and lack of plausible solutions to complex problems. You just keep pointing fingers and spewing out your hate. You guys share the same brain and that brain is damaged.

As I’ve said before: Figure out what side you’re on (US or the terrorists) and then get on it. And the only way to get on the US side is to side with Bush. Now, this doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, in fact, you don’t have to agree with him at all. It means you have to stop the hate and let him do his job. 2008 you can go to the ballot box and vote for the person that you think is better. That’s how the system works. But, and this is a big butt, you have to stop the hate against Bush first. You have to!!!!


Whether you like his policies or not, he is our President, the troops Commander in Chief and he’s taking the fight to the terrorists. And, if you don’t like it when people say your un-American when you disagree then start diagreeing and stop sounding like the terrorists. They don’t disagree they hate, right now that’s what you’re doing. Remember to do your homework assignment. Ha! Ha! He! He!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 24, 2005 2:58 PM
Comment #87677

Mental

Sorry. I was responding to the general notion, not yours in particular.

The last paragraph is also not meant to attack you. That is why I acknowledged your own statement about the need to succeed. But I have to stand by it in the general sense. I do believe that some opponents of the President let their dislike for him cloud their judgement about other policies. I don’t like it that the war has become a kind of a test of politics. I supported President Clinton in Kosovo because I understood it was in our interests once we got involved to prevail and I criticized some Republicans at the time for calling it Clinton’s war. The same is true now.

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2005 3:04 PM
Comment #87682

Rah,
Abu Ghraib: so, you’re against torture? Because I believe it’s still administration policy.

“As for leadership, the definition of a good/great leader is someone who makes decision based on their convictions and what they believe is right (GWB,RR,JFK,FDR,HST,Abe,TJ,GW) and they don’t make them to be liked.”

That is simply wrong. Leadership is a fascinating topic. There are many types of leadership, appropriate in different situations. The type you mention is usually one of the least effective leadership styles. Read up- or join the military. Training to be an officer includes quite a bit on this topic. Learn about it before attempting to write about it.

The economy: I’d like to go into that at great length, but time doesn’t permit. Perhaps in another thread.

Iraqi forces: Sorry, but the original statement is correct. Only 1 Iraqi battalion can fight on its own, down from 3 this spring. Are you following this story, because it’s very important to our ability to extricate ourselves. Between January & August $500 - $800 million disappeared from the Iraqi Defense Military, much of their budget. The Defense Minister and many others skipped town. The corruption & graft is making it extremely difficult to outfit Iraq units, to say nothing of problems with ethnic rivalry.

Constitution: When an Iraqi government closely allied with Iran takes over, will you call that a positive outcome? One worth thousands of Americans dead and wounded? Maybe you will. That’s fine. Just acknowledge the nature of the beast you so fervently support.

Amazing, an entire post, with double-digit references to terrorism, and once again a Bush supporter completely fails to refer to OBL by name. Wonder why?


Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #87685

Phx8

I wish we could get Osama. But we have made it impossible for him to do his business as usual. Unfortunately catching this one man is more difficult than destroying most of his infrastructure. This is not uncommon. Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal escaped justice. Adolph Eichmann got away for twenty years and Josef Mengele managed to die an old man never paying for his crimes. It should have been easy to catch these guys, but it wasn’t. Osama may well be dead or incapacitated by the recent earthquakes. We would not know for months of years. That shows how important he is today.

I have thought about whether or not it is better to catch him. I have mixed feelings. The revenge aspect motivates me (I admit) but how would it really serve us to put him on trial? He and his supporters would have a forum. Given the quality of the world media, he would get a lot of sympathetic press. So the best-case scenario may be that he is covered with ten feet of mud and rock somewhere on Pakistan’s northwest frontier. Punished by a greater power?

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #87695

One statement…

Republicans no more more WIN a war than
they can win a earthquake/hurricane…

Want to fight for something?
Fight for all the kids who go to bed hungry
Fight for all the kids who get beaten by their
‘parents’
Fight for all the inhumane abuse humans go thru.
Fight for right to go to your local library and not be watched of WHAT you check out…

FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM…SADDAM WAS NO THREAT
TO USA…BIN WAS…AND YET WE’RE KILLING INNOCENT
IRAQI WOMAN AND CHILDREN CUZ BIN ATTACKED US…
Where’s the freakin logic???

Point being…fight for things you can
actually win at….not hatred due to
killing their people, just cuz you don’t
like the way they worship their god, etc…

Peace? Bush shudders at the word…

By the way…no one ever explained the
bulge in his back durning the debates…
was it his brain? (On drugs?) The man is
a walking zombie…
one report from washington post
(Republican rag) says his staff tips toes around
him cuz he blows up at the least little thing…
Trust a druggie? Not on my life!

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 4:35 PM
Comment #87696

Lisa
And now Mr. Brown you can repay Mr. Flatt by joining the Republican military
and fight/kill those bad woman and kids in Iraq, after all…they are terra-rists…
who are going to bomb your grandchildren in the future…

I’ve already repayed him with two tours in Vietman and twenty years active duty.
BUT, if you can convince the military to wave my age, DO IT and I’ll gladly go to Iraq in the place of someones son. I’ve already tried to get back in but cann’t because of my age.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 24, 2005 4:40 PM
Comment #87699

Jack,

I want to respond to your other comments but have time, so just this for now.

The reason to catch Osama is not revenge. Many on your side of the argument make the argument that we can’t just cut and run because it will embolden the terrorist - and there is some truth in that - that is the double bind that this president has led us into. By our failure to bring him to justice - not revenge - he becomes an iconic symbol of the ability to defy the most powerful army in the world - the lion has teeth but it is too slow and cumbersome to catch the finch. So our failure to catch him emboldens the terrorist. He does not have to be able to operate normally. All he has to do is sit there thumb his nose at us and die peacefully from an earthquake to be a symbol of Wahabist Islamist Arab Jiadic virility in the face of an impotent lumbering American military. We could’ve, should’ve, and would’ve had him if we had a commander and chief.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 24, 2005 4:56 PM
Comment #87705

rahdigly,

“US soldiers died:
you said it’s due to lack of personal armor and numbers prevent surging areas… Once again, wrongo. Every war we’ve ever fought had lack of personal armor and troops. Every War. You must not have ever served in the military b/c when I was in, the saying was “a happy military is a military that’s complaining”, you make due with what you have; improvise and adapt. The real reason is liberal pukes always try to reduce funds for military spending. Clinton certainly did and Kerry voted for the war and then voted against (AGAINST!) the supplement funds for body armor and other supplies for the troops.”

Jeez, I don’t know where to start.

Cheney, that “liberal puke” was head of DOD when the draw down started, G.H Bush another “liberal puke”, was President.

Yeah, you’re right, we did go to other wars with what we had and made do, except in those other wars we were attacked by the countries we were trying to defeat.
G.W’s daddy was able to pull together 1/2 million troops in less than six months to fight his gulf war, what’s G.W. been able to do.
Any stratagist with any brains knows that you go into a conflict with at least twice the troops that you need, in order to asure victory, G.W. sent in 1/2 of what he needed, and rolled the dice. Our military leaders belive that technology is a panacea. Sorry, there is still no replacement for boots on the ground.

If Powell had been in charge instead of being sent to lie to the UN, this all would have been very different.

Posted by: Rocky at October 24, 2005 5:18 PM
Comment #87707

Mr. Brown…
Fear not…won’t be long before AGE isn’t a enlistment issue…you could convince them to
have a special military section and be the
‘Hand out band-aids from Mista Boosh’ team.

I noticed no one is answering my question about
How come Mista Boosh’s KIDS/NEICES/NEPHEWS/JEB’S KIDS/AND Mista Cheney has quite afew offspring himself…if this war is so freakin noble and making us so much safer, WHY ARN’T THEY ENLISING TO HELP UNKA BOOSH??? They were at the election PARTIES…yet poop out when its time to put THEIR LIVES on the line for Daddy…Hmmmmm!

The military has already lowered its standards…looky at Lil Republican Lynnie…
they say she’s retarded, and yet the military TOOK her! Mr. Brown you should be the Republican poster boy (Like Cindy) and FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO FIGHT THEM TERRA-RISTS IN IRAQ…We haven’t killed enough lil boys and girls, right?

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 5:19 PM
Comment #87710

Jack
One area of speculation is that we know where OBL is exactly and we have been monitoring his communication and contacts. The intel from that could be more valuable at the present time than to capture OBL. Just a thought.

Posted by: tom at October 24, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #87715

Figure out what side you’re on (US or the terrorists) and then get on it. And the only way to get on the US side is to side with Bush.

I’m on the usa side…Bush is on the terra-rists side…thats why 6 months later (Its on record) Bush said…
I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no
idea and I really don’t care.
Its not that important.
Its not our priority. MARCH 13, 2002

6 MONTHS AFTER A #1 TERRA-RIST HIT US IN NYC KILLING 3000…BUSH SAYS ITS NOT THAT IMPORTANT…
WHY? CUZ WE GOTTA GO HURT THAT BAD MAN
WHO TRIED TO KILL MA DADDY…


———————————-
WOOO WEEEE…read this!

Bush usually reserves his ‘celebrated temper’ for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss’ wrath.

“This is not some manager at McDonald’s chewing out the help,” said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. “This is the President of the United States, and it’s not a pleasant sight.”

Somebodys abit nervous about the CIA leaks…
Heh…heh!

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 5:41 PM
Comment #87747

rah,
I am going to attempt to answer your blog in a paragraph by paragraph manner.

I’m going to skip the point about Abu Ghraib. I don’t believe that “good people” would ever do what the guards have done.

I tend to agree with you regarding the definition of a good/great leader, however I also believe that a good/great leader has ALL the facts BEFORE making any decision. It has become painfully obvious that Bush did not check further into the intelligence given him. If he had he wouldn’t have had to lie (regardless of where the lie started) to get us involved in this STUPID war. Blix and the others looking for the WMD tried to tell him that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any. Why was their word less worthy than that of an unknown British agent? Of the following Presidents (GWB,RR,JFK,FDR,
HST,Abe,TJ,GW), only ONE has actually distinguished himself by starting a war, and invading another country without having been formally attacked first, or asked to help.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Jimmy Carter, William Harding and Bill Clinton all belong on the same list and are ALL bad Presidents. Harding I understand, but frankly Carter is apparently a GREAT leader, having founded the Habit for Humanity Program, and achieving so much from that one project. Believe me, I know how hard it is to get the funding for such projects, let alone get volunteers to work. Carter is simply too gentle a man to be able to deal with the policial mish-mash in Washington. The Iranians were able to take advantage of this. Clinton has turned into a terrific Statesman for this country, working with George Sr. in helping the victims of Katrina, and Rita. I don’t recall Clinton having increased our deficient an outrageous amount; (humm …didn’t he do something strange - like balance the budget) or such a high unemployment rate, or the fatalities from a war that occurred almost immediately after entering office.
I agree whole heartily with you about Harry’s comment on the soldiers that are dying. Harry said “it’s due to lack of personal armor and numbers prevent surging areas…” You said “Once again, wrongo.” However I must take another stand. The reason we have soldiers dying has little to do with personal amour, ….. rather it’s because of where they ARE. In a country that doesn’t want them.
check out this link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article321742.ece

As for the economy, all I have to do is go shopping for groceries, pay for gasoline, look at my electric bill, read in the paper about more lay-offs, and look at my non - increasing paycheck to see which way the economy is going. Straight to hell. Prices are increasing at a massive rate, but my ability to pay for them is decreasing.

As for the Iraqi forces, if their forces are so great, why are we STILL there?

The Iraqi Constitution is proving to be almost laughable, unfortunately. Seems that there are a numerous complaints about it’s legitimacy. Last I heard they are concerned about actually implementing it.

You do however make a excellent point. About the voting being higher than our own. IT IS a terrible comparison. It says something sad about the American voters here when they don’t like either candidate enough to actually vote for one of them. How many times have I wished I could vote FOR someone, instead of against someone. The lessor of the two evils, if you will.

However I totally disagree with you about who the stupid Americans are - stupid Americans are the ones who don’t realize what an opportunity they miss when they decide not to vote. “Nuff said’

As for the troops - I, myself, wouldn’t be caught dead not showing support for the guy who handles my paycheck, or has my back.

I simply can’t stand behind this president. I would be afraid of the breeze I might find there.

I can’t help but think that without the several opinions brought up here, if we all agreed or even stood behind Bush simply because he is the President we’d be a very boring group of people.

You, rah, as well as others, would have no one to complain to, or about.

How can you accuse us of hatred and slander, of having “mental disease” because we disagree with you?

You wrote:
“It’s funny how ridiculous and stupid you guys are,you can’t see that you stand out to us b/c your slander and hateful remarks are equal to the terrorist’s;”

You also stated, “Remember, get this through your head that’s filled with a mental disease known as a known as liberalism (I refer to it as cowardism)…..”, (by the way there is no such word as cowardism)

“It means you have to stop the hate…” And on and on.

Frankly I don’t hate any of you. I haven’t said any thing malicious or hateful, about any of the Republicans personally. I simply disagree with many, NOT all, of the ideas they represent.

Read this aloud:
“You have the shoe on the wrong people.”

Or as the Bible says, in John 8:3-11:
“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone” If the Republicans cast the first stones, then they must be willing to accept the stones that get tossed back.

You wrote:
“You can’t separate yourselves from the terrorist unless you (first) denounce the terrorist, agree that they declared war on us, stop putting Bush ahead of the terrorists, and (actually) offer a solution. The problem you keep running into is that all your solutions are passive and have been tried countless times prior to Bush and they’ve all failed miserably. You fight terrorism with strength, not peace. The only way the terrorist can be defeated is through war and by spreading that hateful disease throughout the Middle East known as democracy. Because the lack of democracy has breeded more and more terrorism throughout that region.”

I have no problem denouncing the terrorists and ALL warmongers involved in murder.

However, I can’t help but believe that Bush is also acting much as a terrorist. He even admitted to being a Hawk (no surprise, of course)just before he was elected the first time. I bet my husband that we would be a war with Iraq by the end of 2002, before he won the first election. (Not a bet I was happy to win) Bush attacked a non-threatening country without fully checking into the facts. We now know that all the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, that Saddam Hussein had no WMD, and that the Iraqis don’t want us there. Seems to me that trying to force Iraq into a totally different style of government is not too far away from the terrorist Moslems who want to force us to follow the Islamic faith.

Solution - GO AFTER THE TERORISTS! You know, Ben Laden, Al Queda! Capture them, kill them I don’t care.

As for Iraq, talk WITH them, (even consider a heartfelt “I’m sorry”) instead of trying to make them change. Come to some reasonable agreement that they will not try to force their beliefs on us, and we won’t try to force our beliefs on them. Then leave them alone, and accept the fact that they are different from us.

For some reason, I don’t think anyone has put it this simply. Peace doesn’t always have to be achieved by war.

If I remember my history correctly wasn’t there a story about the Trojan Troops who came home because their wives made their lives difficult? That certainly was one way to prevent war.

It may be a myth, but unless we use our heads instead of testosterone, we are not likely to even begin to find other ways to achieve peace.

I know which side I am on. The side of Peace. The side of My Country, of the People who have given so much to Help those in Need. The side of all MY soldiers. The side of truth and honesty. The side that wants a world I can be proud of when my children start taking over.
Somehow I don’t think that’s the side our current President is on.

I AM however, NOT UN-AMERICAN. I resent the implication, not only for me, but for everyone else who may disagree with you.

I am proud to be an American, and frankly if a terrorist were in my backyard, I’d have no problem shooting them - AFTER I determine that they are out to get me or those I love, Neigbors, and aquantices, or neither, but still Americans. I LIKE to have the facts straight BEFORE I pull a trigger. Maybe he wants to surrender - rather like they did during the Gulf War.

I am NOT proud to call Bush my President, and since this country is still free, telling me it’s un-American to not back a president sounds like an attempt to deny me my Constitutional Rights. The rights our forefathers gave us when our country was formed. I believe that one of the major reasons we were granted certain rights was because we were encouraged to THINK before making a major decision!

I hate killing. Whether it’s from terrorists killing innocent Americans, or our military killing Iraqis. Period.

Any more comments, rah ?
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 24, 2005 7:36 PM
Comment #87759

We must immediately increase our forces and really take the fight to them. We will need to stop, not slow down, the number of foreign fighters entering Iraq. We need to end the war by ending the insurgency. We need to advance through areas in the same fashion as we did in the first(the only well planned stage)stage. We are not a police force or armed guards. We are a mobile military and need to be used as such. The Iraqi police and military should man the interior check-points around the country.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 24, 2005 12:14 PM

Andre,

The game is up. What you are calling for will not overcome a guerilla insurgency. And the more the US tries to use massive force in achieving its objectives in Iraq, the more resistance it will stir up. Trust me, I come from a country that knows all about occupation. You suggest a role for the Iraqi police and military. What you don’t seem to realise is that the Iraqi police forces are not a police force that you and I would recognise. They are loose militias tied to tribal and religious factions, as their uniformed presence at killings and kidnappings will attest. I mean come on, even the Brits had to send a tank into a police prison ( thru the walls, not the doors) in Basra to rescue some of their soldiers. As for the army, well, after two years, they reckon that at best one unit can give a good account of itself. And even then, who will they be loyal to? Furthermore, Iraq is descending rapidly towards civil war. The tribal, ethnic and religious tensions are threatening the tear the country apart. If as is surely possible, the current low intensity civil war explodes into total conflict, then all the US can do is turn tail and high tail it outta there. Iran will have achieved its foreign policy dreams of close and influential relations with the majority southern shias, the Saudis and most of the remainder of of the Arab world will feel threatened by this Shia power base, and the Turks will not easily accept a Kurdistan at their border. A fine recipe for a witches brew of trouble. Who was it said to beware of the law of unforeen consequences? Or be careful what you wish for, cos you just might get it? I know it was Confuscious who say, may you live in interesting times. And that was a curse. Well, we certainly live in interesting times. What say you, grasshopper?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 24, 2005 8:24 PM
Comment #87760

Lisa
Fear not…won’t be long before AGE isn’t a enlistment issue…you could convince them to
have a special military section and be the
‘Hand out band-aids from Mista Boosh’ team.

That’s fine with me. After all I served in a Democrats war, so I might as well serve in this one.
I don’t like war any better than anyone else. Sometimes it’s necessary.
Having been in a war, the last thing I want is to see our young people going to war. But there’s NO WAY that I’m not going support them and their cause.
I know that I’m going to catch hell for this from the ‘I support the troops but not the war’ crowd.
But THE HELL YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 24, 2005 8:29 PM
Comment #87765

Linda H. -EXCELLENT POINT OF VIEW YOU WROTE…
thanks for your well written post…

Thats the part I never understood….
The terra-rists from 9-11 are from
Saudi Araba…how did George get so
convinced that they really came from Iraq?
Hmmmm….

And still no answer to…why isn’t Bush/Cheney’s
FAMILY enlisting? Viv - care to answer?

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #87767

sicilian eagle said

1.Iraq security levels at 225,000 with 12 battions at Level 1 readiness

I don’t believe Iraqis can achieve the number 1 status that has been stated by the generals. Only if we give them our best hardware and the intense training we give our own, will they ever be equal to U.S Forces.

Adverbal Said


Last thought - here’s what our President should have said: “We went to war due to mistakes. We thought Iraq was a threat to our national security and clearly it wasn’t. But now that we are at war we have a chance to turn this error into something positive. Saddam Hussain was a terrible, cruel, tyrant and, with our country providing temporary support, his people can have a much better future without him.”
or something like that.


This is a canard. Iraq was a threat to our national security. If we were at war with Syria now, would you want Sadam next door? If we were at war with Iran now would you want Sadam next door? We are at war with terrorism now, would Sadam sit back and watch the war around him? Wake up. Terrorists are all around and only need support to become lethal.

Posted by: George at October 24, 2005 9:02 PM
Comment #87771

This is a canard. Iraq was a threat to our national security. If we were at war with Syria now, would you want Sadam next door? If we were at war with Iran now would you want Sadam next door? We are at war with terrorism now, would Sadam sit back and watch the war around him? Wake up. Terrorists are all around and only need support to become lethal.
Posted by: George at October 24, 2005 09:02 PM

Only problem there George, is that the terrorism you are at war with, came out of Saudi, along with the Wahabism that fuels it. Saddam was a total secularist, and even persecuted any Mullahs who challenged his regime. And out of touch as he certainly had to be not to see which way the wind was blowing after 9/11, with Bush heavily hinting at war against Iraq, there is no evidence that he was insane enough to support such attacks against the US. Hell, he even did good business with Rummy. His interests and Bin Ladens were diametrically opposed, and neither would have given the other the time of day. The fact is, Iraq was not then a threat to US security, tho’ i’m not so sure we could say that today.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 24, 2005 9:13 PM
Comment #87772

I don’t have time to copy and paste all these comments, so this is for Lisa,Phx8(sp?),marinewoman, Rocky and all else who responded to the radigster.


Linda, you really need to read my article again. I (clearly) stated and insisted that all the anti-Bush, anti-war and anti-Americans (whomever that maybe) start disagreeing rather than hating. Dissidence is what this country is all about and I think that it is wonderful that we can do that in this country; I applaud it. Hate is something totally different. When you hate, even the most educated, religious and successful people can do and say the most horrible things. It’s like a disease and they can’t control it. Dissidence would be “I don’t like GWB b/c of his tax cuts, big government spending, I don’t like his war policies, I think he’s sides with big oil rather than the environment, he’s pro-life, he’s for the death penalty, etc.” Now, I disagree with those statements and even disagree with that person’s reason for not liking Bush; however, that is a justified, factual arguement on their part and I respect their point of view b/c it was done rationally and respectfully. And That is how debate and dissent is done.

Hate is “Bush is a terrorist, he went to war for oil, he went to Iraq to avenge his daddy’s assasination attempt, he went to Iraq to side with the Jews, why doesn’t he send his daughters, he’s too dumb, he’s too diabolical, etc.”. Now, as you can clearly see, the hate comments are a 180 degree change from the dissent comments.

And this is what I’m saying to each of you who wrote to me about my comments. I didn’t complain, I just responded with dissent to your hateful speeches. And, by the way, I could of (easily) quoted each of you for the hate speeches, I just don’t have enough time and room (ha!).

The ones that mentioned that I go in the military (I think it was rocky) and see the officers that are so nice and they are good/great leaders, you are full of it. I was in the military and, let me tell you, the leadership (the full chain of command) is very concise and demanding. They give you an order, you carry it out, no questions asked. Heck, look at General Honre when he went to New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina. He was tough, blunt, demanding and unflappable; especially towards the reporters. He’s the one whom I’ve been quoting when I say “don’t get stuck on stupid”. He was referring to a reporter that kept bringing up blame questions towards the Mayor of New Orleans when they were getting ready for Rita. Now, that wasn’t nice or sensitive; however, he got to the point and got the job done when he was there and he (certainly) commands and gets respect from the armed forces and everyone else that crosses his path. All this from a four star general, you don’t get much higher rank than that in the military.

Now Lisa, your ridiculous mantra of republicans go fight in your war, they are. Again, most of the military voted for republicans and will continue to do so as long as they are the party that is strong on defense, national security and foreign policy. Democrats are still looked at as the anti-military, anti-police, anti-family, anti-religious and anti-choice (except for abortion). They just don’t do a good job shaking off that image towards the american people and we won’t elect them until they can show their strong on defense.

There’s only two Democrats that I (personally) like and would consider trusting with national security. One is Senator Joe Lieberman and the other is Senator Zell Miller. Now, the problem with those two is that Zell Miller is ostracized by his own party for speaking out against Dems in 2002 when he felt his party was selling out our national security to the unions (the dems special interest group). He’s also retired as well. And, Lieberman couldn’t even get 20% of the vote in the Democratic Primary in 2004.

Now Linda, here’s your quote: I know which side I am on. The side of Peace….I am proud to be an American, and frankly if a terrorist were in my backyard, I’d have no problem shooting them - AFTER I determine that they are out to get me or those I love, Neigbors, and aquantices, or neither, but still Americans.

Ok, you’re for peace and yet you’d kill a terrorist, only with sufficient evidence though. Ok, here’s a little reality here for you, the sufficient evidence that the terrorist would present to you is when he cuts your husband’s head off with a dirty knife and, while holding hubby’s head up, he chants to Alla. Is that sufficient enough for you?! The reason for doing that will be “b/c your husband is an infidel, hubby’s not a muslim, you and your husband were not living the true muslim way and, oh yeah, Alla told the terrorist to do it”. Is that a good enough reason to forgive him?!! And then, he’ll turn to you and rap you up in a Burka and take your driving priveleges away, because, once again, that’s the true Islam way. Am I getting warmer on the sufficient evidence? Geeezzz!!!!!!!

Wake up people! These people have been doing this fascist crap for over a thousand years now, in the non-democratic region known as the Middle east that you are saying is worse now. PLEASE!! And when part of that region does start experiencing democracy, as Bush and Secratary Rice will (rightfully) take full credit for, the muslim people will over throw their current leaders for keeping them in poverty and blaming everything on the Jews (just like the Nazi’s did) and infidels. What you’re saying about Bush and what the terrorist’s are actually doing and have been doing for over a millennium now is just hatred. By the way, the radical islamists still live like they’re in the 9th century. And, they’re still at war with everyone that’s not muslim. That’s called Fascism people. Look it up. It’s an ugly word and very hateful. Just like the Nazi’s, only the difference between them and the Nazi’s is that the Nazi’s didn’t have a religion to hide behind like these Islamofascists do today; thanks to you politically correct, hateful people. Now if the Nazi’s did, we would be speaking German and that’s a cold, hard fact.

So again, I repeat what I said before, do this homework assignment. Write a list that has your dislikes and likes about bush, then list likes and dislikes about the terrorists. See which one you dislike the most. If it’s Bush, you have a serious problem, man. Also, part two of the assignment, list what you dislike about Bush and what you Hate about Bush and use the guidelines about dissent and hate speeches.

Good luck and may god have mercy on you…

p.s. Hey Linda, cowardism isn’t a real word, it’s just a comic word I made up to make fun of liberalism. If you’d like, I’ll rescind that comment and replace it for you. “I refer to liberalism as cowardice”. Ha! Ha! He! He!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 24, 2005 9:38 PM
Comment #87775

Senator Joe Lieberman and the other is Senator Zell Miller…

Of course you would vote for them…they are NOT Democrats!!! Can’t understand why they don’t proudly admit they ARE Republicans…ashamed?

As for the word HATE…one only has to look at Bush and his ‘policies’ His father has fueled the boy with intense hatred of Saddam because he failed at his job the lst time…right after 9-11 happened…lst thing Bush was quoted to say was make the evidence point to Saddam…

As for your….
sufficient evidence that the terrorist would present to you is when he cuts your husband’s head off with a dirty knife and, while holding hubby’s head up…

Dude, stop being afraid…that does’nt happen here in usa! Like someone else posted…go ahead look in your closet…a terra-rist isn’t there to chop off your wife’s head!


Yup…Republicans do have their tax dollar priorities….
$230 million for the infamous “Bridge To Nowhere” in Alaska which will service an island town of just 50 people.

Meanwhile many children in the USA go to bed hungry night after night after night…god forbid
they get ill and need health care….but $230 MILLION for a stinkin bridge…such high repug priorities!

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #87777

Paul in Eurotrashland said:
there is no evidence that he (Saddam) was insane enough to support such attacks against the US.

————————————-


What?! Saddam constantly lauded death to americans; just check his newspaper editor, his son Uday or Qusay (or as I refer to a Deaday), who would reward anti-americanism in their press (kinda like ours..Ha!). Saddam and his sons were terrorists and they supported terrorism all day and all night long. Did you ever hear of Hammas and Hezbollah? He rewarded $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers that blew up innocent Jewish children and women and American tourists. These are facts that you can search yourself. And why was Zarquawi in Iraq, after being wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting for Al Qaeda and the Taliban against our military? He had the best hospital that was only awarded to Saddam’s finest soldiers and officers. Explain the hospitality?

However, I agree he never came out and overtly supported attacks against the US b/c his UN buddies, who we now know were bribed with oil from the oil for food scandal, wouldn’t have nor couldn’t have backed him if he did that. By the way, the oil buddies were: China, Russia, France and Germany. They had $15 billion dollars worth of gauranteed oil contracts, between the four of them, waiting for them as long as they kept the UN off his back and in power; which they did so very well. Scum bags!! They’re the ones after oil. You haters can’t see past that though, can you?!


Listen up all you Bush haters, there are plenty of other despots out there that you can (continue) to make arguements for; however, Saddam’s not one of them. He’s going to be tried and hung by the Iraqi people. So, good riddance to him… Ha tooey!!!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 24, 2005 10:05 PM
Comment #87778
Wake up people! These people have been doing this fascist crap for over a thousand years now, in the non-democratic region known as the Middle east that you are saying is worse now.

For the love of God man … pick up a frickin’ history book!

“These people?” “These people?” Your knowledge of the history of the Middle East (hell, even relatively recent history) is nil.

Posted by: mattLaw at October 24, 2005 10:09 PM
Comment #87779

Oh great…now the republicans will want to start 40 more wars cuz the terra-rists have grown into 40 more countries…gotta chase em all down…

REPUBLICANS…
START YOUR ENLISTMENT FUND RAISERS!
BUSH NEEDS A ZILLION MORE FIGHTERS…


U.S.: Zarqawi’s Terror Network Growing

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, October 22, 2005


U.S. intelligence officials say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has expanded his terrorism campaign in Iraq to extremists in two dozen terror groups scattered across almost 40 countries, creating a network that rivals Osama bin Laden’s.

In interviews, U.S. government officials said the threat to U.S. interests from al-Zarqawi compared with that from bin Laden, whom al-Zarqawi pledged his loyalty to one year ago.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/22/national/w094637D55.DTL

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 10:10 PM
Comment #87783

They’re putting Saddam on trial for crimes he committed before he became Rummy’s good friend.
If what he did in 1982 was so terrible, why did Rummy sell Saddam poison gas afterwards?

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 10:34 PM
Comment #87784

Paul in Euroland:


Only problem there George, is that the terrorism you are at war with, came out of Saudi, along with the Wahabism that fuels it.

They were angry for what reason? Because we had combat troops on land they considered sacred. And why were our combat troops in the area? To protect the oil fields against Iraq. Who sent those troops there? Why it was Clinton. What is the answer? Take out the threat, so someday we might be able to move our troops back to their pre 1991 positions. (off shore on board ships).

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 24, 2005 10:37 PM
Comment #87785

Lisa wrote:
Senator Joe Lieberman and the other is Senator Zell Miller…

Of course you would vote for them…they are NOT Democrats!!! Can’t understand why they don’t proudly admit they ARE Republicans…ashamed?

—————-

They are both life-long Democrats. They just have views that differ from the ultra liberals that have hijacked the Democratic party. Lieberman and Miller are very similar to JFK, Truman and FDR; remember them? Today those three Democrats would have been treated the same way that Miller and Lieberman have been. That’s a cold hard fact!
———————————-

Another Lisa comment:
As for the word HATE…one only has to look at Bush and his ‘policies’ His father has fueled the boy with intense hatred of Saddam because he failed at his job the lst time…right after 9-11 happened…lst thing Bush was quoted to say was make the evidence point to Saddam…
———————

All I have to say is, you just described what hate is all about. “Your stuck on Stupid” Lisa. Ha! Ha!
——————————-

And finally Lisa’s final comment that I’ll respond to:

As for your….
sufficient evidence that the terrorist would present to you is when he cuts your husband’s head off with a dirty knife and, while holding hubby’s head up…

Dude, stop being afraid…that does’nt happen here in usa! Like someone else posted…go ahead look in your closet…a terra-rist isn’t there to chop off your wife’s head!
————————————————

The terrorists are all over the world, including Iraq (and were before 2003 and 9/11). I know that the media won’t be true and show you the actual beheadings; however they’ve been doing that for thousands of years and they are protected by the Koran (or so they say). Saudi Arabi does gov’t beheadings at least 60 per year. And that is what they have been doing to Jews, Americans, women, children, etc. Wake up and smell the fatwa, Lisa. You’re the one that is afraid and you live in fear. I don’t. I see what’s going on and so does GWB and many other World leaders and people.

Your hatred for Bush blinds you from reality and that’s your problem; I’m just glad I don’t have your mental disease when looking at reality.

The terrorists are killers, fascists, and have no remorse for human kind and they must be stopped. And they will be stopped as long as we have Presidents like GWB who will risk all the hateful things said and done about him, especially from his fellow (so called) Americans, in order to rid the world of the disease of terrorism.

In this country, our Constitution is set up so that Presidents will have authority to send our (ALL VOLUNTEER) military to wherever is necessary. And remember your mantra, why don’t republicans send their kids to war; Bill Clinton didn’t send his daughter to war, hell he didn’t even go himself and he was Commander in Chief. And, Clinton took our troops to Iraq in 1998 with the same information and intelligence about Saddam and his weapons program. Of course, little did we know he was too chicken to actually conduct a war; well, except for a year later when he went into that Nato led war in Bosnia, after going around the UN and Congressional approval. Where was the outrage of Unilateralism. And, we know that 60% of the Air campaign were civilian targets (schools, churches, hospitals); he approved of all those bombs being dumped on the civilian serbs. Real freakin nice huh?!!


Haters in the house.

Keep it up Lisa, and we’ll lose this country faster than we already are losing it.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 24, 2005 10:37 PM
Comment #87788

Bill Clinton didn’t send his daughter to war, hell he didn’t even go himself and he was Commander in Chief.

Supa idea dude…NOW is Bush’s chance to really fight! Why doesn’t Bush enlist and show he’s a true terra-rist fighter? Or if he’s too chickenhawk to enlist…why not make a visit to our troops in Iraq more often? He does owe them at least a visit or 2 NOW, doncha think? Think he’s ascared?

At least Bill Clintons daughter didn’t have pictures taken of falling down drunk, lap dancing, and a few bare beaver shots (Hmmmm, could explain why she’s what…22-23 and not married? I certainly hope she’s saving herself for her one man and not flaunting ….)

Still no takes on why NONE of Bush’s inner family is enlising in his military…too busy getting arrested for drinking (Jebbys son) or drugs (Jebbys daughter)

Zell Miller is NOT a Democrat…his ranting and raving at the repug convention proved his true party…Republican…if he’s so angry at ‘his party’ why the f**k doesn’t he CHANGE his party to what he believes in now? Ashamed? If I was totally disgusted with Democrats (like Ol Zel)I would have no 2nd thoughts about registering as the party I scream and shout about…rah rah…and hmmmm…what was that kiss Bush gave Liberman at the end of his Lies To The Union speech???

Xmas is coming this week…The Bush adminstration is coming DOWN…and the LIES will come out…
Can you say JUSTICE…boys and girls….
I sure can!

Gotta get back to my biz…making a killing on Anti Bush labels!!! I can’t keep up with the orders….heh heh…

Posted by: Lisa at October 24, 2005 11:26 PM
Comment #87794
Haters in the house.

Rahdigly, friend … you would really be doing yourself a favor to pick up a book or two and do a little research.

Your concept of the history of the Middle East, the Constitution, the meaning of the word “fascism,” what occurred in Bosnia, the United States’ history with Iraq, etc., etc., etc., are all incredibly flawed.

I’m guessing you’re quite young and are probably well meaning … but you should really attempt to move beyond this administration’s talking points of-the-day. I’m not a member of either party, by the way … and I believe both liberalism AND conservatism have an important place in our government.

I can’t say the same for neoconservatism. It’s bad for America. If you honestly believe that these people are acting in your and my best interest … well then I’d say that you’ve been duped.

Posted by: mattLaw at October 25, 2005 12:08 AM
Comment #87798

rahdigly,

“The ones that mentioned that I go in the military (I think it was rocky) and see the officers that are so nice and they are good/great leaders, you are full of it. I was in the military and, let me tell you, the leadership (the full chain of command) is very concise and demanding”

It was good of you to misquote me and not address any of the points I tried to make.

You should actually read the posts next time and not skim them.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #87804

Don’t forget to tell your grandkids
to thank Unka George

Our debt is now….

OVER 8 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Yeah….Clinton was a loser leaving a surplus for your grandkids….

And gee….only 3 more years to ADD even more DEBT…tell your great grandkids…to thank
the BIG SPENDER!!!
(After all…repulicans are all about spending, eh!)

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 1:16 AM
Comment #87810

Jack,
Yes… it is true parents cannot force their children to join the military –nor did I ever mean to imply otherwise. Yes… it is true some people are unable to serve due, for example, to age, health, or other legitimate reasons – myself included. Yes… it is true such people still have a right to an opinion and I really don’t have a problem with that. The intent of my comments was never directed at those people. Further, on a personal level I applaud you for encouraging your son to serve his country. Yes… it is true that Democrats should serve their country also. The last I knew, my daughter was a Democrat. She joined the army after 9-11, in part, because she wanted to serve her country. Of course, they may have brainwashed her and she may be a Republican by now, Gawd forbid.

But Jack… there are people out there who are able to serve and who say that they support this war. But, they don’t want to enlist because they don’t want to leave college, or give up their good job, or leave their family… If so many people support this war, why is enlistment down? How deep is the support? (Someone has already made this point in the thread but I can’t find the reference in order to give the credit.) People who are able to serve and who support the war do have a higher than normal moral duty to serve. People who don’t support the war can conscientiously object but should probably join the Peace Corp or something. I am too old, but I do some volunteer service for the Marine Corps Toys for Tots. I also do some other volunteer service – people need to serve their country. Our soldiers will be better off for the most part, not sharing a fox hole with someone that doesn’t support the war. But, people who don’t believe in the war can still serve honorably. John Kerry was an excellent example of that. Parents cannot force their children to join the military; however they can encourage them, as you have yours. If they are paying college tuition they can suggest that their children join the military and earn their own. Parents have an influence on their children. All parents should encourage their children to serve - somewhere. If they passionately believe in the war then they should encourage their children to passionately believe in the war and to serve in the military. People with a personal stake in the game – both Republican and Democrat do speak with higher moral authority. It is amoral to be willing to send other people or other people’s children to fight and die for a cause that you are not willing to fight and die for or to send your children to fight and die for. There is no logical fallacy in that. I am guilty of failing to fully articulate my argument – out of a desire to save electronic ink – but there is no logical fallacy.

In my earlier post I wrote:
Lisa is correct to call you chickenhawks. During World War Two, people believed in the war and they volunteered in droves. Military enlistment is way down. You good noble people do believe in this war. Either enlist or send a loved one - or shut up. This war does need to be won. It will only be won through the courage and noble intentions of our soldiers and people, because the commander and chief is incompetent. So… I am issuing a fatwa to all Republicans go and fight it… go and win it. Military enlistment should be up.

I have of course already exempted the people who are unable to fight and die. I assumed that would be taken for granted in my earlier post. But it is morally imperative that everyone who believes in this war should be willing to fight and die for it. I would withdraw the “or shut up” part. It is rude and excessive but come on, it was too rhetorically cute, I had to put it in there. I would add to the statement: “This war needs to be won” … if it can be won - otherwise we need to withdraw – keep our powder dry – choose a real commander and chief like John McCain, Chuck Hegal, Joe Bidden, or Wesley Clark and prepare for the big one. Other than that… I stand by my statement.

Bush is the real chickenhawk.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 25, 2005 1:54 AM
Comment #87811

“I know that a lot of people hate George Bush, but you should not hate the President more than you love your country.” —- Jack 10/24/05


I love my country, therefore I strongly dislike (as hate is a fanatical word) my president…

“My president.” What an interesting phrase that is. He is not “my” anything. He is some guy that has managed to erode much of our nation’s earned respect and credibility throughout the world.

Hurrah for cronyism and setting our country back one-hundred plus years!

Posted by: MJ Shaw at October 25, 2005 3:06 AM
Comment #87812

“still have your Kerry bumber sticker on your honda civic next to your gay pride flag?”
—-Angry White Male 10/23/05

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how assuming ignorant people can be.

Angry White Male, perhaps you should change your site name to “Angry White Male with Sexual and Genitalia Hang-ups”…

Might be more appropriate.

Posted by: MJ Shaw at October 25, 2005 3:12 AM
Comment #87820

So, Jack, did you invite a high school civics class to participate?

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 7:04 AM
Comment #87832

Rocky

What do you mean?

Posted by: Jack at October 25, 2005 9:14 AM
Comment #87857

I am on a Republican Humor yahoo groups ONLY to watch the hatred they are spewing…if you think I’m bad on hating Bush…they are downright FRIGHTING…they hate anyone and everything! They even have hateful jokes about Harriet and she’s a REPUBLICAN choice! Cindy LOST her son in their war, he died for their president…how do they respect Casey? Hateful remarks about him and their mom…scarey people indeed!

Really sad that after 9-11 we were so united as a team to not demand our party be #1…
But then came along the famous divider…

I’M A DIVIDER…NOT A UNITER…

Republicans have so much anger and hatred to anyone who’s not privillaged to be ‘special’ (ignorant) like them….The O’Reily disease has gone too far….

Will the Republicans EVER embrace the word PEACE?
Try it…it doesn’t hurt…

Oh, and the usa age limit for military should be lifted entirely….the Iraqi’s new military has NO age limit, why should we?

WHEN is Bush’s offspring and relatives going to join the military??? Guess they really don’t love
Unka Dick and George…but hey…they WILL lift their glasses to Dick-n-George to toast them!

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 12:08 PM
Comment #87861

If it’d been a Democrat administration that’d launched this unnecessary war on Iraq, would you bet so much as a dime that the Republicans wouldn’t have launched an all-out assault on them for having lied us into a war that was costing us hundreds and billions and was responsible for the deaths and maimings of tens of thousands of our troops?

Nahhhh….they would be supporting a Democratic President, right!

They only spent BILLIONS investigating Clintons zipper…such screwed up priorites indeed!

2000 Americans have been killed in Iraq now…
So many are coming home with SERIOUS injuries…

Now the Republicans have alot of hatred to spew on the dead and injured…go on…they hate Casey, and now the 2000 killed…(I dread looking at their group messages today…)

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #87868

Yo! Mattlaw wrote:

For the love of God man … pick up a frickin’ history book!

“These people?” “These people?” Your knowledge of the history of the Middle East (hell, even relatively recent history) is nil.
———————————————

I’ve been saying Islamofascists in a number of my blogs; especially the one you quoted me from. These people (and they’re lucky I don’t curse) are sick, radical extremists that (absolutely) shouldn’t get any attention or support whatsoever! None!! However, b/c you Anti-Bush “people” (just for you mattlaw) are so incensed with hate for bush, you end up skipping over the terrorists and do their work for them.

Think of it this way, the terrorists know they can’t beat our military; never! They have written in their terrorism manual (that’s good reading material- Huh?!) that they should try to overturn public opinion of the enemy. Meaning, let’s turn the American opinion just like they did in Vietnam. And you idiots (and you know who you are) have been falling right in line; b/c it’s easier to blame your leaders than to stand up and fight these extremist. Try overturning the Radical Muslim’s leader (Wahabist, Al Qaeda, etc.) with all your “free speech” and voter’s rights. You’d be beheaded, real freaking quick. And that’s our enemy that you guys over look, everytime.

And Mattlaw, all you have to do is send me some direct quotes that you want me to back up with History books/ journals and I will. Anytime. I’m not young, I am educated and I follow History very closely. So, just let me know what specifically you want me to back up or talk about to you and it’s on.

And by the way, I’ve VOLUNTEERED and served in the military, so I know what I’m talking about (from experience).
—————————-

Lisa wrote:
Hey how about that HUGE blast explosion in Bagdad this morning! Yeahhhhh….
Oh, and Henry and Lisa and everyother Hater:
——————————

Now, that’s just disgusting! And nothing more elegant than that! It’s like your so gleefull reciting that news; that’s exactly how the terrorist would respond, as well. “What progress in Iraq, didn’t you see what we did to the Palenstine Hotel, death to the infidels, praise be to Allah”, real freakin nice. You sicko. Why don’t you join our military and show us how to do it. And, for your response on Bush’s kids being drunk. All I will say to that is this: I’m sure glad my dad didn’t run for office, b/c I’ve been drunk and showed my a$$ plenty of times; up until my mid 20’s too. And, so what she’s not married at 23. I didn’t get married throughout all of my 20’s. “Stuck on stupid” Lisa…

Attention Haters:

Iraq passed their Constitution today. This is great news! Now, are you guys happy or are you ticked that this is a step in the right direction for that country. And don’t give me this Shite dominated gov’t and their ties to Iran crap. B/c Iran and Syria are going down. They are being exposed to the world that they cannot be trusted, that their intentions are strictly for instability and terrorism in that region. They’re going down. Ha! Ha!

And Lisa, I gaurantee you that more troops will enlist (Repubs and Dems and Indies) and they’ll have to hear the same crap from you haters. It’s ok though, b/c we’re going to win and debunk everyone of you along the way. You will have no credence come election time.

I say again, Iraq passed their Constitution. Good news people. Cheer up.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #87870

Iraq passed their Constitution

AND THEY FOUND ALOT OF SUSPICIOUS YES VOTES IN THE NO NEIGHBORHOODS…
(Ah…Diebolds made it there in time!)

Hey how about that HUGE blast explosion in Bagdad this morning! Yeahhhhh….
DUDE…that’s called SCARCASIM…
(And progress in republicans eyes)

The Iraqi Constitution makes conditions WORSE for the Iraqi WOMAN…
(The ones that we haven’t killed….yet…)

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 1:23 PM
Comment #87871

WHEN WILL BUSH’S OFFSPRING JOIN HIS MILITARY?
DON’T THEY SUPPORT DADDY? GUESS NOT!
(LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER REPUBLICAN CHICKENHAWKS)
FOLLOW THE LEADER…BUSH A CHICKENHAWK…
HIS KIDS CHICKENHAWKS…

CHENEY A CHICKENHAWK
HIS KIDS AND GRANDKIDS CHICKENHAWKS…

AND SO ON AND SO ON….

WATCH OUT REPUBLICANS…
BIRD FLU IS COMING TO GETCHA!!!

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 1:27 PM
Comment #87872

Majority of Americans now feel Iraq war was wrong: poll…

For the first time, a majority of Americans believe the
Iraq war was the “wrong thing to do”, according to a poll published in The Wall Street Journal.

(WALL STREET JOURNAL IS A REPUBLICAN RAG ALSO!)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051025/pl_afp/iraquspoll_051025142356

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 1:29 PM
Comment #87876

Lisa wrote:
If it’d been a Democrat administration that’d launched this unnecessary war on Iraq, would you bet so much as a dime that the Republicans wouldn’t have launched an all-out assault on them for having lied us into a war that was costing us hundreds and billions and was responsible for the deaths and maimings of tens of thousands of our troops?

Nahhhh….they would be supporting a Democratic President, right!

————————————————————-

I’ll definitely take that bet! Yes, they would’ve supported a Democratic Prez’s war and I’ll prove it with facts. Also, I’m going to use a great example that will coincide with my theme of dissent and hatred.

Ok, in October 1998, when the Republican Congress was impeaching Clinton, Clinton took our troops over to the Persian Gulf, to prepare for War with Saddam b/c he kicked out the weapons inspectors (once again). Now all those Repubs, that disagreed w/ slick willy on a number of things and they thought what he did was wrong, wanted Clinton to go down; however, when he took the troops to Iraq, all of them (and you can look this up— all of them) stood behind President Clinton and respected the title of Commander in Chief. This is a fact. As much as they couldn’t stand him, they didn’t go through the troops to get to Clinton. That’s another fact.

Now, as a result of that impeachment, many of the house repubs lost their seats in the mid-term election that November of 1998. This is b/c, even after being impeached, his approval ratings were around 60%. And the American people spoke up and voted them out. Now I don’t remember the Republicans going after the voters and saying they’re dumb, they were duped, they were lied to, etc.

This is the difference between the Repubs response with Clinton and the ridiculous crap that Bush is going through. You haters have attacked the American voters for the re-electon of Bush (calling us dumb, duped, etc.) and you’ve been going after our troops in order to embarrass Bush. One example, the false reporting from Newsweek of the Koran desecration at Gitmo. That was a direct attack at our troops (whom they support- yeah right!!). Also, how quick you haters are to not give the benefit of the doubt to the troops when they are involved in a messy war (not GWB’s fault the terrorist lie, cheat, kill and use innocent people to further their “cause”). Let’s not believe the troops, of whom you would never and could never do what they did (and that’s voluntarily enlist and fight for freedom).

I’m going to say again Lisa: The troops voted to reelect Bush 4 to 1, even with all the hate you idiots threw at them about their Commander in Chief. And all it did was bounce off of them and even embolden them to Bush. Ha! Ha!

And, you are a coward b/c you didn’t respond to my comment that Clinton didn’t send his kid either. Why wasn’t Chelsea trained to be a fighter pilot to drop bombs in Kosovo? Where were you then. Where was the chickenhawk comment for Clinton? Where o where were you with that? Clinton is a self admitted chickenhawk; he dodged the draft. And yet, I didn’t here you making your comments about him, how he wouldn’t fight in vietnam (a democrats war, by the way).

The fact is I don’t care if they didn’t serve or not and I certainly don’t care if their kids are enlisted or not. FDR didn’t serve in the military and he was successful in WWII (Bush’s dad was in the one, by the way). That’s b/c the people were definitely behind the leadership; even though, Japan attacked us and we fought the Germans who didn’t have anything to do with the Pearl Harbor attack. FDR did the right thing to take out the Japanese Imperialists and the Nazis. And Bush is right to take on Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush, just like FDR, sees the big picture. It’s too bad you have so much hate in you to see it, as well.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #87880

Lisa wrote:

Iraq passed their Constitution

AND THEY FOUND ALOT OF SUSPICIOUS YES VOTES IN THE NO NEIGHBORHOODS…
(Ah…Diebolds made it there in time!)

Hey how about that HUGE blast explosion in Bagdad this morning! Yeahhhhh….
DUDE…that’s called SCARCASIM…
(And progress in republicans eyes)

The Iraqi Constitution makes conditions WORSE for the Iraqi WOMAN…

———————————-

Your sarcastic remarks are just as ridiculous as all of your other comments. Terrorist attacks will be there for a long, long time b/c nobody ever took on that part of the region and that region never had democracy sweep through like it will.


Yo! There are many more women voting and not getting raped by Saddam and his boys then when the Butcher ran it. Democracy is not easy nor is it quick. There will be more and more elections in that country and women will become more and more involved and things will be better not worse; unlike the way they would have been when democracy didn’t have a chance (you know from your buddy Saddam).

As for diebolds and the repubs, who knows maybe Iraq will have democrats like Gore and use the courts to steal the election. Better yet, maybe the election in December (and that will happen—-horray) will be close and then the dems in Iraq can throw out the military vote (the same ones they support—bullcrap) like they did in Florida 2000.

Yeah, and you wonder why the troops vote mainly Repub, when the election is close you disenfranchise the people that (volunteer to) fight for our right to vote. And then, you go to the courts (unelected judges) to change the democratic election results. Nice. That will win elections.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 2:10 PM
Comment #87923

Rah,

I want to tell you that while I totally disagree with your comments, I would fight to the death for your right to say them. What about you? Would you do the same? Somehow I doubt it.

I’ve re-read your article over and over again. You are the one who used words such as hate, mental disease, stupid, etc. I merely suggested that you are the one filled with all the above. Most of the other Republicans simply settle for the “Bush won, get over it.” Which is of course is true, but is still a silly phrase to use in a discussion. (Of course they are usually backed into a corner when they resort to this.)

Seems to me that you are missing the gray areas. You assume that one must hate Bush if they disagree with him. That’s doesn’t leave much room for a debate. If a blog is written by someone who opposes Bush, many of those persons, such as yourself seem to automatically assume that the writer HATES Bush.

I was under the impression that one of the rights given to us by our forefathers was the right to disagree.

As for the terrorist in my backyard. I believe that in my very small town, one or many terrorist would stick out. Very few people walk/run around carrying high powered weapons. Not only would I be after him, but so would my neighbors. And quite frankly, I really doubt I would have to kill him. Once he found himself in my community, he’d run like crazy.(A little humor) Besides I think that even terrorists deserve the right (“WOW” strange concept)to a fair trial.

I find myself wondering is it truly right to make it appear that we are still free, when in reality we are losing our rights. Between the Patriot Act, the fight over religious freedom, division in the government because of threats, rather than compromise, the assumption
that any one who looks Abrabic is automatically a terrorists, etc.

I find that I am not altogether sure just what freedom means any more. 9/11 has definitely changed the country I grew up in. Only we as American Citizens can renew it, hopefully with some wisdom included.

Just in passing, does anyone remember the old idea of treating people the way you want to be treated?
Seems like it was called something like the Golden Rule.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 25, 2005 4:14 PM
Comment #87936

Robert Kagan has documented dozens of instances BEFORE Bush of the NYT and Washington Post warning about Saddam’s WMD. As with many of you, they also seem to have forgotten their earlier opinions, but the Internet allows us to remember. I guess most of the critics who now were so sure of what they knew then didn’t believe these liberal media during the Clinton Administration.

Posted by: Jack at October 25, 2005 4:56 PM
Comment #87965

I’ll definitely take that bet! Yes, they (Repbublicans) would’ve supported a Democratic Prez’s war

OK….

And I’ll prove the republicans wouldn’t support a democratic prez’s war…

——————————————

“You can support the troops but not the president” —-Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

“[The] President … is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” —-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” —-Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” —-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning … I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.” —-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.” —-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague
objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” —-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

(Did you enjoy reading these quotes from Clinton’s adversaries when Bill Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia?

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #87968

“Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.” - George H.W. Bush speaking in an interview with reporter Sarah McClendon in Dec. 1992


Bush voted against child prostitution…..before he voted for it.

7/16/04:

President Bush: “…the struggle against human trafficking is more than a fight against crime, see. This is more than a criminal justice matter. It’s a struggle for the lives and dignity of innocent women and children. And that’s why all of us must be dedicated to — to the strategies that will enable us to prevail.”

9/21/05:

President Bush decided Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.

Strange how Saudi Arabia is where the real terra-rists are from…have no democracy for woman (They are not even allowed to drive!) and yet Bush invites them to his Chickenhawk Ranch and kisses them on the lips for photo ops…ahhhh…oil…changes ones priorities, eh!


Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 6:15 PM
Comment #87969

Jack, Jack, Jack

There you go again! Yes, the “liberal media”, as you so quaintly call them (I’ll refrain from any lecturing you on the logical fallacies that tactic embodies; you’re obviously well aware of them), were repeating without much analysis the government’s reports even way back then. Remember, this reflex came about way back in the days of the Reagan administration. Yes, this trend has been going on for some time. But back then, there was little information from other sources, and even the government believed the statement. It is becoming clearer and clearer that Bush, Cheney, et al. purposely manipulated information to exaggerate the threat from Iraq, a much more heinous act than simply having bad intelligence. They were in possession of evidence that refuted the existence of WMD, BUT CHOSE TO IGNORE, NO, TO SUPPRESS THAT EVIDENCE.

Let’s get back to reality here, shall we.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 25, 2005 6:35 PM
Comment #87978

Taken from recent comic strip…

All the Democrats can do now is
play the blame game.

Thats because you Republicans make it so easy.

Lets recall…you’ve controlled all 3 branches of government for past 5 years.

So an endless bloody war - your fault!
Torture - your policy!
The ruin of America’s standing abroad - yours!
Turning budget surpluses into RECORD deficits - your fault!
Huge increases in poverty & uninsured rates -
your watch!
Cancelled treaties - trashed environmental laws - the gutting of FEMA,
Bungled Disaster relief….ALL YOUR FAULT!

Yeh…does gives Republicans ALOT to be proud of!

BREAKING NEWS!!!

CBS To Report Fitzgerald Will Make His Decision Known Tomorrow….

Its Xmas Eve is right now boys and girls!!!
The lies become Bush’s worst nightmare tomorrow!

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 7:02 PM
Comment #87982

Rah
And by the way, I’ve VOLUNTEERED and served in the military, so I know what I’m talking about (from experience).

I think you better go re-volunteer for the army…Bush REALLY needs you NOW!

Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON — The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.


Once Republicans pass the DRAFT…wonder how many college dudes/dudettes will still be shouting this war is right? (On their way to Iraq…they can party there also…Bush twins will be drafted!)

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #87983

rahdigly,

For someone as verbose as you continue to be, you have a courious view of history.

The VietNam War would have most likely would have been lost eveb without the protests, due to poor stragety and even poorer management. America had been training it’s military to fight in Eastern Europe, not S.E. Asia., not to mention that it is extremely difficult to fight a “stone age” opponent with technology.

How many times will the right bring out the old saw that the Democrats are resposible for the down turn of the military?
It was called a peace dividend, and Cheney was the Sect. of Defence when it began.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 7:56 PM
Comment #87984

Jeez, where was that spell check?

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 7:58 PM
Comment #87989

(On their way to Iraq…they can party there also…Bush twins will be drafted!)
Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 07:53 PM

Lisa, the Boosh ( your word ) twins can relax. Even if they were drafted, they’d never see a day in combat theatres. If you don’t believe me, just ask GW. He served yet didn’t serve. Don’tchayall know that only po’ kids get to die for their country lessin they actually volunteer. Wasn’t it true that many of those who idealistically volunteered for the Nam, came home bitterly disillusioned?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 25, 2005 8:18 PM
Comment #87993

The Boosh twins can be drafted and sent to Iraq to show the military men a good time…
(That would be considered serving in my book)
They do it here in the USA ALOT…why not
service their daddys disciples?

Its not like they are saving themselves for
that one special man that reminds them of
Daddy….
At least Clintons daughter could keep her
legs closed!

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 8:42 PM
Comment #87996

Rah
A democracy can’t be imposed by military force

I still do not understand how so many smart people could be so wrong and basically went along with Bush. They keep saying that democracy is hard and use our country’s efforts as an example. This is lunacy as you can’t impose a free democracy by foreign military force, and it is a totally different culture and environment there, which very few people in our government understand.

Posted by: Lisa at October 25, 2005 8:45 PM
Comment #88000

Mental

I call the NYT and Post liberal media because they are mostly liberal. I would call the WSJ or Washington Times mostly conservative.

The point remains that BEFORE Bush became president and after the 1998 Iraq bombing, virtually the whole mainstream media reported what most intelligence services thought and what the Clinton Administration thought - that Saddam had and/or was developing WMD. You can’t say that Bush was manipulating the facts when everyone else BEFORE Bush was saying much the same thing.

Bush may have suffered from bad information, just like Clinton, Blair and Putin - but he didn’t lie. Go ahead and say it.

Posted by: jack at October 25, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #88009

Jack,

Let’s say you are President.
Are you going to invade a country half way accross the world with 4 year old intel?

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 9:34 PM
Comment #88010

Lisa,

Oh mon on! Ok, I’m not even going waste time by pasting your stuff.

As far as your quotes from Republicans about Clinton on Bosnia (even though I didn’t use that example; I used Iraq 1998) they were responding to the fact that Clinton went around Congressional approval and the UN to lead that Nato led bombing. I didn’t notice any of you Dems and Anti-Bush people complaining about unilateralism. So, I’ll ask you now. Do you have a problem with unilateralism? Do you (now) think Bosnia and Kosovo was an illegal war? Are you mad at Clinton for going around the same people that Bush did?

If you said yes to those questions then everything evens out. If you said no then shut up about Bush. B/c the Dems did the same damn thing.

The President has every right to tell his people why were are going to war and Clinton didn’t; that’s why the Repubs asked those question in those quotes. I wish the dems would’ve did that with Bush, but they didn’t. The attacked him in every way and didn’t care who they went through to do it.

The arguement that Kosovo was not a national security is a better on than Iraq and our National Security. The world had a longer wrap sheet on Saddam than Milosevic; that’s for sure! Again though, I didn’t hear the national security argument on Clinton from the Bush haters of today. Where were the anti-war people to make that claim to Clinton?


Now, as for those repubs disagreeing in that war, I didn’t see any hateful remarks. I didn’t see the chickenhawk comments. Why he didn’t send his kids into the war. Did you?! Don’t think so, b/c as I said to you earlier “I’ll take that bet”. They disagreed not hated him. They wanted answers and they had every right to ask them. What’s different from Kosovo and Iraq is that the House Repubs said no and Clinton did it anyway. I didn’t hear “obuse of power”, like that drunk Kennedy says on a routine basis. Bush got full Congressional approval before he went around the worthless UN. And, we now know why the 4 countries in the UN were so adamantly opposed to the war, b/c they were in bed w/ Saddam; they were bribed with oil and money.

The problem with Iraq is that the 76 Senators that voted for the war all tried to backtrack when they didn’t find weapons. Not Bush though. He knows that the weapons weren’t the only reason he received approval for that war; and the troops and the American voters know that as well. The haters will never see that, ever. And that’s too bad for them.

And Lisa, military is definitely a sure fire way to democracy; how do you think we got our democracy?! It’s called the Revolutionary War!!!!

As far as me going back in the military and fighting for freedoms, I already did. What about you? I noticed you ducked that question, as you have done many times.

You make this too easy.

Remember Lisa, 4 to 1 this military voted for Bush.

Your fingers shouldn’t make bets that your ears can’t cash. You lost sucka!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 9:35 PM
Comment #88011

Rocky wrote:
Let’s say you are President.
Are you going to invade a country half way accross the world with 4 year old intel?
————————————————————

Less than a month before we went to war in Iraq, the Jordan, Eygptian and Turkey (All Neighboring states) leaders all told General Franks that he better equip his troops for biological war b/c Saddam had the weapons and would use them. Less than a month before the war…

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 9:40 PM
Comment #88014

Hey!… Did you guys hear the latest? General Brent Scowcroft the National Security Adviser Bush the First has criticised the Bush the Second’s rational for the war in Iraq. He says that the war is counterproductive to the war on terror because it is creating more terrorist than we are killing. He also says that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place, but that now that we are there, we still need to stay and finish the job - even though he is afraid that it is not going in any good direction. Pretty much the same thing that I have been saying.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 25, 2005 9:50 PM
Comment #88016

rahdigly,

“Less than a month before we went to war in Iraq, the Jordan, Eygptian and Turkey (All Neighboring states) leaders all told General Franks that he better equip his troops for biological war b/c Saddam had the weapons and would use them. Less than a month before the war…”

And Saddam’s troops had bio-gear thinkng that we would use bio-warfare.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 9:51 PM
Comment #88019

Rah,
Do you know what unilateralism means?

Posted by: phx8 at October 25, 2005 9:58 PM
Comment #88020

rahdigly,

Not to mention that by the time Franks got that info the wheels of the machine were already turning.
Bottom line, the descision was made on faulty intel, and those in charge were too impatient to get the updates or wait for the inspectors to finish.

We can go round and round like this all night.

This ain’t my first rodeo.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #88023

Linda, Linda, Linda.

I’m not the one that’s hateful, you and the others just hate what I say. Big difference. And I already volunteered and served my country, so if you didn’t, you go do the same, then come talk to me about fighting to the death to protect my speech.

You (seriously) need to take a look at my article the other night when I laid out the difference between dissent (to which I totally support and respect) and hate speeches. Look yourself b/c I’m not pasting it again. And make sure you read it b/c I clearly outlined the difference between disliking Bush and hating him; I even used examples.

We have freedom of speech in this country; however, there are consequences of speech. You can’t yell fire in a public theatre; the KKK can spew out their hatefilled speeches, and yet if we know who they are we can boycott them and their business (but they cover their coward faces— pieces of trash). Those are just two examples of free speech and consequences of speech.

You have to go back and look up the homework assignment as well. Just scroll up to all the rahdigly blogs since yesterday (10/24), I think there’s four of five. Do the homework assignment and get back to me.

I like how you throw the founding fathers name around, and yet I’m sure many of the Bush haters hate the founding fathers as well. How did I come to this conclusion. Simple. Because all the haters do is point fingers, blame, character assassinate and offer no solutions. Also, it’s the negative crap spewing out day after day. Example, today Iraq passed their Constitution. Lisa said: AND THEY FOUND ALOT OF SUSPICIOUS YES VOTES IN THE NO NEIGHBORHOODS…
(Ah…Diebolds made it there in time!)…
Lisa also said: Hey how about that HUGE blast explosion in Bagdad this morning! (And progress in republicans eyes)

The Iraqi Constitution makes conditions WORSE for the Iraqi WOMAN.

——————————-

Now do you see the negativity? There it is.

And the reason you don’t have terrorists in your back yard is b/c this President stood up to them and will fight them over there. And the troops will take that order and do it. They also voted to reelect this same Commander in Chief after all the nasty “free” speeches that were said about him for the past two years. They are not fooled by the haters, they no what’s going on over there. The haters won’t listen to the troops though (but they support them Linda — yeah right!). That’s not a talking point, that’s the real deal. Wake up and smell the Fatwa.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 10:07 PM
Comment #88024

This is like deja vu all over again.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 10:09 PM
Comment #88028

Yo Rocky, this is Apollo. Just kidding.

You wrote:
And Saddam’s troops had bio-gear thinkng that we would use bio-warfare.
———————————————-

You just proved my point. Days before the war both sides were preparing for biological war. This certainly refutes your “4 year old intelligence” arguement. Nice work, rock.

——————-

Rocky also wrote:
Not to mention that by the time Franks got that info the wheels of the machine were already turning.
Bottom line, the descision was made on faulty intel, and those in charge were too impatient to get the updates or wait for the inspectors to finish.

We can go round and round like this all night.

This ain’t my first rodeo.
——————————————————-

Here are the different intel we received: British, French,Russian,German, CIA, FBI, Bill Clinton (He was dealing with Iraq for 8 years and almost went to war in 1998 with similar intel from similar sources), Eygpt, Jordan, Turkey, Israel, etc. Not to mention that Bush had 9/11 happen on his watch, the 9/11 commission report concluded that he wasn’t doing enough on terrorism before 9/11, then he made his state of the union speech where he said “we will look at our threats and not wait for them to fully materialize”. Now, he just couldn’t lay off that decision with all that in the pot; you have to cook it and he did. And, Saddam is fried and his sons are dead meat!! See ya Butcher!!!!!!!

In this Rodeo, I’m the Bull and you’re the rodeo clown. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 10:23 PM
Comment #88029

That’s it for tonight boys and girls. The rahdigster is tired and will check back tomorrow (maybe).

Go back and read my post from Monday and do the homework assignment.

And, I’ll check tonight’s post tomorrow afternoon to clarify the hate you’ll proably write back.

Ha! Ha! He! He!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 25, 2005 10:26 PM
Comment #88031

rahdigly,

“In this Rodeo, I’m the Bull and you’re the rodeo clown. Ha! Ha!”


Yeah, but it’s about all the BS you’re shoveling.

Posted by: Rocky at October 25, 2005 10:32 PM
Comment #88072

rahdigly,

With the anonymity of the internet I could claim to be the Sultan of Alpha Centauri.
I could also claim that I was capable of reciting the Hebrew Bible backwards, or fought in the Civil War, and I could be assured that some would belive me.

Like Bush, you may not have exactly lied, but you have stretched the truth to fit your needs.

I, for one, would like to see you back up your “facts” with something other than bluster and bravado.

Posted by: Rocky at October 26, 2005 7:38 AM
Comment #88076

Jack:

In 1 year:

The Al Dora power plant will still be operating at less capacity than pre-war

Baghdad will recieve less than 18 hours of power, compared to the 24 it received pre-war

Hospitals will still not be able to receive vital drugs, because Kamidia, the national drug procurement organization, will still be unfunctional

Basra will continue to be oppressed by militant fundamentalists, and its police will continue to be run by fundamentilist mafiosos

Women in Basra and Baghdad will fear to walk about without the hijab, as compared to pre-war

Fundamentalists will have further consolidated their power over all major southern and central Iraqi cities

Secret arrests, without evidence or trial, will continue

Prisoners will continue to be tortured

Fallujah’s buildings will remain at less than 40% repaired

We still won’t have more than 250,000 Iraqi’s trained.

We’ll still have less than 10 Iraqi militias capable of working independently from us.

Unemployment in Iraq will continue to be above 35%

A more agressive “security” force that protects students from “vice” will be seen on the campuses at Basra and Baghdad.

The majority of kidnappings will still remain unsolved. The majoritiy of carjackings will still remain unsolved and uninvestigated.

Political dissidents will continue to be kidnapped or murdered.

The anti-establishment writers, who could be found in Baghdad during Saddam’s rule, will continue to stay hidden in one year, fearing for their lives.

The majority of elected officials will cater to one ethnicity or religious group in their district, and remove rights and protections from the minority groups in their district.

Posted by: Julia at October 26, 2005 7:56 AM
Comment #88092

Rodeo clown (I mean Rocky):
I, for one, would like to see you back up your “facts” with something other than bluster and bravado.
————————————————

I don’t hide behind the internet; although, I sometimes wonder myself about the people on this blog. If you want info on me; disclose some yourself. And remember, you could be misrepresenting yourself; Mr. Sultan of Alpha Centauri. :)

What would you like backed up? Let’s get down to specifics…

“Open the gate and let this Bull out”

Posted by: rahdigly at October 26, 2005 10:30 AM
Comment #88099

rahdigly,
You don’t like Lisa’s quotes but they are one piece of proof that there were politics enough played on both sides. The Republicans played lots of hateful partisan Machevellian politics against Clinton. Can you say Ken Starr? They crippled the Clinton Presidency to the point that he could not effectively respond to Osama and he did fail us on that front. Republicans deserve some of the blame for that because they crippled his Presidency. None the less, Clinton did get his cigar licked and he did lie about it - worse he sexually harassed and exploited women that he had power over. So… he got his - in more ways than one - both good and bad. I had serious misgivings about Bosnia and Kosovo at the time. It appears that I was wrong. I would like to think that the Republicans that questioned Clinton had sincere concerns. Can you not accept that we Democrats have reasonable concerns about why we were misled into war? Were we lied to? There is substantial evidence to suggest that we might have been. The Democrats supported Bush in going into war more than Republicans than ever supported Clinton. Yet the military action that Clinton led us into seems to have gone very well and the military action that Bush has misled us into has gone very badly. So it appears that even a crippled (and sexually distracted) Clinton was a better commander and chief than Bush. People who oppose this war believe that it is a lost and counterproductive war and they are fighting for our troops. People like me who opposed going into the war, but do support “winning” it if it can be won, (doubtful), because, we do not want to appear weak to our enemies, and who vehemently oppose this incompetent commander and chief are also fighting for our troops - and of course people like you are also fighting for our troops.

rah… that love fest between you and Linda just makes me sick… I wanted to write something in support of what she said - but she pretty much said it all. She kicked your butt rah… I am sorry, but she did… and she didn’t even need testosterone to do it. That has got to make you crazy. Although, you may be a little like me, and that may not be too hard to do.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 26, 2005 11:13 AM
Comment #88103

Rahdigly,
Just one small correction that I forgot to mention in my previous post. As I mentioned in an earlier post Vietnam was not just a Democratic war. That was back in the good old days when former Presidents were elder statesman and their advice and council was sought and valued. It was Republican Eisenhower who pushed the domino theory and Kennedy and Johnson believed him.

Posted by: Ray G. at October 26, 2005 11:27 AM
Comment #88108

Rah Rah Rah…

Remember Lisa, 4 to 1 this military voted for Bush.
I don’t believe that, where’s your proof?

4 to 1 USA citizens said, yes Bush, we want to go to an early grave to fight for your hatred of Saddam cuz he tried to kill your daddy.
I have a book of letters from soldiers FROM Iraq all saying negative stuff about the reasons WHY they are there…and that Bush is WRONG!

Bush lies are so well known now…that he’s like chicken little…how can we POSSIBLY believe anything he says now? He doesn’t fully check his facts out and jumps on faulty intelligence…so if/when he runs around the sky is falling, the sky is falling…ya lets fall for that one again! The American people and congress BELIEVED his lies and so now the republicans are now laughing at us cuz we did….and now wonder why we don’t believe anything else the presidunce says….

Have you ever seen a president so afraid of the common american person? His town hall meeings, speechs, etc…are all HARDCORE republicans only in the audience!!! His 60 stops in 60 days (Total waste of taxpayers $$$ It cost $40,000 PER HOUR to run Air Force One and he’s trotting here and there cuz ha ha…the suckers of usa is paying for it!)

At least Clinton could tell the difference between a cow and a horse! Even Bush’s wife says…George is so stupid, he trys to milk a horse!!! (Thank god Clinton prefered woman instead of animals!)

War is counterproductive to the war on terror because it is creating more terrorist than we are killing.
Or is that Bush’s goal…create more terra-rists…cuz heh heh…I love getting my
daily death counts….

Posted by: Lisa at October 26, 2005 12:04 PM
Comment #88128

A strong military? This president likes to dress the part. (Ever notice in his Mission Accomplished military jumpsuit…his crotch is a HUGE bulge? Guess dressing up military style gives him hard ons…note to Pickles…wear military gear for sexual foreplay!) But he rewards corporate defense contractors while stripping servicemen and women of financial support. He sent armed forces into Iraq without armored vests or vehicles. He HIDES flag-draped caskets from public view. He slowed federal support for wounded veterans by cutting staff members at the Veterans Benefit Administration, the office that handles service personnel’s claims. Two years ago, he tried to cut combat pay from $225 to $150 a month and to trim the family separation allowance from $250 to $100. Perhaps most callously, Bush threatened to veto a plan to double the $6,000 payment to relatives of soldiers killed in action.

Freedom’s on the march. Indeed.

Rah….
Explain WHY Bush is much-much tooooo busy to attend even just ONE military funeral and yet has all the time (and taxpayers footing his flights/security bill) in the world to attend Republican fundraisers? Priorites lst, right?

Posted by: Lisa at October 26, 2005 1:31 PM
Comment #88154

Jack

You perhaps make the same mistake many others do: conservative and liberal refer to the editorial slant of the papers. Factual reporting on all of these major papers is pretty similar. I understood that we are talking about the reporting on WMD here; if you’re referring to the editorial stance on the op-ed pages, then I agree there is a difference, but that has little to do with the factual reporting.

I realize we disagree on what the facts tell us regarding the manipulating intelligence versus merely being badly informed. For some reason, by the end of 2002 and early 2003 the CIA had pulled away from its earlier, firmer conclusions about WMD in Iraq and had begun to attach wide uncertainty to those assertions, perhaps because the sources were unraveling by that point. But with that weaker evidence in hand, the Bush administration chose to go with the intelligence it collected itself through the DOD system it set up in the Pentagon. It also discounted and tried to discredit the intelligence coming from the CIA, especially the doubt being cast on the yellowcake intelligence and the assertions of Mr. Chalabi.

It appears that you take all those facts and assemble a picture that paints Mr. Bush and co. as merely mistaken. But even if I squint real hard and try to discount by 50% every news report I saw at the time of the run-up to the war and since, I still see an administration bent on making a case for war regardless of the facts. Now, it may be that Mr. Bush himself was unaware of the manipulation and that Mssrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, et al. merely fed him the cooked information. It’s plausible because Mr. Bush is known to not be a big reader of original sources. But either way, it is dishonest and manipulative and, in the latter case, shows a president incompetent and out of his depth.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 26, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #88160

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, et al. merely fed him the cooked information. It’s plausible because Mr. Bush is known to not be a big reader of original sources.

How can the American people so called re-elected a man who ADMITS he doesn’t read news source stories, says he rather be spoon fed his news by his cronies…feel safe with this loser? He makes it so clear that he would much rather work 1 month and have 11 months off to ride his tricycle…
Washington DC had a RED ALERT and didn’t bother telling the PRESIDENT of the USA cuz they didn’t want to intrupt his bike ride? COME ON!

Posted by: Lisa at October 26, 2005 4:30 PM
Comment #88165

2,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. But this number is deceptive. The Bush administration has used various tricks to lower the casualty count.

Soldiers who are wounded in Iraq and die after being flown out of the country are NOT included. Soldiers who commit suicide while in Iraq are
NOT included. “Green card soldiers,” who are not yet naturalized citizens, are NOT included.

Also, the Halliburton corporation employs a vast private military in Iraq, paid for by US taxpayers. American deaths among the Halliburton
troops are NOT reported as US casualties.

The real number of American deaths in Iraq is certain to be much higher than 2,000. But there is one number that is genuinely low. I mean the
number of funerals of fallen American soldiers attended by our self-styled War President.
That number is ZERO…

Number of Republican fund raisers attened by Bush and Cheney…HUNDREDS…
Always remember Priories 1st!!!

Posted by: Lisa at October 26, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #88192

rahdigly,

“Rodeo clown (I mean Rocky)”

Boy, can’t put one over on you. I hope that wasn’t your best shot.

If you feel the need to compare me to someone that risks life and limb to assure the safety of a cowboy, I can deal with that, in fact, thank you for the compliment.

As for me, I have been posting on this blog for over 1 1/2 years so my opinions are well documented, you are welcome to look around in the archives. I have never posted an article here, but I have been in quite a few discussions.

Oh, and BTW, you don’t know me well enough to call me a liberal.

Posted by: Rocky at October 26, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #88208

First, lets distinguish between Iraq and Afganistan. Invading Afganistan was clearly called for in my opinion. Many of those who planed 9/11 were there hiding behind the guns of the Talaban. Al Quida’s training camps were there.

But Iraq was a different story. There was no major Al-Quida presence in Iraq before we invaded. There was no Weapons of Mass Destruction. And no terrorist training camps.

I find it hard to understand why anyone would buy the administration’s line that “we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”. I think that Bin Laden and the remaining Al-Quida members are hold up somewhere (Saudi?) laughing at us. It’s just not their style to attack at a place and time their enemy expects.

I would like to hear some pro-Bush people respond to this.

Posted by: David Corley at October 26, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #88237

David Corley

I wrote a whole entry on the run up to the war. It is called “Transformational Bush”. If you want the discussion look at http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/2005/06/

Posted by: Jack at October 26, 2005 10:41 PM
Comment #88249

Ya think maybe this is why Republicans WON’T sign up for Bush’s war? IF they did strongly stand behind Bush (Instead of making China RICH with those STUPID yellow ribbon magnets…duh, a ribbon is all Bush & troops get from me!)

IF they strongly support Bush and the war…THEY WOULD BE MAKING A HUGE DEAL ABOUT GOING TO WAR INSTEAD OF COLLEGE…AHHHH…LIFE IS SO HARD FOR THE YOUNG CHICKENHAWKS!

The human toll for the U.S. military in the Iraq war is not limited to the 2,000 deaths since the March 2003 invasion. More than 15,220 also have been wounded in combat, including more than 7,100 injured too badly to return to duty, the Pentagon said. Thousands more have been hurt in incidents unrelated to combat.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/10/26/worldupdates/2005-10-26T014931Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-220946-2&sec=Worldupdates

Posted by: Lisa at October 27, 2005 12:46 AM
Comment #88338

Rah,
No personal offense intended, but I am tired of figthing with someone who only sees things his way. I was rather hoping you might teach me something. Unforunately hatred seems to your lesson, your only refrain, and I am tired of it.
You are the one who decides that Dems hate Bush, and until you are ready to use your head and discuss such a stupid remark, I don’t want to get drawn into this mess further. I will say that your examples aren’t very clear, and frankly do not indicate what ‘hate’ means. Prehaps that’s the problem. You have one definition and I have another.

Just in case you you are curious, I would have probably voted for Colon Powell (might still accept that he himself believes that Bush has ruin his crediablity, or maybe John McCain.

Can you think of any Dems you would support? I doubt that too.
I wish I could thank you for giving me something to chew on, but since you didn’t….
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 27, 2005 2:02 PM
Comment #88409

I’m a lurker on a republican yahoo group JUST to watch where their opinions/hatred is at…

At the moment…its NOT at any Republican issue…
They really, really hate Cindy Sheenen…no wonder Republicans are chickenhawks, they don’t want their MOM’S to get slandered by Republican hate…ahhh…kinda does make sense now,
doesn’t it?
They only worship ya when your fighting for Bush’s lies, but once you get killed…time for the hatred bullies to come out…

Republicans are such chickenhawks…oh wait…they do support their troops, know how I can tell? They think by sticking a $2.00 yellow ribbon magnet on their cars is patroit enough…
Ta da…we’re doing our part…
supporting more jobs in China….losers!

White Sox WON!!! Such a rewarding joy to WATCH mommy and daddy Bush’s faces when Sox got the last strike/out and won the championship…zoomed right in on Daddy’s face….ahhhhh, such a happy nite for many!

Posted by: Lisa at October 27, 2005 7:31 PM
Comment #88519

Lisa wrote:
Republicans are such chickenhawks…oh wait…they do support their troops, know how I can tell? They think by sticking a $2.00 yellow ribbon magnet on their cars is patroit enough…
Ta da…we’re doing our part…
_____________________________________

No! Republicans support the troops by supporting their cause. Independents, moderates, libertarians and some Democrats do as well. You might try supporting their cause yourself Lisa, b/c that’s the only way to win this war. The troops pulling out and cutting and running” would be a failure to the US and (especially) the troops. Our troops don’t want that, that’s why they reelected this President (4 to 1) and why the enlistment numbers have been up (bigtime). I know you’ll probably quote the numbers posted in the Spring; however, the media lied to us b/c the numbers in the spring, that said the enlistments were under qoutas, had only the enlistments and not the reelistments of the troops. That’s why in the summer time, the real numbers were posted and the different branches were all (ALL!) up over 100% enlistment. The hardest ones, the Reserves and Gaurd we around 102%; while the Marines, Navy, Air Force and Army all were around 115% and up.

And you’re hatred for Bush is so ridiculous and obvious. The Sox beating the Astros rubbing it in Bush’s face?! Please. Let’s rub it the terrorist’s face by supporting our troops and winning the war! Yeahh!

I also noticed that you don’t ever talk about Iran and their mad regime. You just hate Bush. That’s ridiculous b/c Iran and their leader’s are publicly calling for “death to all Jews”. Now is that hatred or what?!! Is that “tolerance”?! Or, do you hate Bush so much that you would actually defend the Iranians and say that it’s free speech?!!!!

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FATWA, LISA!!!!! Stop hating Bush and denounce the people that hate us and everyone else that’s not like them (the terrorist/facsists)!!!! And, anybody out there reading this that disagrees or hates Bush so much that they don’t have time to get on the Iranian, Shame on you. Get on it right away. Now, this doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with Bush, it’s means that the real hated should be focused on the haters. Because, focusing on the haters will keep us focused on the war on terror and we’ll eventually win it for good.

Go USA. Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 28, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #88576

Rah
I DON’T believe your the military reelected this President (4 to 1) I WANT PROOF/LINKS!

All I’ve ever seen is stories left and right about the low # of civillians joining the military (All branches) I want PROOF that the military is overwhelmed with Republicans signing up.

And good I’m glad my hatred of Bush & Co. is showing…4-1 folks HATE Bush…the man is a TERRORIST! I soppose your all for TORTURE (Like your main man Cheney) and when the opposite side has one of our American people and they torture him/her…will you be all rah rah then?

Bush will be remembered, yes…as the most feared (and thats not in a good way, feared more as a terra-rist that he is) Bush is going down as the most HATED man in history…hard to beat Hitler…but he’s doing a heck of a job succeding!

Know who I’m more ascared of than terra-rists???
Boosh!

Posted by: Lisa at October 28, 2005 6:18 PM
Comment #88584

Rah
Your comments about Iran…Dude…

USA/REPUBULCANS ARE NOT THE POLICE OF THE WORLD!!!

Stuff happens, people disagree, people have their OWN religion/democracys, people have views DIFFERENT from Bush/Republicans…GET OVER IT and live your own life and keep your friggin noses out of everyones life…we all only have one life, why the Republicans think its my way or the highway is beyond me…shallow party indeed!

Posted by: Lisa at October 28, 2005 6:24 PM
Comment #88595

Lisa
I guess it is male/female attitudes, but do most gals look for the bulge to learn more of the person? Guys look at buns and breasts and just admire the beauty of it all.

David Corley, et. al.
Here are some of the items that did not make it out of Iraq before the invasion.
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents
chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin
thousands of radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers
artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents
source: Federalist Patriot 05-43
Does this not show that there were WMD’S?
There are any number of sources that indicate and show that there were and still are WMD’S in the theater.

Posted by: tom at October 28, 2005 6:44 PM
Comment #88605

tom,

“Does this not show that there were WMD’S?
There are any number of sources that indicate and show that there were and still are WMD’S in the theater.”

Hate to bring it up, but, they don’t seem to name any sources for this “earthshaking” announcement.

Posted by: Rocky at October 28, 2005 7:15 PM
Comment #88611

tom
Hmmmmmm….strange of how ONLY you have this information….everyone else has the info of ZERO of WMD FOUND…

I guess it is male/female attitudes, but do most gals look for the bulge to learn more of the person? Guys look at buns and breasts and just admire the beauty of it all.

That statement made me laugh…THANKS! Guys look at breast for the BEAUTY of it all…HAHAHAHA!!!
Guys look at breast to size up the womans brains!
I for one…ALWAYS check a mans bulge…only fair when a guy is checking me out, I repay the degrading favor back (And you’d be amazed of how many guys look embarrassed!)

Oh and Rah…
I want proof/links from RELIABLE sources…NOT Faux news…as we all know…Faux reports only pure hatred fairy tales…

Posted by: Lisa at October 28, 2005 7:25 PM
Comment #88614

President Bush with overwhelming support from the United States Congress, CIA, FBI, DOD, the State Department and the UN declared war on terrorism, the terrorists, and the countries that harbor or support the terrorists. Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction. They used them on the Kurds, the Iranians, and Kuwait. All Saddam had to due was comply with the UN resolution and show us what he did with them. He refused. Weapons of mass destruction were used against us on 9/11, or have we forgotten about the people jumping to their deaths and the towers falling? How many US soldiers died on Iwo Jima and the beaches of Normandy? What makes their cause any more noble than the cause our soldiers are fighting for in Iraq? They went to war because our base in faraway Pearl Harbor was attacked. Our HOMELAND was attacked, and we’re whining about the sacrifices that have been made thus far. We don’t know what hardship is. Why would Bush lie to get us to go to war? Don’t say oil or you will really show your ignorance. The cause is noble, just, and worth the sacrifice.

Posted by: Rick at October 28, 2005 7:42 PM
Comment #88615

Lisa wrote:
Rah
I DON’T believe your the military reelected this President (4 to 1) I WANT PROOF/LINKS!
____________________________

Look it up yourself you lazy, Bush hater. Yeah I know you hate Bush more than the Terrorists and that’s your problem. Ha! Ha! I don’t have that hatred for my leaders. I couldn’t stand Clinton, I thought he was a mediocre President and (quite frankly) the worse Commander in Chief we’ve ever had; however, be that as it may, I didn’t hate him. I didn’t wish our troops would fail and our economy would tumble just to embarrass him. Now, that’s hate. I just didn’t care for him enough to elect or reelect him. And, when he didn’t need my vote (which he didn’t either time), I didn’t wish harm to him or wish anyone under him (especially the troops) would fail.

Now, that’s more than I can say for you. You evil beeeatchhhh!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 28, 2005 7:45 PM
Comment #88616

Bravo, Rick. Bravo!!! Well said.

Although, these Bush haters are never going to see what you’re saying. They hate Bush more than the terrorist.

However, I concur with your last post. And, once again, bravo…

Posted by: rahdigly at October 28, 2005 7:48 PM
Comment #88618

Rick,

“They used them on the Kurds, the Iranians, and Kuwait.”

I am aware of the use on the Kurds, and everyone knew about Iran, please site your source on the use of WMDs in Kuwait.

Posted by: Rocky at October 28, 2005 7:52 PM
Comment #88620

Rocky wrote:
I am aware of the use on the Kurds, and everyone knew about Iran, please site your source on the use of WMDs in Kuwait.
______________________

Look it up yourself Rock. Dang!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 28, 2005 7:55 PM
Comment #88622

Dude,

If you make a claim, back it up, go ahead and prove it. Don’t ask me to do your job for you.

Posted by: Rocky at October 28, 2005 7:58 PM
Comment #88630

Lisa
Should I ever have the occasion to meet you personally (probably not, though) I will put my best bulge forward and I will not be embarased.

Ya gotta have fun on these sites, also.

Posted by: tom at October 28, 2005 8:29 PM
Comment #88649

I will put my best bulge forward and I will not be embarased.
Highly unlikely dude! When the sexist foot is on the other shoe…I find 10 out of 10 men get really embarrassed…(I work in a public place and just having blonde hair makes men check me out and when I repay the favor by staring at their crotches…the looks I get is all worth while!

Look it up yourself you lazy, Bush hater.
Rah…I KNEW those figures were all in your head! Unable to back your bull with facts…big surprise!

Weapons of mass destruction were used against us on 9/11…
THEN OUR COMMERICAL AIRLINES ARE WMD!!! DUH!

Posted by: Lisa at October 28, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #88669

tom,

You say there were:

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents
chemical warheads containing the nerve agent

If you have reliable sources for this info, I would like to see them.

Posted by: David Corley at October 28, 2005 11:50 PM
Comment #88671

David Corley
Re-read to post for the source

Posted by: tom at October 28, 2005 11:58 PM
Comment #88674

Harriet Miers, who withdrew her name from consideration Thursday. It was a stunning setback for a president whose popularity is at RECORD LOWS, his poll numbers dragged DOWN by a host of troubles including Iraq and soaring gas prices.

Outside the Norfolk convention hall, a small group of anti-war protesters greeted him by chanting “Bush lies.”

Inside, as the president spoke, a man on the second level interrupted him, yelling “War is terrorism. War is terrorism. Step down now Mr. President. Torture is terrorism.”

AP-Ipsos polling shows that public support for Bush’s handling of Iraq is at its LOWEST point, 37%, roughly where it has been since early August.

“We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory,” the president said.
BUT SEND MY KIDS & RELATIVES IN TO FIGHT MY WAR? NEVER!!!

REMEMBER!!!
ONLY REPUBLICANS THINK EARTHQUAKES/HURRICANES
CAN BE WON…

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 12:04 AM
Comment #88675

Jack,

Thank you for your response. I read your article and I think it’s the most rational, plausible explanation for war in Iraq that I have read. However, I still have my doubts.


“When Bill Clinton called for regime change in …”

Saying Bill Clinton wanted regieme change in Iraq is a little misleading. He wanted the Iraqui people to overthrow Sadam and he was willing to help with money. Thats a long way from doing it ourselves.

“…terrorism flourished because of the instability and democracy deficit in the Middle East.”

As far as a democracy deficit in the middle east, Sadam was certainly not the sole cause of that.

“President Bush knew that taking action against Saddam was a risk, not only for the country but also for his presidency.”

Yes. Bush is taking one BIG gamble with our country!

Posted by: David Corley at October 29, 2005 12:05 AM
Comment #88684

Lisa said:
Look it up yourself you lazy, Bush hater.
Rah…I KNEW those figures were all in your head! Unable to back your bull with facts…big surprise!
________________________________

Which means you’re either too lazy or too scared to look up the facts. They are definitely true. Check it out for yourself. Or, are you too blonde to do it?! Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 29, 2005 1:08 AM
Comment #88686

Lazy? Scared? No just not stupid to WASTE my time looking for bits of fragments floating around in your empty head of your fiction…you show that you lack the few brain cells needed to
prove your lies…
yup, your a repug alright!

If they are definitely true (Your words) you should have NO problem giving me at least 2 links to your bull…ahhhh…too busy stroking, eh!

Too blonde to do it? I’ll bet you that your a fat dude who checks out every blonde and then has fantasys of her doing this and that to him…
such a hypocritcal man!

Conyers: “Today’s indictments represent the beginning, but not the end of the process of finally holding the Bush Administration accountable for its conduct in foisting a preemptive war on this country.”

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 1:21 AM
Comment #88687

Lazy? Scared? No just not stupid to WASTE my time looking for bits of fragments floating around in your empty head of your fiction…you show that you lack the few brain cells needed to
prove your lies…
yup, your a repug alright!

If they are definitely true (Your words) you should have NO problem giving me at least 2 links to your bull…ahhhh…too busy stroking, eh!

Too blonde to do it? I’ll bet that your a fat dude who checks out every blonde and then has fantasys of her doing this and that to him…
such a hypocritcal man!

Conyers: “Today’s indictments represent the beginning, but not the end of the process of finally holding the Bush Administration accountable for its conduct in foisting a preemptive war on this country.”

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 1:22 AM
Comment #88708

Back to the good guys are winning. According to BootsInBaghdad.Blogspot.Com, Mark Miner documents that US military has built 3,000 schools, given life saving vaccinations to over 3,000,000 children, over 26,000 Iraqi business have been started, Iraqi people have received over $25 billion in oil revenues, over 1000 construction projects have been completed and 2500 projects are underway. I call that progress towards restoration to the end that our guys will be able to come home soon.

Posted by: tom at October 29, 2005 7:56 AM
Comment #88713

tom.

I looked at the Federalist Patriot site you cited. Its difficult to trust a publication whos editorial staff page includes their “weapon of choice”, even if it is just for fun.

http://federalistpatriot.us/main/staff.asp

The Federalistpatriot is a private organization whos purpose is to persuade, not inform. I don’t trust the right wing media any more than you trust the left wing media. But there are some good newspapers with a conservative bent. If you can show me proof of your claims in one of these newspapers, i’ll believe you.

Posted by: David Corley at October 29, 2005 9:30 AM
Comment #88717

David Corley
Give me a complete list of your approved publications so that one of your approved pubs can be in line with your opinion. What balderdash. That’s like saying if the NYT said it I believe it. That is very narrow minded thinking. What FP prints is the truth, and ya gotta live with it. I am not going to give a citation and another and another until you find the very same info only it is in one of your approved pubs. Get real.

Posted by: tom at October 29, 2005 10:26 AM
Comment #88719

David Corley
Your claim is also interesting that they are there to persuade not inform. They print to inform!!!. Yes they print to persuade.!!! Ya gotta do both. They persuade thru information. Now that is pretty simple, isn’t.

Posted by: tom at October 29, 2005 10:32 AM
Comment #88739

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON — The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even worse results.

[ AP News story ] September 30, 2005


Fact: National Guard units have formed a sizeable contingent in the fighting in Iraq, and many National Guard soldiers have died.

Fact: The use of the National Guard, in this manner and to this extent, is unprecedented in our nation’s history.

Fact: Recent recruitment goals have not been met.


Come Rah…just ONE link? Super, super, smart Republican like you, should be able to come up with at least ONE link!
2 would show your intelligence!

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 1:00 PM
Comment #88783

Lisa,

I hate to break this to you, I’m not a Republican. I’ve said this over and over (and I’ll say it again): there’s somethings I’m conservative about (crime, military/Defense, judges and fiscally), there’s somethings I’m liberal about (pro choice, gay rights) and a few things that I’m Libertarian about (eminent domain, civil liberties).

As you can see, I’m all over the map politically and there’s not one party that I would fit into exclusively. However, since 9/11, the conservative side has been to the forefront and the Dems just haven’t shown me anybody in their party that could step forth and protect our National Security. The only two that are the exceptions are Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman. But neither one of them are welcome nor considered a Democrat anymore. Heck, all these Dems have been doing for the past 4 years is to point fingers and blame Bush for everything. They also tried to side with the UN to handle conflicts and I just don’t see that organization as trustworthy or effective.

I’m an American first, then I’m Independant. So, with that said, I will do you this favor (even though you don’t deserve it) and submit a link to the fact that the enlistment numbers are up and the media lied to us in the Spring.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/52321.htm

If you don’t sign up, here’s the full article post in a blog:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011439.php

Does this anger you? B/c I know how you like to rub it in Bush’s face by focusing on the negative stuff rather than the positive. And, make no mistake about it, this article is great news and much, much different than what was printed in the Spring about the same subject.

We are going to win Lisa, question is who’s side will you be on?!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 29, 2005 4:15 PM
Comment #88802

The only two that are the exceptions are Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman. But neither one of them are welcome nor considered a Democrat anymore.

Well at least we agree on one thing…they are NOT Democrats! They are just ashamed to change their parties to what they really are…I’d be ashamed to tell my voters I’m really a republican, so I understand their delima…


Ok I did read your l link and I guess a REAL military writer (ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer)
is wrong…and your link is from a CONSERTATIVE site with spoon fed tidbits from FAUX news for republicans is always correct…sooooo….my next question to you is…how come a military writer writes my report in Sept. (Yours is from last Spring) and….IF the reports are in truth of the HUGE mark up # of enlistments…why isn’t the web/faux news/news on tv/ all BOASTING of Republicans sending their children to be Bush’s military soldiers??? And flaunting the HUGE enlistment numbers in our face???

(Be the lst to have your child come home in a box)

I just can’t understand why Republicans don’t value LIFE! How can they and you be all rah rah on KILLING INOCENT Iraqi woman and children??? How can you be all gung ho on the 2000+ kids now that are now growing up with out their dads/moms…and one last thing rah….what are YOU doing here still in the USA??? When I fight for something I believe in, I don’t become a hypercrite and put a $2 yellow ribbon on my car…
I JOIN the cause…

My #1 selling label at the moment…
Pic of Rummy/Bush/Cheney and says…
Republicans won the election by
FEARS…SMEARS & QUEERS…

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #88803

I DON’T believe your the military reelected this President (4 to 1) I WANT PROOF/LINKS!

Oh and I wanted proof/links to your rant of THE MILITARY voted for the Presidunce 4 - 1 not the enlistment numbers….

How many funerals has Presidunce Boosh attended to pay REPECTS to the lives he ended?
ZERO….
How many fund raisers has Presidunce Boosh attended?
HUNDREDS…

Priorites 1st!

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 6:20 PM
Comment #88833

Explosions ripped through three places in New Delhi on Saturday evening within minutes of each other, killing at least 55 people — most of them at a marketplace crowded with thousands of people getting ready for India’s festival of lights. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s office said he believes the blasts were the work of terrorists.
*********
Does this mean police chief of the world…(Bush) will now have usa fighting the terra-rists
in India?
Sign up Republicans…
YOUR Presidunce NEEDS warm (alive) bodies! YESTERDAY NOT TOMORROW!

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 8:27 PM
Comment #88838

Lisa,

“You want”… “You want”… Forget you!!

You give before you receive. You know how I know that? I gave to my country and (voluntarily) enlisted in the military. Did you? You want all these Repubs to send their kids, well would you send yours? Would you enlist yourself? Yeah, that’s what I thought. You’re the real chicken, you’re the one that can’t cope with reality and the fact that our troops are behind this president 4 to 1 (big time!).
As I said before, L-O-O-K -IT- UP- Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F!!

The only way I’ll do it is if you actually present facts rather than this anti-Bush hating rhetoric that we’ve heard for the past 4 years. Attention, it doesn’t have an affect on the voters at the polls. It’s just a fact you’re going to have to live with. These troops stand behind him and there’s nothing you can say or do to change that.

You also didn’t respond to the link about the enlistment rates meeting there quotas; feel free to look it up yourself, it’s a fact.

My source was from the NY Post; it took a subscription to read the entire article, so I took it upon myself to find a blog that had the article in full text. It is clear that you are ungrateful and didn’t deserve it. And if you bothered to read the whole thing, there were links to Fox news article with a differing opinion. Now, I’m sure you hate that news channel and they weren’t on this articles side at first, they later retracted it though.

It doesn’t take long to search it. I will say this though, and that is in the summertime, he had a 4 to 1 margin and it was actually a little over 3 to 1 come election time. Still, this is with the US death count rising and all the hateful things said and done about this President and he still dominated with the troops, the same ones that you try to scare everybody with in your rants. They care and they will win this war, with or without you, Lisa.

It’s your choice. They made theirs, you make yours…

Posted by: rahdigly at October 29, 2005 8:44 PM
Comment #88839

Lisa

Presidents don’t attend most funerals for fallen soldiers because of precedent and fairness. Do you recall seeing pictures of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR etc attending funerals for fallen soldiers?

If you can’t reach that far back, Bill Clinton never attended any funerals of those killed in Somalia, aboard the Cole, at Khobar towers or in Haiti. And Bill Clinton was very much into the feeling the pain of others. Your point has no merit.

If you guys don’t care to take the time to google, I did it for you. I just tried “military vote and bush” the first artile Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

I am sure you all can do better. I think 4 to 1 is probably a little high, but I have never seen a reliable study that didn’t show a Republican advantage. The Dems know this. That is why they are unenthusiastic about the absentee ballots from service members.

Posted by: Jack at October 29, 2005 8:44 PM
Comment #88863

In his third speech on Iraq this week, Bush sought to shore up flagging support for a war that began March 20, 2003.

“The best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and win the war on hurricanes and earthquakes,” the president said in his weekly radio address.
YUP…LETS HONOR THEIR DEATHS BY HAVING MORE YOUNG FOLKS GO TO THEIR GRAVES 20-30 YEARS BEFORE THEIR TIME.

Public support for Bush’s handling of Iraq is at its lowest point, 37 percent, roughly where it has been since early August, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

LONDON, June 16 — A majority of people around the world view U.S. President George W. Bush unfavourably and think the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, according to a BBC poll published on Monday.

The poll, which surveyed more than 11,000 people in 11 countries, showed 57 percent of those asked had ”a very unfavourable or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American president,” the British broadcaster said in a statement.
Some 56 percent felt the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, including 81 percent of Russian respondents and 63 percent of those polled in France.
In Jordan and Indonesia, well over half of those asked felt the United States posed a greater danger to world peace and stability than al Qaeda.
In five of the 11 countries polled, a majority of respondents believed the United States was more dangerous than Iran, named by Bush as part of an ”axis of evil” with Iraq and North Korea.
And in eight of the 11, respondents said the United States was more dangerous than Syria, a country which Washington accuses of sponsoring terrorism.
*********
IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEARN THE LIES BEHIND BUSH’S INHUMANE WAR ON THE IRAQI CITIZENS…

AND I FOR ONE…NO I WOULD NOT SEND MY KIDS TO FIGHT A WAR FOR LIES…I WOULD SEND MY KIDS TO FIGHT A WAR ON THE REAL TERRA-RISTS…BIN LADEN…REMEMBER HIM? DIDN’T THINK SO! WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEEK JUSTICE FOR 9-11…10 YEARS FROM NOW?

I AM OUTRAGED THAT MY KIDS AND GRANDKIDS ARE GOING TO BE PAYING A REPUBLICAN DEBT FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFETIMES…CLINTON LEFT WITH A SURPLUS…BUSH LITERALLY THREW AWAY THEIR FUTURES WITH A DEBT OF A RECORD 8 TRILLION DOLLARS AND HE’S STILL SPENDING AND SPENDING AND SPENDING…AFTER ALL MONEY DOES GROW ON REPUBLICAN TREES…

OH AND YOUR 4 TO 1 CRUD….
Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

REPUBLICANS ARE LEMMINGS…
I FIND IT SO BIZARRE….REPUGS ARE ALL FOR THE MILITARY/WAR, ETC…AND THEIR THEIR GOD LEADER (BUSH) WENT AWOL!!! Kerry served in Vietnam as a naval officer and was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.
Bush got a dental exam & a picture of Daddy pinning a FAKE medal on his mil-a-terry costume!

OH, AND I HOPE SOMEDAY SOON, OUR PRESIDUNCE GETS PROFF. HELP FOR HIS DRUG PROBLEM…HIS JAW SEEMS TO BE OUT OF LINE FOR HE’S ALWAYS SLACKING IT TO THE LEFT…ONE ONLY BLINKS THAT OFTEN WHEN ON DRUGS….

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 10:18 PM
Comment #88870

Republicans scare the HELLOUTTA me!!!

Iraqis Forced to Take in Uninvited Troops - The Marines call it a necessary evil — taking over houses and buildings for military use. For the Iraqis who become unwilling hosts, it can be anything from a mild inconvenience to a disruption that tears apart lives.

Prominent politicians and more than 2,200 U.S. and foreign companies stand accused of colluding with Saddam Hussein’s regime to bilk the U.N. oil-for-food program of $1.8 billion.

Another Iraq war legacy: badly wounded U.S. troops - The human toll for the U.S. military in the Iraq war is not limited to the nearly 2,000 troops deaths since the March 2003 invasion. More than 15,220 also have been wounded in combat, including more than 7,100 injured too badly to return to duty, the Pentagon said. Thousands more have been hurt in incidents unrelated to combat.

Exxon Profit Rises to $9.92 Bln, Oil Industry Record -“Profits continue to rise because of prices,” Douglas Ober, who manages $2 billion, including Exxon Mobil shares, at Adams Express Co. in Baltimore, said today in an interview. “We should continue to see high prices because so much production in the Gulf of Mexico is still shut in because of the hurricanes and a number of refineries are still closed.”
So if there is less production how are profits rising? This is called price gouging. What did you expect when the oil industry took over the White House?

Bush’s US ‘Terror’ Alerts Manufactured? - Those repeated terror alerts from the Bush administration might all be part of a calculated manipulation from our own government. At least that is the speculation of Ray McGovern. A former CIA Analyst under both Reagan and Bush 41, he was interviewed on an internet radio program Monday, presenting indications that this could all be “manufactured fake terrorism,” designed to deflect attention from the continuing encroachments on our civil liberties and the growth of the federal empire at home and abroad. - McGovern noted that the war in Iraq “has nothing to do with democracy or freedom or defending ‘our way of life,’” but is about “enriching the pockets of those who support this administration.”


House panel votes $844 mln cut in food stamps - On a party-line vote, a Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.

State GOP leaders want emissions testing eliminated - The House bills would eliminate the state’s auto emissions testing program and take away the authority of a state environmental regulatory board to toughen vehicle emissions standards.

KIDS ARE GOING TO BED HUNGRY IN USA AND SOON WILL BE FREEZING BECAUSE MOM & DAD CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY HEATING BILLS…THIS IS AMERICA???

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 11:19 PM
Comment #88887

Lisa,

Can’t take the facts can you? Repubs are all for the military because the military is all for them and Bush. Sorry, but Dems can’t and don’t do the same when it comes to the military.

And, I know you wouldn’t enlist yourself or your kids, that was a trick comment. You can tell by the way you respond to these blogs that you’re an “Arm Chair” American. That’s right. You only stick up for the military when you’re trying to get them out of war (which would mean victory for the terrorists) and you also focus on the negatives as well. You’re too selfish to see that the troops don’t want to leave until the job is done. They know it’s hard and all they need from us is a little support. However, you can’t support the troops if you don’t support their cause; and, you clearly don’t support their cause.

And, by the way, the troops and other military personnel (including myself) don’t get to pick the leadership, the conflict or the destination of a war. We stand up and answer the call of duty whereever and whenever that may be. That’s how it works.

I told you it was 4 to 1, and then Jack (thanks dude) helped us out and posted a fact http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
that you so obviously ignored. I know Lisa, truth hurts. You tried to cover it up with more of your negative quotes and polls. I wonder, if you ever met some of the troops that are home from Iraq, would you give them the negative stats or would you let them know of the 4 to 1 stat. Knowing how negative and hateful you are, you’d proably seek out the 20% that didn’t vote for Bush.

Reality is here and you can’t hide from your previous comments. Especially the one about Iran: “USA/REPUBULCANS ARE NOT THE POLICE OF THE WORLD!!! Stuff happens, people disagree, people have their OWN religion/democracys, people have views DIFFERENT from Bush/Republicans…GET OVER IT and live your own life and keep your friggin noses out of everyones life…”

Oh, ok. Well in this case, Irans “religion/democracy and own personal views” are to annihilate Israel and all those who oppose. Then they’ll threaten the rest of the world with their oil. Do you care? Do you? I knew you would defend a mad regime like Iran. Their President called for the death of Israel and to wipe them off the frickin planet! Hello!! These are serious fascists with serious power and you won’t mention a word about them. But, you’re sure “brave” enough to keep blaming Bush. Nice.

Read the link again about the 4 to 1 military, the facts are right there and you fail to acknowledge them. The troops are going to win the war on terror. Once we win in Iraq, we’re going to kick Iran’s hateful a$$ right off this planet. And that’s not policing the world, that’s ridding the world of hate and not being thanked for it. Your welcomed anyway…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

Posted by: rahdigly at October 30, 2005 1:43 AM
Comment #88938

Ok Ok….KILLING AND SPENDING….
MOTTO OF REPUBLICANS…

We (Repugs) all live in a fantasy world of Arnie Schwarzenegger…we can win hurricanes/earthquakes…(Even Arnie WON’T meet with Presidunce Boosh!)
Know WHY repugs are so against abortion? They need warm little bodies and their hard earned cash to pay the NON STOP SPENDING Republicans are doing…how come the repugs are not having military fund raisers for their war games?

In reference to your 4-1

Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site.

Only 4165 responses out of 31,000+….Hmmmm…why didn’t the other 26,835 respond???
Too old? Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.

Bush is struggling with his lowest-ever approval ratings, dragged down by high gas prices and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina (Such a compassionate President…eats cake with McCain while hurricanes are going on, then goes plays git-tar in San Diego….THEN begins to wonder about dem there hurra-canes) along with the public’s growing unrest over Iraq.

My WHAT a difference ONE year makes!

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

Tuesday, October 25, 2005;

President Bush would not get re-elected if an election were held this year,
according to a CNN poll.
(CNN) — A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.

This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.

Why is support for Bush’s military games dropping??? When you say the military enlistment is
up…wouldn’t MORE mom’s-wives be thrilled to support their loved ones coming home in body
bags? Republicans LOVE body bags! Maybe thats why they couldn’t care less about CHILDREN
going to bed hungry…nite after nite….more body bags for them!

History will rate Bush as one of the WORST Presidunces EVER…
Lets put Bush under a LIE detector and drug tests….nah….
Republicans fear truth…..
FEARS…SMEARS…& QUEERS

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 12:07 PM
Comment #88942

If the Republicans want to beat their chests and say we are the police of the world….
Have your OWN little military set up with your fund raisers to fund your war games and go fight them! Stop SPENDING taxpayers dollars on your chases to end the wars on hurricanes and earthquakes…

Fighting terra-rists ONLY BREEDS MORE TERRA-RISTS…

Like Republicans…they are cockroaches that you can’t wipe out by striking down a few…

Libby indictment and other scandals in the Republican-led government — including the indictment of former House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay of Texas and an investigation of Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee — as well as 2,000 dead in Iraq and high energy prices have had a negative impact on the outlook of Americans.

The president’s overall job approval was at 39 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos survey conducted in early October. The poll also found that only 28 percent of respondents said the country was headed in the right direction.

IF BUSH WOULD HAVE GONE AFTER BIN LADEN (REMEMBER HIM?) INSTEAD OF THAT BAD MAN WHO TRIED TO KILL MAH DADDY…HE WOULDN’T BE HAVING ALL THIS NEGATIVE POLL STUFF…

Answer this question smear boys…
How come Bin is still free after 4 YEARS???

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 12:23 PM
Comment #88946

You’re too selfish to see that the troops don’t want to leave until the job is done. They know it’s hard and all they need from us is a little support. However, you can’t support the troops if you don’t support their cause; and, you clearly don’t support their cause.

WOW…You FINALLY got it! No, I don’t support our troops cuz I don’t support their cause (Killing those innocent woman & kids cuz that bad man tried to kill Mista Boosh’s daddy)
Here’s a idea….
Tell the military in Iraq that they can go HOME…and see HOW MANY do go back home to their FAMILIES AND WIVES/KIDS…and we can send in ALL Republican military to replace them…starting with the Boosh twins/Boosh’s nephews & neices (You know the ones who keep getting arrested for drinking and drugs) then Cheney can step up to the enlistment plate and proudly enlist his GAY daughter and his grandkids…
Hmmmm….maybe they’re not cuz….
CHICKENHAWKS only want war…but toooo CHICKEN
to actually fight themselves or put THEIR family
members in to fight….HOW MANY OF GRANDPA RUMMY’S FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN THE MILITARY???

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #88957

Once we win in Iraq, we’re going to kick Iran’s hateful a$$ right off this planet. And that’s not policing the world, that’s ridding the world of hate (Well begin with the republicans…never have I seen so much hatred…look at CHENEY…PURE HATRED & EVIL) and not being thanked for it.

Thank you? I’M SCARED TO DEATH OF YOU!!! VIOLENCE DOES NOT END VIOLENCE! Going after Iraq then Iran then ? and then ? Dude…WAKE UP!!! You want to be the police of the world! Let Iran/Irasel/Syria/Russia/Canada/ETC…
TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES!

We have KIDS going to bed HUNGRY…Sick kids unable to go to doctors cuz Dad can’t afford it…Kids unable to read cuz their schools are underfunded…etc…

WHY ARE REPUBLICANS SO AGAINST ABORTIONS
WHEN THEY COULD’NT CARE LESS
ABOUT THE KIDS WE HAVE HERE NOW???

Everytime a man masterbates…he is having a abortion cuz sperm is LIVING CELLS that he’s literally throwing away in kleenex…
MEN HAVE MORE ABORTIONS THAN WOMAN!!!

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #88962

Lisa wrote:
Here’s a idea….
Tell the military in Iraq that they can go HOME…and see HOW MANY do go back home to their FAMILIES AND WIVES/KIDS
____________________________

I’ll take that bet and, while most would love to be with their families, they won’t leave b/c they need and want to finish the job. That’s the straight truth. Again, you’ll probably find the 20% that would drop everything and leave; however, 80% is an unbelieveable number that can’t be disputed. They want to win and they will win, with no help from you. You made your bed, now lie in it.

Let me respond to your rants:
“Bush is struggling with his lowest-ever approval ratings, dragged down by high gas prices and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrinam…along with the public’s growing unrest over Iraq.”

As Bush says “Polls go up and polls go down”. When you take on big issues, your polls are going to suffer. Arnold was at 60% approval in Cali a year ago, now he’s in the low 30’s. This is b/c he took on the big issues that face Cali and he won’t let up until he accomplishes them. On the other hand, Clinton had high approval ratings the last two years of his presidency and he did nothing during that time. Now that’s mediocre leadership.

“My WHAT a difference ONE year makes!Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year”

Now Lisa, even you can see that, if the election were held this year, Bush would still win 52% to 48% no matter who he faced. The dems have done nothing to earn anymore trust in the american people than this time last year.

In fact, since you’re so big on polls, Congresses polls are in the low 30’s. And the Repub congress is higher than the dems in congress. And, your buddy and mine Bush is higher than both. So “poll” on that!

I’m really sorry that Bush’s Father B*tch slapped Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991 and Bush B-slapped him out of power and into a jail cell where he’s awaiting to hang at the hands of his own people for the vicious display of inhumanity he’s been allowed to get away with for the past 30 years. I know that upsets you to see GWB take out your favorite leader (Saddam). He’s also going to take care of another leader that you’ve been defending and that’s the Iranian President.

Sorry Lisa, maybe my kids can fight your kids in the next war with Iran; seeing as how you would enlist them in the enemies military before you enlist them in ours. Well, me and my kids will be fighting for America and we’re going to win. Good luck on the losing side…

Posted by: rahdigly at October 30, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #88972

rahdigly
Bla bla bla…
You are so full of Boosh you reak of poop!

4 YEARS….
WHERE’S JUSTICE ON THAT FREE MAN…
Bin Laden….

Bin Who???

Oh darn…I keep forgettin…we gotta get that
bad man who tryed to kill mah daddy…

While most would love to be with their families
STOP MAKING BABIES…
YOU WON’T FEED THEM! (ONLY KILL THEM)

When will you FOCUS on American problems (Health care, starvation, poor schools, DEBTS, etc…)
when we’re all DEAD?

Good luck on the losing side…

Americans ARE on the LOSING side…
Boosh is CREATING MORE HATRED AND TERRA-RISTS…
That my non-friend…is LOSING!

The world sees Boosh as a TERRA-RIST…
not a phony God like you!

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 2:30 PM
Comment #88973

“Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.” - George H.W. Bush speaking in an interview with reporter Sarah McClendon in Dec. 1992


Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 2:32 PM
Comment #88975

Rah
A SERIOUS question…

All these wars YOU want to start…
WHERE IS THE $$$ COMING FROM TO PAY FOR THEM?

I for one am just barely making ends meet
along with MILLIONS of other Americans…

In YOUR logic of starting more wars on
Iran (Gotta bomb Russia also cuz they are supplying your enemies) Syria, Saudi Auraba, and who ever else you have in your wet dreams…

WHERE IS THE $$$ COMING FROM?
WE’RE ALREADY A RECORD 8 TRILLION IN DEBT…
HOW ARE WE EVEN GOING TO
PAY THE MILITARY TO FIGHT
6+ MORE REPUBLICAN STARTED WARS???

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 2:53 PM
Comment #88986

Rah
Wars COST money….

WHERE is the $$$ coming from
to your fantasy of
Republicans policing the world???

Remember…we can’t touch the
rich Repubicans tax cuts…so…
its the hungry people of America
paying for wars…twisted logic!

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 4:34 PM
Comment #88991

You two should take this outside.

Posted by: Rocky at October 30, 2005 4:55 PM
Comment #88993

Would Rah beat up a grandmother?

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #89000


WHEN BUSH & CHENEY & RUMMY SIGN UP
THEIR KIDS FOR THEIR WAR…
I WILL DO THE SAME…


Sign this petition, demanding that the eligible children of the extended Bush family, including the twins, serve in George’s “noble war for a noble cause” or Bush must bring the sons and daughters of America home now.

“I demand that George W. Bush’s daughters, and his eligible nieces and nephews, serve in Iraq to prove their support of Bush’s ‘noble war for a noble cause.’ If the Bush family does not believe in ‘sacrificing’ for the war and is not willing to put their lives on the line, then Bush must bring the troops of middle class and poor Americans home now.”

Your signature will be sent to the White House, media outlets, and Congressional leaders.

Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.

Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation’s war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. “We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something,” he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, ). “We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.”

Yet, not one — not one — of any of Bush’s children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.

Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women — mostly poor, rural and minorities — die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush’s alleged “noble cause” (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):

Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.

Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond

Furthermore, not one of George’s siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another “noble war,” Vietnam.

Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is “noble” enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?

Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George’s “noble war” or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it’s not “noble” enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it’s just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush’s partisan agenda.

Bush can be brave with other people’s children, because he has nothing personally to risk. Sign the petition now on behalf of the lives of the real Americans who are not born into the lap of privilege and risk-free lifestyles reserved for the elite.

SIGN HERE.

“I demand that George W. Bush’s daughters, and his eligible nieces and nephews, serve in Iraq to prove their support of Bush’s ‘noble war for a noble cause.’ If the Bush family does not believe in ‘sacrificing’ for the war and is not willing to put their lives on the line, then Bush must bring the troops of middle class and poor Americans home now.”

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 5:56 PM
Comment #89004

Lisa,

You do understand that you are talking to yourself and no one is paying any attention, right?

Posted by: Rocky at October 30, 2005 6:23 PM
Comment #89006

Yeh, I’m done here…
sorry to have bothered everyone
with my silly girly rantings…
killing innocent humans…
thats a good thing…
Silly me!

Keep spending boys…
our grandkids will
love to pay YOUR deficit
for their entire lives…

Ta ta….see ya all in our next lifetimes…

Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 6:58 PM
Comment #89238

�Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.� - George H.W. Bush speaking in an interview with reporter Sarah McClendon in Dec. 1992


Posted by: Lisa at October 30, 2005 02:32 PM

Lisa, I keep seeing this quote. Can anyone refer me to an authoritative source?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 31, 2005 7:38 PM
Comment #89303

A CENSORED BLOG! Freedom of speech…NOT!

Those links I sent…to paul…you could change
the name from Lisa to whatever…just to answer
his question of where they are…just so he can
see that they are not made up…

Sorry to ruin your ‘freedom’ blog…I promise this
will be the last you hear from me…

Posted by: Lisa at November 1, 2005 12:41 AM
Comment #89479

Lisa

I think Rocky was just trying to keep you from wasting your time. Rahdingly and tom don’t have any original sources, they just read whacko blogs and drag that drivel over here. That’s why they’re so mad when you ask them for sources. They really aren’t the types that this blog is meant for. They very much want to critique the messenger, because that’s all they have. You’re better off dueling with people who listen and think, and there are plenty of them on the conservative side. Just not those two.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 1, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #89619

Mental Wimp…THANK YOU!
And your right…
best to find message boards where folks
listen and think!
I’ve been on alot of boards
where my imput puts life into the boards…
not here!
Best of blogging to ya!

Posted by: Lisa at November 2, 2005 12:29 AM
Comment #89620

Mental Wimp…THANK YOU!
And your right…
best to find message boards where folks
listen and think!
I’ve been on alot of boards
where my imput puts life into the boards…
not here!
Best of blogging to ya!

Posted by: Lisa at November 2, 2005 12:31 AM
Comment #90102

In the whole last week of talking about Joseph Wilson (and the Iraq war), only two major newspapers — The Chicago Tribune and the Investors Business Daily — have mentioned the name of Ibrahim Mayaki.

In all the sound and fury, not even The Associated Press, on which thousands of American newspapers rely for national and international news, has referred to Mayaki.

Mayaki was Niger’s former prime minister whom Wilson met in Niger on his famous February 2002 trip. And what did Mayaki tell Wilson? He told Wilson he thought Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger.

Mayaki said an Iraqi delegation came to him in 1999 with an overture for “expanding commercial relations.” As he explained to Wilson, to him, that meant they wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson found no evidence that a uranium deal had gone through, but he certainly found evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Africa. And that’s exactly what President Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union message.

But Wilson doesn’t talk publicly about Mayaki, and the press doesn’t ask him about Mayaki. Why not?

I have a more complete post on this here.

Posted by: Frank Warner at November 3, 2005 1:27 PM
Comment #90380

HI All:

I know that Lisa, Rocky, Aldous and others don’t usually see eye to eye with me however we usually respect each others rights to disagree. Since no one else has said this I will at the risk of offending the watchblog.com watchdogs. I am going to take that risk and say what needs to be said. Rahdingly your head is so far up your ass that you need to have plexiglass installed in your abdomen just so you can see where your going. Yes I attacked the messenger and not the message. I beg the censors pardon now, Please don’t ban me.
As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at November 3, 2005 11:36 PM
Comment #90467

I agree with the original poster.

But the only problem I got with Irag is the rules of engagement that restricts our boys from defending themselves.

Posted by: MacIrish at November 4, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #90486

Wayne wrote:
I know that Lisa, Rocky, Aldous and others don’t usually see eye to eye with me however we usually respect each others rights to disagree.
_____________________________-

Since when did Lisa “respectfullly disagree”
with anyone?! And, several others are like that as well. You can include yourself, since you made an asinine (pun intended) comment to which you didn’t reference in what you were responding to.

So good luck, and I certainly hope the watchdogs give you “a talking to”.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 4, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #90499

By the way, we are definitely going to win in Iraq! And, to all the nay sayers, finger pointers and whiners, I say “we’ll do it with out you”.

That’s how the troops feel and so do I. They know we’re going to win and it’s just a matter of time. I want to thank them for all the hard work and for allowing the Iraqi’s to vote and put together their very own Constitution. And, I’m looking forward to the elections in December.

We are going to win; despite all the anti-war people! God bless the troops and God bless America!!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 4, 2005 1:39 PM
Comment #90578

Bush sure is getting a warm welcome and
flowers at his feet in Argentina…eh!

Thats how Argentina folks show
thier love and admiration…by rioting…
right rahdigly?

What’s with Pickles wearing a
head scarf as a shawl…
She has terrible taste in clothes!

Posted by: Mrs B at November 4, 2005 5:57 PM
Comment #90829

The solution is to rebrand the war. It’s not America’s war, it’s not a war on terror, it has to be labeled as George Bush’s war. It needs to be established in the popular mind that it’s Mr. Bush’s personal war, that he led us into for his own political and psychological reasons - it was not about security, not about weapons of mass destruction, not even about terrorists. That he lied to the American people and effectively conned us into following him, and that once in the war, he planned it foolishly and led it ineffectively.

Most important, George Bush has already lost the war.


A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers” in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible” evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

(From the Republican newspaper…NY TIMES)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ei=5090&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ex=1288933200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Posted by: Craig at November 6, 2005 6:44 PM
Comment #91315

Hey Rah…you can join now!

Army reaches low, fills ranks
12% of recruits in Oct. had lowest acceptable scores
By Tom Bowman
Sun reporter
Originally published November 8, 2005
WASHINGTON // The number of new recruits who scored at the bottom of the Army’s aptitude test tripled last month, Pentagon officials said, helping the nation’s largest armed service meet its October recruiting goal but raising concerns about the quality of the force.

Former Army Secretary Thomas E. White said the service was making a mistake by lowering its standards. “I think it’s disastrous. You are throwing the towel in on recruiting quality,” said White, a retired general whom Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fired in 2003 over other policy differences.

Advertisement
“We have clear experience from the 1970s with recruiting a sizable number of people from the lowest mental categories,” said White. After the Vietnam War, the Army accepted a higher proportion of low-scoring recruits, leading to training and discipline problems, he added.

To achieve last month’s recruiting targets, 12 percent of those accepted by the Army had the lowest acceptable results. They scored between 16 and 30 points out of a possible 99 on an aptitude test that quizzes potential soldiers on general science, mathematics and word knowledge.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.recruit08nov08,1,1130565.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Posted by: Lisa at November 8, 2005 11:32 PM
Comment #91504

Hey what do you know, it’s my favorite anti-American friend Lisa giving us her negative information on the military. I thought you were going to go away?! “Sorry to ruin your ‘freedom’ blog…I promise this
will be the last you hear from me…” Posted by Lisa at November 1, 2005 12:41 AM

Oh well, since you’re back with your negative, hateful spin, just want to say that you were busted with the military voting 4 to 1 for your boy Bush. Boooyowww! The still respect him and will fight for this country even though you bad mouth Bush, the troops and everyone else that doesn’t agree with your hateful comments.

I guess you didn’t have your Christmas present delivered to you in the form of Rove’s indictment. Ha! You’ll just have to wait until Christmas for your gift. In fact, December 15th can be Christmas for you, that’s when the Iraqis will vote again and it’ll be the first time w/ the NEW CONSTITUTION!!! Yeah! Democracy coming to that region and Iraqis want it.

So sorry to break that to you, I know you hate it when we have any type of success there. Boo hoo.

And, as for your comment “Hey Rah…you can join now!”, I already enlisted thank you and I was proud to serve my country, even though I didn’t like my President at the time (Bill Clinton). Did you hear that?! I said I didn’t like him, not I hate him or think that he’s a “tyrannt” and a “terrorist” or a “chickenhawk”.

I still respected the title of Commander in Chief even though I disagreed with Bill Clinton. Disagreeing is fine, hating and going through anybody and everybody just to get at Bush, is not. That’s what you’ve been doing and it’s disgusting.

So, once again, sorry there’s actual progress in Iraq, sorry the military backs Bush, and (so) sorry Rove was not indicted. Go USA and “God Bless America”!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 9, 2005 2:13 PM
Comment #91630

Rah…
Dear dear OLD fool! Just wait…
we are seeing the beginning of the end of the Boosh era RIGHT NOW!

Ol Arnie lost BIG TIME in Californy…
NJ & Virginia elected HONEST representives
(Thats Democrats in case YOU can’t figure
that one out)

Boosh showed up at 12th hour for Repug Virginia loser…
people showed their love & support for the presidunce by voting Democrat…

Funny how the repugs think the Libby indictments is the last of the matter…
its only started!
The lies are beginning to surface and soon…
Boosh & Co. will go down in history as the lying
crooks that they are…

As for the Iraqi CONSTITUTION…
THATS NOT WHY BOOSH STARTED HIS HOLY WAR
ON THE IRAQI PEOPLE!

As for YOUR excuse to not fight in this holy war (already served) if you so strongly believe in Boosh’s lies…you CAN re-enlist
(Age & IQ levels are no longer issues in this war…ALL CAN JOIN)

As to saying I left this post, etc…and then came back…hmmmmm…did I lie and gosh darn it…maybe I do have abit of repug in me!

Brownie your doing a heck of a job…
Brownie is a clothes god…
And remember boys…
ALWAYS roll up your sleeves of your
$300 shirts to make it LOOK like your
working hard…
(Mommy can always iron out
the sleeve wrinkles)


Posted by: Lisa at November 9, 2005 7:31 PM
Comment #91631

OH AND YOUR 4 TO 1 CRUD….
Of the respondents,
59% identified themselves as Republicans,
20% as independents
and 13% as Democrats.

Rah YOUR presidunce needs YOUR
warm Republican body in Iraq…
NOW!!!

Posted by: Lisa at November 9, 2005 7:33 PM
Comment #91722

Just wait…
we are seeing the beginning of the end of the Boosh era RIGHT NOW!
______________________

Ooohhh! I can’t wait. I just can’t wait for the end of the Republican party! Ha! ha! You’re one-crazy, old grannie. Yikes.

What a debater, “all republicans are liars”. So, if you feel that way and you say that nearly 60% of the military is Republican, then are they liars as well? Do you think 60% of our military are liars? Yeah, choke on that for a minute.

California is a liberal state, they choose their own fate. Arnold was being a leader and letting the people decide. And they did. NJ and Va had incumbent Democratic Governor’s, so not much changed.

Of course, you left out Ohio, where the Moveon.org initiatives were stymied. Texas and Kansas had similiar results as well.

Yet, none of this matters to Bush b/c it wasn’t a national agenda; it was a state thing. Also, here’s something you should think about: “BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE ANYMORE”. You’ve gotta be a real sicko to look for the worst to happen to the republican leadership or any leadership for that matter. The repub leadership is running the country right now and if they fail then this country fails. Do you want that? Will it make you “feel” better to say I told you so with this country in the toilet? Or, would you rather be wrong and see this country succeed? Because the latter part is going to happen; we will succeed.

How come you never (ever) spend time talking about terrorists or the brutal dictators that are a detriment to the world?! Why not? Can’t think of anyone but the Repubs?! There’s no one else?!!!

Stop hating and start disagreeing…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 8:12 AM
Comment #91872

Oh yeah, Lisa, after the attacks in Jordan just a day ago, the Jordanians are in the street chanting “death to Zarqawi”; he’s the former Al Qaeda soldier that was wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan and got the best medical attention in Iraq (IN 2002!!!!). He’s now the number 1 terrorist in Iraq and he’s originally from Jordan.

Well, now the muslims are turning on Zarqawi.
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/front/story/2890005p-11551102c.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200511%5CFOR20051110e.html

Sorry to break that to you. If you weren’t so busy hating Bush, you could actually take that as good news. You certainly wouldn’t have seen that last year. It’s a turning point Lisa. Horray.

We’re going to win this war; no matter how much hate you have against repubs. No matter what! :)

Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #91892

BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE
Wow! I guess there is a god after all!
Oh wait…according to you…

Boosh IS God…
GOD IS KILLING INNOCENT IRAQI WOMAN & CHILDREN!!!

60% of the military is Republican, then are they liars as well?
Yup! Sorry Rah…military crud doesn’t give ME woodys like you!

Will it make you “feel” better to say I told you so with this country in the toilet?

You need to WAKE UP and stop drinking the repug kool-aid!
This country IS in the toilet and Boosh is having
so much $fun$ flushing it over & over & over….
Our federal & trade deficits are RECORD HIGHS…
Many kids that you opposed aborting…
(I’ll be dammed if I let ANY man tell me what I can & CAN’T do with MY body!
Woman don’t tell men they can’t masterbate cuz they are throwing away life…)

Kids in USA
go to bed hungry nite after nite after nite…
they can’t read a book, lack of funds for education…
they can’t get treated, lack of health care…
they can’t stay warm, lack of $$$ to afford repug oil prices…
ETC….Spend the $$$ in USA…
Boosh is NOT the police of the world!


Zarqawi….Christ how many times is Boosh gonna come out and say
we caught the #2 terra-rist…said that at least 6 times now…and yet…
he’s never caught!
When are YOU leaving to fight in Jordan?

Yeah Boosh…
he CAN win earthquakes & hurricanes…
Now…we begin his war on tornado’s….
FOOLS!

Posted by: Lisa at November 10, 2005 7:50 PM
Comment #91905

California is a liberal state, they choose their own fate. Arnold was being a leader and letting the people decide.

Shows how repugly misguided you are! I live in Californy and we’re major pissed off that because Arnie couldn’t spend the taxsuckers bucks the way he wanted without this stupid special election…he stupidly thought, by wasting 30 MILLION more of our taxsuckers bucks he could get his way….what a freakin loser!
The things that could have been done with that 30 MILLION…NOOOOOOO….Repugs are so addicted to spend…spend…spend….the word save is a hard word for repugs to comprehend…

Posted by: Lisa at November 10, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #91985

Lisa,

So let me get this straight, you’re vehemently upset with the Governator b/c he allowed the “people” to decide on what measures were best for their own state. Spending on democracy isn’t worth it?! Ha! Ha! Ah nuld showed that he is a good leader by standing up and taking on big initiatives and suffering low approval ratings for it, rather than doing nothing and keep his approval ratings up.

And, Repubs have been spending for the past four years; however, the dems always “spend, spend, spend”. Don’t hear you complain about that.

You still haven’t said anything about how much you hate the terrorists. Which ones do you hate? Since, according to you, what Bush and the repubs have been doing is so (absolutely) wrong in handling terrorism, who would do a better job and why? What’s your solution for terrorism?

Now, you’re dead wrong on the economy. Dead wrong. We just had a 3.9% economic growth in this past quarter alone, 5% unemployment, 4.2 million jobs created in the past two years and relatively low inflation. All this with two big hurricanes that wiped out 30% of our gas supply, thousands of jobs lost and lives that have been devastated. However, you don’t want to hear that, you’ll only focus on the negatives. Well, there’s always good and bad; it’s just a matter of which one you choose to look at. Most good Americans will try to take the good with the bad and make it work. Some are just “doom and gloom”. Which one are you? hmmmmmmm?!

I would just like to wish all my fellow Veterans and especially the troops fighting so bravely in this War on Terrorism, a special thanks on this Veterans Day.

Happy Veterans Day and thank you to our military!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 11, 2005 10:26 AM
Comment #92037

you’re vehemently upset with the Governator b/c he allowed the “people” to decide on what measures were best for their own state. Spending on democracy isn’t worth it?! Ha! Ha!

RAH!!! YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP DRINKING THE REPUG KOOK-AID!!!

Arnie ONLY had his special election due to the Democrat-controlled Legislature would NOT spend $$$ the way Arnie wanted to WASTE it on HIS special interest groups…da termanator (Next election, the moron is terminated) cried…wah wah…if you won’t give me the $$$ I’ll take it to the people…and guess what…the people were ANGRY to have this waste of $52 million to $55 million election to tell Arnie the same thing the Legislatures told him….NO! Even his WIFE said, don’t do it Arnie…


Two days after voters rejected each of his four initiatives, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took responsibility for the stinging failures and said he learned that he needs more patience in seeking government reform.

“The buck stops with me,” he told reporters Thursday during a Capitol news conference, referring to Tuesday’s special election. “I take full responsibility for this election. I take full responsibility for its failure.”

“If I would do another ‘Terminator’ movie, I would have Terminator travel back in time to tell Arnold not to have a special election.” He also said his wife, Maria Shriver, had warned him not to go ahead with the election.

The Republican governor said he will try to be more patient with the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

California voters rejected all eight propositions before them in the special election, which was estimated to cost $52 million to $55 million.
(We’re going broke and he SPENDS another 55 MILLION…yup he’s a repug…SPEND, SPEND, SPEND)

Poll: Most Don’t Think Bush Is Honest, Ethical
President’s Approval Rating Drops To 37%

POSTED: 10:17 am EST November 11, 2005


WASHINGTON — Nearly six out of 10 Americans in a new survey say they don’t think the Bush administration has high ethical standards. And about the same number say President George W. Bush himself isn’t honest.

The AP-Ipsos poll comes amid continuing questions about how the administration justified the war in Iraq,

The loss of trust complicates Bush’s efforts to rebuild his standing with the public. The new poll has his overall job approval rating stuck at 37 percent, an all-time low for Bush.

On terrorism and foreign policy, which have been among Bush’s strong points in the polls, only about four out of 10 now approve. The survey found that the Iraq war is at the core of the public’s displeasure.

And 82 percent of people describe Bush as “stubborn.”
Almost as many Republicans as Democrats agree with that description.

Four Iraqis — including a husband and wife — carried out the terror bombings in Amman that killed 57 people.
The bombings were the work of four Iraqis!!!
AHHHH…Thats how the Iraqi’s repay Boosh…bombing Jordon….

RAH…BOOSH NEEDS YOUR WARM/ALIVE BODY TO FIGHT HIS HOLY WAR…WHATS YOUR EXCUSE NOW???

Oh, and its now coming out that 9-11 was a Boosh inside job…guess what Rah…Boosh & Co is a terra-rist! Good thing all our military is overseas…they won’t be here to protect US from our American Taliban in Washington!

Posted by: Lisa at November 11, 2005 12:55 PM
Comment #92074

You still haven’t said anything about how much you hate the terrorists. Which ones do you hate? Since, according to you, what Bush and the repubs have been doing is so (absolutely) wrong in handling terrorism, who would do a better job and why? What’s your solution for terrorism?

I haven’t said NOTHING about how much I hate the terra-rists? Guess you haven’t been really READING my posts…
BUSH & CO are TERRA-RISTS! He’s using CHEMICAL WEAPONS on the Iraqi WOMAN & CHILDREN…
He’s dropping CHEMICAL BOMBS on villages,
just cuz…
He’s only out for REVENGE cuz that bad man tried to hurt mah daddy…WAKE UP!

Jordon just had a attack…now I soppose they’ll get revenge on the innocent people of Russia?
(Or any country they have a tiff with)
Do you believe in the torture issue? If you say yes…then…your saying its A-OK for when an American soldier gets captured, to be tortured? Dude, what goes around…comes around…oh wait, you agree with chickenhawk Cheney, we can torture them, but they can’t torture us…IDIOTS!
My solution for terrorism? I can’t believe you even asked that!
IMPEACH THE AMERICAN TALIBAN!

Posted by: Lisa at November 11, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #92186

Why couldn’t you believe that I would ask you that about terrorism? Terrorism is the biggest issue facing our country. You want to forget 9/11, we’ll this country won’t!

As far as the polls on Bush’s “ethics”, the left has been using the “smear, attack and impeach” strategy and I think it’s disgusting. Look, you don’t like Bush and the republicans fine. However, this war is serious and the democrats are using it as a freakin campaign issue; they’re actually spinning it for the terrorist. In fact, I don’t know if the terrorists could do a better job than the anti-Bush crowd has been doing. Not once have you or the wacko leftists in this country ever conveyed the thought of winning the war. Never! You just point fingers call names and attack, attack, attack your own government.

This is too serious of an issue in our time to try and politize this or to fight our own people. This enemy is for real and, I hate to break this to you Lisa, you and the anti-Bush crowd would be the first ones these terrorist would take out. The first!

We are going to win this thing and I’ll make sure to call you out when we do. We’re turning the corner in Iraq (the two elections and especially the Sunnis signing on to the Iraqi Constitution), the corner is being turned in this War on Terror as well (Jordanians standing up and renouncing these attacks and the terrorists hi-jacking of their religion). It’s going to happen and it’s going to happen on this President’s watch. Yes it is!

So keep up your hate, we’ll do it without you and inspite of you. It is definitely going to happen and I for one will be proud of my fellow Americans for doing it.

Especially on this day,I would like to give respect to myself and all the others who served and sacrificed their lives for this great nation. You should come down from your hate and show some darn respect for once.

And, your answer to who you think are terrorists just shows you what type of person you are. That’s despicable. And you didn’t even answer how you would deal with them. It doesn’t matter what your answer is though, you’re a lost cause.


God Bless America and God Bless the Military. Happy Veterans Day to all that served and are serving.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 11, 2005 10:32 PM
Comment #92203

Rah,
Go look in your closet…go on…
there’s no terra-rists there…
go outside…nope…no terra-rists there!
You really have got to STOP drinking the
repug Kook-aid…your much too paronoid!

Terrorism is the biggest issue facing our country. You want to forget 9/11, we’ll this country won’t!

That line is so amusing…we’ve forgotten about 9-11 3 1/2 years ago…Boosh said 6 months after 9-11…I don’t care where Bin is…he’s not my priority…That bad man who tried to kill mah Daddy…he’s my priority…

To the Iraqi WOMAN & CHILDREN…
USA ARE TERRA-RISTS…But hey, your ok
with poisioning INNOCENT humans…thats
all that matters…


ENJOY LIFE…STOP FEARING LIFE!

Oh…Boosh so called re-election was won on
FEARS…SMEARS…QUEERS…

Posted by: Lisa at November 11, 2005 11:09 PM
Comment #92287

Yes he was reelected despite all the hateful comments that we’ve been bombarded with for over 2 years. He still prevailed, along with Republican majorities in the House and Senate and there’s nothing you can do about.

I don’t drink anybody’s kool-aid, that’s for sure. You’re actually beyond koolaid at this point. You couldn’t even give an acknowledgement to the troops or veterans on Veterans Day. You’ve got serious issues.

You may have forgotten 9/11, but I haven’t. The troops haven’t. And, Bush is the reason that our kids and grandkids won’t be speaking in Arabic. He took a stand and we will prevail; these hateful fascists will lose. Like I said before, we’ll win it inspite of you.

And, terrorists might not be hiding in your closet (for now); however, they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc. and they will be defeated.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 12, 2005 10:18 AM
Comment #92345

Yes he was reelected…
dude…
He STOLE THE ELECTION…DUH!

Only a moron believes Ohio voted for
MORE poverty, more homeless, less jobs, etc…
oh wait…
Ohio LOVES being poor…thats why they over
whelmly voted repug…ya right!

Oh I gave acknowledgement to our troops…
I’m ashamed of the way they are being used
to kill innocent woman and children.
You may love chemical bombings, torture, and have huge admiration for Lynnie England
(She represents YOUR military)
holding innocent humans in inhumane prisions, the list goes on & on…I’m disgusted with the way Boosh & Co. lie to torture all those innocent Iraqi civillians cuz its payback time cuz
that bad man tried to kill mah daddy…
(In addition to drinking repug kook-aid, you write like your idol…Phone sex O Reily…oooohhh, do I feel a woody coming on!)

YOUR MILITARY IS USING CHEMICAL BOMBS THAT LITERALLY MELT THE SKIN RIGHT OFF THE BONES OF INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILLIANS…
MAKE YOU BUST WITH MILITARY PRIDE, DOESN’T IT?

On Tuesday night, Fallujah’s eerily empty streets were littered with shattered concrete and dead bodies, said a resident shaken by a missile strike on the second story of his family home.
Civilians caught in the crossfire were gathered in a hospital donated by the United Arab Emirates and flying a blue and white UNICEF banner. There, medical workers low on bandages and antiseptic bound wounds in ripped sheets and cleaned torn skin with hot water
Some of the heaviest damage apparently was incurred Monday night from air and artillery attacks that coincided with the entry of ground troops into the city. U.S. warplanes dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs on the city overnight, and artillery boomed throughout the night and into the morning.
Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, “The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted.”


George W. Bush is sinking deeper and deeper into political trouble, according to the latest poll. Only 36 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president, and an astounding 68 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country—the highest in Bush’s presidency. But that’s not the worst of it for the 43rd president of the United States, half of all Americans now believe he’s not “honest and ethical.”
Fifty-two percent of Americans believe Cheney “deliberately misused or manipulated pre-war intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities in order to build support for war,” including 22 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of independents.

http://www.beforeyouenlist.org/

Posted by: Lisa at November 12, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #92346

And, terrorists might not be hiding in your closet (for now); however, they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc. and they will be defeated.


Rah,
You forgot to add White House to your terra-rist list…

Posted by: Lisa at November 12, 2005 3:02 PM
Comment #92381

“innocent humans in inhumane prisions”

Now, I believe Abu Ghrab was a terrible “black eye” for our military, that’s certainly not how we are; however, the prisoners weren’t innocent. And, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a terrorist; the way you talk, even they haven’t been as nasty and hateful as you. And, they cut people’s heads off w/ a dirty knife and chant to allah.

Bush won fair and square (even picked up Iowa & New Mexico) in this past election; winning Florida soundly, as well. He also won by nearly 4 million votes. Not to mention, the 4 to 1 military vote. That’s right liberals, keep throwing out military votes and see if you ever connect to us again. Ha!

So Lisa, good luck in your hateful world b/c this is definitely the last time I deal with you on this blog. You’re a real sicko!! Yikes!!!

Bush is the man!
The real chickenhawk is Bill Clinton.
Senate Democrats are obstructionists.
Most Congressional Republicans are cowards.
Terrorists are hateful fascists and they will lose.

Our Military is the best in the world and we will prevail.

You are sick, disgusting and on your own. I’m not even going to read your reply, Psycho!!!!!!!

GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB. GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.
GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB. GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.
GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB. GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.
GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB. GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.
GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB. GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.
GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB. GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.GWB.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 12, 2005 6:27 PM
Comment #92394

RAH…
YOUR DOING ONE HECK OF A JOB FOR BOOSH…
EMAIL ME WHEN YOU GET BACK FROM FIGHTING
FOR HIM IN HIS HOLY WAR IN IRAQ…HYPOCRITE!

GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES,
GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES,
GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES,
GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES, GWB LIES,

THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS DIE…

Posted by: Lisa at November 12, 2005 7:28 PM
Comment #92395

Bush Administration Dishonors All Veterans By Committing War Crimes In Iraq

by Rev. Bill McGinnis
Today is Veterans Day in the United States, a day when we are supposed to honor the sacrifices made by our military veterans as they defended our freedoms. Yet on this day of well-deserved honor, the Bush Administration continues to dishonor all veterans by committing war crimes in Iraq, then lying to cover them up.

“What war crimes?” you may say. “We’re good Americans! We don’t commit war crimes! Yes, bad things happen in war, but bad things are sometimes necessary for the greater good of victory. But these are not war crimes, these are military necessities. Our enemies may commit war crimes, because they are evil. But we Americans would never deliberately do such things.
And furthermore, you must be a treasonous, liberal, communist, pinko, terrorist-loving fag to even think we Americans would ever commit war crimes.”

Wrong. Wake up, America! This is now, not World War II, when we really were the good guys, saving the world from Fascism. And now a cold-hearted, ultra-right, do-anything-necessary-to-win, gang of neo-Fascists is running our country. And they are busily committing war crimes right and left, wherever it suits their purposes, all in the name of freedom and victory, and lying to cover up.

Specifically …

1. Torture. What we have seen in the American press is nothing compared to what is really out there. If you are a normal, peace-loving, God-believing American, it will make you sick when you eventually find out the truth about what is being done by this administration, in your name, following the repulsive Israeli model used against Palestinian prisoners. And torture of prisoners is a war crime, no matter what the supposed justification is.

2. Deliberate killing of unarmed women and children, to “teach these people a lesson.” This is called “terrorism,” and we are doing it. When you bomb a house or an apartment building because you think some “insurgents” might be in there, but you know that women and children are in there too, that is not “collateral damage.” That is deliberate killing of unarmed women and children, which is a war crime.

3. Use of fiendishly-cruel chemical weapons. “White phosphorus.”

Television video has been shown of women and children’s flesh being carmelized and burned to the bone, by American white-phosphorus attacks in Falluja.

WHAT IS A WAR CRIME?
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: “Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including… wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, …taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm

As Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32 KJV)

And always remember, “Impeachment is an option.”

Posted by: Lisa at November 12, 2005 7:34 PM
Comment #92452

rahdigly, your comment to Lisa:

And, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a terrorist; the way you talk, even they haven’t been as nasty and hateful as you.
violates our policy of Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. Failure again to observe our policy will cause for removing your comment privileges on this site.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at November 13, 2005 3:22 AM
Post a comment