Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

My goodness! If this is for real, it outstrips the charges that Bush was responsible for Katrina and the dynamiting of the New Orleans levees. However, it does seem to indicate a definite split from reality on the part of some on the extreme left.

Coming from Canada, it doesn’t suprise me at the comments. This is the country that some of our liberals point to as a shining example of “progressive” thinking. I remember the great Clinton taskforce on healthcare. We heard so much about the advantages of the Canadian system. How going to a government sponsored health care system would solve all our problems and usher in a Utopia of health care for all. And, if I remember correctly, it was about that time that the doctors in Canada went on strike for higher wages, essentially shutting down health care in the country. Also, when Canadians need immediate, serious medical procedures, they come to this country.

Oh well, a few facts never did interfere with a good story.

Keep your ray guns cleaned boys, the ET’s arrive tomorrow.

Posted by: jback814 at November 25, 2005 08:47 PM

I followed that source back, and found that it was a press release from one of those exopolitical groups.

The limit of Carter’s involvement is that one of the international directors of one of the groups mentioned tangentally was supposed to head a proposed group to look into UFO’s that seems to have gotten nowhere at about the time that Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Spielberg’s classic was making hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.

Right, Eric, this means something, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 25, 2005 09:28 PM

eric,
i usually read the liberal blog, which has some regular strong conservative contributors who i totally enjoy. The blog is predominately liberal though and being only slightly left of center i thought i would like to balance my input by tuning into the conservative side. After reading your current blog, unless things change,there is no doubt thati made a mistake.

Posted by: ec at November 25, 2005 09:40 PM

While reading this article I was just wondering if they happened to wear the alluminum foil helmets to protect their inner most thoughts from the Bush administrations secret task force against outing his intergalactic plans. Wll its a good thing those plans are just crazy ehough to deny.

Posted by: Elizabeth Quinteros at November 25, 2005 09:45 PM

Are you sure you weren’t listening to the “Canadian Air Farce”, Eric? They do have a strange sense of humor.

Posted by: jackp at November 25, 2005 09:55 PM

Eric,

Your new nickname is ‘red-meat’, I was almost getting bored.

Woo Eric you are really out on a limb this time. Alien wars, Roswell? You left out the satanic new world order/Freemasons/illuminati how could you be so forgetful?

Eric now that doesn’t represent the left unless it’s the left wing at Belleview.

Now why do you think that’s the left wing or democrat? Those are the rantings of someone with a tinfoil hat in their closet, apparently. I don’t think that stuff is on any of our democratic platforms. I’ll take a second look though.

They dislike Bush obviously because he’s the New World Order manchurian candidate lizard from mars don’t you know that? Geez Eric!

Keep on bloggin’!

(ROFLMAO)

Posted by: Novenge at November 25, 2005 10:49 PM

I guess if I were a republican I would rather talk about aliens and Canadian wackos rather than serious problems this administration has gotten us into. Yes much easier to post this piece and try and bash libreals than talk about things like Iraq, the CIA leak case, Fitzpatrick’s new grand jury, Tom Delay’s partner taking a plea bargain, W’s 37% approval rating, W considering bombing Al Jazeera, CIA run torture prisons just to name a few.

As far as Carter’s message on the voyager what was he supposed to write? It’s a message intended for aliens, no matter what anybody wrote it would sound cheesy.

Posted by: Docotr Shopper at November 25, 2005 11:13 PM

Thought: What if the Canadians know something we don’t and Jimmy Carter is one of them building habitats for their arrival to placate them with crappily constructed housing built by celebrities who can’t hammer nails straight.

Eric I don’t think there’s much validity here but you can posture there is. Do respond, pleeeeeease our Galaxy could be in jeopardy.

Posted by: Novenge at November 25, 2005 11:20 PM

This is just a laughable example of a larger problem which isn’t funny at all: the international rise of anti-Americanism since the end of the Cold War. In a way, it’s understandable—culturally, militarily, economicaly, America bestrides the globe like no nation in the history of the world.

One thing the American left by and large doesn’t get is that this is a problem that’s been growing for years It was going on before Bush, and will go on afterward, even if Dennis Kucinich is elected president in 2008.

I once had a German engineer—a guy with a PhD who was by all appearances well-educated and sane— tell me that the Civil Rights movement in the US resulted in the end of slavery. It’s no surprise that somebody would now think that the US is planning to start a war with aliens.

Posted by: sanger at November 25, 2005 11:39 PM

Docotr Shopper babbled the following talking points:

“I guess if I were a republican I would rather talk about aliens and Canadian wackos rather than serious problems this administration has gotten us into. Yes much easier to post this piece and try and bash libreals than talk about things like Iraq, the CIA leak case, Fitzpatrick�€™s new grand jury, Tom Delay�€™s partner taking a plea bargain, W�€™s 37% approval rating, W considering bombing Al Jazeera, CIA run torture prisons just to name a few.”

Any one of us will be more than happy to talk about any one of these issues, and using reason and logic (and a working knowledge of history) show how none of them amount to as much as a hill of beans compared to what the desparate DemoSocialists, with their approval rating double digits BELOW where the Mr. Bush’s is, hope they do.

It is this sort of confidence that permits us the luxury of chortling about such matters as the Canadian ex-Defense Minister’s lapse into insanity.

OTOH, you’re quite right about the Voyager/Carter matter.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at November 25, 2005 11:42 PM

Yeah Sanger gee why don’t those German’s (from Germany no less) know about American history? How dare they come here and know mostly European history, those bastards! You’re right that sure is tantamount to a few Canadian whacko’s of Sketch backgrounds claiming Aliens might attack us. WTF does that have to do with the other. A German knows astoundingly little about American history so it makes sense Canadian conspiracy whackos think we might be attacked by greys? Whaaaat?

We have those people in this country we don’t need to outsource. I live in Boston where those people are pretty much in every subway tunnel.

Posted by: Novenge at November 25, 2005 11:54 PM

I love it, Eric backs a common Republican theme, yet again, Shoot First, and ask questions when you are sure they are dead. How wonderfully alike Eric and Bush think. Is it any surprise Eric’s article defends the Bush administration with the worn tactic of offense is the best defense.

It is understandable, however, considering the minority numbers Republicans have to work with these days. In 2004, barely more than 1/6 of all the eligible voters in this country voted Republican, and Bush was reelected. (slightly less than 1/6 voted Democrat, and about 1/6 of eligible voters supported 3rd Party or Independent candidates or didn’t vote because their 3rd party or independent candidate did not have a chance of winning. Slightly less than 1/2 of eligible voters did not vote and backed no candidate at all..)

When one leads with only 1/6 of eligible voters supporting you, one gets an inferiority complex and defensive, and preemptive offense becomes a leadership and decision style. What is funny, however, is the arrogance and confidence such a position lends itself too, like a Chihuahua dog barking up a storm at anything that moves in the event that what’s moving turns out to be something bigger than it. All that barking however, has now even eroded support from the 1/6 of eligible voters who voted Bush back for another 4 years.

So, the Whitehouse Chihuahua is barking louder than ever before. That is the way of leadership by many runts like Napolean, Hitler, ToJo, and the little Chihuahua Bush. Their defensiveness about their small stature sows the seeds of their own demise through outrageous and blusterous deeds designed to make them appear bigger and more powerful than they ever could hope to really be.

What is truly sad however, is how 5/6 of the eligible voters could allow such a little Chihuahua to rule for so long with his persistent but ironicly laughable bark. Kind of makes mice of all the rest of eligible voters doesn’t it? Great title for a book don’t you think? Of Mice and Chihuahua’s. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 26, 2005 12:34 AM

Novenge, it doesn’t surprise me that Europeans don’t have a detailed knowledge of American history. How many Americans, considering our public school system, know American history either, much less European history? That isn’t my point.

What I’m pointing out is that internationally, and in Europe particularly, even very well educated people, THINK they know a great deal about America. They even pride themselves on this feeling.

Travel internationally and interact with people at all, and you ALWAYS hear about how ignorant Americans are about their own history, how foreigners are aware of us but we’re not aware of them, how our media supresses the “truth” which their media is brave enough to tell.

The truth, however, is that what people are being told by their media and in their schools about America is often completely absurd.

When a well educated European tells you that slavery was abolished in the 1960s, it tells of the extent to which they’re conditioned to believe the rankest and most stupid anti-American stories.
It behooves us to keep this in mind while we hear about opposition to the Iraq war.

One of the hottest recent bestsellers in France is about how America orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. In Germany, more than one third of people under the age of 30 (according to recent poll) believe that George Bush and not Al Qaida attacked the twin towers.

We need to stop thinking that our traditional Western allies are really our allies anymore. It’s been a long time since some these cultures, which are frankly dying anyway, have contributed anything to the relationship we attempt to maintain with them. In the future, we need to look to Eastern Europe, India, Israel, and possibly even China and Russia (if these two countries can get their own human rights situations in order) for our true allies. These nations, along with the US, are the economic and hence military future of the world anyway.

Canada is another matter. Despite some of their worries about the war the US is about to fight with the Klingons, they’re basically a very pragmatic people who genuinely value human rights, Democracy, and the cultural heritage of the West which is dead or dying in the open-air museum of Europe. In fact, when they criticize us we should listen—they have much of value to say, and we should always be open to constructive criticism from our friends, even if that criticism is occasionaly harsh. Squabbles between Canada and the US are pretty much equivelant to disagreements between siblings. And there’s a good chance they’re about to toss out their current silly liberal government very soon.

Posted by: sanger at November 26, 2005 12:42 AM

David,

Chihuahua? Runt? You are descending to personal attacks so quickly on this. Care to share why? I don’t remember any references to ethical and advanced alien civilizations in the green party platform but it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me.

On another level I find that whenever some leftists crazy beliefs are exposed it’s labeled ‘an attack’. But when Bush is called a liar, that’s called telling it like it is, or ‘speaking truth to power’. What an interesting street we live on that only goes in one direction. Hm?

Posted by: esimonson at November 26, 2005 12:59 AM

Sanger,

Like we don’t have sentiments of anti-Europeanism in this country? I just heard a string of them a second ago and hear it all the time on FOX news with various different anchors. They have anti-American sentiment we have anti-European sentiments, hello I just heard a littany of them as I’ve heard from the right-wing. Also I’ve heard lots of anti-Israeli sentiments from theleft and I suspect so have you in your travels of the net. BUUUUUT it doesn’t represent the government.

And if in Japan they claim that there news is more accurate they are terribly uninformed.

Also with the EU we have a good chance of losing NATO which dispite biases would be a great loss. Oh wait but their Euro-peans right? wrong allies and the public sentiments don’t especially represent their governments.

Canada won’t lose it’s liberal majority and swing in a right winger. It could happen but as of now they really don’t have the numbers. Unless Diebold and ES&S get in the fold somewhere (Goad).

And as far as a defense minister of Canada, what does he coach the hockey team? It’s Canada. it’s a press release of dubious origin anyway.

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 01:25 AM

Chihuahua, shrub, chimp—call Bush whatever you like. The fact remains that this man which so much unfair hatred is directed toward has dismantled TWO of the most repressive, backwards and abusive tyrannies in the world, given literally millions a chance (if nothing else) for a future they’d never have even dreamed of otherwise. Whether he succeeds or fails is a matter that history and no pundit will a keyboard and internet connection (or for that matter, editorial position with a major American newspaper) will decide. Stay tuned, and be ready at the very minimum to eat your words. In any case, name-calling which suggest a diminutive stature for the most important political leader of a the democratic West since Winston Churcill is far off the mark.

Posted by: sanger at November 26, 2005 01:28 AM

Eric,

Sadly, this post is an excellant example of why i cringe when clicking on a red column post here.

jo

Posted by: jo at November 26, 2005 01:49 AM

Eric,

Where was your post when Bill Frist claimed that aids can be transmitted by tears and sweat? That was in America and by an American medical doctor turned American senator. Just a thought.

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 01:53 AM

Novenge, Frist was asked by an interviewer if HIV could be transmitted by tears and sweat and his answer was, and I quote, that it “would be very hard. I mean, you can get virus in tears and sweat but in terms of the degree of infecting somebody, it would be very hard.”

What Frist said is true, though in some weird PC version of reality I guess it’s just not accceptable to point out that it’s possible but highly unlikely to contract HIV in this fashion.

Is this a talking point on the left wing blogosphere now, that Frist was pointing out a scientific fact, the remote possibility but high improbability of contracting AIDS like this?

Just how desperate are you people for spin? And how many people are outraged to learn that they need to stop drinking the tears and sweat of AIDS patients? Are people actually doing this? Give me a break.

Posted by: sanger at November 26, 2005 02:09 AM

Somehow, It isn’t clear to me why the words of one elderly, former Candian official represents the entire populace of Canada, and apparently by extension the entire non-American world. Nancy Reagan’s fondness for astrology influenced her husband, which he confesed. does that make Ronald Reagan a cuckoo? Does it mean all conservatives believe in astrology? I lean conservative, but I don’t see the logic here.

Posted by: Geo at November 26, 2005 02:32 AM

Sanger,

Funny thing I used to work for HCA (location,Bayonet Point medical Center in Hudson Florida) back in 2002, the very company that his father founded and Bill Frist still chairs. It used to be called Columbia until they were busted overbilling patients and medicare (one accountant at our local offices was arrested). In our orientation we had to take a test on aids and the question of sweat containing the aids virus was NO. That part I remember.

On a Sunday program with two-faced little Stephanopolis the answer from Bill Frist was obscure and indefinitive but he essentially said yes to the claim. This was his party’s sexual education platform and he had to defend it all with a straight face. He had no choice I will say that in his defense.

And with all the spin on the right we’re still not desparate.

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 02:40 AM

HOW CONSERVATISM WARPS YOUR MIND

Eric,

That would have been a much more appropriate title for your piece.

On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canada�€™s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: “UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head.”

I found it interesting that you edited this paragraph out. Why would a speech given on September 25, 2005 that “caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines” be reported on November 24, 2005, two months later? Do a search for this speech. No mainstream newspapers or magazines reported on this at all. The reports that are out there, are all the same PR Web press release.

PR Web press releases are not news stories, they are engineered to promote, in this case Exopolitics. Look at the disclaimer on prweb.com: “PR Web�„� disclaims any content contained in these releases.” Well no wonder conservatives are so blinded to the Bush administration, they’ve been getting all their news from PR Web�„�. It all makes sense now.

BTW, Hellyer started his career as a liberal. Then he was an Independant for several years. Then he became a Progressive Conservative, where his views were too right wing for most delegates, and where he attacked the Red Tories as not being “true conservatives”. So much for Hellyer being a liberal! But the story doesn’t end there.

Hellyer tried to rejoin the liberal party, but was soundly rejected.

Then he created his own party, the Canadian Action Party. Again, Hellyer was rejected , in 1997 Hellyer and CAP came in 9th out of 10 parties running, finishing just slightly above the Marxist-Leninist Party. In the 2000 election they came in 8th out of 11 parties just below the Marijuana Party. The MP’s 66,258 votes were over double CAP’s 27,103 votes.

The last time a party elected Hellyer was in 1972 by the Progressive Conservatives. The way I see it, the last party that elected him owns him!

sanger said it best:

“Just how desperate are you people for spin?”

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 26, 2005 03:49 AM

Translation: Bush is trying to destroy us. Help. Conservatives still hold power.

How do you get that out of a statement from June 16, 1977? I think you need to turn the spin machine down a notch, it’s starting to smoke.

Apparently, these guys know that advanced and ethical alien civilizations will be their natural allies against Bush. As the article explains:

By “ETs,” Mr. Hellyer and these organizations mean ethical, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.

It’s good to know that the alien civilizations are liberal.

Wow, they must really believe this! Those crafty conservatives are already trying to set us up in case this actually happens. Then they can blame it all on the Democrats. Damn liberals!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 26, 2005 04:21 AM

And this from one who supports a political party aligned with American fundamentalism.

Convince me that is not a bit warped!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at November 26, 2005 04:47 AM

I don’t understand how a blog starts off talking about aliens, and ends with heath care,and how AIDS could be transmitted by tears and sweat? I don’t get how this all falls together,or you trying to say that aliens have AIDS and they need to use earths heath care.

Posted by: layne45 at November 26, 2005 09:23 AM

That was a pretty pathetic attempt to make some kind of point: what… liberals are nuts?? Is that the message?

I can imagine in the not too distant future a handful of hardcore conservatives sitting around a table wondering what happened. Some of them will be wearing the tinfoil hats.

Posted by: Rick at November 26, 2005 09:45 AM

“It seems that the real reason we invaded Iraq is because a UFO crashed there and Saddam was reverse engineering it to develop superWMD!!”

Unfortunately, this is just as plausible as some of Bush’s other justifications for invading Iraq. Watch out, Eric, this might be the next Red Team talking point that you need to publically support :-)

And wrt the tin foil hat discussions above, of course we know that all universities are treasonous, evolution-loving, liberal institutions, but recent results from MIT show that tin foil hats may not protect you after all, and are probably another government plot.

Posted by: William Cohen at November 26, 2005 12:36 PM

How Liberalism Warps YOUR Mind?
Hilarious, and quite accurate! But perhaps this may need to be clarified for those who haven’t yet picked up on the literal meaning of the title, which should’ve read: “How Liberalism Warps Eric’s Mind”.
This article is so damn warped and twisted, it really needs a metaphor to describe it!
Let me think… Okay, got it.
This article is as warped as an LP sitting on the backseat of a car abandoned in the Mojave Desert in August. (In keeping with the Voyager time frame, the melted record album is “The Best of Bachman-Turner Overdrive” and the car is a 1977 avocado-green Camaro with black interior and Ohio plates.)
:^)
As for the replies to this Warpery, there are two awards to be presented today: the first to Doc Shopper, for nailing it on the one end, and the other to David Remer for neatly finishing it off at the other. All in all, a job well done, gentlemen.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 26, 2005 12:40 PM

Thanks, Adrienne.

I still find it amusing the so many of the replies I get in this column single out a word or phrase I use to critique, but, otherwise completely ignore the premises and conclusions argued. I voted for Nader. Folks can and have called him everything in the book. Doesn’t bother me. He was the only candidate in the last race who wouldn’t have played politics with America’s future. Doesn’t matter what people call him, he was who he was, and what he did, a challenger to the corruption in government. Lousy public speaker and campaigner, though.

If only Democrats and Conservatives could be as objective about their candidates. But so many have the spectator identity sport thing happening in their heads. If their team or candidate is critizized, it is taken as a personal affront. How can one possibly believe in freedom of speech and democracy and diversity of opinion when they respond to critique as fighting words?

Eric said: “But when Bush is called a liar, that’s called telling it like it is, or ‘speaking truth to power’. What an interesting street we live on that only goes in one direction. Hm?”

See how that personal identity sport thing raises its head? Amusing. Goes in one direction? That is funny because it is patently false and evidenced as such everyday around here. But, nothing blinds so readily as pride reached for yet unattained. It can never be attained when it depends upon the actions of another. Spectator sport mentality. Never could participate in it. Must be a shortcoming of mine. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 26, 2005 01:06 PM

I can’t help but be reminded by this article of something that happened to me the other day. I was stopped at a traffic light, a car pulls up next to me and honks, I look over and the guy holds up a prepared placard which says “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.” Seriously, this actually happened.

Hey, Eric, your license plate wouldn’t happen to be “DISTRBO”, would it? Either way, you’re working from the same script.

Posted by: Jarandhel at November 26, 2005 01:25 PM

Some call it warping, we liberals call it evolution.
I would think President Carter was speaking of nuclear arms, that or global warming escalation.

My conservative citizens , prepare to lose the majority in both houses and ready yourselves to be the opposition party.

Posted by: Justin Anderson at November 26, 2005 01:42 PM

i knew they had better weed in Canada. Mine doesn’t bring those kind of visions.

Posted by: peace at November 26, 2005 01:51 PM

David,

i agree Nader was the best candidate to lead the nation. Sadly i abandoned him. And of course we get the leaders we deserve.

Posted by: jo at November 26, 2005 01:59 PM

Is it wrong of me to think of Eric as a terrorist?

Posted by: yourcrazy at November 26, 2005 05:35 PM

Adrienne,

David was ‘on’ for calling Bush a chihuahua? Wow some liberals on this site are impressed by the most clicheed of vitriolic things. He’s a cowboy, a pirate, a huffy little chihuahua, a monkey, a chimp, a thief. I have to agree with the right on this one, cheap kills are small kills at best.

Try an arguement sometime or just brutal lambasts but chihuahua? Eh.. doesn’t do it for me atleast because it isn’t a take-down hence doesn’t get a score. Heck it doesn’t even turn their issue on it’s head. It makes me almost cringe a little that this is my party spouting animal name calling and not something a bit more clever even if it’s brutally goading. Where’s the tact in “Bush is a chihuahua”? Really.

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 05:50 PM

I can see UFOs alomst every night. All I have to do is step outside and look in the direction of the Air Base.
On a clear night I can see them going to and from the base. Reckon the aliens are spying on it, or the Air Force is secretly letting them land there and studying them.
Anyway if George wanted to shoot them down why would he let them land here?
Or maybe I just ate to much turkey yeasterday.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 26, 2005 06:04 PM

Or maybe the pain pills the doctor gave me are too strong.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 26, 2005 06:07 PM

How Liberalism Warps Your Mind

The truth is there’s a lot of warped minds on both sides. I used to be one of them. Yep, sadly, I was one of those that used to blame all that was wrong with the nation on the liberal Democrats.
There was a day when I would have joined in and echoed the same petty partisan crapola.

That was before I removed my partisan blinders.
Maybe some of you will too some day?

Has it ever occurred to you (on all sides) that you may have been seduced into a clever, circular pattern of thought and behavior that:
[01] distracts you from the fact that politicians are pitting you against each other?
[02] distracts you from the fact a majority can never exist if they’re cleverly divided?
[03] distracts you from the fact that politicians are ignoring many of our Pressing Problems ?
[04] distracts you from the fact that politicians don’t answer to the voters; they are controlled by their big money donors that guarantee their 95% re-election rate?
[05] distracts you from the fact that you are (ironically) empowering politicians to continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable ?

Does the following look like a government that cares about the voters ?
________________________________________
OUR U.$. CONGRESS:
7 that have been arrested for fraud;
19 have been accused of writing bad checks;
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses;
3 have done time for assault;
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit;
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges;
8 have been arrested for shoplifting;
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits;
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year;
And, here’s some more examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the very difficult decisions they make daily:
[] Hmmm…let’s see…Vote for raises for ourselves, or vote for more funding for body armor for troops ?
[] Vote for pork-barrel or vote for more funding for FEMA ?
[] Hmmm…vote ourselves some cu$hy perks and benefits, or vote for raises for troops in active duty and more funding for disabled veterans ?
[] Vote for $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame or more armor for humvees ?
[] Vote for $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. or secure the nation’s borders (which Al-Qaeda is infiltrating) ?
[] Vote for $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] Vote for $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.) or shore up Social Security and Medicare ?
[] $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation or improve public education ?
[] $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage or prosecute investor/stock fraud ?
[] $50,000 for gold embossed cards for Air Force One or bullet proof vests for troops in Iraq ?
[] much more can be seen at http://www.cagw.org
_______________________________

Well, does it?
Please list some names of Congress persons that:
(1) have never irresponsibly voted on pork-barrel.
(2) truly embrace campaign finance reform?
(3) haven’t plundered Social Security?
(4) voted to eliminate the marraige penalty tax?
(5) voted to reform the tax system?
(6) voted for term limits?
(7) voted for limits on money from big-money donors?
(8) don’t fuel the petty partisan bickering.
(9) don’t look the other way.

Well, I can think of one or two, but unless you can name at least 218 (half of Congress), what can you conclude about Congress as a whole?

jo,
Yes, I sadly discounted Nader too.
But, the thing is, are we always such terrible judges of character? Why does it seem to make no difference who we vote for? Why does it seem like the problems seem to get worse and more numerous?

Because the incumbents are extremely confident in their incumbency. 98% of the incumbents in the House retained their seats in 2002. Their big money donors that abuse vast wealth and power guarantee their predictable incumbency. And, the two main parties also make it extremely difficult for third parties and independents from getting on ballots, or participating in debates, and the democratic process. Thus, incumbents are not concerned with doing the real job they’re supposed to be doing. They are consumed with raising campaign money, fueling the petty partisan warfare, and colluding with their big money donors.

It never fails. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s why it’s important for voters to always pay close attention to what their government is doing, insist upon more transparency (to discourage abuse), and hold them accountable. Otherwise, government will always continue to grow more and more corrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 26, 2005 06:18 PM

David Remer,

I’ll give ya’ this, voters are “mice” I’ve never heard before. ‘Sheople’ yes ‘mice’ no. And keep spit-polishing your Green posterior it’ll shine, it will!! (In reference to your green party impartiality bragadocio)My contention: Nader is not a lousy public speaker in the least, it only appeals moreso to those semi familiar with the material. And God knows we need a new and more capitalist, fiscally responsible left that works for us and not just shills out to K Street corpo-lobbies.

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 06:30 PM

D.A.N.

Your topic is actually more interesting than little green men from mars so let me abuse this thread.

I concur whole heartedly with what you are saying. I got the same digits and facts off probably the same sites. But it really is a big problem.

Just last night I was trawling around and went to a leftist site and there in bold letters were the words “Democratic congress wants to make broadband internet less expensive”. Which means spend millions of dollars to knock five bucks off the price essentially. I in turn wrote Nancy Pelosi and the DNC website and ripped into them that by nostretch of the imagination was this top priority! And it isn’t to add more corporate welfare to an already overburdened system and an undermanaged dollar.

The problem is everywhere. Great post d.a.n. it sure hits home.

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 06:43 PM

Novenge:
“Adrienne,
David was �€˜on�€™ for calling Bush a chihuahua?”

No. Actually he was spot-on in his very first paragraph. The chihuahua thing was kinda cute, but practically unnecessary after this:
David:
“I love it, Eric backs a common Republican theme, yet again, Shoot First, and ask questions when you are sure they are dead. How wonderfully alike Eric and Bush think. Is it any surprise Eric�€™s article defends the Bush administration with the worn tactic of offense is the best defense.”

I felt that if we took what Doc Shopper said, and followed it up with David’s first paragraph, little more needed to be said. That’s why in my post I felt free to simply make a joke.
Actually, this article is just begging for nothing but jokes — so now I’d like to give points to the funny one liners from “peace” and “yourcrazy”, also.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 26, 2005 07:03 PM

Sadly, this post is an excellant example of why i cringe when clicking on a red column post here.

Sadly jo, That’s what I was going for.

Posted by: esimonson at November 26, 2005 07:17 PM

Adrienne,

“I love it, Eric backs a common Republican theme, yet again, Shoot First, and ask questions when you are sure they are dead. How wonderfully alike Eric and Bush think. Is it any surprise Eric�€™s article defends the Bush administration with the worn tactic of offense is the best defense.”

I’m not sure what he was talking about there, myself. I just assumed that he was falling back on the tired tactic of calling everything an ‘attack’. Of course calling Bush a liar, or a criminal somehow isn’t an attack. That puzzles me. It’s kind of how the left defines hatred and racism as opposition to liberalism.

Posted by: esimonson at November 26, 2005 07:21 PM

Well Eric, I didn’t read all the comments, however it looks like the liberals that read your blog were quite stirred (or is it disturbed) by the liberals in Canada. Rather than mentioning anything about that tidbit of info, as a liberal is likely to do, they attacked you rather than the information. Keep up the good work, we can’t have the liberals feeling to smug and easy about the delusions they envelop.

Posted by: Theway2k at November 26, 2005 07:44 PM

ERIC SIMONSON,

the problem isn’t that it is opposition to liberalism per se. What you’ve done here is scandal-sheet and scarlet lettering everything with a really broad brush. Let me clarify.

Opposition to liberalism would be an arguement in basis of it’s platform, such as “why to democrats have such an adherance to social spending and creating more bureaucracy?” (then give example). What this is is “why are all liberals like this man in the spacesuit?” See the difference?

It’s like if I said that you completely agree with Pat Robertson on all of his positions to which you might respond “no I think he’s completely senile” to which I say “yeah but you believe exactly and precisely the same things he does, care to explain”. To which you would respond “No I do not, are you out of your mind”. that’s what you do on occasion Eric. That’s why you get the reaction you do, it’s scandal-sheet.

As well as strangely have a belief that all people on the left are fans of Michael Moore? What’s up with that?

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 08:50 PM

ERIC SIMONSON,

the problem isn’t that it is opposition to liberalism per se. What you’ve done here is scandal-sheet and scarlet lettering everything with a really broad brush. Let me clarify.

Opposition to liberalism would be an arguement in basis of it’s platform, such as “why to democrats have such an adherance to social spending and creating more bureaucracy?” (then give example). What this is is “why are all liberals like this man in the spacesuit?” See the difference?

It’s like if I said that you completely agree with Pat Robertson on all of his positions to which you might respond “no I think he’s completely senile” to which I say “yeah but you believe exactly and precisely the same things he does, care to explain”. To which you would respond “No I do not, are you out of your mind?”. that’s what you do on occasion Eric. That’s why you get the reaction you do, it’s scandal-sheet.

As well as strangely have a belief that all people on the left are fans of Michael Moore? What’s up with that?

Posted by: Novenge at November 26, 2005 08:53 PM

This is a pointless post. So a former government official believes in aliens. To try and generalize anything from that is a big stretch.

Posted by: Leoniceno at November 26, 2005 10:03 PM

Novenge, I don’t see where Eric said that “all liberals” are Michael Moore fans. He is using one especially kooky example of the kinds of charges directed toward the administration in order to make a larger point about the absurd lengths so many will go now in their deranged hatred for the president.

What amuses me is the well practiced outrage of liberal commentators in response. The hypocricy is staggering, especially while we currently see over in the blue column an article about how “Bush is an enemy” of the United States and how there “should be a reward for his capture.”

If a conservative commentator here were to ever say that Howard Dean, John Kerry or Ted Kennedy should be arrested and imprisoned, we’d hear an angry and very predictable chorus about how Republicans are fascists who want to stifle democracy.

What Eric says it absolutely correct. We seem to be living on a street that goes one only way. The left attacks viciously (and often without basis) and if a Republican ever stands up to his beliefs, the left starts up the whole violin section and complains about they’re “being attacked” and how Republicans are “questioning their patriotism.”
It’s as if the entire left took classes called “Manufactured Outrage 101” and “Advanced Weepy Victimhood.” The stereotypes about conservatives possessing manly virtue while liberals are effeminate shirkers is just that—a stereotype. So people should stop confirming those stereotypes, in my opinion, with shrieks and whines whenever they’re contradicted in fair and open debate. If you want to dish it out, then you ought to be able to take a little in return.

Posted by: sanger at November 26, 2005 10:18 PM

Novenge, sorry if the Chihuahua metaphor went over your head. It was part and parcel of the argument that obviously escaped you.

Shoot first, and ask questions after they are dead, refers to many things about the Bush administration as in going to war for WMD and checking to see if there are actually any there afterward. Proposing to replace the Soc. Sec. sytem with a private system without every consulting with the public who would be most affected by it first - That one went over like a lead baloon.

Tax cuts to save he economy while sending the nation from 5.65 to 11 Trillion dollars in debt under one President who barks, barks, barks, about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. But, not a veto pen to be found. All bark, no bite!

There, I have taken the time to spell out the metaphor for you. Hope you got it this time. Dogs are most effective when they can back up their bark with a bite. Chihuahua’s bark, bark, bark, but, in the end, have little to back it up with, save their handler’s protestations and defenses that the little Chihuahua is actually a pit bull at heart. Yuk! Yuk! Too funny.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2005 01:01 AM

yes all people on the left are fans of Michael Moore thats how that Bush bassher flick gut that much woopdee-doo out of it at the sametime the left made the fat pig left wing commie treasonous trader a multi-millionaire just for spining lies.You blue boys and girls soon will need all the tinfoil you can get your hands on because Bush does have a ufo thats how he and Carl blew the levie in N.O. after first turning the storm so it only destoryed poor black people’s homes with there extream right wing ray gun. The only nut job who is really talking about ufo’s is Nation of Islam’s bowtie Louie who took a ride in one and the little green Mohammed guys told him George Bush is the anti-christ and that the only reason George went into Iraq was to steal the right wing ray gun that was on the ufo that crashed there thats why he had to invade the country and over throw Sodamm Insane the butcher of Bagdad.So you see that explains the WMD the left will never find and the reason cindy’s boy was murdered by the EVIL George Bush. This post has gut to be the best one I ever did read thank you and keep up the good work.

Posted by: happy white man at November 27, 2005 01:52 AM

Sanger,

Seriously if you could find a way to have Howard Dean, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy all arrested I might actually pay you.

Michael Moore seems to be a benchmark of Eric’s usual blogs, it somehow gets in these posts somewhere.

And as far as ‘manufactured outrage’ i think with this post atleast we are all being compared to a man in search of alien attacks in Canada. Which may unto itself be a very different form of leftist thought certainly. Pork-barrel of the third kind(Oh God that was bad).

But if it is a case of it being a one way street. I suppose there can be something said for it but that would also predicate that all right wing people think exactly alike which they do not. D.A.N. came on this thread and had opposing views to the usual right wing spin. Craig usually has a different right wing spin. I don’t say all republicans are identical. So with Eric, why is a man in search of alien attacks in Canada a cousin of the majority of the thought here. Like we should all answer for a man clearly losing his mind?

Maybe a fair question should be why when we are talking about Bush (And I’ll be the first to admit I don’t care for the name calling) do Conservatives get so defensive? With or without names involved like thief and such.

You’d probably say because he’s a great man and represents your values. Besides debate is actually quite defensive in nature anyway. I just dislike mindless namecalling. In this case I think we shunned the allegations that were being leveled at us and then there is backlash and debate. That might just be the nature of politics.

David Remer,

Bush is now possibly a terrorist did you hear about the British Memo? Plans to Bomb Al-Jazeera? Those lines about the chihuahua you might have to shelve in search of a new definition if this pans out. the memo is authentic apparently and Bush was not joking as the White House claimed which was the assertion of 10 Downing. Chihuahua nuthin’no barkin’ there, they were hit after April 16th (date of white house meeting).

AOL/CNN/MSNBC/FOX refuses to cover the story meaning this one is probably gonna’ be a doozie. there’s reason to say it will pan out. Why is no one even blogging on it here?

Posted by: Novenge at November 27, 2005 02:03 AM

Novenge, so far, there is no meat to the story. You have a classified document which the public has no access to, and a denial by the Whitehouse. So far, it is a classic he said, they said non-story. We have to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one, unless, and until, something concrete in the way of evidence comes forward.

We took Chalabi’s word, look where that got us. There are many players on the international stage with many different agendas. Pres. Bush is already dealing with legitimate questions regarding his deployment of intelligence leading up to Iraq. I find it hard to believe he would deny something like this if he knew concrete evidence of his denial’s deception could potentially come forward to public view. Though stupider things have been done by politicians, I am inclined to give the Pres. the benefit of the doubt on this one unless verifiable evidence to the contrary comes forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2005 03:29 AM

Hi David,

“We took Chalabi�€™s word, look where that got us.”

Bush took Chalabi’s word even though he had a known history of lying his ass off to the CIA. I could have told Bush that Chalabi is a crook.

Given that Bush was stupid enough to trust Chalabi I’m inclined to credit him with enough stupidity to advocate bombing Al Jazeera. In the absence of evidence I’m not going to assert that he did it though.

Going by Rumsfeld’s “logic” (“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”) it looks like Bush did it. Nobody should buy into Rumsfeld’s “logic” as the guy is a complete moron.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 27, 2005 03:09 PM

William Cohen,

And wrt the tin foil hat discussions above, of course we know that all universities are treasonous, evolution-loving, liberal institutions, but recent results from MIT show that tin foil hats may not protect you after all, and are probably another government plot.

That’s just the kind of thing they would say to get me to take mine off. No way, Jose.

Yourcrazy,

Is it wrong of me to think of Eric as a terrorist?

MMmmmm… Yes. Probably.

Posted by: esimonson at November 27, 2005 05:55 PM

novenge,

The point is not necessarily to say you believe in aliens. It’s that the left points to other liberals in other countries to say ‘see they don’t like Bush either.’ When in fact they share a commonality of liberalism.

Well, here’s a few Canadian politicians who have an irrational hatred of Bush. If they had limited it to the more mundane and earthly criticism of Bush as a dictator and warmonger no one on the left would be questioning their sanity. As it is, no one here seems all that concerned with questioning their sanity so much as expressing anger at me for pointing out that they believe Bush is evil AND in a galactic war about to break out.

It’s a perfect illustration of how absurd this whole Bush is evil tactic has progressed.

Posted by: esimonson at November 27, 2005 06:05 PM

DAVID REMER & LOUIS XIV

Why was section 5 of the british secrecy laws employed? If it was just heresay and it had no meat it would be released. During the lead-up to the war and all throughout, various documents having to do with transcripts and battleplans came out in British press. Never have they been met with a threat of British secrecy laws including White House conversations with Tony Blair.

THe White House denied the charges, yeah they don’t do that lightly? They do it on the most legitimate of claims including the dossier containing information of possible US attacks which resulted in 9/11 and hoardes of other things. David have you not been paying attention to this administration? They denied torture, NOW PROVEN.

If it was he said/she said section 5 of British secrecy laws would not have been employed. This is something different to say the least.

Benefit of the doubt is very diplomatic but these are charges of blowing up reporters in Doha Qatar and in a body of legitimate Downing Street documents and in those transcripts Tony Blair reportedly talked him out of it. After the meeting of April 16th 2004 the Al-Jazeera Iraq headquarters along the Tigress were bombed in a residential neighborhood by Americans. Coincidence or lesser target?

This isn’t something to be taken with a grain of salt. Any man that can approve torture in other countries as a legitimate course of US protocol can and usually is also the type to suggest such horrific acts as a possibility. We know he’s used White Phosphorous as a weapon various military publications before the allegations said in no uncertain terms that we were in fact using them as weapons in Iraq from the start and combining them with HE (high explosives). But CNN said they were flares who are you more likely to believe the soldiers themselves in the field who’ve seen it or a White House on a path of continuous lying?? Not to mention they have the US Cable Media consistantly covering their butts at the same time faking that they are muck rakers and not pro Bush.

Why no mentionon any of the press networks? They do stories on the most trite of topics all day long but this they won’t, hmm.

Posted by: Novenge at November 27, 2005 06:32 PM

Yes ERIC,

All liberals are exactly the same from country to country all under the context that they dislike Bush, sure (sarcasm). There is the villainization yes but there are different degrees of liberalism too. I’m more of the libertarian left and there are some of the more socialist left as you might here within the DNC/DLC and sites like democrats.com. My affliation of th eleft in there only because it bears by disgust of the corruption and lies of the right. If the right didn’t smell so bull-sh**ty all the time yes I might consider it as an alternative. But my Bush hatred is more in tune with economy than anything else and their rolling over for corporate lobbies on a dime.

So my angst of theis administration and the angst of my more social compatriates who want a greater quotient of social spending are two different things. The Bush bash happens to be united but the reasons for it divided in more technical aspects.

And so too of the Clinton bashing. There are all sorts of differing stripe within the right wing too and the bashing although dumb and populist clamored on.

I disliked Clinton/Reno and several others of that administration so to lump us all in the same boat I atleast find offensive. I thought Clinton was an auto-pilot unresponsive democrat and found great disfavor of many of the liberals that supported him in congress as he became more of a boon to the right than the left (if you look over his record). There were alot of things I loathed but the hummer that was extremely belowbelt as a banter to impeach and that was purported in our crappola-laissez faire conservative media moreso than the perjury and you heard just as much about the hummer as I did. And yes the hummer scarcely the legal issue.

Anyway all dems are not of the same stripe—not all conservatives either.

Posted by: Novenge at November 27, 2005 07:08 PM

Sorry about above typos, the Giants game was on.

Posted by: Novenge at November 27, 2005 07:45 PM

Hi Novenge,

“After the meeting of April 16th 2004 the Al-Jazeera Iraq headquarters along the Tigress were bombed in a residential neighborhood by Americans. Coincidence or lesser target?”

That is suspicious.

What a mess we’re in! Al-Jazeera is a really bad news organization. The propaganda they put out is very bad for our cause. Given that we’re trying to establish freedom and Democracy anything we do against Al-Jazeera makes us look like despots.

Al Sadr is a major force in the Iraqi government. He oversees Shiite death sqauds. He’s a murderous thug who has been held up by the US as a sign of hope for Iraqi democracy…….Even the good news in Iraq is really bad.

How did we get into this mess? A combination of dishonesty and extreme stupidity is what did it.

Going into Iraq will likely be the worst strategic mistake in the history of this country.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 27, 2005 08:14 PM

Not that you are advocating the bombing of Al-Jazeera by any measure but to bomb people only equiped with boom-mikes and cameras still would be a terrorist action regardless the side they are on politically in terms of the war.

Their news coverage appeals to most arabs and our American coverage appeals to us by a ratio of general concensus. Plus there is no doubt that what we get for news here is but half the picture. They see inside the hospitals and we get photos of troops getting shot at and roadside bombed. As far as civillian deaths they see it we don’t and aren’t showing that as it would be anti-propagandic to what we are spoon-fed and informationally rationed on a daily basis.

Any outside invader will be percieved as a villain that’s just how conducting this sort of business goes and held to scrutiny. WE bomb and kill civillians they want to know how many and where. So what if they are against our cause the cause is largely an American one not the whole world. they have no obligation to lockstep with us, absolutely none. Just as we don’t have the right to tell them to or insist they do it on our perceptions of freedom and liberty as they see civillians getting blown apart because of our invasion and occupation ideals. Ideals we told them was liberation.

It is an occupation and it was an invasion to them. Liberation is a matter of perception not an overall reallity. They see no food and no running water and no electricity and they ask what liberation? They see terrorism advancing and ask what liberation? No jobs, no livelihood, daily attacks and what liberation? Innocent bystanders blown to shreds, exactly and what liberation?

That in part is what journalists are supposed to do, question the system. I wish we could have a bit more of that here rather than have everything like pablem spoonfed to us through a pentagon strainer.

What is really happening there? Are we using high explosives with chemical agents in civillian areas? that I’d like to know. But instead we got this cock and bull that they used it only for flares when military journals say completely the opposite. And we are somnambulistic enough to buy it without question that that must be the truth because we all want so hard to believe we wouldn’t do “Shake and bakes” and instead fight fairly beating them by their own means.

We want idealism over facts and that is what we are presented. Even when we hear about torture in foreign countries we react with an heir of passivism. Why because that’s our country and surely we can never be the bad guys right? Hollywood tells us different right?

So if they ask “what liberation?” our stance should reallistically be well yes I see your point, not bomb ‘em cuz they aren’t in lockstep with what we America the great told them was liberation. Liberation is in the eye of the supposedly liberated to judge for themselves.

Such American hubris, we aren’t the world and they don’t see things the way we do so they are bad for it. How dare they not eat their freedom fries?

Posted by: Novenge at November 27, 2005 10:40 PM

Hi Novenge,

“to bomb people only equiped with boom-mikes and cameras still would be a terrorist action regardless the side they are on politically in terms of the war.”

That’s true. There is a reasonable chance that Bush has attempted to perpetrate terrorism in Iraq……Is irony strong enough a word here?

“Innocent bystanders blown to shreds”

It’s hard to imagine other Arab nations looking at Iraqi “democracy” (widespread killing and chaos) and saying “that’s what we want for our country”.

“How dare they not eat their freedom fries?”

Rush Limbaugh?? Is that you? I didn’t know you were in this group.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 27, 2005 10:52 PM

I really hope this document comes out in full, it would really prove interesting. Especially in terms of the hickish ideals that got us into this mess.

See I probably wouldn’t rail against it so hard if this was a president I trusted. I just don’t trust this man especially after five years of him giving the same speech at every press conference.

It involves the words ‘liberty’ thirty two times. “peace” twelve times. “freedom” one hundred and nineteen times and so on. His words are jibberish with no grasp of the issues, not a presidential address by any stretch. And to make things worse the mainstream press accepts it as NORMAL? Which really mystifies the sh%t outta’ me.

I just don’t trust these people, I think that’s it. they approve torture and god knows what else in our gallant effort. That’s the source of my Bush bashing I just don’t trust these laissez fairist no-bid capitalist authoritarian petty minded people in the wheelhouse to do anything. Especially with this president’s history of running companies directly into the ground.

Posted by: Novenge at November 27, 2005 11:18 PM

Hi Novenge,

I too would like to see the document come out.

Are you aware of the three parties running in the upcoming Iraq elections?

There is the Al Sadr party who is active in Iraqi terrorism. There is the Dawa party who are an anti-American terrorist group. There is the “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq” who are closely tied to Iranian terrorists.

Our troops are fighting and dying in order to permit the Iraqis to vote for terrorists. Is this “peace and freedom”?

Iraq is far more of a threat to us now than when we went in. On the face of it this fact clearly indicates that our occupation was and incredibly bad idea.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 07:51 AM

Eric,

“It seems that the real reason we invaded Iraq is because a UFO crashed there and Saddam was reverse engineering it to develop superWMD!!”

At least those who post for the red side are finally questioning why we’re there.
It’s a start.
We all know that Michael Moore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and their leader Hillary Clinton are aliens who have come to this planet to destroy our god-fearing, pro-NRA, pickup truck driving way of life.
It is brave souls like you Eric who are trying to protect us from their evil, sinister,alien plot to destroy us all.
I have my tin foil hat on.
I hope the rest of you liberal non-believers do too.
On a positive note, Jerry Falwell, as we speak, is training a resistance movement on a distant planet to save us all from the “Liberal” hordes.
God speed Jerry, god speed.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 28, 2005 03:35 PM

Andre,

“At least those who post for the red side are finally questioning why we�€™re there.
It�€™s a start.”
________________________________________

It’s a start of what? Losing in Iraq? Is that what you’re hoping???

Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 03:56 PM

Louis wrote:
Our troops are fighting and dying in order to permit the Iraqis to vote for terrorists. Is this “peace and freedom”? Iraq is far more of a threat to us now than when we went in. On the face of it this fact clearly indicates that our occupation was and incredibly bad idea.
________________________

First of all, how can we be an occupier when we are giving them democracy? Read your post again. You clearly have contradicted yourself in this comment, that’s for sure.

And, I thought there weren’t any terrorists in Iraq? How can they be voting for terrorists? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, we created the terrorists! We lied about Saddam and his weapons program! We wrongly took Saddam and his (Wonderfully) harmless sons out of power; we even killed his sons, too. Ooops!

Iraq is definitely better off now then when “The Butcher of Bagdad” was in charge, that’s for sure. Taking a Sunni leader out, which the Sunnis made up a small minority of the Iraq population, that oppressed, tortured and denied the right of basic freedoms to the majority of the population, is that what you call “better off”?

If you don’t believe me, then just ask our troops. See what the majority of them are saying. See if they think this was a mistake…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 04:13 PM

Hi rahdigly,

“First of all, how can we be an occupier”

We invaded Iraq and killed 10’s of thousands of Iraqis. A whole lot of Iraqis consider us to be an occupier.

When you’re occupying a country with massive military resources you’re what’s called an “occupier”.

“And, I thought there weren�€™t any terrorists in Iraq?”

I recomend that you get a grip.

“How can they be voting for terrorists?”

The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an anti-American terrorist organization.

Our troops are dying in order to support a member of an anti-American terrorist organization.

The reason you have no problem with that is because you’re too indoctrinated by right wing spin to admit to obvious facts?
You’re in favor of our troops fighting and dying to support terrorists?

“Iraq is definitely better off now then when �€œThe Butcher of Bagdad�€ was in charge, that�€™s for sure.”

OK Are we better off for occupying Iraq?

Are we better off having our military resources go to support Muslim Terrorists?

Are you able to address what I’ve posted or are you too indoctrinated by right wing spin to respond rationally?

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 04:24 PM

Hi rahdigly,

“How can they be voting for terrorists?”

You seem to think that having a terrorist friednly government in Iraq somehow vindicates our policy there. Clearly right wing spin warps your mind.

“We lied about Saddam and his weapons program!”

The Bush administration did lie about aluminum tubes, unmanned drones, and a few other odds and ends.

Right wing spin is clouding your brain rahdigly. Try for clear thought here instead of rabid spin.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 04:31 PM

Rhadigly,

“It�€™s a start of what? Losing in Iraq? Is that what you�€™re hoping???”

Get a grip man.

I wrote that it was about time the Red side were asking why we were in Iraq. Making a joke that Eric was actually questioning the downed UFO as to the reason we invaded.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 28, 2005 04:34 PM

Louis wrote:

We invaded Iraq and killed 10�€™s of thousands of Iraqis. A whole lot of Iraqis consider us to be an occupier.
_________________________________

How many Iraqi’s did Saddam kill? Also, what percentage of the Iraqis that we killed were terrorists? And, could you at least back up your comment with a fact; not this “A whole lot of Iraqis” stuff? Thank you.

As for this comment “Are we better off for occupying Iraq? Are we better off having our military resources go to support Muslim Terrorists?”

To be completely frank with you, I say Yes to your question. Actually, I answered it in the previous post; however, it looks as though you were not able to “address” what I said. I did notice that you didn’t respond to my “ask the majority of troops” comment. What’s a matter, can’t find any info on that one?

And, try to answer without the “right-wing spin” replies. Actually, ask me later b/c our Prez is speaking right now. You know, the one that was reelected last year, despite all of the liberals that spread lies and resentment about the Prez. See ya, libbies!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 04:43 PM

I would’ve posted on this before, but every time I’ve read it I ended up laughing so hard that I just couldn’t find anything to say.

Let’s talk about Eric’s irrational hatred for everything to the left of Attila the Hun, shall we? He takes a statement by some Canadian loonie (and I mean “loonie” in the American “lunatic” sense as opposed to the Canadian coin), and makes the following leaps of “logic”:

A Canadian said this. True enough.

All Canadians are liberals. BZZZZT. Wrong. Thanks for playing, Eric, here are some lovely parting gifts. All Canadians are NOT liberals. JayJay was correct when he pointed out that your Canadian “liberal” was in fact a CONSERVATIVE. Your ignorance of Canadian politics is akin to the German fellow that Sanger referred to.

Therefore all liberals believe stuff like this. Well, since a conservative said it, if your logic is correct, it must really prove that all conservatives believe this crap.

Therefore all liberals are crazy.Again, since a conservative person said it, it must prove that all conservatives believe it, and that in turn must prove that all conservatives are in fact, crazy.

So, Eric, thanks for using such infallible logic to prove to us all that all conservatives are crazy.

And thanks for such a good laugh.

Posted by: ElliotBay at November 28, 2005 04:50 PM

Wow! You created a great work of fiction. It’s too bad that was not your intention. In your attempt to expose the insanity of the left, you have exposed your own ignorance. Well done!

Posted by: terry at November 28, 2005 04:54 PM

Hi rahdigly,

“How many Iraqi�€™s did Saddam kill?”

About 300,00.

You’re not going to address the facts I raised are you rahdigly? You’re going to spin instead aren’t you?

“my �€œask the majority of troops�€ comment.”

If you have any evdience that a majority of troops think that supporting a terrorist government in Iraq is a good idea I’d love to see it. I’ve not heard any troops come out in favor of that.

“could you at least back up your comment with a fact”

My comment is a fact. A whole lot of Iraqis consider us to be occupiers….it’s been extremely well documented in the media.

“And, try to answer without the �€œright-wing spin�€ replies.”

Try to use reason instead of spin.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 05:32 PM

Louis,

So, you admit that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis and the American soldiers killed 10’s of thousands of Iraqis; to which most of them were terrorists or terrorists in civilian clothing. And yet, you still think it’s worse. Well, that’s your problem then, I certainly don’t think that way at all! I believe the troops don’t feel that way either. They know what’s going on; you think you do, yet you don’t bother to ask them or find out from military sources? That’s what I meant by “find out how the majority of troops feel about if it’s worth it or not”. Yet you didn’t, instead you dodged the question and turned it around.

Now, I want to challenge you on your quote:

“OK Are we better off for occupying Iraq? Are we better off having our military resources go to support Muslim Terrorists? Are you able to address what I�€™ve posted or are you too indoctrinated by right wing spin to respond rationally?

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 04:24 PM
_______________________________

Here’s my statement that preceded your comment:

Iraq is definitely better off now then when “The Butcher of Bagdad” was in charge, that’s for sure. Taking a Sunni leader out, which the Sunnis made up a small minority of the Iraq population, that oppressed, tortured and denied the right of basic freedoms to the majority of the population, is that what you call “better off”?

If you don�€™t believe me, then just ask our troops. See what the majority of them are saying. See if they think this was a mistake�€�

Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 04:13 PM
______________________________

As you can see, I clearly answered your question and didn’t take it out of context. In fact, I answered this question last week on a different subject; you can look it up if you want to, I just remember your “Iranian connection” comment.

So, my answers aren’t right-wing spin at all; I volunteered and served in our military and I follow what’s going on there from military websites, so if you want to sling “labels” and dodge questions that’s on you, buddy.

You’re still going to have to back up your “fact” with something other than “a lot of Iraqis” stuff. Pay attention!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 09:38 PM

Hi rahdigly,

“So, you admit that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis and the American soldiers killed 10�€™s of thousands of Iraqis”

I admitted nothing. Those are facts that I’ve stated not admissions. You’re spinning as usual.

“And yet, you still think it�€™s worse.”

I said I don’t like the idea of our troops fighting and dying to support terrorists. You’re spinning out of control here. Why not address what I’ve said instead of making up what I said?

“So, my answers aren�€™t right-wing spin at all”

You post a whole lot of right wing spin. I just quoted some of your spin.

I notice you haven’t provided any examples of troops who think fighting and dying to support al Sadr is a good idea.

I realize that you think it’s good that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists. Do I need to explain why I disagree? You do realize that we’re supposed to be fighting terrorists rather than supporting them…..according to Bush we’re not supposed to be supporting them.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 10:14 PM

Louis,
“OK Are we better off for occupying Iraq? Are we better off having our military resources go to support Muslim Terrorists? Are you able to address what I�€™ve posted or are you too indoctrinated by right wing spin to respond rationally?”

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 04:24 PM
_________________________________________

My response was:
“To be completely frank with you, I say Yes to your question. Actually, I answered it in the previous post; however, it looks as though you were not able to “address” what I said.” rahdigly at November 28, 2005 04:43 PM

And, to make it perfectly clear, I don’t care that the Iraqi Prime minister has ties to the Iraian terrorist. Our soldiers are fighting (and winning) in Iraq, we removed Saddam and it’s the Iraqis’ choice (not ours) to elect someone with terrorists ties. So, I believe that invading Iraq was definitely worth it and that allowing the Iraqis the chance to have freedom now is the right thing to do (long-term wise).

Check out this op-ed piece, I definitely agree with it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007603

“According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.”

“Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.”

“Our success is not confined to Iraq. Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons. Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. Afghanistan has produced a democratic government and economic progress for its people. Egypt has had the beginnings of a democratic vote. In an area once dominated by dictatorships, the few remaining ones are either changing or worrying deeply about those that have changed.”

Louis, try agruing with that piece. And, I’m not as “right-wing” as you would like me to be, probably so you can keep up with your ad homenien attacks. I’m ex-military and definitely pro-military, so I’m looking at the big picture without trying to play politics on this war issue.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 10:36 PM

Rahdigly,

One thing about your link that I find strange is the term that is slung around “Insurgeants”. The majority of which, being in excess of 90%, are indigenous Iraqi citizens. Granted I’m not going to get into the debate over Al-Sadr as I would say yes that is democracy too. But the term “insurgeant” albeit has an air of erroneousness if not a quite misleading context.

Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 10:57 PM

Hi rahdigly,

“don�€™t care that the Iraqi Prime minister has ties to the Iraian terrorist.”

Terrorists are bad. We’re supposed to be fighting them instead of supporting them. You have no sense of strategic priorities.

“Our soldiers are fighting (and winning) in Iraq”

We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and we’re not winning. That’s an incredible waste of important military resources.

“allowing the Iraqis the chance to have freedom now is the right thing to do (long-term wise).”

They don’t have freedom. Barbars in Baghdad have to put up signs saying they don’t trim beards because so many barbers have been murdered for trimming beards.

There are Shiite and Kurd militias that are almost as repressive as Saddam was and some of them are in the Iraqi security forces.

“Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons.”

That wasn’t becuase of our efforts in Iraq.

“Syria has pulled out of Lebanon.”

Much of Lebanon voted for the Hezbollah party in their last election.

“Afghanistan has produced a democratic government and economic progress for its people.”

You can be tried and convicted of blashpemy in Afghanistan. Most of their GNP is from opium cultivation. Opium cultivation has increased 20 fold since we took over.

“And, I�€™m not as �€œright-wing�€ as you would like me to be”

I don’t want you to be right wing. You’ve chosen to engage in right wing spin.

“I�€™m looking at the big picture”

You’re missing the big picture. You say that supporting terrorists is OK.

“without trying to play politics on this war issue.”

You’re trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster……Having massive military resources tied up supporting terrorists is a strategic disaster.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 11:10 PM

Hi Rahdigly,

That article that you referenced is an incredible piece of spin.

“Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost.”

By Arab standards Zarqawi is doing incredibly well. He’s fighting the most powerful nation on the planet with a handful of terrorists and he’s not losing.

In a guerilla war against a far more powerful force not losing means you’re winning.

“We have brought not only freedom to Iraq, but progress to most of the Middle East.”

We’ve brought chaos and terrorism (according to Bush we want terrorism in Iraq). We haven’t brought progress to most of the Middle East through our occupation of Iraq.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 11:23 PM

LouisXIV,

Just becaue a people do not vote for the type of government you want then to have does not mean their views are not represented, they are not a true democracy or do not have freedom of religion.

Or are you suggesting that Denmark and Germany are repressive undemocratic nations? Iraq, Lebanon SYria and every other country is free to govern themselves as THEY choose. NOT as we would choose.

Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 12:12 AM

Louis,

You’re way off in your last two posts. You keep trying to label me, instead of debating the issues, “right-wing spin” when it’s (indeed) you that is drinking the “liberal Kool-aid”. You should read your post again; you sound just like the liberals, every bit of progress you construe as negative and the negatives are bigger than they really are.

My post: “Our soldiers are fighting (and winning) in Iraq”

Your response: “We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and we’re not winning. That’s an incredible waste of important military resources.”

We are winning! Whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice; the Generals and definitely the troops believe we are winning, that’s for sure. I’d rather know from them, you know the ones that are actually fighting there, to let me know rather than you. If we were to pullout for any other reason other then we won, then that would be devastating to our troops and our country. “Cowards run, Marines never do”. Our troops aren’t fighting and dying for nothing, you better believe that. And, did you look up the info on the troops yet? Here’s a website you should try: http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

Your reply: “We�€™ve brought chaos and terrorism (according to Bush we want terrorism in Iraq). We haven�€™t brought progress to most of the Middle East through our occupation of Iraq.”

We never (ever!) brought terrorism to the middle east; it was already there for thousands of years before the US was an Evil, Nasty Empirialistic Empire (Ha!). You might want to check up on your history. And, we’ve certainly started a wave of democracy throughout that region; it’s still in the early phases though. However, it’s a heck of a lot better than it was a decade ago.

My post: “Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons.”
Your response: “That wasn�€™t becuase of our efforts in Iraq.”

It was b/c this President went on the offensive and pressured Libya to comply. If Kadafi didn’t he would have suffered the same fate as (your boy) Saddam. And that’s going to go the same for North Korea, Syria and (especially) Iran. Let em just try it, they don’t have the US Presidents that they’ve had in the past that were soft on terrorism anymore, that’s for damn sure!

My post: “don’t care that the Iraqi Prime minister has ties to the Iranian terrorist.”

Your response: “Terrorists are bad. We�€™re supposed to be fighting them instead of supporting them. You have no sense of strategic priorities.”

Are these the same terrorists that we created?!- Just kidding. We are fighting terrorism!!! We’ve been doing it since 9/11 and we’re not going to let up. Put the “Kool-aid” down for a few seconds and grasp this reality. We are fighting and winning the War on Terrorism. Read that again! The War on Terrorism will go on for a long time; however the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been and will be won within the next couple of years (despite what Rumsfeld “suggested”). Though I doubt you’ll ever give the US credit; you’ll probably be too busy pointing out the negatives and overlooking the positives as you’ve been doing.

Remeber Louis, we will win this war with you, without you or inspite of you. It’s your choice. We will win!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 07:07 AM

Right ; Rah! Rah! Rah! Yeah us!
That ought to do it, We’ll definately win now.

Posted by: Dave at November 29, 2005 10:37 AM

And if the US army was losing they woud tell you right??? more like yeah right.
I could just see it now, breaking news CNN,
“the US army is now officially losing the war”, and at what point did the US state they were losing the vietnam war??? some still wont admit it…

Posted by: Paul at November 29, 2005 11:38 AM

Paul,
“And if the US army was losing they woud tell you right??? more like yeah right.
I could just see it now, breaking news CNN,
�€œthe US army is now officially losing the war�€, and at what point did the US state they were losing the vietnam war??? some still wont admit it�€�”
______________________________________

Yes, you would clearly see generals out and other top tier officials speaking out and/or resigning. Also, we have a very high reenlistment rate among our troops b/c they believe in this war and they believe they are winning. We don’t have a draft anymore; why would they reenlist if they thought they were losing? Now, who are you going to believe, the troops or the politicians? Remember, it was the politicians and the will of the American people that lost Vietnam.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 12:06 PM

Soldiers do what their told, as if they’re going to speak out against their leaders, and they relist probably casue they dont want their fellow soldiers gettin’ killed, they are doing it for their fellow soldiers that they dont want to abandon. As for whether U.S forces are winning, soldiers and politicians dont tell the facts, all you have to do is read the news or watch tv and see the casualities for yourself. I dont judge progress by what i politican tells me, i make my own decisions, maybe im wrong, time will tell.

Posted by: Paul at November 29, 2005 01:12 PM

Paul,
“Soldiers do what their told, as if they’re going to speak out against their leaders, and they relist probably casue they dont want their fellow soldiers gettin’ killed, they are doing it for their fellow soldiers that they dont want to abandon. As for whether U.S forces are winning, soldiers and politicians dont tell the facts, all you have to do is read the news or watch tv and see the casualities for yourself. I dont judge progress by what i politican tells me, i make my own decisions, maybe im wrong, time will tell.”
__________________________________________

How do you know why they reenlist? The fact is you don’t. If it was going bad over there, they’re not going to go back in. Come on, you’re so full of negativity and “doom and gloom” to admit that they believe in their cause and they believe they can and are winning; even though you and other libs don’t.

And, are you saying the troops are liars?! You equate the troops w/ politicians? Really? Not only that, but you think that you’re going to get the truth from the mainstream media???!? What!!!!!!!!

You need help here buddy and I’m just the guy to give it to you. Here’s a website from neither the troops nor politicians nor pundits:

http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 01:31 PM

i know a sgt that specifically re-enlisted so as not to abandon his men.

Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 01:38 PM

Jo,
“i know a sgt that specifically re-enlisted so as not to abandon his men.”
_______________________________

Did you ask the sgt if he believed they were winning or could win?

I’ve been training an ex-Marine (E-5), who served 8 months in Iraq, and is going to reenlist b/c he said the job isn’t finished and they certainly will win.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 01:44 PM

No, i did not ask. Being a mixed group with Republicans and Democrats et al, we learned long ago war is not the time to talk politics with the active soldiers. (chat group for WWII vets family and friends of an old tank destroyer battalion) We focused on how he and his family were dealing with his combat would recovery and altered retirement plans.

Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 02:18 PM

How do you know why they reenlist? The fact is you don’t. If it was going bad over there, they’re not going to go back in. Come on, you’re so full of negativity and “doom and gloom” to admit that they believe in their cause and they believe they can and are winning; even though you and other libs don’t.

I don’t know why they re enlist, i never said i did, i said probably, leaving some room for doubt as in MY OPNION. It is possible that many people re-enlist for different reasons. You however seem to thing you do know why they re-enlist, probably because you’re training one, hence you know what they are all thinking.

As for the help, i need help with what exactly? I need help because i dont agree with you?
Hell of a criteria for requiring help. and of course im a liberal because i dont agree with you. all non-bush lovers who dont love this war are liberals. brilliant logic.

Posted by: Paul at November 29, 2005 02:42 PM

Oh yeah, Good news iraq, here’s what it said in the reason why the site exists.

These days the world hears only the news stories from Iraq regarding citizens and servicemen of the U.S. and our Allies being attacked, of assassinations, and of insurgents attempting to destroy oil pipelines. Many news organizations have said that they would like to get the good news from Iraq out to the public but that the stories of explosions, deaths and the current problems get in the way of telling the stories about the good that is happening.

thats hilarious, darn all those explosions and deaths and current problems getting in the way of a good positive story

Posted by: Paul at November 29, 2005 02:48 PM

rahdigly,

You need help here buddy and I�€™m just the guy to give it to you. Here�€™s a website from neither the troops nor politicians nor pundits:

That’s the best you can do? Thanks for wasting my time. That website has no popularity (I found about four Google references to it, posted by individuals on blogs, half of which are by you or ericsimonson here on Watchblog), is horribly designed, is filled with broken links, and has very little actual content. Most of the guestbook signatures are complaints about the site design or spam. Is this your own personal website? Why exactly am I supposed to be impressed by it? Wait, here’s a website I found with a quick search:
www.bringthemhomenow.org
There! That cancels out your website! Bam!

Crackerbox websites that support anything under the sun are a dime a trillion. If you can find one that actually has some inbound links and has gained some recognition I may have to listen…

Until then, I hope you’re still comfortable in that armchair…

Posted by: Charles Wager at November 29, 2005 02:59 PM

Paul wrote:
“Oh yeah, Good news iraq, here�€™s what it said in the reason why the site exists…

These days the world hears only the news stories from Iraq regarding citizens and servicemen of the U.S. and our Allies being attacked, of assassinations, and of insurgents attempting to destroy oil pipelines. Many news organizations have said that they would like to get the good news from Iraq out to the public but that the stories of explosions, deaths and the current problems get in the way of telling the stories about the good that is happening…

thats hilarious, darn all those explosions and deaths and current problems getting in the way of a good positive story”
_____________________________

Dude, you are so myopic. You’re actually defending the bias media we have here in the US, that prints the negative crap, with the military media (OVER IN IRAQ) that prints the positive stuff. I’m sorry there’s actual progress in Iraq and that the military is taking part in it and (actually) reporting it. Darn those US troops for carrying out their duty and accomplishing their mission. DAMN THEM!!

The point of the “free press” should be to provide both positive and negative stories that’s going on; as long as they are facts. And, right now in the media, it’s mostly bad with no good; however, there actually is good happening and this site is reporting it (FINALLY!).

I can’t believe the liberal reaction to this; you people have seriously lost it. Some are actually boasting that it’s not a popular site, so why bother looking at it. THAT’S EXACTLY THE POINT WITH THIS MEDIA BIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The libs are so bent out of shape and skeptical of a website that has good news from our troops in Iraq that they can’t believe it nor can they even give it a shot. What’s the matter, you afraid that we’ll actually win in Iraq?! Do you libs have so much hate for Bush that you want our troops to lose just so he doesn’t succeed? Well, you don’t have to answer that, b/c your comments thus far, to this website, have said it all. My Goodness!!!!!

By the way, most of our troops, their families, friends and ex-military personnel (to which I’m one of) feel good to hear good news for a change.

Oh yeah, Paul, here’s more of the mission statement that you so bravely made fun of:

Mission Statement

‘It is the goal of GoodNewsIraq.com to provide a venue for the Good News Stories that are coming out of Iraq since Coalition forces removed Saddam Hussein from power. To remind everyone that the United States is not the only country involved in Iraq�€™s journey towards democracy. We also want to let people know that most Iraqi�€™s are working to rebuild their country and are not involved in the ongoing fighting…We want to provide a venue for the stories about the good that is happening in Iraq. We are not trying to sugar coat what is happening or even hide the fact that there are still problems in Iraq. We feel that there are already plenty of options open to people in regards to getting the stories of the problems in Iraq. That the United States and the World could use a site that tells the good news of what the U.S. and our Allies are doing in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. A site that reminds people that most Iraqis are not fighting us; that most Iraqis are working to rebuild their country and to make it a better place.

Our website is interested in showing the good being done in Iraq because of the sacrifice of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the U.S. and our Allies. The sacrifice that is giving the Iraqi people the chance to live in a country that is freer than anything they ever dreamed possible; a freedom that many of the young people who grew up under Saddam Hussein�€™s dictatorship have never known.’

Maybe only the troops and their families can truly appreciate it. Nice job