Too bad this site has already made it clear that Kuo is a lying fake-Christian commie. Or will he be "rehabilitated" from here on out?

I watched Kuo on 60 Minutes. Kuo's opinion about evangelicals, "having a fast from politics," was the last thing they had him say, and I thought it rather interesting that they would edit it that way....making that the last impression. Taking Olbermann's analysis in that light, it is striking how the manipulative nature come out even more. It is also ironic that it is the alleged manipulation of evangelicals by the republicans that Kuo and the beneficent democrats find problematic.

Being an evangelical, doesn't make me, "a babe in the woods." I am not naive regarding the cynical ploys of people in politics to use demagoguery and wedge issues to get me motivated. However, both sides of all of these debates use manipulative tools, so I see it as a draw.

My evangelical, bible believing church does more to help the poor in my community than anything else we are involved in. Yes, we pursue anti-abortion goals, including support of crisis pregnancy centers and financial support for abandoned unwed mothers. Yes, we oppose gay marriage because it is not biblical, but our doors are open to anyone who wants to pursue a realtionship with Christ without regard to any superficial attribute man can ascribe. These two issues, gay marriage and abortion, were discussed by Kuo and implied these two issues is all evangelicals care about. It is factually wrong and anyone who would like to see proof can attend my church's service this Sunday.

The democrats that run in my state of New Jersey are as liberal as the party puts out....so there is no way I could, "sit home" and not try to keep them from gaining even more power then they already have. The republicans that run here are also slightly liberal, mostly RHINOS, but my representative, is not. So, I am fortunate to be able to support a republican that actually holds many of the same values I hold. "Fasting," from participating in democracy is not even an option for me.

So, my reaction to Kuo's new statement is confusion, only to the extent that he seems to not really come to a firm conclusion regarding values influencing politics. Perhaps I will have to read his book to get the true tenor of his point of view. However, it does not surprise me that there is yet another example of Olbermann manipulating someone else's work has been exposed.

I just saw this from a strand a couple of days ago, and I thought I could share it on a strand dedicated to dicussing the moral base of the right wing:.

"Just a thought. Lets let Sir Rotten Loin of Beef talk to himself and ignore him. If no one will play his little game he might confine himself to porn sites where he can rhapodise (sic) to his heart's content about body cavities, his mother and/or father, animals, toddlers, young boys, nubile girls, corpses and whatever else he is obsessed with.

I think Winston Churchill said if you let your opponent change the topic of the debate you've already lost. And for myself, I don't like the topic being constantly changed by his obviously sick mind.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie"

Rich with irony, eh? "Change the topic"? It wasn't ME that started talking about body cavities, inscest, beastiality. necrophilia, etc, you sick, feisty bitch.

Wanna get together?

SLB, I think you just succeeded in doing what you accused the other poster of doing.

But back to the topic. I agree very much with "cee"'s post, above. And guess what - the Bush admimistration is actually to the left of many of the things we evangelicals believe. But the Republicans in the majority of cases are more closely aligned with our ideals than are the dems, so we'll vote for them anyway, whether they mock us or not. It just doesn't matter.

Missy, My only accusation was that Grammie is a sick bitch. Very relevant, I think, on a post regarding the right-wing's balancing act regarding the public preception of individual morality/righteousness of its high-profile loose cannons.

Sir Lion,

Talk about changing the subject! Also, you have no grounds to criticize Grammie or anyone else who falls into personal attacks that end up, "changing the topic." You did that same thing to me about 10 times yesterday...I have done it too....It is very easy, especially in this media type. Posting typed comments are time sensitive and the back and forth can easily go off on tangents. You can only be held responsible for your own posts in the end.

Contrast 60 Minutes closing their piece on Kuo with his appeal to Christian Conservatives to opt out "fast" from voting this year, with the recent Paul Krugman editorial essentially pleading with moderates and liberals to vote for anyone with (D) after their name, no matter how much they've cooperated with the Bush Administration in the past.

His argument is that it's important that the Dems take the House and Senate.

It's a good argument, but imagine how much airtime Kuo would receive if he appealed to the Religious Right to get out and vote for Republicans despite any failings of the Bushies.

"My only accusation was that Grammie is a sick bitch."

Grammie, if your grandkids read this they'd be giving you high-fives. A "sick bitch" means you're a fine looking chick in current slang.

Right on Cecelia....the last three weeks seems like a great coincidence regarding point after point, after point, after point that would seemingly "suppress" the evangelical turnout. Is there a vast left wing conspiracy going on here?.....(One raised eybrow by your's truly)....I don't normally believe in vast conspiracies....but the left is sure making it difficult not to fall into their paranoid world!

"Missy sez; "But the Republicans in the majority of cases are more closely aligned with our ideals than are the dems, so we'll vote for them anyway, whether they mock us or not. It just doesn't matter."

Ok, Ok, so you've got a thick skin - that's very admirable. Did you miss the part in the book where money promised money was withheld? Where traditional sources of existing, base-line funding for faith-based programs were blithely reclassified by Bush himself as "eight billion in new money"? I don't see Kuo in the Wolffe article (haven't I seen Wolffe repudiated here as a "pencil neck Limey" minion of Olnbermann?)repudiating this allegation.

So high-ticket shell-games regarding people's core beliefs are alright with you, along with condescension and ridicule of your intellect/sanity. Your last statement also indicates that your "ideals" condone selling influence to lobbyists, covering for pedophile predation, single-party totalitarianism, and using a sub-caste of conflicted, closeted homosexuals as a cryptic clerical network reminiscent of the Byzantine eunuchs.

As an outside observer, it seems to me that if this is what your party is selling, the message is not really reflected in its rhetoric.

You people are amazing. You're in the process of shifting gears on the staus of Kuo's patriotism and piety because of one ameliorative statement of his that whines about the storm of attention surrounding the only interesting content of his book; you don't care that your callow warrior-god and his angels laugh cynically about your congenital credulity ...

...and now you defend some old perverted bat in your midst from my reaction to her tarring me with the smelly brush of her own sick fantasies.

Poor Grammie! How could mean old Sir Loin of Beef say that Grammie is a "sick bitch", after she hurled gratuitous accusations of pedophilia, incest, beasitality, necrophilia at him for his holding opposing political views!

This is very similar to your blaming the Democrats for Denny Hastert and John Boehner covery up the child-predation of Mark Foley.

So high-ticket shell-games regarding people's core beliefs are alright with you, along with condescension and ridicule of your intellect/sanity. Your last statement also indicates that your "ideals" condone selling influence to lobbyists, covering for pedophile predation, single-party totalitarianism, and using a sub-caste of conflicted, closeted homosexuals as a cryptic clerical network reminiscent of the Byzantine eunuchs.

As an outside observer, it seems to me that if this is what your party is selling, the message is not really reflected in its rhetoric.>>>

Well, imagine THAT sort of characterization NOT being reflected in Republican rhetoric....

To get an idea of the sort bizarro-world hyperbolic hysteria that Sir Loin's sort of thinking encapsulates, turn it around on him.

To vote for a Democrat means to vote for a party that voices platitudes about eqaulity for gays while fronting a national presidential candidate who morphed into Jerry Falwell at the completion of the Dem primary... To be a Democrat means to wait with bated breath of the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who, like Kerry, can't find it in herself to support gay marriage either and who recently managed to be for torturing some detainees before she was against it....To vote for Democrats is to be the sort of feminist who tolerated the political mutilation of Bill Clinton's female accusors and in the belief that his god-like status made such things unavoidable, like sending virgins into a volcano...

Let's leave NDD (nuance deficit disorder) to these folks...

cee actually said: "Right on Cecelia....the last three weeks seems like a great coincidence regarding point after point, after point, after point that would seemingly "suppress" the evangelical turnout. Is there a vast left wing conspiracy going on here?.....(One raised eybrow by your's truly)....I don't normally believe in vast conspiracies....but the left is sure making it difficult not to fall into their paranoid world!"

No there is no conspiracy, Spock. There are, however, quite a few office pools speculating on what indignities you people will swallow for your leader/fetish, and then try to blame on the sane people in America.

"To vote for Democrats is to be the sort of feminist who tolerated the political mutilation of Bill Clinton's female accusors and in the belief that his god-like status made such things unavoidable, like sending virgins into a volcano..."

Clinton, virgins, volcano....stop it! You're making Grammie hot.

Here's a great quote for the Washington Post:

"Perkins of the Family Research Council said he would not be surprised if derisive comments were made behind Christian leaders' backs.

'"I have no misconceptions about how people in the Republican Party and the establishment view social conservatives. They are dismissive. I see how they prefer to work with fiscal conservatives," he said. "Having said that, I see it really as a marriage of convenience. We are not without significant gains by working with this administration."'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301583_2.html

But Mr. Perkins, the people who are so suddenly concerned that you are being made fun of... would insist that all religious people should be naive little lambs when it comes to worldly political matters.

(Pay no attention to their big teeth and long claws sticking out from their sheep-skin jackets...)

"Clinton, virgins, volcano....stop it! You're making Grammie hot."

Damn right. And when we think about the man who is the true embodiment of liberal principle and idealism-- Ralph Nader being pushed into Mt. St. DNC, after being threatened with stoning by his own party, we get positively orgasmic!

By the way, i'm not advocating your votin for Democrats - I really don't want irrational monsters like you in the party I typically support ( and agitate from the left).

I just think its pathetic that you continue to support the Republicans, who give you nothing but ridicule. Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, and now the White House itself have been shown to hold you with the contempt of the charlatan, but are all too happy to take your political franchise and run with it.

What we need is more polital factionalization -two parties combined with free-market politics makes it far too easy for a powerful third entity (the corporate media, in our case) to exercise a dangerous amount of influence. Multiple parties - including little enclaves of white suopremacists, Christian dominionists, or animist cannibals - will neccessitate cooperation and shifing alliances that break the dichotomous gridlock and animosity.

Nominate and vote for whatever little bloodthirsty racist demagogue you wish - it will have little effect on the big national picture, but you may actually receive some of the representation you've been conned out of.

Cecelia,

I have to agree with you about Nader (if I understand your posts correctly) If he runs again I'll support him in a second - whatever party. The only honest presidential candidate in years.

Kuo is just too funny. Transparent, but funny.

"What we need is more polital factionalization -two parties combined with free-market politics makes it far too easy for a powerful third entity (the corporate media, in our case) to exercise a dangerous amount of influence."

Well, you had that possibility as I have mentioned, my clique spouting friend. The third party choice says he was plagued with death threats from the milk of your party the two times he opted to out to be a third party candidate.

"I have to agree with you about Nader (if I understand your posts correctly) If he runs again I'll support him in a second - whatever party. The only honest presidential candidate in years."

When we see you using the same rhetoric on Clinton or Kerry for '08, that you've used today on Christian Conservatives, that little speech might mean something.

Oh Sir Loin, where do I start....

1. My conspiracy idea was tongue in cheek.....note the parenthesis....It is difficult to convey my skepticism about vast 'fill in the blank' wing consiracies but it is true that, of late, the left has had their fill (oil prices coming down, Plamegate, etc.)

2. Your crocodile tears for the welfare of my dignity is sooooooo cynical.....I don't know enough adjectives to describe my reaction. You have expressed enough distaste about my religious views that I am convinced you would rather me relagated to a commune in Utah than allow my participation in the political life of this country.

3. Cecelia is "right on" with the characterization of the democrats who "cut the baby in half" when it comes to "value" issues like

gay marriage
abortion
school choice
embryonic stem cell research

to name a few that I am sure you, Sir Loin, would like to see a different, more "radical" policy on then the "mainstream" of your party is advocating.

I responded to you for your post on the 16th. thanks for setting me straight.

God bless David Kuo for having the courage to speak the truth about the liars, warmongers, and pedophiles infesting the Whitehouse since 2000.

He is an angel sent by the Lord.

"If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14)

God bless David Kuo for having the courage to speak the truth about the liars, warmongers, and pedophiles infesting the Whitehouse since 2000.

He is an angel sent by the Lord.

"If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14)

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16)

"to name a few that I am sure you, Sir Loin, would like to see a different, more "radical" policy on then the "mainstream" of your party is advocating."

Oh hell yeah! In fact, I've already written a Dem congressman who's running for a prominent Repub. Senate seat in my state telling him I have ceased my volunteer activities for his campaign and will not vote for him because of his cowardly vote for the Republican Detainee Bill, which Bush signs today, furthering his bid for "Tyrant". That kind of equivocation from a "Progressive"-billed candidate is unforgivable.

But I have never seen my perspective labled as "Nuts" or "goofy" by the people I vote for and defend.

>>But I have never seen my perspective labled as "Nuts" or "goofy" by the people I vote for and defend.

Well, unlike the Olbermann Watchers here, THEY wait till you're out of the room...

duh...

I will also not vote for the "No-Daylight" Democrats H. Clinton, Schumer, or Biden should they run for Pres. in 2008. They are part of the unitary "Money Party" (RNC/DLC) that keeps us separated and predictable. Real Democrats or third-party/indi radicals are the only ones I will support.

Sir Loin, good for you, I think that is brave of you...and I am being totally sincere, honestly.

I wish I could have a party represent me with all of the candor and respect I think I deserve. But, in reality, I know that will never occur.

That sad reality of the world recognized, I also must say that President Bush, individually, has my respect due to difficult positions he has personally taken that I felt were in the minority but morally right. Embryonic stem cell research is just one example, but even there he compromised by allowing old lines to be continued to be used. But he went against Nancy Reagan and Senator Hatch and has been villified for stopping cures for diseases. So, I think on the whole, individually, President Bush is sincere in his beliefs. If he has disparaged people behind their back, he will be held to account. I do not feel duped.

...but back to your self-deluding credulity:

You've already stated that you don't care about the ridicule; witholding of promised funds; or the fact that the gay/lesbian issues you adore are cynical tools used by the self-hating Gay Republicans, but how about fiscal responsibility? That's your party's battle cry, right?

-Three trillion budget deficit;

-More foreign debt incurred by Bush than all previous presidents combined;

-cost of Iraq war promised by administration to not exceded a total of two billion dollars - We've been spending that much EACH WEEK! (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/)

- credible allegations of and proven cases of fraud by military contractors (KBR, Custer Battles. ...) Have gone un addressessed by this "grown-up" administration.

You're being ridiculed, lied to, AND stolen from and you love it!

From SLB: "I just think its pathetic that you continue to support the Republicans, who give you nothing but ridicule."

They also gave us Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If nothing else, having a Republican administration in charge is worthwhile just to have those two men on the Supreme Court.

- Stem cells?!

If there was ever a "Horton Hears a Who" issue, this is it.

And you've called yourself a "physician" before?; and wrung your hands over the impending death of an "80-year-old cancer patient" in order to develop your humanitarian credentrials on this forum?

You'd deny other patients of far less milage potential cures for horrible maladies; all because your auditory receptors percieve a tiny "wop" issuing from a mucusy blob of a couple-hundred cells that would be discarded by the free-market baby-fatories anyway.

"They also gave us Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If nothing else, having a Republican administration in charge is worthwhile just to have those two men on the Supreme Court."

Where they can play tiddly-winks and watch re-runs of "Dr. Phil". The right has been savage in its assault on the courts and the concept of judicial review. Judges who do their constitutional job are labled "activist" and "radical" and are accused of "legislating from the bench". Judges who let the executive and single-party legislature do what they want are presented as saviors of the republic.

So the only silver lining you can come up with is that the Republicans nominate good fifth-wheels?

Oh Sir Loin.......what a pathetic, bellow-the- belt post at 11:27 AM....

Firstly, I commented on embryonic stem cell research, not Stem cells.

I am a physician. I believe life starts at conception and ends with the cessation of brain wave actvity. You have a different definition of life, you run with it.

The LIE you stated about the delay of potential cures because of ethical limits placed on scientific research is so beneath you, Sir Loin. Look it up....many more cures have been derived from stem cell research then from embryonic stem cell research and there is more potential in the near fuytre that stem cell research will be the solution.

Medical ethics is a hobby of mine and if you want to debate that one, BRING IT ON!

Sincerely yours,

cee, MD

"David Kuo: When this thing [excerpts from an early copy] started appearing on Keith Olbermann [on MSNBC], my jaw was just wide open. Every part of my 6 foot 5 inch body was on the floor. I've written a very profoundly personal, political and spiritual memoir here. This was a very, very hard book to write. It required an enormous amount of very painful soul-searching and I don't think it has been well captured by Mr. Olbermann and all the subsequent media."

I've reread and reread this statement and I'm still amazed and exasperated by it. It tells you everything you need to know about this man. Did he actually imagine his criticisms of the Bushies would be sensitively handled in the media and that he'd he portrayed as someone in the throes of a saintly inward spiritual struggle?!

Good grief! How could this dolt NOT get his feelings hurt at the White House?

He's naive and too precious by far...with a sense of propriety more suited to victorian old ladies than the world of Washington, if not the world of reality...

Medical ethics...Ok

How about distributing depleted uranium throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout our soldiers' lungs?

-How about using white phosphorous - which burns living bodies apart - on residential neighborhoods in Faluja?

- How about filling our incindiary rockets - also used on Falluja - with a mixture of kerosene and polystyrene; a "legal" mixture because its gasoline and polystyrene that is specified in the conventions proscribing the use of napalm.

How many of the 400,000 to 800,000 dead Iraqis were 80 years old? How many pregnant?

"He's naive and too precious by far...with a sense of propriety more suited to victorian old ladies than the world of Washington, if not the world of reality..."

Interesting spin, Cecelia. I've seen it develop on Fox since the Wolffe article saved Kuo from out-and-out swift-boat demonization by his old freind. Let's see how much ground this "precious" ingenue narative gains before someone notices the other parts of his book about the money.

"He's naive and too precious by far...with a sense of propriety more suited to victorian old ladies than the world of Washington, if not the world of reality..."

Interesting spin, Cecelia. I've seen it develop on Fox since the Wolffe article saved Kuo from out-and-out swift-boat demonization by his old freinds. Let's see how much ground this "precious" ingenue narative gains before someone notices the other parts of his book about the money.

You know Sir Loin.....your style of argument is getting very tiresome to follow. You accuse me of being a Dr. Seuss character, mischaracterize my argument about embryonic stem cell research, then respond to my post with a rant about war atrocities.

I don't get you. You claim to be a logical, rational, reality-loving humanist but your rantings seem absurd and nonsensical. You brought up the absurdity of my position on embryonic stem cell research then retreat when I actually call you on it and suggest we have a civil discussion about it. Oh my. Where's codas when I need him?

...so you're saying that medical ethics really IS just a "hobby" to you?

Ugh.

Interesting spin, Sir Loin to imply I watch Fox New, when I don't.

Any adult male who hysterically phrases up their response to a suprise as "my jaw was just wide open. Every part of my 6 foot 5 inch body was on the floor" is too much a hot house flower to ever survive and thrive in Washington, and this is most definitely NOT an inference to Kuo's sexuality, it IS an inference to what must have been the cloistered stained-glass mentality that must have been surprise by Washington and politicians. Again, how could he NOT have been wounded by reality.

I'm the conservative version of Sir Loin everybody....look, look!!!!!

-How about the beheading of captured soldiers and civilians?

-How about the mutilation of genitalia post mortem?

-How about the buring of hundreds of bodies with air plane fuel in a skyscaper?

-How about putting small, sharp pellets in bombs so that they tear the flesh of children.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....yeeeeeee!

Sir Loin,

Since the Wolfe piece just came out on the MSNBC website in the early evening, your bit about Fox News, spin, and swiftboating, is just more cliche.

-How about the burning of hundreds of live people with air plane fuel in a skyscaper?

How many of the dead in WTC were pregnant or in wheelchairs?

How many of the thousands of terrorism victims ate the hands of fundamentalist muslims were civilians, children, minding their own business?

blah, blah, blah, blah, yeeeeeeeeeee!

I am so frantic I am typing too fast and put "ate the hands," instead of "at the hands!"

Oh my, I can't control myself!

blah, blah, blah, blah, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Cee,

What have you read from Sir Loin that would cause you to expect that he'd know something about stem-cell research before he argued this issue?

You have to expect him to assume that it has more potential than the facts have shown. To assume that YOU should assume this as well. To assume that an argument that refers to some nebulous idea of unlimited potential should be enough to overcome anyone's moral reservations.

In other words, you should have expected him to think irrationally and to demand that you give up your principles based upon his emotional appeals.

-How about the burning of hundreds of live people with air plane fuel in a skyscaper?

"How many of the dead in WTC were pregnant or in wheelchairs?

How many of the thousands of terrorism victims ate the hands of fundamentalist muslims were civilians, children, minding their own business?

blah, blah, blah, blah, yeeeeeeeeeee!"

Great "ethics" cee - brutal tit-for-tat. The terrorist's arguments are indistinguishable from your own.

Cecelia,

I’m not going to engage in a “debate” with cee that BEGINS with him retreating to the impenetrable, circular logical bubble of his magical epistemology. That’s not debating, that banging my fucking head against a wall. By avoiding this trap of mythologically sanctioned righteousness, I managed to elicit a statement showing the true depth of cee’s ethical framework:

When a horrible crime is committed one should retaliate in kind; compounding it until it’s a vortex that destroys and pulls in everyone within reach: men, women, children, zygotes.

You drowning-rat Republicans all boil down to a zealous clamor for redemptive race-war. That's your "ethics", that's your comfort, that's your sacrament.

Sir Loin,

That was my point you dim bulb.....You countered Bush's and my respect for nascient life with the illogical retort that he and I have no concern over Iraqi civilians of all ages after birth. I called myself "conservative Sir Loin." as a joke....come on....

I am not in a micturition contest with you regarding who values life more. I would like to explore how we, as free people, arrive at our decisions to support political leaders based on their's and our worldviews.

Or.....not. We can debate whatever you're in the mood for.

And I'll leave God totally out of it if you want.....NO cosmology, I promise!

"That was my point you dim bulb.....You countered Bush's and my respect for nascient life with the illogical retort that he and I have no concern over Iraqi civilians of all ages after birth. I called myself "conservative Sir Loin." as a joke....come on...."

Your Joke is indistinguishable from the supposedly serious positions you have expressed all weekend - How am I to differentiate?

An how was my retort "illogical"? Bush will not allow any of his people to discuss the serious scientific study approximating the dreadful toll that has resulted from his war, other than to dismiss it out of hand, with NO DATA WHATSOEVER presented as rebuttal. Instead, he sticks to exactly the same anecdotal low-ball estimate of dead that he's been citing for two years now ("thirty-thousand, more or less") Does he think no one notices that an average of 100 people have been dying a day - but its still "thirty-thousand". Where's the respect for the people killed in his holy war for democracy, no matter who has killed them - when he refuses to even have themaccurately counted?

"I’m not going to engage in a “debate” with cee that BEGINS with him retreating to the impenetrable, circular logical bubble of his magical epistemology."

Now that's rich considering that you've offered no debate. You've merely made a plethora of accusations while offering no sources whatsoever. If I were Cee I never would have responded to your claims at all, other than to say war is hell...war sucks-- if that's easier for you to understand.

That atroscities do happen in war is only fodder for people like you. They become mere occasions for opportunism. Frankly, the Iraqi people are better off with Cee's mentality than with yours. You would have them still under Sadam, and you'd be arguing that at least they weren't being bombed, much like appeasers in every war have done since time immemorial. It's likely that you've have us pull out and to hell the with Iraqis after we leave.

Oh you may couch your opposition to war in concern for the populace and your disdain for a military under Republican leadership by some pretense of horror at the dogs of wars...rather than the glee it gives you over the opportunity for political weapons that such incidences provide.

Again, the Iraqi are better off with Cee's mentality than yours. That goes for the entire free world as well...

"Where's the respect for the people killed in his holy war for democracy, no matter who has killed them -"

Another statement simply packed with irony considering it comes from a guy who just used dead Iraqis as fodder in a three paragraph mini-spat over the value of fetal stem cell research...

Sir Loin,

Sorry, I normally don't end my posts with "yeeee," but I'll be serious from now on.

I will address your point in a moment.....

"I will address your point in a moment....."

I don't know where you get your energy, Cee.

They all sound exactly alike!

Check!

Sir Loin,

From a completely ethical point of view, if it is found that war atrocities have occurred and the engagement rules of the US military code were violated, then those responsible should be prosecuted and just penalties given.

George Bush is no more less of a human being as was any leader who has ordered legal hostilities against a nation or rebels. I am not going to get into the debate about WMD or whether it was right to go to war in Iraq,. I am going to stay on point regarding the ethics of war itself. Your criticism of Bush even using war as a strategy seems to keep falling back to his moral authority. Legally there is nothing Bush has done wrong...he had congressional approval and UN resolutions.

Morally I think we have a lot more to discuss and I could easily justify Bush's behavior based on Lincoln's, Wilson's, FDR's, Johnson's, Carter's, Clinton's and not even involve my relgious convictions.

And as far as his discussion of deaths and wounded numbers, I will have to research it, but previous hostilities were always subject to the same arguments. The effects of bad news from the war would influence public opinion and I am sure there was previous filtering and delay with regards to real numbers in the past. I would like to see a reference with regard to your assertion about Bush, "refuses to even have them accurately counted?" No matter what, the death toll is an arguable point of fact and will be determined in time...no one can prevent that. I do not, however, see how it impacts whether use of force is ethical or not.

REPUBLICAN STRATEGISTS BRACE FOR BIG LOSSES IN MIDTERMS

-- "If We Lose, We'll Just Blame Clinton" --

WASHINGTON -- Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and Karl Rove. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. But party operatives say Rove is predicting that Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats. "Now I know how the Generals in Iraq feel," said one Republican strategist. "It's been impossible trying to work with them to strategize all our post-midterm plans because Bush and Rove are in total denial -- either that, or they figured out how to steal another election."

Well, given your parameters for this discussion we have no argument.

Since you do not want to discuss the lies intentionally promulgated by this administration that convinced all too easily this country to launch an aggressive "pre-emptive" invasion of another country, there is no debate. Sure, if our casus belli were just, then it would be just.
Too bad its not.

But this country, the behavior of which is constitutionally the responsibility of we the people, has fulfilled all of the criteria used by the Nuremburg Tribunal to identify and repudiate the supreme international crime of aggressive war. We're all guilty - given our particular social contract - and that pisses me off.

Sir Rotten Loin this is SICK BITCH GRAMMY (sic) following your example and posting my reply on this site.

Sir Rotten Loin, this is the SICK BITCH GRAMMY (sic). So I was wrong about the necrophilia. What's a little hyperbole to such a reasoned, nuanced man like you.

From five posts by you in a few hours:

How deep into your own navels can you crawl?

Packed into the mother fucking Crystal Cathedral fighting over the youngest altar boys

How many gay male prostitutes work for Olbermann Watch?

(in red states that would be fucking too many of the dogs himself)

its wierd and oedipal

I am convinced at some point you will lose your super human restraint in the face of such provocation and throw in necrophilia. How dare anyone disagree with such a superb intellect and debater? Shameful!

Poor little baby. Grammie hates to treat potty mouthed little boys harshly, but sometimes she must for their own good.

Now, if you can stop crying and whining Grammie will give you some cookies and juice and put you down for a nice little nap.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Cecilia, does that translate to super fine or cherry. Wow! That sets my little heart aflutter. Wait, I take Meds to control that. Better change the radio off the 50's music channel.

And Cee. I am going to add "micturition contest" to my all time favorites. That one reminds me of my dad. He was a master at using language in that manner. Now if I can only remember how to spell it.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

This just in:

LEFTISTS TO WIN ALL CONTESTED SEATS!

WASHINGTON (AP, Reuters, NYTimes) -- Amid widespread propaganda in the Democrat establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are thousands of reporters whose confidence about Democrat prospects strikes even the mentally capable leftists as almost invariably true and upbeat. Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of all House seats or even MORE. Additionally, the Democrats will win all Senate seats and will retake the Presidency via a little known write in option / recall option on the ballot.

"I would like to see a reference with regard to your assertion about Bush, "refuses to even have them accurately counted?""

Do check it out - from the outset of the conflict the Pentagon has explicitly stated that they gather no such data.

Aw Grammy, you barbaric old cunt, chill out. We can all take a little ribbing.

Sir Loin,

What are you talking about? The authority to invade Iraq was taken from the UN resolutions. I am not going to waste my time even researching this simply because you simply say the administration intentiaonlly lied and provide no evidence. I can do that too. The President and his supporters have said time and again the reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein: Noncompliance with a myriad of UN resolutions.
Now, if that is not a just casus belli, then why does the UN pass resolutions that threaten the use of force?

Vice President Dick Cheney was on MEET THE PRESS about 2 months ago, for one hour, and methodically went over the evidence that led him to believe Hussein had WMD and was intent on pursuing further WMD. The intelligence ended up being incorrect, but the ouster of Hussein was successful and he is now on trial for his atrocities. What are you going to say about the legitamacy of the verdict and punishment, Sir Loin?

The VP also discussed the insurgency and identified two problems. Sectarian violence and Al Queda infiltration. These two problems, both borne out of fundamentalist islam is what is causing the continuing violence in Iraq.....NOT THE UNTIED STATES! You blame the US so easily and forget the thousands of Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, Jordanians, etc. actually shooting first! They aren't Christian, Jew or atheist.....they are muslim and they are justifying their violence by quoting the Quran.

Give me a break, Sir Loin, be honest about the situation before you lay 100 deaths a day at the feet of Bush. Those deaths would end if the extremists stopped their evil jihad.

Janet writes:

"How dare anyone disagree with such a superb intellect and debater?"

Don't leave out the rapier wit, deftness at wordplay, and sophisticated humor...

Anon,

I took your advice....

Regarding the getting of numbers of civilian casualties.....

From 10/31/2004.THE INDEPENDENT/UK

"Despite the claim of the head of US Central Command at the time, General Tommy Franks, that 'We don't do body counts', the US military does collect casualty figures in Iraq," said Professor Richard Garfield, an expert on the effects of conflict on civilians. "But since 1991, when Colin Powell was head of the joint chiefs of staff, the figures have been kept secret."

Professor Garfield, who lectures at Columbia University in New York and the London School of Hygiene and Public Health, believes the Pentagon's stance has confused its response to the latest study. "The military is saying: 'We don't believe it, but because we don't collect figures, we can't comment," he said.

"Mr Powell decided to keep the figures secret because of the controversy over body counts in Vietnam, but I think democracies need this information."

I guess we can now have a nice debate about whether knowing the true numbers is

1) Right
2) Useful

Debate.

Did the conservatives bother to read the article or cling to one hand-picked statement?
Here is the followup question and answer from Kuo:

What hasn’t been captured well?

"It’s not a scathing critique by a disgruntled former federal employee. I have no anger towards my former colleagues or towards anyone else. Part of what made this so difficult to write is the amount of respect I have for my former colleagues. I like and respect them.

It was also a real challenge to try and tell the entire story, my own intimate story about what happens when you struggle with God and politics—and politics wins. I think one of the things that drove me was feeling the urgent need to tell people, particularly Christians, I suppose, that politicians look at any constituency with very cold eyes. They form constituencies to form a governing coalition. That isn’t a bad thing; that’s just what they do. And I think Christians have come to this notion that this White House is somehow their fellow parishioners with them, and that is simply not the case. I am shocked, frankly, by the White House response that it [the faith-based agenda] hasn’t been political. That is the other side of absurd, and fundamentally misleading."

Kuo has called for a two-year fast from politics for the religious right in multiple interviews. Kuo also brought up John DiIulio's Esquire letter.

Kuo's interview with Wolf Blitzer:
KUO: And his staff understands that, and his staff understands that Christian conservatives are very important and are very easy, frankly, to manipulate.

One of the things I write about in the book is I cite Chuck Colson from something that he wrote about his time in White House when he was there in the early 1970s. And he was the one...

BLITZER: In the Nixon administration?

KUO: Yes, sorry. In the Nixon administration. and he was in charge of trying to get Republican or conservative Christians to do anything. And he said of all of the groups he had to deal with, they were the easiest of all groups to sort of roll over.

The Bushies are playing you religious wackos for chumps and you're too stupid to be offended. Ignorance is bliss.

PRESIDENT CALLS FOR MORE PROPAGANDA

-- "How come Barney and Laura Don't Get Polled?" --

WASHINGTON -- Echoing his Vice President's sentiment that, "The enemy is better at getting their message out," President Bush has called upon America's main stream media to publish more good news concerning the impending midterm elections. "All I hear is how bad the midterms will be for the GOP, and how we're gonna lose the house and maybe even the senate. How come we don't hear any good news about the midterms?" The President compared the media's negative predictions to the dire news of the war in Iraq, the onset of global warming, and the recent rash of GOP resignations and investigations. "How come we don't hear any good news from Iraq, or how cold the world is in a lot of places, or about all the Republicans who haven't been indicted yet?"

"The Bushies are playing you religious wackos for chumps and you're too stupid to be offended. Ignorance is bliss."

Now Kuo feels less than accurately and well-intentionedly represented by the media...

Ooohhhh, the humanity!....

"The Bushies are playing you religious wackos for chumps and you're too stupid to be offended. Ignorance is bliss."

Wrongo Colbert.

Look at Cecelia's posts and my posts above. Coalitions are a reality of politics and I understand that people who don't have a true abiding faith cannot understand what I believe. Democrats and republicans are guilty of pandering to groups they privately loathe.

Liberals can't have it both ways - attack Bush for being conservative socially then say, "it is all fake and, ha, ha you dumb Christians have been duped." In a previous post I teased Sir Loin about four issues Bush has taken heat for in the past six years. Sir Loin chose to blast me about embryonic stem cell research and we went off on a tangent towards Iraq, all to Sir Loin's glee.

So, Colbert, I will even more passionately engage in the political life of my country because liberals don't want me to. I may even have to hold my nose and vote for McCain or Giuliani, but it's still early!

"Give me a break, Sir Loin, be honest about the situation before you lay 100 deaths a day at the feet of Bush. Those deaths would end if the extremists stopped their evil jihad."

What Iraqi was involved in any jihad when we invaded? Any Iraqi on the 9/11 planes? Any Iraqi equivalent of Hamas or Hezballah? I've never seen anyone claim that more than 10% enemy fighters in Iraq during the occupation were "jihadists", foreign or otherwise, and most credible sources have put the percentage much lower.

We invaded a defenseless unoffending country based on demonstrable lies by our top leaders.
We did it for the profit of well-connected companies and for the solidification of executive power under the pirates. We have followed a strategy that could not have been better designed to create bloody havoc in Iraq, and have done all in our power to perpetuate this situation. Those are crimes.

"We invaded a defenseless unoffending country based on demonstrable lies by our top leaders."

Evidence that is the case, please.

And to your other point....

"It may be true that Iraq is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders, and that the US presence there is a "cause célèbre" for jihadists, as a recently declassified US intelligence assessment holds. But that doesn't mean the Iraqi insurgency is a wholly owned Al Qaeda subsidiary. Foreign fighters make up a relatively small slice of the forces targeting the US military in Iraq. Most insurgents are native Iraqi Sunni Islamists or former members of the old Baath party regime." CSM 10/3/06

Either way you read it, it is jihad whether from Al Queda or the Iraqi Sunnis Muslim. The insurgency is muslims against muslims & US and coalition soldiers.

And finally, I did not mention Saddam's financial support of Hamas suicide bombers and the very real possibility he could, in the future, supply jihadists with WMD.

Iraq was legally invaded under the authority of the UN and with support from both houses of the US Congress. Saddam Hussein will be legally tried for his war crimes and if the US doesn't lose its will, Irag will emerge as an ally of The United States in the region.

Defeatism is on the rise and a democratic takeover of the congress will put Iraq on the same path as Vietnam....divided and weak with thousands more killed after the troops withdraw.

And I 100% agree with what VP Cheney said today on Rush:

"...it's especially important to point out to people that terrorists can't beat us in a stand-up fight. They can only win if we lose our will, and they're betting we will. They're betting we don't have the stomach for the fight, and I don't think that's true, and I think faced with that basic fundamental choice I think the American people understand that it's having gone on offense, having gotten aggressive, going after the terrorists, closing those training camps in Afghanistan and working to take down regimes like Saddam Hussein and to stand up democracies in their place as well as stop measures here at home. It's what's kept us safe for five years and is the reason why there hasn't been another attack like 9/11 on the US."

And I found this interesting....

RUSH: Well, there's no question the American people respond to leadership in times like this. Let me put it to you this way. I was reading something today. A writer, I don't remember who, was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election. When I read that, it made sense to me, and I interpreted this as the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want to change. Now, I know you can't comment politically on the point that I make, but do you expect -- and is there preparation for -- it? One of the things I read was that there's been noted plots to actually try to blow up the Green Zone. One was aborted and discovered recently. But some major attacks being planned for right up until the election, which could be devastating if they happen in terms of the American people's morale.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, I think there's no question that this is a sophisticated crew who understand the impact on public opinion, and as I say, they say as much, that what they're banking on, they hark back to Somalia in '93 or Beirut in 1983 when after Americans were killed, our response was to withdraw our forces. So I think they're very sensitive to that kind of thing, and, as I say, they clearly don't have the military capability to defeat us, but they believe they can break our will. So you look at something like our elections here, and I think they're probably -- I don't have any proof, but I think they're probably -- very sensitive to that. We saw what they did in Spain a few years ago, remember.

RUSH: Right.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Aznar supported us very aggressively, and shortly before the elections in Spain they launched an attack on the trains that set off several bombs and killed a bunch of people shortly before the election and they probably did have that impact.

So that's the bottom line for me. Manipulation of the electorate by violence thousands of miles away....I am glad this country didn't immediately react the same way to the even worse carnage on Normandy beach and in the hills of Iwo Jima.

Cee... of course Cheney thinks the war is going well.. it is for him... well for his wallet.,... I sure would like to see Cheney dragged behind a bus.

I wish the lefty,s on the site would show half the hatred and violence to the enemy that wants to kill them as they do to those trying to protect them.

VP Cheney is so right. We, the American people, can defeat any enemy in the world. But only if a majority have the will to do it.

The pathological hatred for President Bush and his team they display would be better used against the enemy. I don't understand the mind set.

Manipulation of the electorate by violence thousands of miles away....

Yes. I agree. It is one of thr reasons HE has been a disgace and a fraud from the start. He lies like no one I have ever seen in politics.
That is where I stand on it anywho.

cee keeps on bringing up WWII as if this current charade has any similarity. Janet Hawkins laments the viriol that we lefty patriots express toward the right wing of our own country while remaining relatively quiet, to her mind, on the subject of fundamentalist muslims.

Interestingly, Ms. Hawkins' quandary is closely related to cee's repetitive brain fart: In WWII we were facing a foreign enemy - a coalition of powerful nations - with the very real potential to conquer us and destroy our nation - today we do not. Its as simple as that.

So, Ms. Hawkins, we lefties know how to prioritize a threat. The duct-tape and plastic/ color-coded terror alert/"please protect me Mr. President"/"can't wait for the race war" right wingers are the ones who threaten to destroy what makes this nation great - it conscience and its freedoms.

We lost some more today, with Bush signing the Military Commissions legislation. You goons don't care; why would they come for you? The thing is that they can now, if they want.

The pathological hatred for President Bush and his team they display would be better used against the enemy. I don't understand the mind set.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 17, 2006 09:30 PM
It's not pathological.It's pure and simple. And it's long lasting.

"That is where I stand on it anywho."

You and Dr Seuss.

How nice.

Canape?

"We lost some more today, with Bush signing the Military Commissions legislation. You goons don't care; why would they come for you? The thing is that they can now, if they want."

Oh my god! Who knows what could happen! Maybe Bush will suspend habeas corpus and arrest 13,000 Americans, including elected STATE LEGISLATORS, as Lincoln did!

Nah....he'd probably just arrest someone like John Walker Lindh....

Sorry, Sir Loin..no drama....

You and Dr Seuss.

How nice.

I love Dr Seuss. He is like my friend.

"I love Dr Seuss. He is like my friend."

That's so sweet!

And the Cat In The Hat informs your views on public policy.

No. Curious George.

I love that little monkey just like you love your chimp.

"No. Curious George."

Good. He's always proved right in the end.

Unlike the three wicked step-sisters-- Hillary, Pelosi, and Gore.

Gore is your worst nightmare cecelia. He should have Wesly Clark as a running mate and he'd kick some monkey but.

I love that little monkey just like you love your chimp.>>

I doubt it. Curious George says he's pretty much had to share your affections with the Five Little Peppers and the Bobsey Twins...

He kick some monkey...but...he's Al Gore...

Al Gore is a great American.

"Al Gore is a great American."

Sincerely,
The Cat in the Hat

The insurgency is in its last throes."

The Dick in the Bush.

The insurgency is in its last throes."

The Dick in the Bush."

(Green Eggs and Ham...)

Sir Rotten Loin, if you had any perspective of history you might be able to produce a cogent argument. From your 'facts' WW2 could not have ended in any different way than it did.

I can easily think of four or five scenarios that would have resulted in completely different subsequent histories.

Hitler could have pressed his advantage after Dunkirk and over run Britain. Then when he invaded Russia on 06/21/41 he would have been in a single front war. Without a staging area in Britain the Russians would have been on their own. No material help from the US. Who knows how that would have ended.

Instead, Hitler gave Goering the green light and the Nazis lost the Battle of Britain. Lend Lease went on and Hitler was faced with a two front war against enemies that were infused with US aid and war materials.

Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and FDR declared that a state of war had existed between us from the moment of the attack. Germany declared war on us several days later. FDR agreed with Churchill that the priority was the European Theater. As a result, VE Day came before VJ Day. Our troops in the Pacific were hind teat.

FDR could have sued for peace with Hitler and left the Europeans and Russians to their grim fate. We would have prevailed in the Pacific much sooner with a lower loss of American lives and a much lower drain on our assets.

And Sir Rotten, the Japanese had a chance with a small window of opportunity to invade us. I doubt they could have pushed their occupation beyond the Rocky Mountains. Well. some would say the left coast wouldn't be that big of a loss. And Germany? You really believe they could have invaded the US in the 1940's. From across the Atlantic?

The point is history is not set in stone and preordained. The leaders and the people they represent have many choices along the way. And the choices they make at the crucial time determines the outcome.

The mood in this country prior to our entry in WW2 was isolationist and let them fight their own battles. We don't have a dog in their fight. They can't harm us. Look up Charles Lindberg and Joseph P Kennedy (father of JFK and the cuddly Teddy Kennedy).

I revere FDR as one of the three great men of the 20th century. NOT for the New Deal and the roots of the welfare state and the failed War on Poverty. I revere him because he used his popularity and illegally prepared us for and involved us secretly in the war before we were attacked.

And if you are upset about the Bush Nazi tactics you are either a dupe of the left wing or a fool. You should read some history and find out what has been legal and what rights have applied to enemy combatants, lawful or unlawful, from the beginning of our country. Also, that during times of crisis the abridgement of some rights has always been legal. Then you might realize the Bush administration is quite constrained in that regard.

And Sir Rotten Loin you should really work on keeping to the subject at hand. Your references to 'brain farts' and the following:

we lefties know how to prioritize a threat. The duct-tape and plastic/ color-coded terror alert/"please protect me Mr. President"/"can't wait for the race war" right wingers are the ones who threaten to destroy what makes this nation great - it conscience and its freedoms.

You need to get a grip on yourself, boy. What does any of that tripe have to do with anything? 'Race war'. What in hades does that mean. You might be a bit more effective if I couldn't hear you careening and spitting across the screen.

BTW, you can call me Mrs Hawkins. I know that is not as colorful or as perverted as some of the terms you have used. But, what the hey? Your're a restrained gentlemanly type and that shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Mrs Hawkins
AKA Grammie

God bless David Kuo for having the courage to speak the truth about the liars, warmongers, and pedophiles infesting the Whitehouse since 2000.

He is an angel sent by the Lord.

"If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14)

"If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14)

Posted by: Gabriel at October 18, 2006 01:25 AM

We have been and are led by the blind. We are in a pit so deep now that it will take years and and something of a miracle to be delivered from. I never thought this country would get so hateful and divided. But the decider has decided.

And when your hand is on your heart...
Your nearly a good laugh
Almost worth a quick grin..

P.Floyd

"Sir Rotten Loin, if you had any perspective of history you might be able to produce a cogent argument. From your 'facts' WW2 could not have ended in any different way than it did."

Grammy, what the hell are you talking about? I clearly said that WWII represented an existential threat to our country - since we are still here, that clearly means that it most certainly COULD have ended differently, at any number of points in time.

My point was that a war like the one we are in now in Iraq BEGINS the same way as WWII - with a delusional megalomanic coniving power from a dipshit legislature and a lazy, bebauched populac to enable him to aggressively invade unoffending counties.

cee and Grammy have tried to belittle my jeremiads regarding Bush's power grabs (unprecedented use of the "signing statement"; creating a compliant pet judiciary, and then sidestepping even its authority; unwarranted, and therefore illegal domestic wiretapping; ; promoting and signing - with a totally unnaccountable signing statement - the egregious Military Commissions legislation;...) by pointing to acts by Lincoln and FDR. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, and FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans are bot today generally viewed as having been unneccessary oversteps of presidential authority that had little or no effect in the wars' progress or outcome. The United State has even officially appologized and made restitution to the surviving Japanese-American internees and their progeny.

These were unfortunate aspects of two hard-fought, touch and go wars, and - while they remain stains on our history - they appear to have imposed no lasting detriment to the republic. But those were wars in which our leaders were actually trying to win - to bring an end to the conflict. With the ends of these wars these onerous actions of our leaders were also brought to an end.

This war was clearly invented by the Bushies, and it has clearly been intentionally protracted - I say for profit, you can say whatever, but there's no denying that every decision by this administration has had the effect of prolonging the occupation of a small, poor, destabilized country by the most powerful nation on earth. If FDR had had reason to invade Saddam's Iraq it would have been over literally in weeks. - and don;t tell me I'm denegrating the troops - this is all in the lap of leadership.

Bush himself has said that the war on terror (a foggy, unclear rubric under which he lists the Iraq occupation) will last for decades; maybe our very lifetimes - and I'm sure he's right, if his preferrences are allowed to prevail. So when do you think Bush will ease up on his "security measures"? Sorry, that's not part of the plan

more to cee and Grammy

During the invasion, known Iraqi ammunition dumps were left unguarded, allowing their looting by the people killing our troops and each other to this day. AlQaqaa was the one that got attention, but it happened across the country (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/29/anaconda/index.html). I don’t mean that soldiers abandoned their guard posts or anything like that - the orders to secure these facilities were not given, in fact warnings from soldiers and officers about the ongoing looting of these sensitive sites were disregarded by the command. The administration, of course, blamed “mistakes on the ground”. Similar disregard of looting permitted the cannibalization of the country’s infrastructure by its suddenly anarchic populace. “Freedom is untidy” Rumsfeld quipped.

Jay Garner proposed early in 2003, during the first weeks following the fall of Saddam, a fast-track strategy for Iraqi autonomy and a program of dishing out reconstruction contracts to existing Iraqi firms. Immediately, the administration shit-canned Garner and installed Paul Bremmer (a Vinnel/Northrop Grummon/Blackwater executive) as the American viceroy in Iraq. This talented civic saboteur and war-profiteer reversed all of Garner’s sensible measures - cancelled the June, 2003 elections Garner had planned, and gave all reconstruction contracts to American/British companies. He also oversaw the “de-Baathification” of the Iraqi government - (which means he disbanded the government bureaucracy ), and disbanded the Iraqi armed forces - allowing them to go home jobless and fully armed.

And the reconstruction? Nothing’s been built by a dozen or so monster military bases and a 110-acre American embassy in Bagdhad.

When Moqtada al Sadr printed anti-occupation rhetoric in his popular newspaper, the bringers of democracy to Iraq overtly shut him down at the order of Bremmer- sparking the first Shi’ite uprising against the US occupation. Remember - the Shi’ites are the majority ethnic group in Iraq, and they had not before this time shown any overt hostility to the occupation. Well, after we had leveled Falluja that certainly changed.

We kept talking about getting the Iraqi military up to speed, so that they could “stand up” and we down, but that was crap. It does not take this much time to train soldier or policemen - particularly when you have so many trained soldiers and policemen at hand without any reconstruction jobs. The Americans graduated the very first Iraqi special forces trainee in April 2006.

Furthermore, our rules of engagement , while arguably the only way to maximize the safety of our own troops on the street, could not be better designed to make enemies of every person living in the country. If your wife, husband, daughters, sons were shot “by accident” at some checkpoint in you neighborhood that had popped up overnight, I bet you’d want none of what the shooters were selling. Abu Ghraib - do I need say more?

We’ve destroyed and are continuing to destroy the nation of Iraq, and its all been on purpose. Our soldiers who have died have died for no reason other than the enrichment of people like Dick Cheney, Paul Bremmer, George HW Bush and his vile progeny, and their corporate boosters/advisors. The war is being used - by leveraging weak minds like those here at Olbermannwatch to consolidate all political power in this country under the executive.

It wasn't always 1938, you know. First it was 1933, then 1934, then 1935,...

Based on Sir Loin's logic, the over-riding concern of the leadership is profit and power. Okay, I'll address that premise.

If what you say is true, and President Bush only wants power concentrated in the executive, I am sure he would have been more successful if he had done things a little differently. A few examples.

1) In the early days of the insurgency, success would have been more likely with more aggressive engagement and even more troops. This was not done. The power hungry usually do not moderate their offensive behavior. Brutality is worse from a person who only wants power and the occupying force is being criticized for ineffectiveness by your arguments. Pick one....incompetence or aggressive scramble for power....which one is it? It is highly unlikely that "Bush and Co." as the left calls them, are incompetent megalomaniacs.

2) If Bush was only concerned about profit and power, ideology would take a back seat. Just like Hitler with Stalin in the first days of Nazi conquest, Bush would have been better served forming alliances with countries like Syria and Iran. No dice. They were included in the ridicule from Bush. This is evidence that the ideology of fighting against terror using muslims is the motivation, not only power and profit.

3) Bush is barred from being our country's executive in 2008. Our Constitution is intact and the checks on the executive have worked well. Bush has made no attempt to usurp, by executive order, the processes by which he is examined. Your side can scream all you want about torture, the new detainee law, etc. These all have been debated in open, subject to filibuster by your side and still passed. The ACLU is already going through 4 avenues to get the new detainee law ruled unconstituional and to my knowledge, no brown-shirts or SS have shown up in their offices to take them away. There are no mobs in the streets of New York throwing stones into the windows of the opposition's campaign headquarters. No evidence of violent intimidation AT ALL! Don't you think a power hungry megalomaniac would at least use some form of intimidation, Sir Loin?

You emotional rhetoric is misplaced. The fundamentalist muslims are using the techniques of fascists, NOT our president. He will be gone in 2008 and we may even have a change is policy as early as in 1 month if the country, through free elections, hands the legislature over to Bush's loyal opposition.

The problems in Iraq are from the fascist techniques of the fundamentalist muslims who only want power over the region and see Israel and the US gone.

the utter hypcrisy of the olbermann is really on display. Like olbermann really cares about evangelicals or even religious people. he is just using this book to comviently once again display his Bush derangement syndrome. All olbermann uses Kuo's book for is a feeble attempt to divide the Republican party. More slime from the left.
and of coures there goes the Beef king comparing Bush to Hitler. Uneducated liberals love to use the nazi analogy when they have nothing substantial to go on. Liberals with their speech code politcally correct fascism and their hijacking of the Constitution have much more in common with national socialism then cnoservatives ever had. The whole conservative movement is their "Reichstag fire". They use every ideological twist to try and rally support for the secular progressive liberal iedology. Everything Bush and ths conservatives do they use to try and gain more power and more crediblity.
With olbermann as the left's propaganda minister Himmler they hysterically decry the actual persecution and prosecution of terrorists. Suddenly after 40 years the left has discovered the Constitution when it suits thier Bush derangement syndrome. Olbermann worries more about the rights of terrorists that of American citizens. They are like the liberal lawyers who worry more about the rights of child molestors than the children who are harmed.
Just like olbermann suddenly getting an interest in evangelicals and the relious right when it serves his ulterior motives this king of Beef could give two shits about winning in Iraq or the safety and wellbeing of our boys in combat. the leftists love to sound all informed and concerned but it is only a thinly veiled attempt to regain the power of the liberal democrats using any means neccessary.
Olbermann and loin of beef along with the the liberal media and websites use this selective information for leverage of the weak minds on the left to get into power. While the leftists laughingly try to associate Bush and conservatives with the Nazi regime they conviently want America to ignore their assaociation with and similarity to Marx and the communists. If one reads and understands history the comparison with the left in today's America with the Bolsheveik revolution and propogana is really stunning. the goals of the socialist revolution compared with the goals of the secualar progresives is startling. By attacking Bush and the conservatives these American leftist insurgents right here in America try to take the spotlight off of their true agenda and ideology.

1) You misunderstand my entire premise. They do not want success - they want long, grinding conflict in which vast sums from the American treasury can be dedicated to the fight and the reconstruction. Particularly now, with the rampant privatization of so many military functions, much more of this money is lost to the effort in the form of profits than would have been the cas in previous wars. On top of that, there are the cases of the nine billion dollars that disappeared under Bremmer's watch, and other accounting mysteries.

And who thinks they're incompetent? certainly not you, or Fox News, and its barely mentionable on major network news. You all think Bush is a marvelous warrior and priest-king. You all lap up the whining that its a "hard slog".

Liberal media like Olbermann and AirAmerica, and a number of traditional lefty magazines are the only ones who have been seeing the real story.

2)the Kuo story shows that "ideology has taken a back seat". The target has become all of Islam because superstitious savages like you want nothing but a religious race war.

3) A guy was arrested in front of his kid over the summer for telling Cheney that "his policies in Iraq are represhensible. The Detainee bill is another brick in the wall. As I said before: "It was not always 1938..."

Please explain how the insurgents in Iraq are "using the techniques of the fascists". This should be interesting. Remember, fascism is not about torture and ethnic killing - those are common but not definitive qualities. It might be useful if you would actually research teh term.

I address your last paragraph first, Anon....

The fundamentalist shia muslims killing the sunnis and occupation forces want:

1) centralization of authority, like Iran, where the mullahs use the Quran to control the population.

2) stringent socioeconomic controls as mentioned in #1 (social) as well as authority economically, especially over the vast oil reserves.

3) suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship as illustrated by the tactics being used....car bombs, suicide bombers and videotaped beheadings.

4) policies of belligerent nationalism and racism as illustrated by their hatred of jews and their fervent goal that Iraq is only to be muslim. Even the Christians are fleeing.

The fundamentalist sunni muslims aligned with Al Queda are killing the shia and occupation forces want:

1) centralization of authority, like Iraq had previously, but under their sunni leaders.

2) stringent socioeconomic controls as mentioned in #1 (social) as well as authority economically, especially over the vast oil reserves.

3) suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship as illustrated by the tactics being used....car bombs, suicide bombers and videotaped beheadings.

4) policies of belligerent nationalism and racism as illustrated by their hatred of Jews and their fervent goal that Iraq is only to be muslim. Even the Christians are fleeing.

So Sir Loin (or Anon).....what is your definition of fascism?

In regards to the "incompetency on purpose argument," wow, I don't know how to argue against that one......

President Bush would like to be remembered as a good president, I am sure......History will not look kindly on President Bush if Iraq either:

1) Falls into an Iran-like nation and in 10 years is an enemy of the United States.

2) The occupation continues for another 10 years with violence and death and ends up like another Vietnam.

So, if this was all for the military industrial complex, you are arguing that Bush would rather make money for himself and his friends instead of striving for a positive place in history? If the former is the reality then I expect W to be someday exposed as either manic/depressive or a victim of anti-social personality disorder.

Wow, the anti-war left is in such a state of mind that the errors and blunders of the Bush administration could actually be thought of as tactics planned and implemented by thousands of subordinates?

BTW, I will gladly admit that the post invasion tactics were not effective. They should have been tougher with the insurgents and more troops should have been put in, but the 2004 presidential race on the horizon played too big a role and Bush held back. The same thing is happening now with the midterms and unfortunetly as the will of the population to continue the fight lessens, future leaders will hold back on waging effective combat. The same can now be said of Afghanistan, the US is holding back effective and decisive force for PR and political reasons....this will lead to defeat just like in Vietnam....the #2 option above.

To anyone, didn't the looted ammo dump turn out to be in the same category as the looting of the museums? Wildly exaggerated and essentially untrue.

Also, SLB whenever the term Islamofascist or Isamonazi is used the anti Bush goes beserk with indignation. They become incensed. Yet Christonazi is a favorite of the same people. Along with Uberbush, Reichwing and other references imply we are now living in the FUSA, the Fascist United States of America.

I've noticed those Truth to Power people are mysteriously disappearing. And don't tell anyone but Karl OoOoOoOo Rove has assured me that the trains filled with dissenters will be rolling into the deep south within a week if the polls don't improve.

And SLB, I assume you would have preferred the Harry Truman way in Iraq better. Protect those Nazi's, no matter what they did in the war, if they could be usefull to us. Now that I do consider a stain on our country. Or perhaps we could have given Saddam the same Harry Truman treatment we gave Hirohito.

Donald Rumsfeld saying that "war is untidy" doesn't make the fact that war is untidy untrue. If you show me any war that wasn't "untidy" I'll vote D the rest of my life. Mistakes, gross mistakes and atrocities on both sides of any conflict inevitable.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie