Welcome back! Glad the technical issues are resolved.

Olby was stumblin', bumblin' and fumblin' over his words last night. Maybe he's having vision problems and couldn't read the text on the monitor.

Don't forget, he needs to babysit his "daughter" too, he is exhausted.

Where is everybody?

Well, it's now clear that KO will be as critical of the Democrats as he has been on the Republicans.

But his criticism will be that they aren't hard enough on "Mister" Bush and not aggressive enough going after the Administration.

In other words, he'll criticize them for not being sufficiently leftist.

But remember: He's a non-partisan who doesn't vote and isn't concerned about who is running the country.

Can anyone really belive that Olberjerk is not a raving far leftist? His schtick is just a hyper-ventilating comic-book caricature of the rest of the media (selective reporting, distortions -or in Olby's case, lying-, the leftward slant)...

Of course , Man Tan Man also neglected to mention that Iran's good old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that "the President's defeat in the congressional elections was an "obvious victory" for the Iranian nation. Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

So, in those nice little terrorists' words many times the other day, they hailed their friends, the Dems, victory. Now, what does this say? But naturally no mention of this from KO.

ANd finally, can anyone reading this go back to an OLBERMANNWATCH comment from someone who said that KO would be on the Dems side just as he was on Bush's IF the Dems won! I know I read this somewhere.

Keith grew up in a Democratic family. I used to think he is a liberal conservative, but not anymore, his speical comments and his personal life. I believe he is doing this for several reasons, first, ratings, second, beat O'Reilly and third, beat Karl Rowe. He is the same kind of person that we will never know what he is really thinking, what his opinion is, a classic example, Hillary Clinton, a typical politician. I personally will not trust this kind of people for they are just telling you what you want to hear. Keith certianly will get as many liberal viewers as he can get. However, the number of viewers of O'Relly Factor does not chnage much. Why?

I sincerely hope this country is not going to turn blue.

Nice little circle-jerk KO and Alter had goin on. Nothing like having these two morons claiming to know the "inside baseball" going on in the the GOP ranks. Alter for God's sake do something about that hair. Nikola Tesla, called, he wants to use your dome for its possible application to produce enough static electricity to power a golf cart. He said your dome and a balloon will do the trick.

So KO's sense of journalistic integrity was offended by the "Conservative USA?" graphic that appeared on FNC? Somehow he wasn't as upset over the following headline that appeared on MSNBC.com on Thursday:
"A More Liberal Electorate? Not Yet".
The headline linked the reader to this Newsweek article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15643639/site/newsweek/

So when Fox does it KO becomes incensed, but when MSNBC does it..., deafening silence.

Crash:
"Alter for God's sake do something about that hair."

I'm assuming you don't know that he lost his hair after undergoing treatment for cancer?

Besides, who cares what someone looks like? (other than lack of personal hygiene).

SMG

I don't care that he had cancer. He looks like an idiot and as someone who is on tv constantly, it is relevant.

"Besides, who cares what someone looks like?"

Is this a joke? It's a freakin visual medium. Take for example the following: In 1960, there was a debate between Nixon and Kennedy. It was aired both on TV and Radio. The polling later revealed that those who saw the debate overwhelmingly favored Kennedy, those who heard it favored Nixon. See Nixon wasn't wearing any makeup and was also seen sweating.

But who cares, it doesn't matter. It's only the real world and Alter looks like a hair transplant gone horribly wrong. If he doesn't want to be mocked, then maybe he should wear sign that says "Had Cancer".

"Is this a joke? It's a freakin visual medium."

Alter isn't running for office. This isn't Nixon vs. Kennedy (and I'm aware of the debate - tv viewers vs. radio listeners).

He's giving his views; not trying to win a date.

What's he supposed to do about his hair anyway? His chemotherapy messed it up. Maybe he looks terrible in a wig or hair piece or whatever.

That Einstein fella' was silly looking; who cared what he thought?

Besides, his real problem is his opinions not his looks.

And I can't believe we're discussing this silly issue anyway.

SMG

Where did this business come from about him losing his hair during chemo treatments? I may be wrong on this but I don't think he was ever treated for cancer. He had a benign tumor in his palate, which was removed over a year ago. I don't think he underwent chemotherapy treatments.

How are you not understanding the whole TV thing? He is paid to give his opinions on TV and he is absolutely painful to watch. It's the same reason why William F. Buckley, genius that he is, is also painful to watch. His wandering eye and his drawn out speech are incredibly annoying. Shave that head Alter, you're not fooling anybody. Its like a man who tries to grow a beard but can only manage random patches on his face.

Whatever should he do? Shave it!!!!

Oops. My bad. I posted at 2:08 thinking you guys were talking about KO's hair. Didn't realize you were refering to Alter. Yup, he had cancer. Sorry.

Well, Olby was especially careful to have ultra-left wing guests on last night following the little "disagreements" that a few recent guests have had with The Magnificent Olbywan. I was not surprised that he trotted out Wolffman, Alter and Arianna after the DeFrank incident, where Olby's poor attempts at hackery were slapped down. Last night's lackeys were guaranteed to parrot and enhance the Olbyspin.

Haven't any of you idiots ever read anything written by Richard Wolffe about Bush? The man is a fainting sycophant in print - he just holds back on his effusion when on Olbermann's show.

As for the question asked above "where is everybody?": They've fled the sinking ship like rats.

It's a beautiful, warm day where I live Beef. I went out and enjoyed it. Hope you all are enjoying the weekend as well.

"As for the question asked above "where is everybody?": They've fled the sinking ship like rats."

Hey, you guys won and can celebrate for awhile while we lick our wounds.

Party on.

As the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq said about the elections: "It's a great day for us."

Y'all get together and have just a swell time, Mr. Beef.

I'm still waiting to hear what the Dems' plans are. I guess they're too busy celebrating to realize that they have none.

Anon said, "I'm still waiting to hear what the Dems' plans are."

- If you're asking this, you obviously haven't paid attention to one interview with Pelosi or Reid. Or, cared not to take in what they were saying.

- And if you were referring to Iraq, let's not forget... Democrats don't control the White House. That's still Bush. He's still responsible, it's still his mess to (try and) clean up.

"I guess they're too busy celebrating to realize that they have none."

Sure they do. On Iraq, according to Pelosi, Reid, Murtha et al., it's the US presence there that is causing the chaos and violence. Al-Qaeda is only there, as Pelosi says, because we're there.

[Lesley Stahl: "But don't you think the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?"
Nancy Pelosi: "They have." The jihadists [are] in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."]

So, we pull out of Iraq and the terrorists will leave and the terrorist violence will stop.

And we'll live happily ever after.

James, you have got to be kidding me.

"Nancy Pelosi: "They have [moved to Iraq]. The jihadists are in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Maybe San Francisco will take them in once we leave. I mean, once the US pulls out, the terrorists have to go somewhere, right?

I understand they have very progressive policies on the homeless.

Y'know, how stupid can one be, really? How fundamentally ignorant of the history and nature of Islamic radicals can a sentient person be? Does Pelosi think that if we just get rid of Bush and change our policy there, that the Islamists will just go back home and build families and give up terrorism?

Like they did in Afghanistan? Or Somalia? Or the Sudan?

The left believes that they must treat Republicans with an iron fist; but when it comes to radical Muslims, they can work out our differences.

Sheesh.

Ohboy said, "How fundamentally ignorant of the history and nature of Islamic radicals can a sentient person be?"

- I don't know. But, I'd like to ask President Bush that very question. They've been fighting in the Middle East since the beginning of time. But, he believes that by us going there we can stop it. Seriously, how ignorant of history and of Islamic radicals can the president really be?

James,
You are absolutely right. That is why my "Big Bomb theory" of the geo-politik would so aptly work in that area. You assume that the all the people upset with the president's plan in Iraq advocate withdrawal. I contend, however, that a significant amount of people want to apply the Powell Doctrine to its full conclusion. It would be nice to be allowed to actually fight and win a war. It's been over 60 years since when we have unequivocally won a war.

Crash said, "I contend, however, that a significant amount of people want to apply the Powell Doctrine to its full conclusion."

- In large part, I agree. Overwhelming force would have worked a lot better than going in with not enough troops, like Bush and Rummy did. Had we done that, then we would have had a much better chance at winning... whether it be getting rid of WMD's, getting rid of Saddam, installing a democratic gov't, pressuring Iran (which is a new one this year)... or any other of the millions of bullshit reasons we were given for going in. As it is now, we're stuck in Vietnam II. Shit, we've got Kissinger back now anyway, might as well call it what it is.

"They've been fighting in the Middle East since the beginning of time. But, he believes that by us going there we can stop it"

Well, if we don't help bring some form of representative democracy - some crude type of self-government - into this volatile region to help fight off this Islamic revival, then the only recourse is violence. Because, with all due respect to Ms. Pelosi, they're coming after us whether we fight back or whether we cut and run.

Either we bring them freedom, or, over many decades, they will destroy us.

Back to Pelosi and the current situation: Do you think that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave too? They won't try to convert Iraq into a base? They won't use their "victory" as a recruitment tool? That other nations in the region will think twice about joining with us to fight the radical Islamists?

It should be noted about the Powell Doctrine, however... we didn't meet it's criteria.
----------------------------------
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

1 - Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2 - Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3 - Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4 - Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5 - Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6 - Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7 - Is the action supported by the American people?

8 - Do we have genuine broad international support?

Answers...

1 - No.
2 - No. Unless you consider a new objective every two weeks a clear objective.
3 - Hehehe... how much was this war supposed to cost? And how much have we spent now???
4 - Yes... if there was really a problem... but there were NO weapons.
5 - Nothing even resembling an exit stragety.
6 - Not a chance
7 - At first, yes.
8 - Can you say, 'unilateral decision.' Other nations are STILL pissed at us.

-----------------------------------

So, from the 'overwhelming force' perspective of the Powell Doctrine... yes, that's what we needed to do. But, unlike Gulf War of early 90's... we never came close to meeting the criteria this time around. Too bad Bushie never listens to anyone. He just fires people like Powell (with actual military experience) when they have an opinion that's different from his.

"He just fires people like Powell (with actual military experience) when they have an opinion that's different from his."

Powell wasn't fired.

Neither was Shinseki.

Name someone who was fired for having differing views.

The Powell Doctrine needs to be updated to deal with the post 9/11 world.

It's not too late to test out those big bombs.

Ohboy said, "Powell wasn't fired.

Neither was Shinseki. "

- Sure... just like John L. Smith didn't get 'fired' from MSU's football team recently. He 'resigned.' Open your eyes. Either Powell and Shinksi were fired or they left because they weren't listend to and saw what a lost cause the administration was.

Just look at history. There are like two Secretary's of State that made it for eight years. I am sure they were all fired as well.

Do you think that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave too? They won't try to convert Iraq into a base? They won't use their "victory" as a recruitment tool?

Posted by: Ohboy at November 11, 2006 05:42 PM

You don't think they already are using Iraq as a recruitment tool? What have they learned there? So we should let them determine our foreign policy then?

The Dems have plenty of plans.. but the first one should be doing to the GOP what the GOP did to Clinton... start investigating everything they did. They wiull not be able to impeach the warm pile of shit because they would need 9 votes from GOP members anbd there are not 9 honest ones to be found. The GOP should get everything back in spades that they shovelled on Clinton. I would love to see Bush as weak as the present congress has shown itself to be over the last couple years. The FISA ruling is clearly unconstitutional and we should throw the chimp in federal lock-up.Sic'em... the grim reaper did his job real well,, now all he has to do is to lop the head off of the monster.

Well, O'Lielly, I doubt you will get your wish. I thought the Dem agenda was to get this country back on track and solve problems. Are you saying all you wanted was retribution?

Bush has done ffar far far worse than nixon or clinton. That saying, I hope they don't try to impeach. Let history have him and his crew. Let the troops coming out of Iraq have their say. Half the story is yet to be told.

There will be time to address issues... beginning in 2009. I would be interested in hearing from GOP'ers on this blog why the Dems should not persue investigations against Bush and his cabinet Is anyone going to say we have to rise above that type of thing. I doubt very much that the dems will go as low as to stoop to the WhiteWater level, or having someone talking about scandals like Vince Foster..as the saying goes... what is good for the goose...

The republicans witch hunt on Clinton was a disgrace to governance. Dems are better than that and will focus on trying to fix the GOP's screw ups from the last six years.

Have at it.

Investigate till the cows come home.

Spend lots of time and money on it.... I beg of you!

- And if you were referring to Iraq, let's not forget... Democrats don't control the White House. That's still Bush. He's still responsible, it's still his mess to (try and) clean up.

Posted by: James at November 11, 2006 04:48 PM

If you want change in Iraq you should vote for the Democrats. That was the campaign message the Dems put out. Now for the Dems to deliver on the campaign promise.

Will Olby mention the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq who praised the election of Democrats? Will he mention the Iranian Mullahs who praised the United States for electing Democrats (while refusing to stop nuke production)? Will Olby mention Rep. Ellison, a Nation of Islam member who had a victory rally at which his guests were shouting "Allahu Akbar"? I wonder . . . . hmmmmmmmmmm.

Does it bother you clowns that the terrorists endorse your candidates? Does it bother you that the enemy roots for Democrat victory? Or are you people the enemy as well? All signs point to yes.

Enjoy your new Government -- higher taxes, higher artificial wages to help eliminate jobs, crazy investigations in the midst of a crucial war, and happy terrorists everywhere. It is Olby's utopia.

Cecelia,, how did it hurt the GOP for 8 years ?

Does it bother you clowns that the terrorists endorse your candidates? Does it bother you that the enemy roots for Democrat victory? Or are you people the enemy as well? All signs point to yes.

Posted by: KfK at November 11, 2006 09:56 PM

For saying such stupidity you show yourself to be the enemy of a dialouge in a democratic society. You accuse your political opponent of being on par with enemies that have sworn to kill Americans. You are a traitor to this countries core values. Have you no shame. I am ashamed for you. This country is a strong enough democracy to survive your filthy mind. It has rejected your poor choice of leaders and you can take your self righteous attitude and go have a good pity party for you and your kind.

"There will be time to address issues... beginning in 2009." O'lielly

In my humble opinion now may be a good time to adress the issues. 2009 is about when dems will have a plan for Iraq.

2009 is about when dems will have a plan for Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 11, 2006 10:13 PM

What is the republican plan for Iraq again?

"You don't think they already are using Iraq as a recruitment tool? What have they learned there? So we should let them determine our foreign policy then? "

And when they recruit new members to go to Iraq, our military captures or kills them.

But if we leave Iraq, they'll still recruit new members, have a victory over the US, and we won't be able to kill or capture them.

Are you saying that the actions and behavior of our enemy shouldn't influence our foreign policy? We should just ignore what they say and what they do?

You guys advocate that we leave, right? Isn't that letting them influence our foreign policy?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

There's a rather lengthy history of them being encouraged by our turning tail after getting bloodied.

The problem that we face is that if we do indeed take military action, there's ample evidence that that leads to greater recruiting for the terrorists. I admit that.

But it's also true that if we don't confront them, if we do cut-and-run, that that also encourages them to be more aggressive in going after us.

We're in a difficult situation because we're facing an enemy that is completely committed to killing us no matter what we do. One can legitimately argue that we should cut our losses in Iraq and confront them elsewhere.

But if we do that, we must remember that we will indeed have to confront them elsewhere and that confrontation may be much much worse than the current one.

What is the republican plan for Iraq again?

Stay the course, guess that means leaving the troops there until something magically changes. It appears the American public did not like that plan so they voted for the people (dems) that said they had a different plan, a "change of direction in Iraq." I hope that plan was not investigations for the next three years.

"I hope that plan was not investigations for the next three years."

I hope to goodness it is.

"Stay the course, guess that means leaving the troops there until something magically changes"

No, it's training Iraqi security and military so that they can take on the terrorists who are trying to overthrow a democratically-elected government.

Okay, you liberals have won the Congress, what's your plan?

You demand that King George compromise with you guys. What's the plan from you guys that he must compromise with?

We're listening. The complaint department is now closed. You guys are running part of the show now.

Cymbaline,

Thanks for that great post. In the future, you might want to proof-read before posting (not that you are capable of picking up your errors).

Here are some references for you. Write back after reading / viewing them.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23291_New_Al_Qaeda_Tape-_We_Wont_Rest_Until_We_Blow_Up_the_White_House&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23287_CAIR_Congressmans_Supporters_Scream_Allahu_Akbar!&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23299_A_Victory_for_Iran&only

But if we do that, we must remember that we will indeed have to confront them elsewhere and that confrontation may be much much worse than the current one.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 11, 2006 10:22 PM

We could start by being really specific who we go after. If you remember, and I cant recall his name or anything but there were a couple of guys in a car a few years ago and one of them was a big shot terrorist. They sent one of those drone planes with a bomb and killed him. That, although I don't want anyone getting killed really is how to fight them. The message should be if you fuck with us, we will find you, and then we will kill you. Not this preemptive murder feast that has killed more innocents probably than insurgents. And we should offer tons of aid and resources to any Muslim country that needs and will accept it. It's called being a christian and leading by example. Not a crusader daring them to strike back.

kfk, When you can say something that speaks to me as something besides you enemy than I will bother to listen. If you think I want you to die than don't bother addressing me at all. Your falling into the Hannity Limbaugh brainwashed cult of something that passes for something called a republican these days. It is a cult of know it alls and everyone who is not like us is trying to kill us. Jim Jones would love you.

Ohboy, the plan has been stated by Murtha, who claims the President "has no power." He wants to "redeploy" troops. In other words, he wants to cut and run, just as we did in Somalia and Lebanon, the events OBL was heartened by. Of course, Murtha wanted to pull our troops back to Okinawa in the past, but what do you expect from a senile old fart? Here -- read this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23286_Murtha-_The_President_Has_No_Power&only

after vomiting, read this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23276_Parties_Across_the_Middle_East&only

Terrorists love the Democrats!

Terrorists love the Democrats!

Posted by: KfK at November 11, 2006 10:40 PM

It's that kind of thinking that lost an election dip shit.

Cymbaline:
"And we should offer tons of aid and resources to any Muslim country that needs and will accept it. It's called being a christian and leading by example. Not a crusader daring them to strike back."

Sorry, we can't buy them off.

Remember: the chief victims of radical Islam has been fellow Muslims.

Why do you think that is?

BTW, it was Howard Dean who said all Republicans are evil. Perhaps you need to address the cult of Howie before going after the Hannity/Limbaugh cult followers?

Typical response from Cymbaline. Leftists run when confronted with a nice dose of reality. By the way, every time one of you Olbermanniacs swings by with a strange name, I Google it and find out it has something to do with a crappy band or science fiction. Why is that? Could it be that you are all spaced out groupies?

Google Cymbaline and see for yourselves, people.

BTW, it was Howard Dean who said all Republicans are evil. Perhaps you need to address the cult of Howie before going after the Hannity/Limbaugh cult followers?
Posted by: Ohboy at November 11, 2006 10:42 PM

What Howard Dean thinks or says is his problem. When people here think that the terrorists want democrats to win because they are too scared of the republicans or that the democrats are the real enemy I have to think that some people are insane, stupid, or brainwashed by people desperate to wi elections. Somehow I just don't think the terrorists are as afraid of republicans as you think they are. How many servicemen have republicans sacrificed by not being smart enough to pick the right fucking country to fight. You think they are afraid. They are trying to divide us. They laugh at Bushes "bring em on" talk. I don't accuse republicans of being my enemy, they are Americans. But the people who are stupid enough to fall into this cultish mindset of we are the only protectors and the democrats are my enemy are full of shit. Thankfully the country does NOT agree. So are YOU HATERS OF AMERICA FIRST NOW?

Cymbaline:

"The message should be if you fuck with us, we will find you, and then we will kill you. Not this preemptive murder feast that has killed more innocents probably than insurgents."

Yeah -- that works real well with suicide bombers and loonies seeking martyrdom. Try your theory out on the 9/11 hijackers. Oh, they're all dead you say? Exactly -- that's why preemption is important. Feel free to call them "terrorists" by the way. "Insurgents" is used by the media to make the terrorists happy, and by retarded leftists incapable of seeing reality.

Google Cymbaline and see for yourselves, people.

Posted by: KfK at November 11, 2006 10:46 PM

As usual, you cant argue points, you have to discredit people through talking shit. I can talk shit also, but I have an opinion that I didn't get from a website, or Olbermann, or tv. When you know you are losing the argument, and you have lost, then insults and degrade. That is weak and if you don't mind me saying, I think you are one of the many punks that come here and talk tough. Your mind is closed and made up already. I don't feel really insulted by your lack of understanding that people differ from you in their views of the world. It is a compliment to me actually that you have to insult because you can't defend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDCMzGiEnBM

Oh, they're all dead you say? Exactly -- that's why preemption is important.
Posted by: Moron says what . . . at November 11, 2006 10:55 PM

That is the funniest shit I have read since I came here. How can you preemptivly kill someone who's dead???????????????

Cymbaline, you are in way over your head here. Try reading that again, then ask someone what it means you dope.

I read it, and you want us to kill people who might kill us in the future but that is not a good enough reason for me to bring our military and try to control a country. I won't deny that there are people who do want to kill us. There are billions of humans in this world kfk. It is adangerous thing to come out of the womb. Do you really think we are going to win this war the way we have been fighting it? How much can our military take? You have to be smart, and pick your fights. Make them count. Shock and awe was trully lame. It didn't work and now we are stuck there. Tell me I am wrong about that. Tell me I am in over my head by not agreeing with the madman that said the insurgency is in its last throes. How many times do they have to be wrong before you stop being impressed by them. We haven't been hit here. You know damn well they would like to wait until a democrat is in office so it would divide us more. I am not falling for it. Why are you? We are both Americans and I don't mind saying I love the American way of life and do not want some theocratic muslim or christian murders attacking my country. That does not give us an excuse for being mean and stupid. Those people who want us dead would be rotting in the sand if we were smarter and not trying to look tough to them. Fuck them and what they think of us. Take away their oil money and what would they have?

"Take away their oil money and what would they have?"

The first sensible thing you've said.

"Take away their oil money and what would they have?"

The first sensible thing you've said.

Posted by: KfK at November 12, 2006 12:07 AM

Thanks. I think?

Now ask yourself, Cymbaline, why Democrats keep blocking drilling in the United States when each dollar we give these terrorists comes back to haunt us.

Now ask yourself, Cymbaline, why Democrats keep blocking drilling in the United States when each dollar we give these terrorists comes back to haunt us.

Posted by: KfK at November 12, 2006 12:40 AM

Gotta find that angle huh. Couldn't leave us in agreement.

I do think we are saving it all up so we can have it when everyone else runs out or something. In the meantime China or some other country will figure out a way to run their country in some other way. We should be leading the way and if Bush would have made the first order of the day after 911 to find a way off of the oil fix who wouldn't have agreed. How about this as an idea. No president or VP prior to or after can have any connection in any way to oil money. None.

Well, anon, that is a really, really hard question.

==================
"You don't think they already are using Iraq as a recruitment tool? What have they learned there? So we should let them determine our foreign policy then?"
=================

Who or what should determine our foreign policy?

Oh, I know, I know! Call on me! Our friends and allies. We should all gather round, hold hands and assure the rest of the world that we love them and will do what they want.

How brilliant! If only FDR and Chamberlain had done that. Only historians would know the names of those obscure monsters Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.

Why should we allow those whose DEEDS have killed us AND STATED GOALS are to kill or convert us determine anything. Certainly not our military policy. Why, that would be confrontational. And especially not our foreign policy. That should be determined by tea leaves? Universal love? Our mood at the moment?

I simply can not wrap my mind around the concept that your question suggests.

I would like an answer. On what does your apparent assertion rest? And, given the answer, what outcome do you anticipate?

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting hate filled stupid drivel. Ask any KO fan!

Sorry, the above was in response to anon @ 8:23 PM.

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting hate filled stupid drivel. Ask any KO fan!

"You don't think they already are using Iraq as a recruitment tool? What have they learned there? So we should let them determine our foreign policy then?"

The correct answers Grammie are yes they are using it as a recruitment tool. They have learned how to kill American soldiers and use their equipment against them. No. Stooping to their level makes us just what they want us to be. If we are there just to convince them we won't leave what the fuck ....

Cymbaline, the world has failed to believe the words, deeds and shouted intentions of monsters to the regret of tens of millions tortured and killed in the past.

I am not a computer expert who can supply you with links so you can see credible evidence of what our enemies say about us and their ultimate goals concerning us. Anyone who is concerned enough can find it in abundance. And much of it is available through the MSM. I would think it is common knowledge that OBL was first convinced of our vulnerability by our failure to adequately reinforce our men in Somalia followed by our ignominious withdrawal. Do you remember the pitifull Les Aspin?

And I do believe that some conflicts are a battle between good and evil. And this is one of them.

But differing OPINIONS on the best approach can not be characterized by good and evil. Chamberlain was not evil and Churchill good. Chamberlain was a man of extreme hubris and self righteousness and was dead (for many millions) wrong.

Your conviction seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, mean, stupid, venal and any number of other flaws you acribe to your opponents. How can you enter into an honest debate when you hold your opponents in such contempt and attribute every word from them to their glaring character flaws.

I realize that this might be a novel idea, but there are honest and decent people who disagree with you. And based on their own perceptions and conclusions. And as I ascribe to you honorable motives why can you not do the same?

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting hate filled stupid drivel. Ask any KO fan!

Anon, I didn't realize you are sometimes Cymbaline. Thanks for the response. But I don't see an answer to the question I asked.

To wit, upon what should our country base its foreign policy if not upon our sworn enemies who take every opportunity to kill us?

What that policy should be is a valid question. What we should base it upon is a totally different and valid question.

I agree that they are using our presence in Iraq as a recruitment tool. But they also used our presence in Saudi Arabia as a tool. Afghanistan is a tool. Kuwait is a tool. Ultimately, our existence is a tool.

And I don't agree that soverign nations engaged in war is the equilavent to this amorphous, terrorist, what is an accurate term, jihadist movement. They brutalize and murder innocents far more than they confront legal combatants. We have not even nodded to their tactics, much less stooped to them.

I asked you a serious question:

What should our country at this time base its foreign policy upon?

Your (inadequate) answer is: what the f**k.

I could go on for a long time to state the reasons I am for our current policy. And I could match it with reasons that I believe it is too soft. But 'what the f**k' seems to cry out for the answer why the f**k not. I just have the feeling Cordell Hull would not approve.

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting hate filled stupid drivel. Ask any KO fan

But 'what the f**k' seems to cry out for the answer why the f**k not. I just have the feeling Cordell Hull would not approve.

What the f**k' is the only honest reaction to what our foreign policy has been for the last 6 years. The whole shock and awe thing was an attemt to convince the "bad guys" that we could play rough. Did it work? NO. The same attitude is now in charge of the idea that we have to stay the course and let them know we can play rough. That is letting them make fools and might I add killers out of us in order to what? Win their respect?

Cymbaline, we started this exchange when you stated, in what appeared to be, an accusatory tone that why should we let 'them' set or foreign policy.

It appears, I think, that what you may have meant was a criticism of our current foreign policy and defense posture.

So, in light of the world wide terrorist groups and the states that support them what changes do you want? And what do you anticipate will be the consequences? And, how long do you think it will take for these new policies to improve our safety?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie