Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    December 27, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - DECEMBER 27, 2006

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • PRESIDENT FORD'S PASSING: Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent; John Robert Greene, The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford
    • FORD: THE LEGACY: MSNBC Political Analyst Pat Buchanan
    • POLITICS TODAY, JOHN EDWARDS ANNOUNCES HIS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY; Richard Wolffe, Newsweek Chief White House Correspondent and MSNBC Political Analyst

    For a while it seemed Keith would be on his best behavior, but then the OlbySpin phrases started to appear: a reference to Bush's "seemingly endless rethinking of Iraq", an aside about whether the Warren Commission wasn't really a "coverup".

    Ex-Republican Pat Buchanan was brought in to expound on--what else?--the "neocons" and the wrongness of the Iraq war. Then Pat moved to why he split with Ford to back Reagan, and you could hear Citizen Keith groaning in the background.

    NAME

    With The Wolffe Man, Herr Olbermann characterized "Mister" Bush's upcoming change of plan for Iraq as a "lose-lose" proposition (gilding the lily by nonsensically calling it "the proverbial" lose-lose). KO expressed hope that the Democrats would trumpet the fact that "Mister" Bush has caused more American deaths than Usama Bin Laden did. Which might make sense if the only people UBL killed were killed on 9/11, and if mass murder of innocents were somehow morally equivalent to casualties in a volunteer military during war time. But such fine points are never allowed to interfere with OlbySpin. Finally The Hour of Spin ended, and Krazy Keith tossed it to Joe Scarborough, who kicked off his hour of Gerald Ford reminiscences by asking: "Is President Bush cracking under pressure?" Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 5 [GUARDED]

    UPDATE: This "special" edition of The Hour of Spin wasn't all that special as far as viewers were concerned. Despite all the promotion and the big news of Ford's death, Countdown lost to The Kasich Factor by three-to-one, and finished in fourth place both in total viewers and in the all-important, coveted "key demo".


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (226) | | View blog reactions

    226 Comments

    No thanks. That is what you are paid the big bucks for, J$.

    I'll wait for after your prescis.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    The funniest story of the day: John Edwards announces he's running again. On a day when the country is mourning the loss of a president... and all the news coverage is about Ford... Edwards tries to eek his way onto the radar. Wait a day or two until the coverage has died down... not for Edwards!

    Well, at least Keith is paying attention... now if only he had a meaningfully sized audience.

    I like MSNBC's decision to have Pat Buchanan host a panel discussion today and offer his insight and historical perspective. That was one of the few good ideas that those running that train wreck of a network have had lately.

    How did this show go from a retrospective about the late President Ford to yet another Bush-bashing event and Dem-candidate lovefest? Oh, this is Olbyworld - that's how. Now he and the Wolffeman are on global warming. Good Lord.

    Thank god, god is back from vacation.

    Olby will slither back under his rock when the show is over, O'Lielly. Then it's Oddball recaps until Jan. 2. That is, unless Olby covers the funeral in D.C. It's not baseball season, so I doubt it.

    Man... it's a shame Keith came back tonight... he needs a good long vacation... making up the news each night (I assume) is very tiring.

    "Thank god, god is back from vacation."

    He loves you too little monkey...

    Hey look, pretty much nothing but silence from the KO haters tonight. Yea, a pretty professional show, no gaffes or controversy, nothing to base a KO attack on!

    Nothing positive gets said about the show - just silence!

    You know the old saying that goes 'something' like this; "if you can't say anything bad about someone, don't say anything at all"!

    And you know why Anonymous? Because he did his damn job tonight without his usual biases and slant (for the most part). And for the first time in a long time he looked interested and engaged instead of bored out of his skull. That's the way his should SHOULD be but no longer is. Something you pretty much admit in your post, but of course, you are so blinded by your devotion to Olbermann you dont' realize that it is HIM who has to constantly say something bad about someone, the someone in this case being Bush & Company & the GOP. You don't even see the irony in your statement do you? Irony is of course, beyond the grasp of most of you Olbermann apologists. That would require critical thinking skills and it's why you can't admit he's sold out, why you can't admit the Democrats are as f---ed up as the GOP, etc.

    I see Johnny thinks casualties are pretty much OK, as long as there part of a "volunteer Military"!

    I disagree Johnny - Young American lives lost in Iraq are every bit as tragic as the 'innocents' lost on 911, and of course, we're not even talking about the other 20,000 permanently maimed and broken American 'volunteers' that were only injured! But that's OK, they all volunteered to be blown to bits!

    > I see Johnny thinks casualties are pretty much OK

    Hey, that's very good Kreskin. Now I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1000. Can you tell me that too?

    KAF, I'm not at all blind to the 'irony' in my post above. I don't 'worship' KO at all, and I agress that he has flaws that need working on, but I do agree with many of his views. I just don't understand your attack mentality regarding a show you don't personally like or approve of.

    You people seem to have a problem with him "saying something bad about someone", but it's usually about Bush & Co., and what he's said about them doesn't even hold a candle to what I'd like to say about em.

    Johnny: From your typically 'unbiased' KO report above:

    "and if mass murder of innocents were somehow morally equivalent to casualties in a volunteer Military during war time".

    The difference between you and me; I think the're ALL innocents!

    Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.


    On July 28, 2004, former president Gerald R. Ford sat down for an interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. The interview was conducted at Ford's Beaver Creek, Colo., house; the former president agreed that his comments could be published any time after his death.
    Ford says he does not believe the United States should intervene militarily overseas unless it is directly in America's national interests.
    "Based on the facts as I understand them, I do not think that I would have ordered the Iraq war if I had been president."
    Ford also says he believes that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld erred in justifying the Iraq war as one aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
    Ford says that while he never publicly criticized the Bush administration's war in Iraq, he does think they made a mistake in how they justified the war.

    "Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

    More comments about the Iraq War from Republicans:
    Representative Ron Paul (R-TX):
    "Even opponents of the war now sometimes erroneously argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist."

    Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) :
    "The most unfortunate thing has been the more than 1,700 young Americans who have been killed there now, and the some 12,000 who have been wounded, many of them severely wounded, maimed for life, in what was a totally unnecessary war." He reminded people that before this war started he told people "that there was nothing conservative about this war; that it was going to mean massive foreign aid, which conservatives have traditionally been against; that it was going to mean huge deficit spending, which conservatives have traditionally been against." He highlighted the comments of Lawrence Lindsey, who was the President's leading economic adviser until he was fired for his comments on the war, who said before the war started that it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Now, by the end of this fiscal year, we are going to be at the astounding figure of $300 billion. And I think the only reason more people are not upset about that is that it is humanly impossible to truly comprehend a figure as high as $300 billion."

    James Leach (R-IO), a moderate Republican who has differed with the president on Iraq from the outset. He has quietly questioned the war. In a speech on December 23, 2003 on Iraq he said: America is in a strategic pickle and Americans are in a judgmental quandary. He addressed the limits of a superpower's power by asked a series of important questions:
    "Does, for instance, overwhelming military might protect us from terrorism or, if used unwisely, increase our vulnerability to terrorism?"

    "Likewise, does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty or buy friendship even from the countries most indebted to the US?"

    "In other words, can military and economic might ever become a substitute for sensible and sensitive foreign policy?"

    "And given the dilemma of Iraq, could it indeed be that the most important multi-billion problem America faces is not deficits measured in dollars, fiscal or trade, but the antagonism of billions of people around the world who object to our current foreign policy?"

    He noted ,"Many are not convinced by our words; many are appalled by our actions" and concluded the speech saying: "The lesson of the past year is clear: America does better as a mediator and multi-party peace maker than as a unilateral interventionist."

    When the Oregonian splashed ink across its editorial page to lionize Gordon Smith's flip on the Iraq War, all I could do is recall the words of an authentic anti-war hero in the late Sixties'Gene McCarthy, the Minnesota poet/senator/presidential candidate. McCarthy coined this political definition of a politician of Smith's ilk:

    "Once the real battle is over, they come in and shoot the wounded."

    That's you, Gordon. After others braved the wrath of misled voters to help the public see Bush's sophistry- after they risked their careers to turn the war into a political liability for you and other war supporters- only then did you locate your spine.

    Of course it's no different than the libs who voted for the war, but now that it's not politically advantageous to do so, they've all turned against it.. Edwards, Kerry, now Hillary because she knows the liberal crowd is not happy with her. These people have no morals and no backbones.

    I'll be honest. I used to watch Countdown every day until I realized Keith was just basically regurgitating the same O'Reilly personal attacks and endless Bush-bashing b.s. over and over again. I think there was a time when Keith actually provided some positive criticism (I'm a conservative Republican, but I enjoy and learn from opposing viewpoints), but those days have been long over. Tonight's show has solidified for me the fact that Olbermann has become a mean-spirited (even more than O'Reilly) person who is more interested in advancing his own biased agenda, rather than reporting straight facts. He has become a Michael Savage for the left. Sad.

    Typical Bob...taking the death of a former President to make a shallow political point.

    Can you sink any lower, Bob? Using slecected quotes from a President whose body isn't even cold yet to score points on a message board? If this doesn't prove that you're an anti-American Slug who roots against our country and the values it stands for, I don't know what is...

    Have fun in your Hezbollah training...

    RS

    "Of course it's no different than the libs who voted for the war, but now that it's not politically advantageous to do so, they've all turned against it.. Edwards, Kerry, now Hillary because she knows the liberal crowd is not happy with her. These people have no morals and no backbones."

    Posted by: bigred at December 28, 2006 12:47 AM


    No morals, eh, Reid? That's a pretty damn serious charge coming out of the mouth of a closet, aesexual like yourself... So, when are you going to start 'producing' young of your own? Oh yeah, & where are the Foley's, Delay's, & Abramoff's when you need them? & that's neglecting to even mention your 'Personal Favorite' Dickie Cheney?

    Please, tell me this, Mr. Cox...


    Oh, & as far as 'No Backbones' go... well, I'll personally take a Politician who knows how to say, 'Sorry, I was wrong...' than one who, (you imply by not listing,) like w, cheney, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, & company over at the white house, have such a stiff backbone that they don't realize a MISTAKE when one was made, & who keep us in an unjust (TO ALL PARTIES) war... Would you not?

    I, (like you,) am an enquiring mind... I wanna know!

    {Oh, & I would prefer (but not, BY ANY MEANS, expect,)that I will be accorded full respect for my name in here... Afterall, ya'll are better than to make fun of names, right?}

    lol

    Like the rest of those who choose to look back on things that cannot be changed WITHOUT offering solutions for the present, President Ford joined a feeble group.

    "...I do not think that I would have ordered the Iraq war if I had been president."

    Ok, I understand.

    The next logical question is...."What would you do if you were President NOW?"

    You see boys and girls, you keep saying I do not live in reality.....The posts from most of the anti-war crowd seem to always reflect on mistakes, lies, conspiricies, or decisions of leaders in the past. This is fine, it is your right to post your thought, yet, like Grammie, I want to know what we do from here.

    I always liked President Ford and my opinion of him has not changed. He was a compassionate and fair-minded man. However, the temptation to speculate on the past is not the behavior of great leaders. Great leaders act on principle, good counsel and facts as best they have.

    So Bob, even if you got George W. Bush saying he would have made a different decision in 2003.... I would still say...."OK, but what do we do now?" This question, not what President Ford chose to discuss, is the key question that will decide the fates of millions in Iraq (troops and civilians).

    The problem Cee is, if you asked Ford 4 years ago if he would have done it, he would NOT have given the same answer. The enviroment was entirely different. I was whole heartedly for the war back then, and now agree that it is not an easy go. But it was the cards we played and now we have to follow through. These people that live in a vacuum and don't remember the circumstances AT THE TIME are now quick to pile on Bush for making the decision to act.

    There are 35% of America that disagreed with the war, and I'd say more than half of those oppose ALL wars. So it my heart- I feel only around 15% of America have the right to pile on Rummie and Bush. The others should back him.

    If there was only 35% of our population that approved the war, we would NEVER have gone. And I don't want to hear about the lies and deception. Anyone who did not know the real reasons for going to Iraq were uninformed by choice. Read a little. Watch a little news. Don't eductae yourself after the-fact.

    Missed the show, gave it up for lent last year and never looked back. Did you say Pat Buchanan was on the show? The streak of only democratic pundits has been snapped! Its a sad day for the OlbyLoons. Maybe KO's bias was a topic during his contract talks.

    "However, the temptation to speculate on the past is not the behavior of great leaders. Great leaders act on principle, good counsel and facts as best they have."

    Posted by cee at December 28, 2006 08:31 AM

    This is a really good point Cee... Now, let's see if you & your fellow right-wingers hold our President to it. Because if you don't, we KNOW he's not going to listen to the intelligent majority in this country!

    Thus, i ask you the following questions:

    What 'PRINCIPLES' are actually being upheld in our continued occupation of Iraq?

    What 'COUNSEL' (other than billionaires, those with third grade education (like Red wolf,) or those that are morally bereft (like 'big re(i)d' Cox) is mr. bush using?

    & is it any GOOD if it excludes representatives of more than 50% of this country?

    I ask you these questions because the FACT of the matter is that if we don't 'cut & run,' I fear that we will be trapped there forever... A result I know that most Americans (excluding most on this blog) are not in favor of.

    This is, by far, the most EXCLUSIONARY regime ever to take power in this country, & it is for this reason (among MANY others) that I (& the vast majority of our nation) have ABSOLUTELY no confidence in either the want or the ability of this administration to clean up this mess... Oh well... I suppose we must hope that either Gore or Bush' 'kinder, gentler, {&, dare I say, MUCH more intelligent}' younger brother, or whomever wins this clusterf--- of an election will clean up this mess whenever they take office.

    Proud to be... So Bush's motivation for Iraq was wealth? Its such an absurd premise, that you should be excluded from the discussion. I know your mantr!
    All republicans bad...
    All liberals flawless...
    Haliburton-Haliburton-rah-rah-rah!

    "Proud to be... So Bush's motivation for Iraq was wealth? Its such an absurd premise, that you should be excluded from the discussion. I know your mantr!
    All republicans bad...
    All liberals flawless...
    Haliburton-Haliburton-rah-rah-rah!"

    Posted by Anonymous at December 28, 2006 09:18 AM

    Well, if the shoe fits, where it, anon... As far as wealth goes, Bush' primary motivation for this war IS/WAS wealth. That is America's primary motivation in every war we have ever been in... Do you deny this?

    And as far as excluding me from this discussion, you may go ahead & do that if you like. But I will still comment. Because, thankfully, (for the moment at least,) we have a free country. Plus, i am attracted here like a fly to shit! It is way too much fun antagonizing all of you in the closet about everything, Archie Bunker look on your face Republi-fascists...

    Oh yes, I DO HATE all Republi-fascists... People like rick santorum, sam brownback, tom delay, newt gingrich, w, & others of their ilk have done little for this country other than to enrich themselves! I have NO problem with a 'classical Republican' like Arlen Spector, because they actually CARE about our country, &they show it with their intelligence & their actions... Oh, & by the way, I HATE Hillary clinton, because she is a disingenuine bitch...

    As far as knowing 'my mantr,' what is a mantr?

    Oh yeah, & anon, if you would, please answer the original questions I posted, because the answers to those will provide the basis for any solution to our problems, not your or my sniping at each other....

    Thank you

    PtbaL

    One at a time, PROUD....

    What 'PRINCIPLES' are actually being upheld in our continued occupation of Iraq?

    The principles of loyalty, keeping one's promise, holding to one's commitments....legal and otherwise.

    After the last Iraqi election, The President stated very clearly we would be a partner with the newly formed government in establishing security, stability and peace. Being loyal to friends and allies is a good thing. Meeting the commitments made is also honorable. And keeping the promise that we would help the nascent democracy in Iraq is also a valuable HUMANE principle.

    The enemies of peace and stability cannot win militarily, so, they are using terrorism, public lack-of-will and the media to end the battle from our country. Breaking true American principles of loyalty and fidelity would be the reality if the military aid is withdrawn prior to a stable government.

    Proud to be a Communist- will you vote for Hillary over a conservative?

    What 'PRINCIPLES' are actually being upheld in our continued occupation of Iraq?
    ====================================================
    That we're decent folks who will not abandon our friends at the first hint of difficulty. Here's a shock: MOST of the country is doing quite well, getting along normally and don't have a big problem with us there (but like us, will be glad when we can get away).
    Here's their website:
    http://theotheriraq.com/

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I ask you these questions because the FACT of the matter is that if we don't 'cut & run,' I fear that we will be trapped there forever... A result I know that most Americans (excluding most on this blog) are not in favor of.
    ==================================================
    Define "forever" and the facts that you're basing this on.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    This is, by far, the most EXCLUSIONARY regime ever to take power in this country, & it is for this reason (among MANY others) that I (& the vast majority of our nation) have ABSOLUTELY no confidence in either the want or the ability of this administration to clean up this mess... Oh well... I suppose we must hope that either Gore or Bush' 'kinder, gentler, {&, dare I say, MUCH more intelligent}' younger brother, or whomever wins this clusterf--- of an election will clean up this mess whenever they take office.
    ==================================================
    Wow, do you even study history? I mean Lincoln had half the country LEAVE (how do you get more exclusionary than that?).

    Anyway, I don't mean to really address the fevered imaginings of a rambler who relys too much upon his nightmares but to let people know there is quite a lot of good news. My uncle's (who works for the embassy in Iraq) been in for the holidays and I've gotten plenty of opportunities to talk with him. And well... I couldn't think of anything better to start the good news with than that website he recommended to me (here it is again)
    http://theotheriraq.com/

    Have a good year everyone. (assuming global warming doesn't kill us all lol ;-)

    The principles of loyalty, keeping one's promise, holding to one's commitments....legal and otherwise.

    Posted by cee at December 28, 2006 09:49 AM


    While I will agree with you that those are certainly good principles to live up to, cee, I must ask the following; What did we promise, exactly? Who did we promise it to? & what have we committed ourselves to, exactly?

    Because I'll tell you this: I certainly do not believe that we committed ourselves to never-ending war, with unlimited casualties on ALL sides. & I further KNOW that we didn't promise the American people 3000 deaths & 25,000 casualties, which we are now approaching.

    While I will agree with you that those are certainly good principles to live up to, cee, I must ask the following; What did we promise, exactly? Who did we promise it to? & what have we committed ourselves to, exactly?
    ====================================================
    1) I'm not cee, double read my name p2bal.
    2) As to your question umm... how about a stable and functional government for the iraqis? To try and leave things a little better when we leave than they were before we came? (and largely successful on this part)

    Also, I think you need some perspective to reign in your hysteria:
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjY2NzM3MGExNmQzMjBhZjBlMzExYWMzM2JiYjlkNWU=
    (relevant parts)
    "Let's start with the obvious. America's involvement in World War II may have lasted 1,347 days, but it cost the lives of 406,000 Americans and wounded 600,000 more. Losses among Allied civilians and military personnel stretched into the tens of millions. Whole cities were razed, populations displaced, economies shattered. The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq remains below one percent of our WWII losses.
    ...
    The current phase of the Iraq war — whether we call it post-occupation, reconstruction, civil war or whatever — is really a separate war. It's at once a Hobbesian nightmare in which chaos rules and a complex, multi-front battle between regional factions and their proxies. But as insurgencies go, it hasn't lasted very long or cost very many American lives.
    ...
    What the American people don't like is losing — lives or wars. After all, you don't hear many people complaining that we still have troops in Japan and Germany more than 20,000 days later."

    "You see boys and girls, you keep saying I do not live in reality.....The posts from most of the anti-war crowd seem to always reflect on mistakes, lies, conspiricies, or decisions of leaders in the past. This is fine, it is your right to post your thought, yet, like Grammie, I want to know what we do from here."

    Here is the "olly-olly-in-come-free" call of the war-profiteer. You are correct that a way forward must be devised to extricate us from this mess, but you are woefully deluded to think that bygones will be considered bygones. For our democracy to work, and for our society to remain a respected and influential power in the world, we need to be absolute bastards in regard to accountability and punishment for war-crimes. Our government just indicted eight of our footsoldiers for heinous murders in Iraq, and hope that this will satisfy this requirement, but the Haditha investigations have not yet begun. Command Responsibility is the name of the game, and highly-placed asses need to be thrown into prison, or executed for treason, illegitimate international aggression, and mass murder.

    Cee is a funny little drama-queen. The other day he placed all responsibility for the failed war in Iraq and for every bad thing that might ever come of it on the heads of those who have criticized and prtotested against this adminstration's belligerent policies. Is this cee's idea of a way forward?

    One way forward, cee - a personal way forward - would be for people who enthusiastically support this war -particularly doctors and similarly needed specialists - to step forward and suit-up to relieve some of the servicepeople who are as of last week looking at an additional 500 days of extended deployment in this horrible senseless war! But cee knows this; and we all know he will never put his own ass on the line for his apocolyptic beliefs.

    The national way forward is get our people out of Iraq; engage Syria and Iran in respectively calming the Sunni/Shia tensions there; seize all assets of Halliburton, Custer Battles, Blackwater, the Bush family, the Cheney family, the Rumsfeld family, - and anyone/thing else who has influenced American war policy through this administration in the interests of personal/corporate profits - and use this money to augment the massive payments our country needs to make to ameliorate the chaos and destruction we have wrought in Iraq.

    And we need to take out the trash. War-profiteers and usurpers need to be harshly and openly punished.

    Pardon me, p2bal, I just now looked up and realized that cee and I said almost the exact same thing close together. My bad and my apologies.

    What 'COUNSEL' (other than billionaires, those with third grade education (like Red wolf,) or those that are morally bereft (like 'big re(i)d' Cox) is mr. bush using?

    & is it any GOOD if it excludes representatives of more than 50% of this country?

    I would expect, (as it has been documented all along with testimony from representatives from the armed forces), Bush and Gates to make military decisions based on advice from The Joint Chiefs of staff and the Commanders in Iraq. Politically....Gates, Rice, Cheney, his cabinet. The Democratic Leadership has yet to give specific details regarding their wishes.

    But let's talk about The Democratic Leadership for a moment......Wouldn't it be fair to say that, based on the rhetoric of the recent elections, they should be articulating the majority view of withdrawl as you see it, PROUD? Why aren't they? Why are influential people like Pelosi, Levin, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Murtha, Reyes and Dean NOT giving specific solutions that over 50% of the population have been demanding? That "good," advice has not yet been seen....why the wait?....after all 3 more American troops died yesterday. Some of these fine Dems even want "the surge!" Oh my....how could they do that to you lefties?

    Back to answering your question.....So with various political and military opinions, The President will have to make the final decision....and he has this power until 1/2009....unless we do as the radical left wants....impeach him, try him resulting in a vote for removal from office.

    {Oh, & I would prefer (but not, BY ANY MEANS, expect,)that I will be accorded full respect for my name in here... Afterall, ya'll are better than to make fun of names, right?}

    lol


    Posted by PROUD to be a LIBERAL at December 28, 2006 08:05 AM
    _________________________________________________

    Proud to be a Communist- will you vote for Hillary over a conservative?

    Posted by Anonymous at December 28, 2006 09:52 AM
    _________________________________________________


    I do not know who I'd vote for in a campaign for President between Hillary & a Conservative, yet. Probably Hillary, if only because the Supreme Court is SO far to the right. & It really doesn't matter what I say yet, anyhow, because I may change my mind, & we are only dealing in hypotheticals right now, anyhow....

    As far as your proud to be a communist goes.... Read my post above... Because if you did/ can read it, you will notice that I asked you out of Gentlemanly/Ladylike/Aesexual (or whatever you are) kindness to take it easy on the nickname....

    I suppose I was asking a bit much, no?

    Absurd Sir Loin- Cease the assetts? Under what pretense? That they are republicans and all republicans are evil? You are the same people that feel Jefferson-with-cash-in-the-freezer is innocent.

    I do not know who I'd vote for in a campaign for President between Hillary & a Conservative, yet. Probably Hillary, if only because the Supreme Court is SO far to the right.
    ====================================================
    Oh wow, THAT gets my laugh of the day.

    But seriously, has it occurred to anyone that well... MAYBE if we didn't invest so much power into the SCOTUS we wouldn't have to worry so much about whether it was 'left' or 'right'?

    As I tell anyone who likes to come up with new ideas for government: "Ok, now imagine the person you hate MOST in the entire world gets in charge of it..."

    Grim,

    If the war in Iraq isn't all that bad, perhaps you should enlist and do your part in "fulfilling America's promises"? Let us know how that goes.

    You righties are funny; first you draw ridiculous analogies with WWII in terms of "existential threats" facing our country and "Islamofascists" running aound threatening freedom and liberty where-ever it is found, but then you return to reality when it suits you to point out that this war is nothing like WWII in terms of the potential threats to our lives; way of life; and sovereignty. You cannot have it both ways.

    You forgot to add that our involvment in WWII had rational, legitimate casus belli: Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us - pretty f---ing cut-and-dried.

    Your side's best current rationale for invading Iraq is: "Well, lots of people were as wrong as we were about Saddam's WMD and ties to Al Qeada". A close second is the perspective expressed by the short viceral ejaculations of Red Wolf and others on this site; that Iraqis are Muslims so we should kill them. This harkens back to WWII, but reflects the ideology of the Nazis rather than the US.

    See my previous post for instructions are how America can best work to fix the mess we've made in Iraq short of staying there for a decade and losing tens of thousands of personnel before we just leave anyway - oh wait - that's another analogy to a previous war, and it fits pretty good!

    "Wouldn't it be fair to say that, based on the rhetoric of the recent elections, they should be articulating the majority view of withdrawl as you see it, PROUD? Why aren't they? Why are influential people like Pelosi, Levin, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Murtha, Reyes and Dean NOT giving specific solutions that over 50% of the population have been demanding? That "good," advice has not yet been seen....why the wait?....after all 3 more American troops died yesterday. Some of these fine Dems even want "the surge!" Oh my....how could they do that to you lefties?"

    Posted by cee at December 28, 2006 10:09 AM

    I do not claim to be either a member of the Democratic leadership in Washington, nor do I claim to have all the answers, cee... You ask, 'Why the wait?' & I give you the honest answer that i do not know. All I do know is that it is our RESPONSIBILITY as American citizens to make certain that they live up to the principles which they were elected on. & if they don't, then we must kick them out of office, just like we did with the past-republican regime in Congress.

    "unless we do as the radical left wants....impeach him, try him resulting in a vote for removal from office."

    Posted by cee at December 28, 2006 10:09 AM

    While impeaching bush would most certainly be a dream of mine... For all of the lying he's done, he deserves that, at the very least... I am not in favor of that until we remove Cheney from office first... He's even MORE dangerous than w... & more fascist. So I am not, at the moment in favor of impeaching w.

    Benson: "Absurd Sir Loin- Cease the assetts? Under what pretense? That they are republicans and all republicans are evil? You are the same people that feel Jefferson-with-cash-in-the-freezer is innocent."

    Seize them under the same license that allows the police to seize the boats, cars, and houses of drug-dealers and racketeers. Ill-gotten gains are at the dispensation of the government.

    "the perspective expressed by the short viceral ejaculations of Red Wolf and others on this site; that Iraqis are Muslims so we should kill them. This harkens back to WWII, but reflects the ideology of the Nazis rather than the US."

    Posted by Sir Loin of Beef at December 28, 2006 10:27 AM

    Are you actually accusing the right wing if being fascist, Sir Loin? Shame on you!!

    lol

    "Pardon me, p2bal, I just now looked up and realized that cee and I said almost the exact same thing close together. My bad and my apologies."

    Posted by Challenger Grim at December 28, 2006 10:08 AM

    It's all good grim... It happens that way sometimes!

    You and I both know that this administration is as fascist as the sky is blue, PBL. The whole country isn't yet; but then it wasn't always 1938 in Germany, was it?

    "Pardon me, p2bal, I just now looked up and realized that cee and I said almost the exact same thing close together. My bad and my apologies."

    Posted by Challenger Grim at December 28, 2006 10:08 AM

    It's all good grim... It happens that way sometimes!

    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at December 28, 2006 10:37 AM


    It happens A LOT with the brainwashed whack job drowning-rat brownshirts at this site, you can bet.

    Grim,

    If the war in Iraq isn't all that bad, perhaps you should enlist and do your part in "fulfilling America's promises"? Let us know how that goes.
    ==================================================
    Beef, did you not see that post I made awhile back where I said I tried signing up for service? Unfortunately it seems our military has some sort of physical standards or something so a few prexisting conditions I have disqualify me. I thought everyone here acknowledged I was pyscho enough to have no concern toward shooting or being shot at.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You righties are funny; first you draw ridiculous analogies with WWII in terms of "existential threats" facing our country and "Islamofascists" running aound threatening freedom and liberty where-ever it is found, but then you return to reality when it suits you to point out that this war is nothing like WWII in terms of the potential threats to our lives; way of life; and sovereignty. You cannot have it both ways.

    You forgot to add that our involvment in WWII had rational, legitimate casus belli: Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us - pretty f---ing cut-and-dried.
    ==================================================
    ummm... Osama's declared war on us for quite awhile and umm... last I checked, 9/11 was pretty cut-and-dried as well.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Your side's best current rationale for invading Iraq is: "Well, lots of people were as wrong as we were about Saddam's WMD and ties to Al Qeada". A close second is the perspective expressed by the short viceral ejaculations of Red Wolf and others on this site; that Iraqis are Muslims so we should kill them. This harkens back to WWII, but reflects the ideology of the Nazis rather than the US.
    ==================================================
    Ignoring the latter (which I do not agree with or condone), Saddam DID have ties to Al Qeada. How many times and how much am I going to have to post before you might admit at least that much?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    See my previous post for instructions are how America can best work to fix the mess we've made in Iraq short of staying there for a decade and losing tens of thousands of personnel before we just leave anyway - oh wait - that's another analogy to a previous war, and it fits pretty good!
    ==================================================
    Just for clarification, WE didn't make this mess. 90% of the troublemakers in Iraq are foreigners causing the trouble. The other 10% are a VERY small minority within the country. A majority of Iraq are 'normal' and want the fighting to stop and to get on with their lives. Ironically, if the insurgents would stop fighting for awhile, both they and us would get the same thing: America leaving Iraq.
    (sorry if I'm a little scattered today everyone, I'm working on some javascript and it always gives me a headache)

    Typical Bob...taking the death of a former President to make a shallow political point.
    Can you sink any lower, Bob? Using slecected quotes from a President whose body isn't even cold yet to score points on a message board? If this doesn't prove that you're an anti-American Slug who roots against our country and the values it stands for, I don't know what is...

    Yup...that's what it proves...in your demented mind.
    A shallow political point to Red State is to quote a former republican president on his views of the Iraq war.
    President Ford's quote is news because it wasn't released until after his death based on his own request.
    As most of the world sees the folly for any support for this ill-conceived and poorly executed war, red state continues to question the patriotism of anyone who speaks out against it, or quotes anyone who does.
    My main point on this board is that there are no rational people left who support this war...Democrat nor Republican.
    Since Red State finds himself in the irrational category, it really pisses him off and further alienates himself from intelligent , rational human beings.

    Grim: Saddam did NOT have any real ties to Al Queada! You can post it 90,000 times and it still won't change that basic fact! They were more edversaries than they were allies.

    Wow, EVERY single one of your replies in the post above were illogical and just plain WRONG! Its hard to believe there are still people like you still walking around.

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast returns!......

    WITH A DOOZY!

    ".....and highly-placed asses need to be thrown into prison, or executed for treason, illegitimate international aggression, and mass murder."

    And he calls me the, "drama queen."

    Well Loin, I guess any straw you can grasp to delegitamize the honorable intervention that has been going on for the last 3 1/2 years will serve your purposes....despite lack of evidence or logic.

    "...seize all assets of Halliburton, Custer Battles, Blackwater, the Bush family, the Cheney family, the Rumsfeld family, - and anyone/thing else who has influenced American war policy through this administration in the interests of personal/corporate profits - and use this money to augment the massive payments our country needs to make to ameliorate the chaos and destruction we have wrought in Iraq."

    Due process for all of these criminals in our midst would be a good thing....but it seems seizing assets so that it fits with your economic justice theory is simply more important.

    I guess all of the people and companies that profitted from WWII should have paid for the rebuilding of Germany according to your radical economic theory.

    Finally, and with a sigh....

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast, this is the FIFTH time you have retreated into the non sequitor of, "go and serve, dammit!" I will not readdress the absurdity of a self-described commited peace activist encouraging anyone to go join a war... other than to point out, (once again), how going there....

    makes you look silly and....
    you lose what little credibility you still have.

    Grim wrote: "ummm... Osama's declared war on us for quite awhile and umm... last I checked, 9/11 was pretty cut-and-dried as well.

    ... Saddam DID have ties to Al Qeada. How many times and how much am I going to have to post before you might admit at least that much?

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

    You can post what ever "proof" you say you have as many times as you want, but that does not make it true or relevant. Saddam and Osama were anathema to one another - Saddam required fearful order and discipline: Osama represents the weilding of state-level power by non-state actors, Osama referred to Saddam as a "Secular Socialist" and called many times for his violent overthrow.

    Now you may be able to cite purported instances of Al Qeada operatives being in Iraq or passing through Iraq at some point or another, and these may or may not be accurate (most that I've heard used as evidence of a connection have been proven wrong).

    - but who cares? We've had Al Qeada operatives in the US as well (remember 9/11?). Does that mean our government has significant, operational links to Al Qeada?


    FORD: BUSH MADE BIG MISTAKE ON IRAQ JUSTIFICATIONS

    -- White House Declares Gerald Ford "Terrorist Organization", Flip-Flopper, Democrat --

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an interview never before published, former President Gerald Ford said President Bush and his chief advisers "made a big mistake" with their justifications for the Iraq war. Ford made the comments in a four-hour interview in 2004 with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward conducted at Ford's home in Beaver Creek, Colorado. "I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly -- I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war," Ford said, "I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer," the former president said.

    "ummm... Osama's declared war on us for quite awhile and umm... last I checked, 9/11 was pretty cut-and-dried as well."

    Posted by Challenger Grim at December 28, 2006 10:43 AM


    While 9/11 might have been 'cut-&-dried', that still does not have ANYTHING to do with what we are talking about. The ONLY things that Iraq, Al Qaeda, & Afghanistan have in common is the religion of Islam & the fact that we are fighting with all of them. C"mon, grim, let's get over all of this fear-mongering & just admit that we made ma mistake going into Iraq, & get on with working out a solution.

    "Just for clarification, WE didn't make this mess. 90% of the troublemakers in Iraq are foreigners causing the trouble. The other 10% are a VERY small minority within the country. "

    OK, I'm done talking with Grim - he is totally full of shit. These figures match NOTHING I've ever seen. The Pentagon itself has never put the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at more than 7% of the insurgency!

    Your ass must be gigantic to both keep you out of the Army and to pull so much bullshit out of!


    We invaded, and chaos followed. Everything we've done there could not have been more precisely designed to destabilize the region. WE made the mess.

    2006 has been a decisive year for the "decider".

    The American people offered a stinging vote of "no confidence" to the presidency of George W. Bush.

    How bad a year was it for Bush? There are four distinct stages in the death spiral of a presidency -- and Bush managed to reach three of them in 2006. He began the year with desperate, reality-defying belief in spin, as symbolized by this brazen line from the State of the Union: "We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory." Then came denial, as the president in his bunker believed Field Marshal Karl Rove's assurances that the Republicans had wonder weapons they would deploy on Election Day. Now we are in the Harry Truman phase, as Bush frequently likens himself to that midcentury president whose approval rating hit 23 percent during the Korean War. Pretty soon the star-crossed Bush (whose own popularity score is dropping below 30 percent) may display this motto on his desk: "The Luck Stops Here." All that is missing in this four-part saga is for Bush to start talking to the portraits on the White House walls -- the political version of the Book of Revelation that truly heralds Nixonian end times.

    Anon,

    Bush has held policy-summits with Jesus all along - does that pre-empt phase IV?

    You and I both know that this administration is as fascist as the sky is blue, PBL. The whole country isn't yet; but then it wasn't always 1938 in Germany, was it?
    ====================================================
    Sir Beef, I would sure enjoy a detailed essay on a compare/contrast of what the adminstration has done in common with Hitler's.

    Let's see here... these are extracts from Hitler's 25 point policy plan. How many does Bush qualify for? And note: Beef, I'm going to be using your OWN standard.

    9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.
    ____________________
    vote: No. Don't we hear every day about how Bush mistreats citizens?

    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.
    ____________________
    hmmm.... I guess we'll have to vote Yes on this one. After all, isn't Bush repressing individuals for the 'good' of the country?

    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
    ____________________
    BIG no. Isn't that one of your chief complaints about Bush is how he even encourages this?

    12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
    ____________________
    You yourself have admitted on this page this is a big no.

    13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
    ____________________
    No. After all, isn't Bush all for corporations, etc etc? Doesn't quite seem to be going down the nationalization path.

    14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
    _____________________
    No on this.

    15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
    ______________________
    No again (by your standard, Sir Beef, keep that in mind)

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
    ____________________
    Haven't some complained that Bush is eradicating the middle class?

    17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
    _____________________
    I'd have to vote no on this one, just because the whole 'emminent domain' ruling SCOTUS recently handed down didn't have much to do with Bush.

    So... how exactly is Bush fascist again?

    What we are seeing are the last remnants of Shrub supporters. All 20-30 of them post on this site. These are the completely delusional ones that still believe in an Iraq & 9/11 connection. They still believe whatever they are told, and they are easily led. They have been brainwashed into believing all that BS that so much of the rest of the country stopped swallowing years ago. You just have to feel for them. They truly need to be pitied.

    What we are seeing are the last remnants of Shrub supporters. All 20-30 of them post on this site. These are the completely delusional ones that still believe in an Iraq & 9/11 connection. They still believe whatever they are told, and they are easily led. They have been brainwashed into believing all that BS that so much of the rest of the country stopped swallowing years ago. You just have to feel for them. They truly need to be pitied.
    ====================================================
    Shaun, I don't believe that Iraq had any connection to 9/11 (never said I did, etc). A connection to Al Qeada doesn't ipso facto mean a connectino to 9/11. I thought 'you liberals' were supposed to be masters of nuance? Why does that nuance always seem missing when it comes to debates?

    PROUD:

    My point of my last response to your simply is that we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy....The leaders that have been rightly elected....from my congressman to The President, should take into consideration the opinion of the public....along with other factors...including what the advise of experts, their own expertise and what their "value system" directs.

    I agree with you that the re-election process places many of these people in a mandatory system of being held accountable for their decisions, but too many are "safe" in their little districts because of many factors. So, this is why an executive serves for a specific period of time and is not subject ONLY to the possible error of the mob.

    The way around this is impeachment and removal from office, or, cause a constitutional crisis by cutting the funding....It would be interesting to see what the polls would say if The Democrats try those two options.

    Dr. Lapdog sees the Iraq War as an "honorable intervention. "

    The facts have shown that this war has been anything but!
    We have attacked a country that didn't attack us, caused tens of thousands of deaths to innocent people and lost our credibility as a nation in the process.
    As the Iraq war continues to spiral downward and the bodies continue to mount,the Bush ad. has assured us we are winning, let war profiteers prosper and this war has divided our great country like nothing else since Vietnam .
    To all of this, Dr, Lapdog considers it "honorable".
    War is peace and ignorance is wisdom to the ultimate republican apologist !

    Challenger Grim,

    Whatever new line of spin this administration puts out, be it WMD, spreading democracies (aka nation building), keeping oil out of the hands of terrorists, or whatever new (almost daily)rationale is used to justify this war, the people on this site will be repeating it wholeheartedly.

    You guys are nothing more than happy peons and you are pathetic.

    Well, the 25 Points were Hitler's spin that he used to rise in Germany's political arena - they had no determinant role in his governance afterward. Remember? - arbitrary dictatorial governance as opposed to Rule of Law?

    Why go to a politician's empty rhetoric to explain the real world - look at it empirically. You might as well look at the hazy tenets of "compassionate conservatism" or admonitions against "nation-building" as a positive rubric to analyze Bush's policies - GOOD LUCK!

    What is the definition of "fascism" as concieved by Musolini? This entails: the corporate unity of executive power, industrial interests, mass-media, and military might.

    Until the burning of the Reichstagg Hitler was unable to bind together all of these threads - but the German people stupidly gave him this power when a terrorist attack burned a potent symbol of their sovereignty before their eyes. Our stupid congress extended one end of these reins of power to Bush in 2001, and since then our myopic avoidance of the administration's many media improprieties; our aqcuiessence to the legislative/procedural facilitation of unwarranted 4th ammendment abuses (true not5 many have happened yet - but they've got the framework now), and our failure to act on the many corporate copnflicts of interest operating between the White House, Pentagon, and war-profiteering industries have only made a fascist seizure of power more possible.

    Like I've said; It wasn't always 1938 in Germany.

    Challenger Grim fret not- it obvious that Shaun is a miserable person who should be pitied.

    Bob,

    Agreed. "Honorable" is the last word that could be described anything this administration has embarked upon. From eavesdropping on Americans, suspending Habeus Corpus for detainees (including Americans), Gitmo, war profiteering, etc., it is disgusting. Yet, we've got the Shrub apologists, like cornered, wounded animals, lashing out.

    Removing a tyrant is honorable, Professor Honeydew.....even your current ally, President Ford believed this:

    "Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about 45 minutes. He'd been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he'd told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass destruction.

    "'Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,' he observed, 'but we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?'"

    http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483757p-407239c.html

    Keeping your promises to help a fledgling democracy is honorable. Stopping people from executing their most debased urges for violence and carnage is honorable. Thwarting the advance of world-wide terrorism is honorable.

    Oh yeah.....and really pissing off cowardly leftists (like you, kos (Shaun), Sir Loin of Milquetoast, PROUD and Olbermann) who don't seem have a moral bone in their body, is a nice additional benefit that gives great pleasure.

    "Challenger Grim fret not- it obvious that Shaun is a miserable person who should be pitied." by Anonymous

    Oh Anyonymous, ouch. That one hurt. HA!

    -eavesdropping on Americans,
    -suspending Habeus Corpus for detainees
    -war profiteering

    Sounds like a true Olbyloon who gets his talking points straight from Keith. Do your research freak. These are the fringe topics that only whacko liberals hold onto. Are you from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?

    "These are the fringe topics that only whacko liberals hold onto. Are you from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?" by Anonymous

    Yes Anonymous,

    Upholding, honoring and respecting the Constitution is a "quaint" thing to you Republiscum these days, isn't it?

    cee,

    ...and stepping foreward; temporarily putting aside one's liberty; and risking one's life and safety in order to combat what one sees as an exitential threat to one's nation would also be honorable. This is particularly true when that person has energetically advocated putting his fellow citizens in just such a situation - and keeping them there indefinitely.

    Claiming "other priorities", hiding behind Jesus' robes; or claiming that one is too important to risk - (all positions previously taken by cee) would be in comparison "dishonorable".

    All your topics have been proven to be false or overblown rhetoric. How come these three topics are not being investigated by the Democrats or liberal media? I'll tell your little brain why... because they were fringe talking points used by the Democrats to rile simpletons like you up for the last election. And your venom for these topics shows how far you are gone. Google the topics. You'll find a lot of old news and dead ends. So let it go freak.

    "Oh yeah.....and really pissing off cowardly leftists (like you, kos (Shaun), Sir Loin of Milquetoast, PROUD and Olbermann) who don't seem have a moral bone in their body..." by Cee

    Now, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

    It must just kill you guys that this site is being taken over by reason and common sense. Even your poll question is heavily skewed towards giving Keith Olbermann a raise (74% wanted him to get $4 million or considered him priceless). Not a good sign for an ANTI-Olbermann site.

    "War profiteering" is a "fringe issue"?

    Why do today's retarded righties ignore the most blatant governmental conflicts of interest that our country has ever seen? Why do they hold Halliburton and Cheney to a lower standard of official ethics than they would any dog-catcher in the country?

    Polls don't matter- ratings do. I'll eat my show if that loser gets 4 million a year.

    Shane...

    It is absolutely hillarious what has happened on this site... & Keith didn't even have to say anything on the air...

    Well, I suppose that this just goes to show that logic will win out over stupidity once in a while...

    Even in America....

    lol

    Shane...

    It is absolutely hillarious what has happened on this site... & Keith didn't even have to say anything on the air...

    Well, I suppose that this just goes to show that logic will win out over stupidity once in a while...

    Even in America....

    lol

    Sorry... I meant Shaun....

    What you losers fail to admit is Clinton's association with Halliburton in his war. Maybe you could build a volunteer army to handle the management of these affairs.

    "All your topics have been proven to be false or overblown rhetoric. How come these three topics are not being investigated by the Democrats or liberal media? " by Anonymous.

    The Dems aren't even in power yet jackass! Do you understand how our government works or are you in third grade?

    As for the "liberal media" you guys just love to rail against... Well, I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't exist. If it did, we would never had gotten into Iraq. The media should have had enough sense to stand up to Shrub and question our motives. Instead, they marched in lockstep behind this destructive, dangerous war. The media hasn't been "liberal" for 15-20 years. They sure wasn't a liberal bias when they were tearing Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal, now were they? Oh, how I long for the days when our country's biggist problem was where the President was getting off. Now, we have to worry if our country is going to survive in the face of Dictator Shrub.

    Cee, you posted something a day or so ago that astounded me. It read something to the effect of "we are dying the death from a thousand daggars" or something like that implying that the 'left' lost this war for us by not keeping their mouths shut!

    To me, that was an astonishing statement because it implies a basic denial of reality and human nature in a free society. The opposition is NEVER going to keep quite because that is exactly how our's or any other free society operates. It was 100% predictable that anti - war sentiment would build as the rational for going to war proved false, and the casulties mounted. This will ALWAYS happen in ANY free human society and should have been considered as one of the major reasons NOT to do it in the first place! To blame the ones who knew all along this was a rotten idea for not just going along as the situation worsened is absurd!

    I don't know how old you were. Were you even around during the Vietnam War? If you had been, I don't see how you could possibly doubt this as conventional wisdom.

    That is EXACTLY why we should have had an open and HONEST national debate about this instead of hiding behind false WMD and "mushroom cloud" scenarios. This is EXACTLY why no attempts should have ever been made to quiet or discredit critics like Wilson. This is EXACTLY why generals who disagreed we needed more troops should have been carefully listened to instead of being fired! We needed ALL the input we could get before doing something this grave.

    You know as well as I do that if we had had an HONEST National debate beforehand, we would never have entered into this debacle....and only hold outs such as yourself seem to think that would have been a bad thing!

    Man, I'd hate to live in some of these people's world where at any moment the country is going to descend into the grips of fascism. How long do you folks think we have? Bush has only 2 years left in office. At what point are we 'really' fascist? Seems to me that the best way to prevent fascism would be to adopt the most hardline conservative talking points and reducing government (undercutting its funding, stripping more and more of its power, etc).

    I guess I'm not really concerned since I practice my 2nd amendment rights. Of course, in all seriousness, if the country does suddenly become fascist, I will be right there at the front of the line to fight back. Everyone able and willing are really invited to my place for formation of the resistence.

    "Polls don't matter- ratings do. I'll eat my show if that loser gets 4 million a year."

    Posted by Anonymous at December 28, 2006 11:51 AM


    Holy shit, guys... do you realize whio we are beating at an argument? it's Bill O, himself!! I guess when you can't turn the other guys mike off, you can't win afterall, eh, bill o?

    lol

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    Do you hate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as much as you hate Bush. He recently said that the US, UK and Israel will soon disappear. Does this up set you?

    Shaun- you are losing it badly...
    There is a liberal bias... its a fact, more than 2/3 of pundits and reporters have admitted to being democrats, BUT claim it does not affect their occupation. That is bunk.

    And come back with your eavesdropping on Americans, suspending Habeus Corpus for detainees, war profiteering, next year after you see NOTHING will be done. These WERE talking points. And your soft brain sucked it in!

    "Well, I suppose that this just goes to show that logic will win out over stupidity once in a while..." by PROUD

    We can hope. There does seem to be a glimmer of light at the end of the horrendous tunnel we've been in for the past six years.

    Anon sez: "All your topics have been proven to be false or overblown rhetoric. How come these three topics are not being investigated by the Democrats or liberal media?"

    Well, The democrats in neither house currently have - or have had - power to initiate investigations or to subpoena witnesses. Conyers, Waxman, et al have held informal "hearings" regarding these matters, but these have had absolutely no procedural weight, and suffered under extremely limited privateresources.

    The "liberal Media" IS talking about it, dipshit! What the f--- is this website about, after all? Olbermann, Amy Goodman ("Democracy Now"), Jon Stewart, and Colbert - there's your "Liberal Media"; and they are indeed looking at these things.

    "And come back with your eavesdropping on Americans, suspending Habeus Corpus for detainees, war profiteering, next year after you see NOTHING will be done. These WERE talking points. And your soft brain sucked it in!" by Anonymous

    Yes, that is why Shrub is lawyering up, BIG TIME. They are scared to death of the investigations that are going to take place, as they should be. When you see how corrupt and dishonest Shrub and his ilk are, hopefully, you won't be able to live with yourself after defending them so many times, and you'll off yourself. That would be the only honorable thing to do.

    Comedy Central and Loon Central- Hardly the reputable outlets I would be citing in an intellectual debate.

    And you are speculating on what the democrats will do, but so am I when I say- They will NOT be bringing eavesdropping on Americans, suspending Habeus Corpus for detainees, war profiteering, to the forefront of their agenda. They are certain losers in the public arena.

    I do recall you democrats putting all your eggs in the Plame affair for years and then months ago you got THE BIG MOTZAH BALL. Years of headlines and accusations, and then nothing. You pick fights you can't win, and I am warning you- those three talking points are certain losers too.

    "I am warning you- those three talking points are certain losers too." by Anonymous

    Priceless advice, I'm sure.

    No response on Plame shauney? Just another great example of both Democrats barking up the wrong tree and the liberal media extending it.

    Um, the Plame affair is not done, by any means. There is not a soul on Earth, who can predict how it's going to turn out. Oh what a joyous day it will be when Cheney is on the stand. There is no disputing that Cheney wanted to smear them (just like they did to any dissenters), it's just a matter of how they did it. Regardless of the verdict, it will put on display the tactics this administration used to silence their critics, and it's going to be GREAT!

    Won't happen... another dead issue.

    yeah, right ... "fringe" topics:

    -falsified WMD intel, 9/11-link
    -state-sanctioned torture
    -secret prisons
    -warrantless eavesdropping on Americans
    -eliminated Habeus Corpus for detainees
    -botched military occupation
    -war profiteering
    -just to name a few

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    Do you hate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as much as you hate Bush. He recently said that the US, UK and Israel will soon disappear. Does this up set you?

    Posted by Red Wolf at December 28, 2006 12:00 PM

    yes, It most certainly does Red wolf... As a matter of fact, I have, FOR YEARS, advocated limited strikes on Iran to eliminate their potential for firing missiles... if anything, I think that the entire debacle in Iraq has turned our attention away from VERY important issues in Iran!

    When, however, we 'elected' bozo & his regime of clowns to office six years ago, i immediately became aware of two VERY important facts: 1) that this country was going to get in one crisis or another, & 2) that it wouldn't matter much what I thought about anything, because i was not a member of the entrenched white wealth in this country.

    & nothing any different has been proven to me since that time. Our country is going in the wrong direction in so many ways it makes me physically ill.

    On foreign policy, for instance... When we could have been getting closer with Russia, China, or Iran, for instance, we haven't been, but rather, pissing off our previous allies, the French...

    We have such a STUPID government right now... It is, absolutely a Conservative government: It is causing us to stagnate, or conserve ourselves. What happened to the Roman Republic when it became stagnate? It became an empire, & the decline began... Do you see any similarities between superpower rome & a current regime in the worlds only superpower today?

    &, unless we all work for change, we will all die that death, if only by giving up our rights, along with our cherished republic...

    yup- fringe... you can do better!

    And come back with your eavesdropping on Americans, suspending Habeus Corpus for detainees, war profiteering, next year after you see NOTHING will be done. These WERE talking points. And your soft brain sucked it in!

    Does this clown really believe there HASN'T been war profiteering?
    Or is that just the dirty little secret that you bush apologists like to avoid?
    The troops themselves have spoken out on the war profiteering, especially since the Halliburton employees get many times the amount of money that they do for doing the exact same job.
    And in case you want to dismiss my point, I heard a number of troops talking about this very point.

    And no...there hasn't been any eavesdropping or habeous corpus problems either...in your closed little mind.

    You also asked why haven't the Democrats investigated these "talking points".
    This dimwit doesn't even realize that they aren't in power yet.
    It's coming.
    I know accountability and oversight are more dirty words to you republicans.
    The no bid contracts in iraq and for the Katrina cleanup are at the top of the list for the new Congress.
    BTW, did you hear the news this week about the $2 billion in fraud your boys permitted to happen with the Katrina reclamation?
    Or did you intentionally skip that article in the newspaper?
    Maybe you're like Bush and don't read newspapers ?

    How you can claim none of these issues are actually happening and still consider yourself a reasonably aware person...is beyond belief.

    "Won't happen... another dead issue. " by Anonymous

    Hopefully, all Rethugs think like you. In utter and complete denial about the complete and total destruction of the Rethug party that is going to take place over the next two years. That is going to be Shrub's legacy (well besides opening Pandora's Box in the Middle East). Based on what's happened over the last six years (and it's all going to come out over the next 24 months), 60% of America (That's all D's and D leaning Indys) wouldn't vote for another R if someone was holding a gun to their head.

    AGAIN is profiting during a war illegal? Investigate all you want- THOSE are not the topics you will chase, and as a long time blogger here... you will be able to rub it in my face if those are the topics they choose to investigate.

    Read up- the majority of Americans do not mind the government listening to calls to Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran. So imagine Pelosi up there grilling the administration for doing something most Americans approve of. That is why you liberal freak, everyone of you, are out of touch.

    Read up- the majority of Americans do not mind taking rights from terrorist combatants. Again- the liberals will NOT make this a topic in their tenure. Its suicide.

    "Read up- the majority of Americans do not mind the government listening to calls to Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran. So imagine Pelosi up there grilling the administration for doing something most Americans approve of." by Anonymous

    Take your own advice fool and read up, this is not the issue, never had been. You're trying to simplify so that your little brain can comprehend it.

    As a republican I hope you make those three issues your agenda.
    -eavesdropping on Americans talking to Iran and Iraq
    -suspending Habeus Corpus for terrorists
    -war profiteering

    You surely will secure the terrorist voting block in America.


    1.

    Mike wrote: "Cee, you posted something a day or so ago that astounded me. It read something to the effect of "we are dying the death from a thousand daggars" or something like that implying that the 'left' lost this war for us by not keeping their mouths shut!"

    Mike, that was the post of cee's that I commented on a little ways up this discussion today. He said unequivocally that it was the detractors and critics of Bush's Iraq war that were responsible for the faiures so far, and he projected their responsibility for failures yet to come.

    This is the classic "Stabbed in the Back" rationalization that war mongers have long used to scapegoat the peacemakers. Borrowing profusely from Germanic mythology, Hitler used it to explain the failure of his nation in WWI, and to whip the Germans into yet another war frenzy to redeem the blood of German war-dead - betrayed by soft civilian "pacifists" - from Siegfried to the fallen at Langemarke.

    Herman Goering explained it precisely in his interviews diring the Nuremburg trials: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

    The most hawkish elements in our own military and government used the “stabbed in the back” analogy to rationalize failures in the Korean and Vietnam Wars: Nixon actually used the phrase itself.

    And Rove/Cheney/Bush use it today. It is under this rubric that they will begin jailing “dissident” journalists and anti-war politicians for lending "aid and comfort to the enemy", if we let them go that far.

    School me shaunner- whats your issue?

    How you can claim none of these issues are actually happening and still consider yourself a reasonably aware person...is beyond belief.

    Posted by Bob at December 28, 2006 12:25 PM

    because, Bob... he's Bill O.... He is the MOST aware person in the world!

    hey, isn't the radio factor on soon? What's on the menu today, bill O? is it your movement 'expert?' Or is it your former producer?


    let me tell you, William... I really did like your appearance on dave a couple of months ago!!
    lol

    WARRANTLESS eavesdropping on Americans. Regardless of where those calls were going (and your guess is as good as mine as to whether all or any of these calls were being made to the countries mentioned), the administration thumbed it's nose at our Constitution and just went ahead and started listening to American Citizens WITHOUT a WARRANT.

    FISA was in place for just this situation. You could even get a retroactive warrant, but again, respecting the Constitution was as 'quaint' as the Geneva Conventions.

    How you can claim none of these issues are actually happening and still consider yourself a reasonably aware person...is beyond belief.

    Posted by Bob at December 28, 2006 12:25 PM

    because, Bob... he's Bill O.... He is the MOST aware person in the world!

    hey, isn't the radio factor on soon? What's on the menu today, bill O? is it your movement 'expert?' Or is it your former producer?


    let me tell you, William... I really did like your appearance on dave a couple of months ago!!
    lol

    "The funniest story of the day: John Edwards announces he's running again. On a day when the country is mourning the loss of a president... and all the news coverage is about Ford... Edwards tries to eek his way onto the radar. Wait a day or two until the coverage has died down... not for Edwards!"

    Someone doesn't watch the news. Edwards didn't announce anything yesterday. Someone at his office accidentally put the wrong graphics up on his website (which were immediately removed when it was discovered), and Edwards waited until this morning to make his announcement.

    Edwards didn't try to "eek his way onto the radar". Someone screwed up. That's it.

    "AGAIN is profiting during a war illegal?"

    Well, there are RICO statutes that preclude certain forms of collusion and conspiracy between government and corporations. Since a significant node of this collusion involves the government and our information/media industries, this matter is not presented in any meaningful context by our mass-media. But yes, previous, "unofficial" investigations by Democrats in congress indicate that these statutes will be proven relevant to the Bush admininstration's corporate rape of Iraq and the American treasury.

    ...so laws against treason will probably also apply.

    Shaun, Cheney is being called as a witness for the defense. The prosecution has stated it has no intention of calling Cheney on their behalf.

    As for there being no doubt that the Wilsons were targeted by the WH, there seems to be doubt indeed, as this Washington Post editorial articulates:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

    As a republican I hope you make those three issues your agenda.
    -eavesdropping on Americans talking to Iran and Iraq
    -suspending Habeus Corpus for terrorists
    -war profiteering

    You surely will secure the terrorist voting block in America.

    Posted by Anonymous at December 28, 2006 12:34 PM

    So, bill O, are you now telling us that you are a republican? After all those years claiming to be the most 'fair & balanced of the fair & balanced' journalists at Fox News?

    This is really too much fun!! Hey, bill O, for the record, if you are so worried about KO's ratings that you have to come on a site like this & complain about him anonymously, I really do pity you.... Enjoy your show... I hope it tastes good, after olbermann gets his $4 million...

    lol

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    I actually agree that Iraq is a distraction from Iran. So you seem like a sensible Liberal that recoqnizes the Islamic threat. I disagree with being closer with France. They're anti-American and their cities are partially under Islamic rule now. Their politicians kiss Islamic butt for election purposes. We need real allies not phonies.

    Anon asks if war profiteering is illegal?

    Anon needs a history lesson.

    Even before US troops arrived in Baghdad, looting broke out--in Washington. While Republicans in Congress and their allies in the media yammered about the need to silence dissent and "support the troops," corporations with close ties to the Bush Administration were quietly arranging to ink lucrative contracts that would put them in charge of reconstructing Iraq.

    Bechtel's contract, worth up to $680 million, to rebuild Iraqi roads, schools, sewers and hospitals drew a lot of media attention, but it was chump change compared with the deal greased through by Vice President Cheney's old oil-services firm, Halliburton. The Army Corps of Engineers told Representative Henry Waxman that a Pentagon contract awarded without competition to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) to fight oilwell fires is worth as much as $7 billion over two years. The Halliburton subsidiary has been authorized to take profits of up to $490 million.

    Congress dozes while the treasury is raided. Waxman has done the best job of monitoring the rapidly burgeoning relationship between the federal government run by Dick Cheney and a corporation formerly run by Dick Cheney. He's been asking polite, persistent questions such as, "What is the exact nature of the work that Brown & Root is expected to be asked to perform under the contract?"

    But where's the outrage? Where is the leader with the courage to say, as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster"? Democrats in Congress--and Republicans who have not placed their conscience in a blind trust for the duration of the Bush/Cheney years,( see Cee, Red State, Janet etc.) a group we hope still includes Arizona's John McCain in the Senate and Iowa's Jim Leach in the House--should borrow a page from past wars, when the nation's elected leaders knew what to call businessmen who used hostilities abroad as an excuse to raid the federal treasury. Senator Robert La Follette tagged them as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason."

    When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits.

    Truman became a national hero for his fight against the war profiteers.

    George Bush, not so much.


    Back to your original question.
    Is war profiteering illegal?
    I'll let you figure it out.
    Is waste, inefficiency and mismangement illegal?
    Is profiting from the suffering of our troops illegal?
    Is permitting $8 billion to turn up missing in Iraq , with no investigation by the GOP Congress illegal?
    I can definitely say it's immoral, and ( hopefully) we will find out the legalities when the new Congress takes place.
    We certainly got a thorough hand job by the GOP Congress on this issue, and that appears to sit well with you.
    I wonder why !

    PBL,

    I did notice anon saying he would "eat his show" earlier. I wondered about that. What other reasons do you have for thinking this may be O'Reilly?

    Voice of reason,

    Hats off. Great eloquent post.


    TOP U.S. ADVISERS MEET IN CRAWFORD FOR 117th "RETHINK" OF IRAQ STRATEGERY

    -- Bush Reportedly Despondent, Thought Meeting Was For Clearing Brush --

    CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush's top national security advisers arrived here to hone a new Iraq strategy that administration officials said seems increasingly likely to include a surge of additional troops to try to help stabilize the country. Although officials have said no decisions will be made in the Crawford meeting, Bush seems to be laying the groundwork for one more sustained effort to defeat the Iraq insurgency and stabilize the country politically. Two defense officials said Wednesday that some sort of troop increase appears likely in an effort to contain the violence but that the specific size and nature of such a surge still has to be worked out.


    Calling all contards!

    C-SPAN 7 PM EST

    http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=547978416

    Q & A with Keith Olbermann
    C-SPAN, Q&A
    New York, New York (United States)
    ID: 191247 - 02/20/2006 - 0:57 - $19.95

    Olbermann, Keith Host, MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann

    n an interview about television journalism, Mr. Olbermann talked about his childhood, his early love for broadcasting, his principles, specific shows he has hosted, and networks where he worked, including FOX and MSNBC. He emphasized the role of ratings in broadcasting and cable television, and talked about the ratings effects of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the death of Princess Diana. He also talked about his health problems.

    The interview was held in the Pace University studio in New York City.

    Is war profiteering illegal?
    I'll let you figure it out.
    Is waste, inefficiency and mismangement illegal?
    Is profiting from the suffering of our troops illegal?
    Is permitting $8 billion to turn up missing in Iraq , with no investigation by the GOP Congress illegal?

    ---------

    HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!

    Boy, the Republo-fascists are really out in force today! Desperately trying to steer the stoopid illegal/botched war and torture talk back to the more pressing issues of that unconstitutionally incompetent civilian-killer and country-wrecker Edward R. Olbermann! After all, this IS StormTrooperCircleJerkOlbermannWatch!

    "HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!" by Anonymous

    Ha! Good one. I hadn't heard that one in a while.

    We should be aware that current president Bush isn't the first in his family to engage in war profiteering.
    George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, reminds us that on October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City that were being conducted by Prescott Bush, the father of former president George Herbert Walker Bush.

    Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Prescott Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corporation stock shares, all of which were owned by E. Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Prescott Bush.

    This whole family is corrupt to the core.

    Colbert and Amy Goodman interview.

    http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/youre_a_communi.html

    Thought the question "Why don't you embed(sic?) with the insurgents" was great.

    As for the "liberal media" you guys just love to rail against... Well, I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't exist. If it did, we would never had gotten into Iraq. The media should have had enough sense to stand up to Shrub and question our motives. Instead, they marched in lockstep behind this destructive, dangerous war. The media hasn't been "liberal" for 15-20 years. They sure wasn't a liberal bias when they were tearing Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal, now were they? Oh, how I long for the days when our country's biggist problem was where the President was getting off. Now, we have to worry if our country is going to survive in the face of Dictator Shrub.
    ==================================================
    Man, the arguments against a "liberal" media always crack me up. They basically boil down to: "The media doesn't match MY standard of a liberal so therefore..."

    here's a site:
    http://newsprism.com/
    (know where I got it? from a DU poster)
    First, look where Fox News, Drudge Report, and Wall Street Journal are. That look alright to you?

    Hmmm... look at what's on the left side there...
    (in order from most center to most left)
    USA Today
    CNN
    Time
    MSNBC
    ABC News
    Newsweek
    CBS News
    Los Angeles Times
    New Your Times
    Washington Post
    Salon
    Slate
    Huffington Post
    New Republic
    The Nation
    American Prospect

    And since I know people are going to ask:
    "Newsprism.com is updated quarterly based on the algorithms of leading search engines"
    The numbers don't lie.

    Another nice Blast from the Past by Anon!

    In the interests of full disclosure I'd like to add that Prescott Bush's partner Harriman and his progeny became powerful forces behind the leadership of the Democratic Party - their fortune was instrumental in assembling the framework that was to become the Democratic Leadership Council - a nest of free-market fundamentalists and stealth Republicans/corporatists.

    The lesson is to be very careful to whom you lend your support in either party.

    "HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!" by Anonymous

    Ha! Good one. I hadn't heard that one in a while.
    ====================================================
    Yeah, because IT WAS NEVER SAID in the first place.

    Seriously, go pick up "Disinformation" and clear some of the myths that still cobweb your mind (or do you still think Osama is on dialysis?). We might be able to actually have a debate in this country if both sides weren't running around screaming falsehoods/half-truths all the time.

    "Newsprism.com is updated quarterly based on the algorithms of leading search engines"

    Grim, you don't even know what that means. But it can be shoved into a statement saying that you're right, so it'll do.

    Challenger Grim,

    Are you saying that no one in Shrub's administration, declared that Iraqi Oil would help pay for reconstruction when the case for war was being made?

    If yes (and the answer is yes), is reconstruction not part of the overall war effort?

    If you say no, then I guess you're not really interested in having a discussion, simply trying to throw more misinformation our way.

    "Seriously, go pick up "Disinformation" and clear some of the myths that still cobweb your mind "


    Is it where you got your delusional figures this morning that "90% of the insurgency are foreign fighters"?

    Who pays you to do this?

    Grim,

    Where does the "Christian Science Monitor" fall on you infallible "Newspeak"...er, "Newspriism" continuum? They refute your last point regarding administration promises of oil revenues paying for the reconstruction.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0714/p02s01-woiq.html

    better late than never! I actually said- is profitting during war illegal. Read up little guys

    Point is you used Olbylogic to create the revised statement
    "HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!" is false. You created a falsehood as every Olbyloon would.

    Is it where you got your delusional figures this morning that "90% of the insurgency are foreign fighters"?

    Who pays you to do this?
    ================================================
    1) No, i get my figures from someone who is OVER there dealing with all this and getting first hand information.

    2) no one

    Sir Loin of Beef,

    That is an inconvenient truth to these folks. It won't sink in.

    "HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!"

    Ha! Good one. I hadn't heard that one in a while.

    Yeah, because IT WAS NEVER SAID in the first place.

    ----------

    BULLSHIT.

    Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

    Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "This is not Afghanistan. When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year -- $10, $15, even $18 billion -- this is not a broke country." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

    Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people -- and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan -- Iraq has oil. They have financial resources." [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

    State Department Official Alan Larson: "On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq -- and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund." [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. [Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it." [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

    Challenger Grim,

    Are you saying that no one in Shrub's administration, declared that Iraqi Oil would help pay for reconstruction when the case for war was being made?

    If yes (and the answer is yes), is reconstruction not part of the overall war effort?

    If you say no, then I guess you're not really interested in having a discussion, simply trying to throw more misinformation our way.
    =================================================
    Shaun, here's the actual transcript of the testimony
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAH/is_2003_May_22/ai_104438402

    It is a WHOLE lot and I'm just able to skim it at the moment (looking forward to read it in more detail later). Here's what I was able to find:
    +++++++++++++
    The costs of reconstruction in Iraq are difficult to estimate since many of the problems we face resulted from decades of the regime corruption, mismanagement and tyranny. Damage due to the war was relatively small-scale. There are a number of funding sources that can help Iraq.

    First, there is $1.7 billion in formerly frozen Iraqi government assets in the US that the U.S Government vested by Presidential order. Second, about $700 million in state or regime owned cash has so far been seized and brought under U.S. control in accordance with the laws of war, available to be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

    Third, once Iraqi oil exports resume, those proceeds will be available for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
    ===================
    Of course this was all made AFTER major combat operations had ceased (May 22, 2003).

    Now as you put it, I won't argue with as the above sort of points out (though it seems to only say that... well exports will help the country, kind of a rule of thumb). I was taking issue with the poster who said "HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!" since well... I see the worlds of difference between that summation and the official statement above. Do you?

    Wow! I just saw your president give a little Crawford press-announcement on CSPAN. Each one of the cocksuckers standing there with him in the Texas dust(Cheney, Condi, Gates, and Pace) looked like there were hell-hounds on their trail - their eyes were furtive and scared. I hope none of them can sleep.

    Bush said: "We're making good progress toward comin' up with a plan that will help us achieve our objective". How many equivocating little rhetorical loopholes can weave into one short sentence about nothing? In short - they've got nothing!

    Bush went on to mention the troops and their families, and took note of their sacrifice. He didn't say anything about the additional 500-day stop-loss redeployment kind of sacrifice that he just dumped on them yesterday, but he did at least have the decency to mention the concept of their sacrifice. - but the very sentence he started out by talking about the troops' sacrifice he somehow ended by talking about our "objectives" again.

    Somebody tell me again how its the Democrats that have no plan? or how its the Democrats who are abandoning our troops?

    Thank you Anonymous.

    Challenger Grim,

    See Anonymous' post @ 2:15. In case you missed it, here it is:

    "HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT ... IRAQI OIL REVENUES WILL PAY FOR THE WAR!"

    Ha! Good one. I hadn't heard that one in a while.

    Yeah, because IT WAS NEVER SAID in the first place.

    ----------

    BULLSHIT.

    Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

    Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "This is not Afghanistan. When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year -- $10, $15, even $18 billion -- this is not a broke country." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

    Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people -- and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan -- Iraq has oil. They have financial resources." [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

    State Department Official Alan Larson: "On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq -- and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund." [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. [Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it." [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

    Not only was the Bush administration wrong in declaring Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but it was also wildly wrong in its original estimate on the cost of the war. Then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey put the cost at $100 billion to $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, discounted Lindsey's estimate as far too high and said the cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion.

    As absurd as Daniels' statement was, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Iraq's oil revenue would cover the costs: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

    Damn! What with Anonymous (at December 28, 2006 02:15 PM), Voice of Reason, and PBL, it looks like somebody sent us their liberal A-team today! I think I'll just step on back and catch up later.

    You Lefties are just discussing nonsence. No one cares about this crap. With Iran preparing for war you're just encouraging them. By attacking your own givernment, They view that as a sign of weakness.
    The Left has destabalize this nation via control of the media. I wish Bush had balls and investigated all the Iranian money being sent to the Media.

    By attacking our own 'givernment', it's 'nonsence' huh Red Wolf? Do us all a favor and shut the hell up while the lucid adults have a discussion.

    By attacking Shrub, and his extremely dangerous policies, we are excercising our free rights in the democracy that we call our country. You sound as loony as the people you claim to be railing against (the 'lib'rul media', Iran).

    Shaun,
    All you're doing is encouraging Al-qaeda and Iran. They look at this and love the fact the Media and their Leftist allies are attacking their own Government. It's one thing to criticize. At this point the Left is aiding Iran.
    Don't you think Mahmod Ahmadinejad lovezs all this? He feels that if he attacks you guys will support him. I think he's right. If Iran began attacking American forces, you guys will be cheerleading and organize protests against retaliating against Iran.

    Red Wolf... please, Beef has done us all a favor and quieted down for awhile, can we reciprocate and ask for you to do the same for them?

    As for the leader of Iran, it should be noted that the branch of Islam that he follows, believes a new caliphate [sp?] will come and reunite the arab world when a great calamity happens. They also happen to believe that they can speed up this arrival by... well let's just say "nukes" play a part. Well, that's what I can remember of it all off the top of my head.

    Look I really wish Bush wasn't the president. I wish it was Guilliani. He would've mobilized the resources of this country and attack Iran, Iraq, Syria and Afgahnistan. He would've shut down the media and auditted Leftist groups.

    Whoops, the "c" up there ^ is me (had a problem with the auto fill)

    Oh. My. God. You should try listening to yourself Red Wolf, you are one Oxycontin (Hillbilly Heroin) away from being wisked away for a lifelong vacation to a padded room.

    If Iran ever attacked U.S. soil or strcuck U.S. forces in Iraq, he would be rightfully annihilated. There isn't a true Democrat in this country who thinks any other way. You are confusing dissenting against Bush's foreign policy with appeasement. You've been listening and believing too many of Bush's (unsuccesful) stump speeches.

    Shaun,

    Don't be too hard on Red Wolf - he fills a very useful role here. He exposes in a manner wholely unselfconscious the pristine nature of the motivations of the other drowning rats represented on this site. Their arguments, when followed through to that point, always boil down to a sub-cortical, pre-modern urge for redemptive global race war, so they rarely let discussions get that far.

    But it becomes very hard for the (slightly) more circumspect and furtive neocons to dissemble in regard to this seminal point when Red Wolf's rabid ejaculations are popping up as punctuation to their arguments. I enjoy his caustic presence, if only for that illustrative function.

    Shaun,
    If you have ever read my posts I'm not pro-Bush. However I'm disgusted of the Left's support of Iran. If Iran attacked you guys would be in the streets protesting. Olbermann would be talking about how horrible our loses are! You'd have Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi begging for a cease fire.
    Bush being the wuss he is would probabaly cave in to "public pressure".
    It's funny the Left was silent during the Iranian Holocaust conference. On some Leftwing sites like DU, Daily Kos and Think Progress openly support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Read some of their posts there.

    Ah yes.....one of the pet issues of radical leftists (who call themselves "Progressives")... War profiteering.

    One name to thwart all the silly leftard demagoging for the last hour......

    Joseph Lieberman

    Ned Lamont not only ran against Bush, he claimed Mr. Lieberman was accepting money from people who were, "war profiteers." Mr. Lieberman, being an, "establishment Democrat," to those with radical points of view, won handily over his leftist rival with great support from Independents and Republicans. Lamont found NO traction (or truth for that matter) with the issue....I wonder why?....because it's a straw man ready to distract and confuse less informed individuals.

    The "moderate," wing of the Democratic Party will give lip service to the radical liberals like Loin, Bob, Shaun, VOICE, PROUD, etc....but there will only be a few bad apples found in the show hearings they have.

    Many Dems have profited from war/defense contracts.....Feinstein, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kerry, Clinton....to name just a few.....I would even hazard some money that the 401k's and portfolios of some of these self-rightous "progressive" posters have benefitted from THE EVIL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

    But that's ok, because like all radical leftists, what is bad for everyone else is ok for them because they ALWAYS have the best intentions....everyone else is just greedy.

    Lefty radical straw man disposed with....now back to work.....

    Wow, "discussions" like this make me sad to be a human being :(

    Sir Loin,

    Okay, after reading his last post @ 2:53, I'm going to agree with you. There is just so much in there that are complete and total fabrications, it's easy to see how Shrub & Co have stayed in power this long. They have people like Red Wolf to blindly follow them into whatever dangerous arrogance they are feeling at any given moment.

    Sir Loin of Beef,
    Until the Left stops defending and condemns Iran and Islamo-Fascism I will continue to attack the Left.

    When Red wolf speaks, people sigh!

    Shaun,
    I'm not pro-Bush. read what I say. But I'm more anti-Left because they support Iran. You never have condemned Mamoud Ahmadinejad. Have eyou?

    Cee, are you back on Lieberman? Cee is under the impression that because Lieberman won, this past election can be spun to represent a victory for the Repulicans. He also is trying to push the idea that because Lamont lost, the netroots and all people powered politics, are ineffective. It would be laughable if the whole Republican establishment didn't try to push it right after the election and if the whole "liberal media" didn't regurgitate it like it was fact.

    Hey Red Wolf, Isn't some other mentally challenged person waiting to use the internet in that group home you belong to? It's not fair for you to hog the computer so much!

    Shaun,
    Many of your Leftwing idols are making money off defence contracts. Answer what cee says. The fact you hate your own government as oppose to Iran is sickening!

    Yea Shaun, you an yer lef wing idols is jus sickening! Why do ya hate yer own govamant?

    "I would even hazard some money that the 401k's and portfolios of some of these self-rightous "progressive" posters have benefitted from THE EVIL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

    But that's ok, because like all radical leftists, what is bad for everyone else is ok for them because they ALWAYS have the best intentions....everyone else is just greedy.

    Lefty radical straw man disposed with....now back to work..... "

    So because cee will anonymously, unnaccountably "hazard some money" that there are Democratic war-profiteers, we are supposed to dismiss the entire matter?

    Well, for starters it IS a damn good probability that members of both parties are war-profiteers. Personally, I refuse to vote for or support anyone, Rep or Dem, who voted to give Bush his ridiculously dangerous war-powers.

    That being the case, tell me why its a bad idea to have investigations into war-profiteering?

    “In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.”

    (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003525753)

    So Grim Challenger, who are these "people over there" who are telling you that 90% of the insurgency is foreign fighters?

    "Shaun,
    Many of your Leftwing idols are making money off defence contracts. Answer what cee says. The fact you hate your own government as oppose to Iran is sickening!

    Posted by: Red Wolf at December 28, 2006 03:06 PM"

    Name these "leftwing idols" who are making money off the chaos in Iraq. Or are you doing as you always do, just spewing more garbage?

    The only people known for hating government you uneducated fool, are the people on the far right. As for being in support of the government of Iran, your spin is dizzying. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has never had a greater ally in bolstering his agenda than the failed expedition to grab Iraqi oil by your pal George W Bush. You are the fool who has lent support to policies that has made Iran the most powerful nation in the middle east. Israel has never been more weak than these years since Bush and Co turned that region upside down. And none of it would ever have come about if it weren't for the hillbilly Christian propaganda machine spinning lies into moralistic mumbo-jumbo that fools like you robotically repeat time and again in spite of having it poignantly pointed out to you like this!

    Iran is a nation ran by religious fanatics. The American version of religious fanatics who stand by the failed Republican party are the same group that always claims the bible comes before the constitution. These are the government hating - democracy hating fools you should be addressing.

    You want to be a mouth piece for far rightwing religious fanatics in this country go ahead, but talk about supporting the Iranian government the way you do and you have made a real fool of yourself.

    Just the name "RedWolf" demonstrates your fake persona here. Redwolf, as a name, is Native American not KKK white trash like you! Why don't call yourself by some comic book name, it would suit you much better!

    Coward Watch,

    Let's see how the loons on this site try to address only you equating Republicans with the fanatics in Iran. They won't address the substance in your posting.

    Yep well I have to go to peace rally now, I'll be back later.

    I'd mention names Beef but for various reasons. However, here are some other sources you can refer to:
    http://theotheriraq.com/addendum.html
    "Not a single coalition soldier has lost his/her life or a single foreigner kidnapped in the Region administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government"

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060928/ai_n16765239
    "The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq purportedly said Thursday in an audio message posted on a Web site that more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.- led invasion in 2003 -- the first apparent acknowledgment from the insurgents about their losses."

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_3_86/ai_n16689752
    "Central Command General John Abizaid has stated that the number of Iraqis participating in the insurgency amounts to less than 0.1 percent of the country's population, and most likely does not exceed 20,000 (fighters plus members of the underground). (8) Historically, insurgent movements have generally mobilized some 0.5 percent to 2 percent of the population. (9) If insurgents make up less than 0.1 percent of the total population (and given the scope and intensity of the insurgency, this figure might be low), the Sunni Arab insurgency would be among the smallest, percentage wise, in modern times.
    ...
    The insurgents have made good on their losses by drawing on their large manpower reserves, augmented by recruits from outside Iraq, although the flow of foreign volunteers has apparently been reduced in recent months, thanks to efforts to seal the border with Syria and to interdict insurgent "ratlines." Insurgent cells have likewise demonstrated that when they incur losses they can recruit new members or merge with other insurgent cells, while leaders detained or killed by Coalition forces have been replaced without fundamental disruptions to insurgent operations."

    Ok, so some things might be looking up, but here's also the word of Iraq's new leader:
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_11_57/ai_n15634310

    Also for some perspective: all the violence in Iraq is occuring in 4 out of 18 providences. True, those 4 contain 1/3rd of the country's population (a sizable amount to be sure) but that's still 2/3rd of the country (a majority don't forget) that are... well peaceful.

    I mean, c'mon why do some of you seem so reluctant or unable to accept good news from there? (i mean, I may not have liked Clinton's actions in Bosnia, but I still liked to hear good news from it)

    Coward Watch doesn't make posts with "substance". It's just the same ole' hate speech and Iraq song and dance, Bush sucks, etc etc etc. There's no point responding to him. I just tune him out and realized long ago he/she needs some mental help to deal with their anger issues.

    Brandon, am I the only one here who notes the irony that those who scream and decry other's so-called hatred seem to spew the most vile rethoric?

    I'd say something about timber in ones eye compared to dust in another's... but I'm afraid it'd just be a waste of bytes.

    Coward Watch,
    " The American version of religious fanatics who stand by the failed Republican party are the same group that always claims the bible comes before the constitution"

    Which members of the Christian Right have called for a theocracy and suspension of the US constitution? Also how many beheadings have the Christian Right done? Where are the Christian Suicide bombers?

    "Israel has never been more weak than these years since Bush and Co turned that region upside down. "
    How is Israel weak? Unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't force Israel to make concessions and get nothing back. They have an idiotic PM Olmert who will be gone in the next election and replaced by Netanahu.
    Also your hero Clinton launched a war against the Christian Serbs who were defending themselve the Al-Qaeda backed KLA.

    The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has never had a greater ally in bolstering his agenda than the failed expedition to grab Iraqi oil by your pal George W Bush"
    Wrong, Ahmadinejad's greatest allies are the Left and the Media who constantkly praise him and talk higly of him.

    "Just the name "RedWolf" demonstrates your fake persona here. Redwolf, as a name, is Native American not KKK white trash like you! Why don't call yourself by some comic book name, it would suit you much better! "

    I'm Hispanic not white you, jerk.Your ignorant assumption shows your racsism as there are Rightwing Hispanics. I'm also Pro Immigration and for Amnesty. The KKK and Neo-Nazis are actually allied with the Left right now. They oppose the war on Islamo_Fascism and are anti-Israel. In fact the KKK has marched with Cindy Sheehan. David Duke was recently in Teheran at the Holocaust Denail conference. There were also European Leftists there also.
    David Duke's conspiracy theiries of Zionist influence sounds alot like the anti Neo-Con talk coming from the Left.

    The fact is that as we speak there's a Leftwing-Islamic-Neo-Nazi alliance. Nice buddies you have!
    Although I'm Libertarian, I'll take Neo-Cons and the Christian Right any day of the week over the Left and their Islamic and Neo-Nazi buddies.

    "The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq purportedly said Thursday in an audio message posted on a Web site that more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.- led invasion in 2003 -- the first apparent acknowledgment from the insurgents about their losses."

    Lets see. 4000 is 90% of ...lets round up to 4500. Assuming that attrition rates among and between our various enemies in Iraq generally reflect the numbers of enemies we are facing (this makes sence considering the random, episodic nature of the actual violence), you are suggesting that we've lost 3000 American service people and spent 400 billion dollars in the process of killing ....ca. 4500 of our enemies? This is pathetic, and patently ridiculous.

    Lets also not forget that you are hanging an awful lot on information released via terrorist video tape - remember, the people who are supposed to be playing the media like a violin?


    You'd better tell the Pentagon - they think foreign fighters consitute a mere 7% of those we are fighting - pretty much everybody else says 2 to 4%. Considering the pentagon thought two years ago that we'd killed 20 - 30 thousand insurgents (not civilians - fighters), that 4000 number today would not seem particularly significant.

    ...and as for "good news"; You think that the fact that your numbers suggest we are facing in Iraq a remarkably miniscule opposition manned almost exclusively by unpopular foreign fighters is "good news"?

    If your fairy tale is true, why can't 150,000 of the best-trained and best-equipped troops in history seem to bring the whole thing to a rapid and happy conclusion? This would seem to represent a dire, inexcusable failure of our entire military establishment.


    And as for the areas in Iraq that are "at peace"; well, they were "at peace" before we invaded. We've only brought immediate chaos to 1/2 of the population - hooray for us!

    Look at the Olby's ratings for last night. Not good, but what did you expect?

    http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/12/28/wednesdays-numbers-36/#more-4321

    Sir Loin of Beef,
    The reason we haven't been unable to put away the insurgents is because:
    1) Bush is a moron and doesn't know how to fight dirty.
    2) The Media has helped demoralize the public who in turn has demoralized our government.
    3) we do nothing about Iran and Syria that are arming the insurgents.
    4) The Military doesn't recruit a bloodthirsty Iraqi local army that will crush the insurgents.
    4) We should hire the Ethiopians who know how to fight Muslims better than us.

    "I'm Hispanic not white you, jerk.Your ignorant assumption shows your racsism as there are Rightwing Hispanics. I'm also Pro Immigration and for Amnesty." by Red Wolf

    So how exactly do you reconcile that in your head then Mr. Wolf? You are playing a part in a party who want nothing more than to demonize all Hispanics and seal the borders, build fences to keep all other Hispanics out. You are a freaking hypocrite. Hispanics have abandoned the GOP in huge numbers due to their racist and intolerant policies. Look at the special election that happened in Texas. Hispanics switched their allegiance to the Democratic Party in droves and gave the Dems their 30th pickup of the year in the House.

    ...or perhaps because a foreign occupation which openly caters to the coporate war-profiteers it fosters naturally breeds distrust and anger among the occupied population. Random killings of careless civilians at checkpoints and the random nocturnal ransacking of peoples' homes looking for "something suspicious" only increases the rates of distrust and the numbers of insurgents willing and eager to fight us.

    This sort of occupation is unwinnable short of genocide.

    "1) Bush is a moron and doesn't know how to fight dirty."

    What, you mean like indiscriminate killing and wanton destruction? Yeah, let's piss the terrorists off even more by killing innocent civilians for the hell of it. That'll learn 'em. [sarcasm unit off]

    "2) The Media has helped demoralize the public who in turn has demoralized our government."

    Classic wingnut response - when in doubt, blame the media. Never mind that for the first THREE YEARS of this war the media was regurgitating Administration talking points. It's all the media's fault.

    "3) we do nothing about Iran and Syria that are arming the insurgents."

    What do you suggest we do? We don't have ANY resources left to seal the Iraqi borders properly.

    "4) The Military doesn't recruit a bloodthirsty Iraqi local army that will crush the insurgents."

    Dipshit, the insurgents ARE THE LOCAL ARMY! How many stories have there been of Iraqi military and police units working WITH the insurgents or of insurgents using uniforms and equipment GIVEN TO THEM by Iraqi military elements sympathetic to the insurgent cause?

    "4) We should hire the Ethiopians who know how to fight Muslims better than us."

    Someone else said it better than me:

    "So Ethiopia's conventional army is defeating the Islamic Court Union's militia in the field. What a surprise. Not.
    Months ago when it first became clear that a confrontation between Ethiopia and the ICU was brewing I noted that the ICU couldn't stand up to a conventional army. What I also noted is that it didn't matter - neither Ethiopia nor the internationally impossed interim Somali government have any popular support in Somalia. So what will happen is a guerilla war. And it will be exceptionally savage because the Ethiopians will fight it savagely as well as the ICU - they will depopulate entire villages, engage in retaliation killings and so on.
    Ironically the very thing that Ethiopia wanted to avoid - its own Somalis getting uppity, is now more likely to happen than ever. And the very thing the US wanted to avoid - al-Qaeda having a power base in Somalia will happen for sure because other than Eritrea the ICU has no other possible allies.
    There's going to be more good news for Ethiopia for some time. But since they don't have an occupation military large enough to occupy and pacify all of Somalia I have a hard time seeing that this is going to turn out well for them in the long run. And what it will do, guaranteed, is further radicalize the ICU.
    Ethiopia isn't going to "win" this war in any useful sense unless they're smart enough to end it relatively soon and force some sort of treaty. If they go the distance they will bleed and bleed and bleed." - Ian Welsh

    RedWolf, I lived in New Orleans well over sixty years. I always considered the carrion d duke as a neonazi.

    He embraced evertything KKK and added some additional madness a la Hitler's Naziism.

    What a puke and a traitor he is.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Shaun,
    The Democrats aren't any better than the Reps when it come to Hispanic. They don't want spanish people to learn English so they have ESL classes. They also don't make Hispanic kids kearn at the same level as White Kids. They also teach you that you ain't crap. When it comes to Hispanic issues, both parties have problems. Nativists in the GOP don't want us here and the Left wants us as 2nd class non English speaking citizens. I grew up in the 80's and early 90's in Democrat controlled NY. I went to NY public Schools, I know what I'm talking about. The Dems racism is slicker it goes like this:
    You're inferior so therfore you're not capable of learning like White people so I don't expect much out of you. The Liberal Whiteman will take care of you. In fact the most recaist people I have ver met are NY Democrats. That's a fact.

    Ensign Expendable,
    Ethiopia has captured Mogadishu. It's funny how you Lefties want the UIC to win. Well it ain't happening because Ethiopia doesbn't care about world opinion! Ha ha!
    Losers!

    "You're inferior so therfore you're not capable of learning like White people so I don't expect much out of you. The Liberal Whiteman will take care of you. In fact the most recaist people I have ver met are NY Democrats. That's a fact." Facts by Red Wolf

    You keep telling yourself that Red Wolf if it helps you sleep at night. You are a hypocrite. Deal with it.

    Shaun,
    It's the truth. Most Democrats I've met were ignorant and assumed Spanish people were dumb. Talk to a Blue Collar Democrat and you'll meet the most ignorant person alive.
    The Racists Republicans fear Hispanics out of ignorance. Racists Democrats believ Hispanics are ignorant and inferior.
    I live in NY. That's how I based my opinion.
    I talk about what I experience.

    Shaun,
    What do you know about Hispanics? Nothing I bet. I bet in fact that if you had daughter you wouldn't let here marry a Hispanic right? You're the Hypocrite!

    Grammie,
    It looks like I shut down Shaun. As a Hispanic in the South I perfer Southern Hospitality over Northern Racism any day!

    "Talk to a Blue Collar Democrat and you'll meet the most ignorant person alive." by Red Wolf

    I know I was warned about talking to you, but this is the most asinine statement and generalization I have ever heard. It is a fact that people who are less educated tend to be less tolerant of those that are different. I'll give you that. But to say that Blue Collar Dems are the most ignorant people alive is ludicrous. I live in Atlanta. That's in the South, just in case you were not aware. I have to deal with Confederate flag waving hillbillies. They are proud of their 'heritage' and they are virtually all Republican.

    That is how the Rethug party grew to be the dominant party over the past twelve years: by playing to people's fears and by appealing to the less educated among us and driving a wedge between them. That is why the gay marriage thing worked so well for them in years past, because who likes fags right?

    That shit isn't going to work anymore though. The Democrats will try and repair the damage the R's have inflicted upon our American psyche.

    Red Wolf.....an aside:

    BY DEFINITION....In order to be a "progressive" (BTW it is a shame such a nice word is now used by a group of people who are actually stuck in the mentality of a way-be-gone era bankrupt of original thought or imagination) by today's analysis, you must be convinced of your own infallability AND always assume others are less intelligent, bigoted and in need of your wise guidance.

    The next time Olbermann is on, listen to his tone when he is doing WPITW....that low drone of condesention, sometimes the sentence ending with a ", duh" his eye quickly widening and the inevitable short pause. This is what I hear in my mind when I read posts from Professor Honeydew (Bob), Sir Loin of Milquetoast and kos (Shaun)...amonst other lefties.

    Well, the lack of insight into their own shortcomings will always be the weakness of the nacissist. Hubris, arrogance, whatever....

    Shaun,
    So you're denying that Dems view Hispanics as inferior? Why in the states they control, they make sure Hispanics recieve inferior education?
    Why are Dems ignorant of Hispanic culture>
    What about Jimm Webb the new Sen. from Virginia that was anti Hispanic immigrant. He said he onlly cares about his people.,The Scotts-Irish.
    Answer my question would you let your daughter marry a Hispanic?

    "Ethiopia has captured Mogadishu. It's funny how you Lefties want the UIC to win. Well it ain't happening because Ethiopia doesbn't care about world opinion! Ha ha!"

    It's obvious you didn't READ what I posted - Ethiopia's military ISN'T BUILT to sustain the push into Somalia. They can take territory away, but they don't have the resources and manpower to OCCUPY it over the long-haul.

    Ethiopia had to score a knockout in the first round, because they don't have the stamina to go the distance. If the UIC or the other Somali warlords (because the UIC is really just a group of warlords that happen to be Muslim) decide to make this a mini-version of Iraq, then Ethiopia isn't going to be able to keep the pressure on.

    And thanks for ignoring the other points I made - it makes me feel a little warm inside when my arguments go uncontested.

    So to use your words - the only "Loser" I see here is you.

    Ensign Expendable,
    that's what you want to happen. I'm gonna laugh when this is over an the UIC loses.
    Why do you support the UIC? I don't understand why the Left support any Islamists movement. That's why you never condemn Iran. You support Islamo-Fascists.

    Could someone give me the specifics of GWB et el invading Iraq to steal their oil, thereby making themselves and friends richer? And, the corrollary accusation that GWB, et al and the energy hungry corporations needed Iraqi oil.

    Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to join the UN Oil for Food scandal, whose biggest beneficiaries were those two above board countries, France and Russia.

    Massive profits and increased oil sources and supplies by greasing palms and adopting the same political and diplomatic stance of other great democracies with great leaders?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Red Wolf,

    Now I know why people warned me about you. You are pointless to talk to. You just spout your talking points and stupid, pointless questions in response and accuse people of supporting Islam. A vicious cycle.

    I am not even going to respond to any of your last set of questions. I think, based on my previous responses, any intelligent person would be able to deduce that I am not racist and that I abhor anyone else who is.

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    I actually agree that Iraq is a distraction from Iran. So you seem like a sensible Liberal that recoqnizes the Islamic threat. I disagree with being closer with France. They're anti-American and their cities are partially under Islamic rule now. Their politicians kiss Islamic butt for election purposes. We need real allies not phonies.

    Posted by Red Wolf at December 28, 2006 12:56 PM

    red Wolf:

    Thank you for calling me a 'sensible liberal.' But while I would agree with your basic premise that Iran is a MUCH worse threat than Iraq, I think you misunderstand my points. What I was trying to say is NOT that we are facing an Islamic threat that needs to be destroyed. What I was trying to say is that we are facing a NATIONAL threat from the country that has evil intentions towards us, & led by a man who is, quite obviously, not all there.

    I do not believe that thethreat to our country can come from a group as broad as a religion. & while I do acknowledge that all of the terrorists from September 11 were Muslim, & that they certainly are bad people, I am NOT going to condemn an entire group of people for their religion. I KNOW in my heart that it is NOT right to condemn an entire religion because of just a few people. That is what the germans did to my people during the second world war, & we have 6 million bodies to show for it.

    I further find your logic concerning the French flawed, if only because they WERE our allies, &, even if their people were anti-americans looking to pick a foight with us, it makes NO sense to me why you should make enemies when you could just as easily retain frinds. It's like my father, Olev V'shalom, taught me as a child; Don't get in a pissing contest with a skunk, (for) you are never going to win. Why the pissing contest with pepe' Le Pugh?

    "Many Dems have profited from war/defense contracts..."

    A. "war profiteering" is different than profiting from war, ditto-for-brains.
    B. Democrats did not push for the war.
    C. Republicans 1) not only pushed/lied hard for the war, but 2) awarded scores of questionable no-bid contracts to 3) corporations with strong financial ties to the Republican party, 3) corporations with direct financial ties to at least one senior member of the White House, namely Vice President Cheney, 4) corporations that have now wasted/reaped billions of taxpayer dollars in profit via price gouging, graft and fraud 5) that was deliberately enabled by the lack of responsible congressional oversight, possibly criminal, by a Republican-controlled congress.

    --------

    "That being the case, tell me why its a bad idea to have investigations into war-profiteering?"


    "Why do you support the UIC?"

    There he goes again. I explain that Ethiopia can't win a sustained war, so I must be an ally of the "Islamo-Fascists".

    Hear my words so I may teach you - I don't support the UIC.

    Also hear this - anyone with half a brain can see that Ethiopia isn't built for a long-haul war. They don't have enough troops (they only sent in 8,000) or equipment to sustain the charge and occupy the territory. If the UIC comes back with a guerrilla-style war or an insurgency, Ethiopia will have to fall back.

    And this is assuming that the ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia don't take this opportunity to cause some unrest along the border and divide the military's attention...

    Ensign Expendable,
    You do support UIC. Did you ever think that the Ethiopians are crushing them so thouroughly. You want the UIC to win. Your statements condemn have condemned you.

    Why do I even try? I swear, I think that the heart of a neutron star is less dense than you, Red Wolf.

    Of course the Ethiopian army is crushing them now - THAT'S THE WAY THEIR MILITARY IS DESIGNED! It's build on the theory of delivering the killing blow immediately. The problem is that they did not either a) wipe out the UIC (they retreated) or b) force a surrender. Now they are facing a longer, more drawn-out conflict that they ARE NOT SUITED FOR!

    Listen Shaun, Ensign, Proud, & other clear thinking posters:

    You CAN'T argue with a moron, and Red Wolf is clearly a moron!

    Ensign Expendable,
    You keep saying you don't support the UIC but you don't want Ethiopia to win. When it ends and the new Somali government is in control don't cry your buddies lost.

    Anon,
    You're a coward. Why don't you post under a name.

    Better to be a 'coward' than a complete idiot, like you!

    I just expose the Left's support of Radical Islam. That's all!

    "You keep saying you don't support the UIC but you don't want Ethiopia to win."

    No. You still don't get it - it doesn't matter if I want them to win or not. Because they didn't win decisively immediately, they CAN'T win in a long-term combat. 8,000 troops will NOT be enough to do the job.

    Stop applying emotional contexts that DON'T EXIST!

    Ensign Expendable,
    They have 15,000 not 8000. You just want an Ethiopian defeat. admit it.

    EE, I proposed a cold crow dinner for one us on the 12/22 thread posted on 12/23 @ 2:21 AM.

    I'm still game if you are.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Does ol bermann exists!

    Red Wolf Belches; "I just expose the left's support of Radical Islam".

    No, you just expose your incredibly stupid obsession! You have "radical Islam" on the brain. Maybe you should go get you a catscan and get that checked out.

    I've seen a lot of questions asked tonight with not many responses.

    I will answer any question or questions that are coherent, logically ordered, with limited assumptions and no ad hominem attacks. Dittos for arguments/questions that by their very nature posit an unanswerable question that any response admits to error, moral or intellectual deficiencies.

    Yes, I know. I sound so pompous and didactic. The above, though, does not preclude biting wit, cynicism or sarcasm.

    I sometimes feel, a la Twilight Zone, that I am trapped in a world of endless p***ing matches between potty mouthed juveniles and adolescents.

    Give it a rest! This is a radical idea, but those who disagree with any of us are not ipso facto immoral, stupid, greedy and evil. If that were the case, everyone who posts here would be ipso facto immoral, stupid, greedy and evil.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "They have 15,000 not 8000. You just want an Ethiopian defeat. admit it."

    All the news reports I had listed 8,000. Now I have the corrected reports of 15,000. I also have reports that indicate Somali civilians threw rocks at the Ethiopian forces and called them "the enemy" because of the long history of conflict between the two nations.

    But 8,000 or 15,000 will not make a lick of difference - they still aren't gonna be able to hold the line.

    "What about Jimm Webb the new Sen. from Virginia that was anti Hispanic immigrant. He said he onlly cares about his people.,The Scotts-Irish."


    "In fact the most recaist people I have ever met are NY Democrats."

    Yeah, and I've run into some f---ing racist hispanics, my friend. Anybody else getting sick of this whining from Red Wolf? Shit or get off the pot, wolfie. Republicans are supposed to be about bootstraps and self-reliance, right? So stick to the issues and quit running and hiding behind your phoney bitterness about the big bad Democrat sugar daddy.

    Above was me.

    Sir Loinb of Beef,
    I point the racism of Democrats because they act like they're tolerant. There are tolerant Democrats and tolerant Republicans. there are also Racists in both party. That was my point.

    Ensign Expendable,
    Lets see what happens ok. I want an Ethiopian victory. You don't. You hope for a defeat and a UIC victory. It's your ideology. If Ethiopia pulls this off it will disprove the Left's belief that Muslims can't be defeated.
    That's why you don't want Ethiopia to win.
    admit it.

    Grammie,
    after this post I'm not addressing this issue anymore. We've proven here that the Left sympathizes with Islamists. The reason being is their sympathy for any 3rd world movement. Not realizing the dangers of this ideology. Look at troubles in France. For now on I'm sticking with Olbermann bashing.

    "I want an Ethiopian victory. You don't."

    No, you ASSUME I don't, which is entirely different. I'm pointing out...

    Oh, forget it. This will be the fourth or fifth time, and I'm sick of reposting the same argument again.

    You'd think I'd learn, but all I get is a headache.

    Ensign Expendable,
    Let get onto a different subject. Do you think Olbermann is an intellectual coward? If he's so sure his opinions are correct why not debate someone with an opposite view? Also why does he deny he's a Leftists when he's been proven?
    At leat Chris Matthews who is a Leftists takes on opposite viewpoints. Why is Olbermann a coward?

    Red Wolf spouted something about "the left's view that Muslems can't be defeated".

    Is it possible for an adult human to really be this dense?

    My holiday gift to you loons!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fswq3kl1vuM

    Chris Matthews is a "leftists"? Based on what, exactly?

    Nobody in the non-FOX media sucked up to Bush for the past three years more than Chris Matthews. Sometimes the sycophancy poured from his mouth like a school-girl crush: "...he shines with a sunny nobility"; "...he's almost Lincolnesque". He's also consistant about labeling Democrats as childish and irresponsible, while the Republicans repsresent the "grown-ups".

    Only since the midterms has Matthews backed off on adoration for the stupid boy king. Matthews is a whore.

    Chjris Matthews? He spent the begining of his career working for two extreme liberals- a speechwriter for President Carter and a staff member for House Speaker Tip O’Neill. His resume speaks volumes for his true affiliation. He definitely leans left on his show, BUT he does suck-up to the occassional Republican. It bothers most republicans that you dems can't call a spade a spade.

    And as for the areas in Iraq that are "at peace"; well, they were "at peace" before we invaded. We've only brought immediate chaos to 1/2 of the population - hooray for us!
    ===================================================
    So Beef, looking at things from your perspective, I'm guessing then you don't mind Bush marching this country to fascism then? After all, it will be very peaceful around here (and the trains will run on time). Did you even check out theotheriraq.com? In fact, I dare you to go over there and say that Iraq was better off before we came out loud.

    Do you know how many Iraqis called to try and get to be the one to hang Saddam? The VAST majority of Iraq couldn't be happier he's gone. From that interview with Iraqs leader:
    "Q: I recall that Kofi Annan said the Iraq war was illegal.

    A: For us, it was the most legitimate of wars. To have suffered the atrocities of Saddam over those years, and the indifference of the international community, including the U.N.... It was the war that eased the suffering of the Iraqis."

    From theotheriraq website:
    "INTERVIEW: DR. ALI SAEED MOHAMMAD
    Through this Anfal campaign more than one hundred eighty thousand young men, women, children and old people – they were all taken by military vehicles and transported into the middle and the south of Iraq and later they disappeared, to be found after the Operation Iraqi Freedom in mass graves.

    INTERVIEW: JANO ROSEBIANI
    The Anfal meant killing all the men – and the women and the property are yours to keep. But it came to a point where they couldn’t even do all of that. They just started killing everyone in groups…men, children, women, elderly…and sometimes not even killing, just burying them alive. That was the Anfal."

    Oh, and more back up for my view that abandoning Iraq now will only hurt our reputation MORE:
    "NARRATOR:
    While the Kurds have a long history of learning to live with their enemies, they have an equally long history of being betrayed by their allies. Sadly, even the great democracies of the west have not always lived up to the promises they’ve made to the Kurds.

    During the nineteen-seventies the United States supported Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq in order to pressure Saddam Hussein during his negotiations with Iran. But as soon as agreement was reached the Kurds were unceremoniously abandoned by their U.S. allies and exposed to the full fury and vengeance of Saddam’s regime.

    Later, in the nineteen-eighties during the Iran/Iraq War, the Kurds were again caught up in the struggle between nations. And again the world stood by as Saddam destroyed over four thousand Kurdish villages, unleashing poisonous gas assaults against not only the people, but the forests and the wildlife as part of his ‘Anfal’ campaign to obliterate the Kurds and their way of life.

    ...
    NARRATOR:
    In nineteen ninety-one, at the end of the first Gulf War, America encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam. In response, Saddam sent out his helicopter gunships to annihilate the Kurds who had answered the call and taken America at its word. This time a million and a half refugees streamed into the mountains where over five hundred a day proceeded to die from starvation and exposure during harsh winter storms.

    For these past fourteen years America and Britain have proven to the Kurds that they are at last the friends they always hoped they would be. And the Kurds have proven that they are, indeed, a committed force for freedom and democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs it.

    When Iraqi Kurds finally gained regional autonomy and the ability to choose their own form of government, they chose democracy. "
    (from http://theotheriraq.com/relationship.html)
    =================================================

    Again, I'm so curious to know WHY so many people don't want to seem to hear good news from Iraq or that things might be looking up or even that maybe (just maybe) the majority in Iraq are GRATEFUL we toppled Saddam. I guess my uncle (who's working over there) was right...
    "Ask the people of Iraq if they want to go back under Saddam and there is no question (the polls support it) that an overwhelming majority will say NO. Only the sunnis, basically will say yes, and they’re the ones committing most of the terrorism and attacking our troops. Good people of the world have to stick together, wherever they are, and these critics essentially think non-whites and non-christians are not worth the effort. They’re really racist at heart, but won’t admit it because that goes against their liberal ideals. Do these idiots honestly think Iraqis will be better off if we cut and run and leave it to the Jihadis to take over and run the place? Was Afghanistan better off under the Taliban? According to their logic, we should get out and just leave the mess to the Iraqis, which mean the Jihadis will win, and that will do nothing to get the power back on, get the water flowing, get the crops going, or make a secure military. No, indeed, but the critics will not give a damn because it will be “their problem” and they simply don’t have enough Christian concern in them to care a rat’s ass for other suffering people."

    Guess the biggest racists are on the left. =S

    Ah well, here's a heartwarming story about us winning maybe a few more hearts and minds.
    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HolidayTheme/story?id=2707099&page=1
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    We hate this terrorism which is present in the middle and the south, and the Kurdistan region can be regarded as a very safe place where you are welcome.
    =================================================

    Oops, that last quote up there is again from theotheriraq.com.

    "It bothers most republicans that you dems can't call a spade a spade." by benson

    Yeah well I think all of us Dems are going to lose a lot of sleep over that. HA!

    good one shaun... true debater

    MSNBC has created an ad campaign based on their overall 17% increase in ratings, compared to the decrease at Fox News and CNN. As any good campaign would- they fail to admit their still way behind in third place.

    I've got a better one for you. At one of the liberal blogs, MSNBC is running a side shot of Olberamnn at the anchor desk in jeans and a pair of sneakers and saying, "With ratings this good, we'll let him wear sneakers to work." Excuse me, I thought Olbermann answered to no one. I mean, that's what he's said in interviews after all. Someone should sue the network for fradulant advertising.

    The question is: With ratings this good, we'll pay him 4 million a year. And I used to like Dan Abrahms.

    FYI- Did you know OReilley makes 9 million a year? I am sure that is KeithO's argument. Keith- "I have just under half as many viewers as Billo, so I should be getting paid just under half as much"

    Grammie:

    I can find some groups (the Heritage Foundation, Conservative Book Club, NewsMax are three right off the top) that offer BillO's book as a membership "freebie", but persistent searching of the internet has not yielded either: how many books were bought in this manner or what the sales were for book #11 (to see how far behind it was).

    Therefore, I will eat a very small amount of crow - preferably with a glass of milk.

    Olbermann make more money than his official salary. I'm sure the DNC, Hillary Clinton and George Soros gives him money!