When are the Bush daughters going to sign up as part of the troop surge ? This president may be the dumbest most callous bastard that has walked the planet. I sure wish his parents were jews in Germany in 1943.

O'Lielly, that comment was tasteless for even you.

O'lielly... that really was very offensive... as a Jew who likes the banter here on this site...

I ask that he be now banned. There's a line between funny, politically angry, and offensive. O'lielly crossed it, by taking the death of 6 million innocent Jews and using it for his own personal hatred. Not acceptable.

Send an email to Mr Cox to that effect. HE makes those decisions, not I. No doubt O'Lielly has used the term "monkey" on occasion as well.

He's an Olbyloon. You know how Olby loves to call Jews "monkeys" when they don't agree with his spin.

ImNotBlue, I agree completely. And that remark has some pretty stiff competition, including specific death threats.

janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

ImNotBlue, I am sending an e-mail right now.

janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Fox Nothing" channel? Does anybody take this f---ing idiot serious? The "Fox Nothing" channel is cleaning your f---ing clock odballs. Do you hear him gag when he said it? I can just picture him going down on Michael Musta when he does that. HAHAHAHA

Ok... How about I wish his parents were Japanese and put into Manzanar and sterilized..Is that better ?

No.

How about I wish his parents were American Indians and slaughtered by Kevin Costner's friends.

How about no more ethnic cleansing "humor," which isn't funny regardless of the scenario.

Krazy Keith claims he's neutral non-voting
But moonbats are whom he is doting
Conservatives missing
In wind he is pissing
Countdown's like a turd that's still floating

J$, I thought there was a whatever at the top of the home page to click on to send an e-mail to OW. I must have been wrong.

How does one send an e-mail to R Cox?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

How about I wish his parents were innocent Iraqi's killed by their son. But,, time travel would be necessary for that

I wish you folks were as outraged at 3K Americans dying as me making a tasteless jokes.. strange what mnakes you people unravel.

Strange how much of an a--hole you are.

It is tragic that Americans have died in Iraq, but the military is voluntary. The Holocaust was not.

'kay. I've got the explanation for Kobie: schematic of the Olbermann brain.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/01/exclusive-schematic-of-keith.html

or click my handle.

Strange.. yep.. I have killed more than Dumbya. He is a mass murderer for big business, but apparently you folks all have money invested in " defense " stocks.

The military is volunteer.. but those people who signed up to serve in the National Guard had no idea what one weekend a month would turn into.. Please Bush daughters... have yourselves sterilized.

I think O'lielly also referenced Nick Berg the other day but called him by the wrong first name (you know, the first young man to be beheaded on film. I believe he was Jewish). It was the first comment (or one of the first last week)

In looking over some previous posts going back through yesterday, it is obvious that we have some very intelligent and respectful right of center folks who regularly post on this site....Janet & Cee come to mind right off the bat, but there are others.

On the other hand, there are also a few neanderthals such as 'Factor', who find it beyond their capacity to address anyone left of center without calling them ridiculous things like 'Socialists', 'fools', "America Haters", "Appeasement specialists", along with a whole host of other similarly inane labels.

Yet this all coming from the very same Einstein that is not even bright enough to grasp that naming himself 'Factor', and regularly quoting O'Reilly's pathetic show makes him look pretty dumb to almost everybody else.

Bloggers like "Factor' prove every day that blogging is so easy that....."even a cave man can do it"

"Fox Nothing" channel? Does anybody take this f---ing idiot serious? The "Fox Nothing" channel is cleaning your f---ing clock odballs. Do you hear him gag when he said it? I can just picture him going down on Michael Musta when he does that. HAHAHAHA

Posted by: Oddballs at January 22, 2007 8:48 PM

Fox ratings are better because there are so many ignorant people like yourself in this country that just put Fox on and let them do the thinking for them. Thankfully, there are enough people who DONT do that and now Bush has the lowest approval since Nixon. Keith has been telling the truth and most people know it. Fox is a joke, and most people, even those who watch it know that to.

MSNBC is far better than Fox.

Those serving in the National Guard know full well that they can be called up to serve during a war. They have done so since they were formed 370 years ago. O'Lielly, you need to get off of Olbyplanet. The air is too thin there.

Once again we have someone posting the pathetic idea that because our troops 'voluteered', it somehow makes their own deaths less tragic then those of civilians (anon 8:56 above).

How crass can some of you people get?

Mike, if you haven't already done so go back to the top and read the first dozen or so posts, with particular attention to O'liely.

After doing that let us know who is crass. You might also let us know what other descriptions might apply.

janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I don't think their deaths are less tragic; I am saying they had a choice and decided to volunteer for the armed forces. You are pulling an Olby and twisting facts to suit your agenda.

"Once again we have someone posting the pathetic idea that because our troops 'voluteered', it somehow makes their own deaths less tragic then those of civilians (anon 8:56 above). "

I'll let the poster defend himself/herself but how you can make that claim from this:

"It is tragic that Americans have died in Iraq, but the military is voluntary. The Holocaust was not."

Escapes me. Where did the poster makes different claims of "tragedy". Nowhere.

Surely you see the difference between someone who voluntarily takes up arms and is killed for a cause they believe in versus innocent women and children murdered for *simply* being of a different religion.

As the poster said, both are tragic. The murder of innocents is clearly a greater outrage than the deaths of people who volunteer for a cause they know might lead to their death.

Mike,

Don't paint an inaccurate picture of 8:56 based upon that comment. All deaths are tragic, but some are more horrific than others. I don't know the substance of his/her other remarks but that comment alone doesn't indicate complete insensitivity to the deaths of servicemen and women.

Turn on the History Channel now. 9/11 Special. Heart-wrenching.

I have never said a word about the Nicholas Berg.. however his father is a great man who recognizes where to put the blame.

Janet:

Sorry Janet, but I won't touch that. I have enough people attacking me on this site without going after those who are essentially on my side, even if they often do express their sentiments in more colorfull terms than I do.

I haven't really noticed you going after the more 'colorfull' posters on your side either.

Mike, I know you think WWII was a just war. I know you realizes that many who served were volunteers and many conscripted.

And I am sure you would not consider any of the hundreds of thousands who died as anything less than tragic based on their status. Words such as tragic are inadequate. We simply don't have the means to describe some things.

But why do you jump to conclude that others are incapable of your humanity.

janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

O'Lielly,

Okay, it was Alan Berg. Wasn't he Jewish?

"They had a choice and did decide to volunteer for the armed forces"

I volunteered for the armed forces myself when I was younger. However, I DID expect my own leaders and policy makers to put us in harm's way only if necessary and with competance.

The competance and the necessity is what is missing here!

He's obsessed with O'Reilly and Fox
With Patrick he's still sniffing jocks
He claims he's a newser
He's really a loser
"Fox Nothing"'s where everyone flocks

"Sorry Janet, but I won't touch that. I have enough people attacking me on this site without going after those who are essentially on my side, even if they often do express their sentiments in more colorfull terms than I do.

I haven't really noticed you going after the more 'colorfull' posters on your side either.

Posted by: Mike at January 22, 2007 9:22 PM"

Well than you missed RiverDog and RedWolf.

I don't know if you followed the entire sequence of comments. I suspect not because colorful is so off the mark to describe what was said and defended that I have difficulty believing you would defend it in any way.

janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet, and others:

I have heard far too many people seem to excuse the death of combat troops with the remark "but the did volunteer".

If anything, that makes them better than the rest of us, and their death is certainly evey bit as tragic, if not more so.

As a society, we seem to see SO much tragedy whenever a policeman is killed in the line of duty. How is this different?

I'd take my odds as a policeman over a servicement in Iraq anyday.

What I have a hard time understanding is the lack of acknowledgment that many servicemen and women are fighting for, and willing to die for, a cause. I don't nor can I know the motivation behind all those serving. Some may serve strictly for loyalty to family and friends also serving. (I have heard that on this site). Cindy Sheehan states that her son was taken advantage of and manipulated because he chose to re-enlist. Can't we give them credit for making their own decisions? I do worry about them serving so many tours; the size of the military has to increase, no matter what happens in Iraq.

Okay Mike said the pathetic O'Reilly show, that just happens to be beating your boy 4 to 1 . But wait folks just in case somebody scores over a million with Hillary on tues.

You know who will be the first to crow over it.

MSNBC is better than Fox

Do you loons relize that if you lump all the cable channels together. Fox News is number 8 and MSNBC is so far down that list, that there are probably more people who would want to buy a frying pan on a home shopping channel than watch a train wreck on MSNBC at 8:00 E.S.T.

But you know tonights show had to really be bad when the only thing Mike and Donna can do is post a few cheap shots. I'm putting this one to bed early. I'll tivo Dopey and have a good laugh over breakfast.

Mike & Donna why don't you go over and hang out at daily kos before you embarrass you're selves anymore.

Good night ya'll

I don't excuse their deaths as trivial. I am grateful that they risk their lives in defense of ours.

Mike, please tell me you can see and condemn the following as at a minimum as heartily as you condemned at January 22, 2007 8:56 PM.

"I sure wish his parents were jews in Germany in 1943."

Or these attempts at what I don't know:

"Ok... How about I wish his parents were Japanese and put into Manzanar and sterilized..Is that better ?"

"How about I wish his parents were innocent Iraqi's killed by their son. But,, time travel would be necessary for that"

"How about I wish his parents were American Indians and slaughtered by Kevin Costner's friends."

". Please Bush daughters... have yourselves sterilized."

And what is his rationale:

"I wish you folks were as outraged at 3K Americans dying as me making a tasteless jokes.. strange what mnakes you people unravel."

This pig uses millions of people murdered in the most horrendous ways as a JOKE to stick it to those who disagree.

Please tell me you have something more to say than what you have.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Mike perhaps people wouldn't "attack" you if you didn't attack them. But of course, in the mind of the Olbermann-apologists, it's okay for them to attack everyone else and wrong for anyone who doesn't like Olbermann to say anything about either Olbermann or them. It's that whole double-standard again.

I guess O'Lielly took Olbermann's example of flashing Nazi salutes as an indication that the systematic attempts at elimination of an entire ethnic group could be used for comedic purposes.

Sharon:

You hit on one of the things I was worried about from the beginning....those that are serving so many tours.

I was in the military during the Vietnam war. I was fortunate enough myself that I was never sent there, but my dad was sent twice, and so was my brother in law. My brother in law is now considered terminal because of the effects of Agent Orange, which was regularly used as a defoliant.

I personally witnessed how military moral can be gradually degraded by being thrown into an unwinnable situation. It took our military many, many years to recover from what was done to it during the war. I fear the same thing is happening all over again.

This is something I think GWB completely failed to consider. There are many other things that George Bush failed to consider that arn't really being discussed very much within his ill fated decision to invade, and the subsequent faefull decisions he has made, and is STILL making today.

Lost lives caused by their mistakes seem to be about the LAST thing that really concern these Neocons. I'm sorry if that sounds cold, but that is how it looks to me.

And Grammie? Don't waste your time demanding an answer from Mike. He (and the rest of the Olbermann-apologists) have yet to answer the question as to why it is that Olbermann deserves $4million when he will not travel to cover a story unless there's pussy or baseball involved. Or why, given his pathetic ratings he actually thinks he's worth $4 million when that's what Anderson Cooper & Brian williams are pulling down each year.

Or why it's okay for Olbermann to lie like he did last week in a story and selectively edit a video clip to support a manufactured "story".

Or why it is that Mike seems to hate the fact that he thinks I bring up "gossip" about Olbermann but yet it's Olbermann himself who features gossip stories prominently on his show.

See, these are questions the apologists refuse to answer. Because they can't. And they want the people who ask those questions not to post here, hence the attacks on me by Mike. But according to him who is being attacked? Why it's poor little Mikey.

Honestly someone needs to do an in-depth psychological study on what goes on (or more correctly, doesn't) in the brains of the average Olbermann apologist.

And what better way to support our troops than to pull the funding out from under them and make them do with less resources. (Insert eyeroll icon here).

Olby was extra deplorable tonight. I can see why Johnny $ led with the most despicle aspect of KO's delivery tonight.

When is Al Jazeera going to start translating his show in Arabic? What delicious propoganda for Al Jazeera...An NBC news person at their most deplorable.

News News is Al Jazeera @ 30 rock. What a despicle hour.

I vomited.

L.F.

Hey look, there's KAF, that obsessed li'l 'liberal' again, valiantly trying to turn the discussion back to KOs failings.

It's kind of funny to see him throw up yet another loooonnng boring rant against Olbermann in the middle of other discussions, and NOBODY bothers to respond! I bet that makes his head want to just explode?

Did you catch Richard Clarke tonight? The Chinese now can turn of our power.

Fear mongering? Not if it fits KO's agenda.
What a despicle person KO is...

I only caught one part of Olby tonight, when he tried to get Clark on board to discredit the story of terrorists plotting to get into the U.S. with student visas. If you haven't seen it, it's worth the watch. That completely backfired!

Janet:

No, I do not see any merit in any of the remarks you cited nor do I agree with any of them.

It's only possible to go after so many things on this board. As it is, I opten miss other posts that are directed directly at, and to me in the process of responding to others.

And Mike knows "boring rants" when he sees them-it's his usual means of posting on this board.

And no, I can't imagine either why people would want to talk about Keith Olbermann on a board named O-L-B-E-R-M-A-N-N-W-A-T-C-H.

Mike is much happier when he's able to distract the conversation away from Olbermann's antics and those of his fellow apologists, like O'Lielly.

I think O'Lielly needs to be banned too for his beyond the pale remark. Just as I thought Olbermann should have been a man and apologized for his deplorable Nazi salute.

Freechie:

The Chinese ARE our biggest future national security threat. The threat they pose dwarfs anything Islamic extremism poses.

I have believed this for years, and Olby is apparently just now getting to it because of a missile test.

It is relevant, Mike. Olby has an agenda and it is so downright obvious that it can't be ignored on a site whose mission it is to expose him.

Whoa, Mike,

The threat they pose dwarfs anything Islamic extremism poses.

Did the Chinese attack on 9/11? No doubt, China is a major concern, but do you think 9/11 is an isolated incident?

"I can't imagine either why people would want to talk about Kieth Olbermann on a baord called O-L-B-E-R-M-A-N-N-W-A-T-C-H"...

Because that unimportant subject plays itself out after two or three rounds of brief circular arguments.

Sharon: "do you think 911 is an isolated incident".

I don't know, but probably not!

That said, I do think that while it was certainly not initially overblown, with our going after Al Qeada in Afghanistan, it later became overblown when we started using it as an excuse for ANYTHING we chose to do later, like invade a country that did not attack us.

911 was a terrible, terrible day...but we are definitely guilty of not keeping it in the proper perpective.

Mike, you disappoint me. You can't bring yourself to disavow a PIG who uses the horrendus suffering and death of MILLIONS as a JOKE because he is on your side and anyway some others aren't nice to you.

I just refreshed and read your last comment to me. You don't see any merit in the comment. That is a very barely discernible, if at all, condemnation of such JOKES. Aren't we the jolly bunch.

First things first, right Mike. Lets not spend any time on defending the indefensible when there is an opporitunity to jump on someone elses perceived faux pas.

You still disappoint me after that comment. I expected better of you.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Keith isn't aging well. Will his cheerleader girlfriend pack him and his viagra and send them on their way?

Janet: Sorry, but that wasn't my fight. You haven't exactly come to my rescue when I was being ganged up on either.

I already told you I disaprove of those comments, but how many battles am I supposed to fight here?

Janet:

As a follow up, sometimes my eyes just kind of glaze over when I read that kind of bombastic stuff and I tend to just skim over it.

Yours should too. People like that shouldn't be taken seriously. The worst thing you can do to them is ignor them.

This bears repeating:

And the conclusion based on the above from B Kill is:

"The Cee/Grammie clan are very twisted individuals."

You are twisted. Sorry, but it's a fact. You support a completely incompotent president even much after he has been proved wrong time and again. Remember the roadmap to peace? The mission accomplished? The greeted as liberators? You just can't accept that you are the ones who f---ed up. Not liberals or secularists. You. The so called patriots. You. The so called protestors of democracy have pissed on the constitution and defended a war crime. You. Who call anyone who dares question you a terrorist lover. You. Who let young men die and billions be spent supporting a foreign country, but wouldn't support giving your tax dollars to your fellow Americans in need. You. Who say that you have the moral highground, or that Jesus is your Lord and then talk of preemptive wars. You talk down to everyone who tries to PREVENT war, as if you where the one who is fighting the war. I'm tired, and so is the rest of the country of your twisted world views. Go ahead Janet. Make light of the critics who dare oppose you. Go ahead cee. Call on your savior to cover your support of killings of the innocent bystanders who are caught in your war against terror. I can't stand another condecending post about your version of the bible, or Janets version of anything.

Posted by: Donora, PA. at January 22, 2007 5:51 PM

Grammie's summation of the BUsh failures in Iraq: There were some mistakes made!
While Cee says he can write a 10 page essay on the accomplishments of Bush.( Bob ripped his top three to shreds )

Since reality and the facts before us won't do it,these two individuals wouldn't abandon their sick beliefs if God himself came down and told them what a--holes they are !

Mike, if that wasn't your fight why did you jump in feet first attacking someone who pointed out the difference between a volunteer military of any status and the SIX MILLION JEWS who suffered and died under the most despicable ideology and circumstances that man has ever perpretrated.

Lame.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

George Bush has been wrong at every step of the way with every decision he has made in Iraq.
Cee and Janet have agreed with Bush on everything he has done.

Thus, doing the simple math, Cee and Janet have been wrong about everything they say about Iraq.

That sure won't stop them, either.

They revel in being wrong !

Olbermann continues to defend his Islamic allies. He claims terrorist threats don't exist and is silent on Iran. Why doesn't he just put a turban on and issue a call to Prayer. It's obvious he's on the Ayatollah's payroll!

Well Mike, when you pontificate on this board 24/7, even during the NFL Conference Championship games, you tend to make more than a few enemies along the way.

Hate to say it, but the Richard Clarke interview was quite compelling tonight in terms of China's capability to knock out our power grid through cyberspace. Olby had no idea how to handle that one, since there wasn't much anti-Bush rhetoric he could add to it.

"Olbermann continues to defend his Islamic allies."

Whatever world Red Wolf lives in , it must be a hellofa place.

Nice and safe and beyond any reason or common sense.

Richard Clarke: One of the first people who pulled the curtain away from the wizard( Bush) and exposed his lies and intentions in 2003.

Richard Clarke is a great American !

I would like to lay out a scenario for everyone on here who STILL believes GWB has fought the war on terror in a competent manner, and with the correct prorities....Keep in mind that, the last I heard, we are still only inspecting 5 - 10% of the thousands of containers coming into this country:

What if we wake up one morning to find that a nuclear device has been set off in an American city, and we later find that this device was smuggled in on one of those 90 - 95% of containers that was not inspected?

Just imagine what the media will be talking about then. Just imagine the finger pointing that will go on after that! John Kerry actually brought up this point in one of the 2004 debates. Bush ignored it, and the so called "Liberal Media" never picked up on it either.

The time to do something about all those containers is YESTERDAY. This is but ONE example of how we have been wasting our resources on irrelevancies in Iraq while virtually ignoring many real threats.

Just imagine what we could have done with all the resources that have been squandered in Iraq, and how much safer we might actually be, AND we might not have lost 3000 more American lives to boot.

And you people actually wonder why we hate what Bush has done to us?

why do u care what my name is, chapter and verse to back up the entire screed OTHER than your opinion.

Somewhere in your mind is not an adequate basis for anything.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

why do u care what my name,
Why does Olbermann downplay Islamic threats and Iranain intentions? He supports them.

Did you see Richard Clarke tell CrazyKeith how much he loved the show? I think KO had a chubby under the anchor desk.

L.F.

One quote from R. Clarke that will live forever.

"But Mr President, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"

(When after 9/11, Cheney and Bush immediately set their sights on Iraq )

Teheran Keith...our modern day Tokyo Rose !!

why do u care what my name,
Why does Olbermann downplay Islamic threats and Iranain intentions? He supports them.

Posted by: Red Wolf at January 22, 2007 10:45 PM

How does he support them?
This should be good.

Little Freaky, our modern day sucker who will always pucker for his hero , Bush.

Hey Care...

check "the list"...Olbyganda watch is the biggest journalistic joke on TV.

"Well Mike, when you pontificate on this board 24/7, even during the NFL conference championship games"....

First off, the 24/7 part is just a lie.

Your second point is valid though. I guess I really do need to reorganize my priorities so that I actually give a damn which group of millionaires can best ram a little ball down the other group's throats.

why do u care what my name is,'
He downplays their threats and doesn't discuss Iran's threat. His silence or indifference equals support. Case close name change loser!
Like all loons Olbermann is a hero to you.Well he's a big fat zero. If I saw him, I'd knock him out. Hopefully he comes to Miami during the Superbowl. That way me and my crew can rough that herb up!

Hey O'lielly, why didn't the Clintons sign up Chelsie to fight in Kosovo? You know the war that is now a quagmire and a lost cause. I should know since I fought in that war and by the way. It was Kofi Annan that said that Kosovo is a quagmire and a lost cause, since Kosovo is #1 hotspot for Islamic Terrorist Training camp and Drug Trafficing of all of Europe...

but how many battles am I supposed to fight here?

As many as you pick.

Clinton told the nation we would be in Kosovo for 1 year....what a joke.

Al Jazeera @ 30 Rock.....

Teheran Keith has a picture of Bin Laden in his room. He also has a sighned picture of Mamoud Ahmadinejad.

Red Wolf said; "that way me and my crew can rough that herb up!"....

Whats wrong, Red Wolf. You don't think you could handle him yourself? You need to have your 'crew' with you in order to handle KO?

There's nothing brave about that!

Mike,
I know a few pissed off people here in Miami that can't stand that Iran loving dork. I may hit him 1st, but others are gonna jump him. That's the code of the streets. Note the lilly White suburbs you grew up in.

Teheran Keith is a propaganda artist for the Clintons too. Tommorow he will take orders from Madam Chairwoman Clinton and begin campaigning on her behalf

That will add another democrat to the list.

"One quote from R. Clarke that will live forever.

"But Mr President, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"

(When after 9/11, Cheney and Bush immediately set their sights on Iraq )

Posted by: at January 22, 2007 10:46 PM"

And besides R Clarke how many others were there to verify the context and words of everyone?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Richard Clarke has the OJ syndrome...He believes what he want to believes what really happened.

"you know the war that is now a quagmire and a lost cause."

Our military, under Clinton, did an extraordinary job of stopping the killing that was going on there, and did so at a cost of zero U.S. casualties.

Now we have over 3,000 casualities and 10's of thousands soldiers w/o limbs because of the war in Iraq.

The right wing frauds at this site who bring up Kosovo, where no American died and ignore Bush's unholy mess with thousands of casualities just display their partisanship and stupidity.

And besides R Clarke how many others were there to verify the context and words of everyone?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 22, 2007 11:02 PM

Richard Clarke has the OJ syndrome...He believes what he want to believes what really happened.

Posted by: Little Feechie at January 22, 2007 11:04 PM

Never have we had two posts back to back that more demonstrated the ignorance and bias of our nut case right wing posters.

My Lord.
Grammie continues to live in a state of denial, and Little Freaky continues to be delusional.
Nice pair.

very twisted, indeed !

Care:

The fact that Richard Clarke loves KrazyKeith is proof enough that he is a leftist nut.

Here is a cut and paste but worth the read (from CNN transcript)-I don't know how to format it

LEMON: She's driven a big rig on some of the most dangerous roads on the planet. For years, Cindy Morgan was a civilian truck driver in Iraq and thus a moving target for insurgents. In her book, "Cindy in Iraq" � appropriately named � Cindy Morgan says she took the job for the money and to make changes in her life.

But now, the 41-year-old mother of three is making an even bigger change. Last week, she enlisted in the U.S. Army, knowing full well that she may be sent back to Iraq, this time as a soldier. Cindy Morgan joins me from Pensacola, Florida.

Cindy, people are going to go, what in the world? Why would you ever want to do this with the possibility of going back to Iraq? Read the rest of this entry � � � Read less

CINDY MORGAN, ENLISTED IN THE U.S. ARMY: Well, my family and I have been great military supporters and on both sides of my family, I've got people who served all the way back to World War I. Even my grandfather on my dad's side, he was too small to join the Army, so he went and joined up with the Red Cross and went to France during World War I.

So, you know, we are great supporters. We love our country and I have served two years as a civilian contractor and this is another way I get to serve my country.

LEMON: Yes, and we're going to talk about that contractor part of it and the dangers of that. But you've got three sons. You've got Ian and Stephan. How old are they?

MORGAN: Ian is 21, and Stephan (ph) just turned 19 at the end of December.

LEMON: Just turned 19, and then Kenny, who is in the Army, how old is Kenny?

MORGAN: Kenny turned 22 in November.

LEMON: OK. So there's a picture of you and Kenny.

MORGAN: Right.

LEMON: When you were working as a contract worker in Iraq, you two actually saw each other. And there you are there. You ran into him there. What was that like? Surreal?

MORGAN: It was fantastic, and it was weird and it was a little scary. You know, as a parent of a soldier, you know that your son or your daughter is going to be out on very dangerous patrols and stuff.

When you are sitting in the same camp and you walk into his headquarters and you ask where your son is and they say, well, he just rolled out the gates, so you know for the next couple of hours that your son is in immediate danger, it's a real weird feeling.

LEMON: Yes, is it better or worse, do you think, to be closer or farther away from him in that situation?

MORGAN: It depends. In some situations, it was really great to see each other and it helped both of our morale. But in some ways, you know, because I've been there, I was able to throw aside some fears that most parents would have and develop other ones because I have an intimate knowledge of what goes on.

LEMON: Yes, I understand that he jokes about outranking you as well.

MORGAN: Yes, all the time. Every time I talk to him, I outrank you, mom.

LEMON: Yes, you know what? Let's talk about the dangers of being a contract worker or truck driver. You know that and we, you know � sadly, we get reports all the time of contract workers being kidnapped and sadly, some of them being killed.

MORGAN: Right.

LEMON: Again, people would say you signed up for this, you know, you said to make a change in your life but what in the world would make you want to go back to Iraq after seeing the dangers there? Do you want to make a difference?

MORGAN: Well, actually, I'm joining the army, which I'm very proud of. And if I get sent back to Iraq, I get sent back to Iraq. I'm not afraid of it. I've seen a lot of good work go on, and I've heard a lot of stories from our troops over there which are very inspiring, which we don't get to hear every day.

And I actually chronicled a couple of them in my book and I am hoping that with my approval of my audition tape, that I'll be able to go to broadcast journalists and be able to get some of those stories out.

LEMON: Well, we wish you luck. We may be seeing you again in another capacity. That book is called "Cindy in Iraq." You know what I want to talk to you about? You are 40 years old � you know � which for me, I think 40 years old is young.

But when you tried to enlist after 9/11, at 40 years old, they said, you know what? You're too � you were under 40 then, but they said you were too old. And, now, after a couple of years you're not too old. You can enlist. Had you given up?

MORGAN: Well, actually, back in 2005, the Army raised the age limit up to 40. Two weeks after I turned 40. Because I actually went down to the recruiter and tried to enlist then and they said, well, you are two weeks too late. So I took another job and went back to Iraq as a contractor.

So this is great for me because I get to fulfill something I've wanted to do for several years. And I know lots of guys and gals that said I would if I could but I'm too old. And so hopefully my story being out there will let them know they have a chance to serve their country.

LEMON: Hey, we have only moments left and I just wonder. You've been there several times. So you've seen some of the � has it changed? Have you seen it change in any way since you've been back? MORGAN: Since I've been back � I hear stories. I've got friends over there and I hear stories all the time about the improvements and stuff. And as with anything, something's better, something's worse. But, you know, it's all in how you want to look at it. If you're a positive person, then you're going to try and find the positive in everything. And that's what I try and do.

LEMON: OK. What are you, a private now? Private Cindy Morgan?

MORGAN: At the moment, yes, I'm a private.

LEMON: Private Cindy Morgan reporting for duty.

Thanks for joining us.

MORGAN: Thank you.

why do u care what my name,
Your a Stalinist bitch ass!

And besides R Clarke how many others were there to verify the context and words of everyone?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

No, he's lying about it, Janet.

Look who else was there!!!!!
The ones that zeroed in on Iraq,the ones who had planned to go in there for 9 years.

God-almighty save us all from this warped woman's views.

The fact that Richard Clarke loves KrazyKeith is proof enough that he is a leftist nut.

Posted by: Little Feechie at January 22, 2007 11:11 PM

You mean this long time war hawk, who had served under 4 presidents both GOP and dem?

That one is a leftist nut?

Little Freaky doesn't know shit, and he's proud to prove it each time he posts.

Posted by: at January 22, 2007 11:05 PM

Yeah, Clinton did a hell of a job stopping the genocide in Rawanda.

Oh...sorry, you could care less about deaths as long as they aren't "American".

I love you so called "humanists"

Red Wolf:

In the "Lilly White" suburbs that I grew up in (Military bases, actually). Our fighting code was a little more honorable than your "code of the streets".

We fought our own battles....by ourselves, No, friends didn't join in and gang up on the other guy no matter how much they wanted to, because that was considered cowardly. It's called honor, and the creed is based on fundamental fairness.

Sorry, but I prefer my traditional honor code to your "street code" of ganging up on your adversaries. If this is the new 'way', it partially explains why America has so many morality problems today.

ok Care...don't forget your lithium dose

What is lost on Little Feechie, Janet and the other delusional ones:

It's not Michael Moore or ________name your favorite leftist, that is saying how poorly we are doing in Iraq, how little chance we have by this new surge etc.

It's war hawks, generals, Republican Congressmen,

The reason Richard Clarke HAS SO MUCH credibility in what he says is b/c of his working so close with other republican presidents including this one.

You people just don't get it, and never will.

I get the fact that you lefties don't have a plan other than cut and run... I guess you guys miss the Sadaam rape rooms.

Little Frenchie thinks that both Bush presidents hired a leftist nut, in Richard Clarke.

Now, very carefully, Frenchie, put on your thinking cap, and ponder that fact for a few minutes.

Mike.
Your attempt to be civil and reason with Janet will ALWAYS be met with a smack eventualy. She will always put you in your place, which is at her feet in her own twisted mind. She is here only to ammuse herself by smacking down liberals. Her mind is made up, like most of the "right".

Mike,
It's better to win by cheating, than lose with honor. That's reality. Either be a predator or be a prey. Victory is sweet. Street codes always defeat suburban lilly White codes.

Freechie says: "I get the fact that you lefties don't have a plan other than cut and run... I guess you guys missed tha Saddam rape rooms."

Hooray for Freechie! You managed to get three (count em...3), right wing talking points into that one little sentence!

i don't need talking points...I'm just an old country doctor.

olbermann will now be a spokesman for the Hillary Clinton campaign. I want to see how his followers will still claim he's non partisan?

When I discovered that O'Reilly wasn't some smart-for-his-age but geeky senior in high school or freshman in college with a new computer, it was sad and bemusing.

Though I'm not a newbie to blog boards, it had never crossed my mind that there were adults, over 30 years of age who might be locked in that adolescent--- can't wait to try and shock you---mode.

I had thought O'Reily was some teenager with a computer and an adolescent sensibility so I and I think most of us... sort thought he was cute silly...and indulged him.

When he let loose the info that he was old enough to have once worked for some British news outlet...I was.... surprised.

But then shocked is the emotion he craves from adults, just teens do. Only he's our age!

It's sort of like watching Spielberg's "Hook", where Wendy's younger brother John is a gray-haired man who thinks like a kid. You just hope O'Liely will get beyond Netherland or that Peter Pan comes and takes to that second star to the right, straight on till morning.

I get the fact that you lefties don't have a plan other than cut and run... I guess you guys miss the Sadaam rape rooms.

Posted by: Little Feechie at January 22, 2007 11:21 PM

What this moron knows could fit on the tip of his nose.

THERE IS NO PLAN FOR IRAQ.THERE ARE NO ANSWERS. IF ANYONE HAS LEARNED ANYTHING ABOUT THIS GODFORSAKEN WAR IS THAT YOU CAN'T DEFEAT A WHOLE COUNTRY OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT YOU THERE, AND BY PUTTING OUR TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE OF A CIVIL WAR ONLY BRINGS MORE DEATH TO AMERICANS WITH NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

The rape room comment was so Hannity , that was funny.
We see where Feechie gets his information from. No wonder he doesn't know anything.

You people just don't get it, and never will.

Posted by: why do u care what my name is at January 22, 2007 11:20 PM

THE ABSOLUTE AND FINAL TRUTH ABOUT THEM!

thank god you wussies were not around on d-day

doctor?
No one that dumb could be a doctor,
Could they?

Must be an internet degree.

Olbermann is a Hillary hack!

The Battle of the Nerds:

Got a close race going. Who is the dumbest poster: Little feechie or Puck?

Boy, that's a close one !

"Little Frenchie thinks that both Bush presidents hired a leftist nut, in Richard Clarke."

Yeah so did that sackoshit clinton so whats your point....

Better question--what will Keith's support of Clinton do for his liberal fan base who, judging by the reaction of the liberal blogs & websites, are dead-set against her running?

oh yeah, Red Wolf belongs in that battle too.
Puck, Feechie or Red Wolf.
Combine the 3 of them their IQ just might hit 100.

Lefties,
What about Olbermann being a Hillary hack?

3000 kia after 4 years of war is VERY LOW!!...what would you appeasers have done during WW2 when 8000!!! a month were killed. the media and you socialists democrats have politicized this war from day 1.....you could give a rats ass about the military...you despise, like your socio-path hero Bill Clinton, the American military...youd rather build a European-style "socialist utopia", a giant nanny state. sorry, never gonna happen in this country. The world is governed by the use of force, and always will...next time you see a policeman in whatever little town you live in, look at their side...theres a firearm there, THE RULE OF FORCE!!!!...HUMANS ARE A VIOLENT SPECIES!!!..SUCK IT UP AND GET OVER IT!

"Little Frenchie thinks that both Bush presidents hired a leftist nut, in Richard Clarke."

Yeah so did that sackoshit clinton so whats your point....

Posted by: at January 22, 2007 11:33 PM

you obviously can't come to any point based on this too obvious information. The only point is the one at the top of your head.

Hint: Richard Clarke must have been respected by everyone to be hired in so many administrations.

I'm outta here...my IQ is dropping too just reading these inane posts.

My wife and I are in Niedersachsen house-hunting, and we had dinner at the Stube in the village where we are staying and will be moving. My German is a hideous blend of suburban Berlin gutteral and Texas twang, so no one mistakes me for a real German. The television above the bar was set on one of the Dutch stations and remained there during the start of an evening news program. A story about Dubya, the State of the Union and the Surge came on and no one paid the slightest attention. I was amazed. A couple of years ago, even last year, there would have been head-shaking, cat-calling and obscene gestures directed at the monitor. I asked the man at the table next to me why the apathy. His response was, "You Americans are wasting your anger. Since last year, Bush is kitsch." That really struck me. For a man with the crippling ego of Dubya, "kitsch" has to be the supreme insult. More importantly, as to an assessment of Dubya, the Germans have been out in front of us from the beginning. It's not that the Germans are more intuitive or even necessarily better informed on the events of the day. For Americans, our familiarity with Dubya has either bred contempt or has caused us to "bunker up" in our support of him. Even if most Americans have fallen into the former category for some time now, we are not objective. Most of us, regardless of our assessment of Dubya, would probably concur that he was one of the most devisive and polarizing men ever to inhabit the White House. Even his predecessor was wildly more popular. A devisive figure always steals objectivity. So, I have been wondering: Is Dubya simply kitsch, now? What does it mean if he is? On the positive side, and that is as far as I have gone so far, if Dubya is truly kitsch, there is no need for anger and polemic. Judgment has been rendered, and justice at long last attained. To the dust bin with the broken bric-a-brac! And bring on the rubbish collectors.

"And bring on the rubbish collectors."

And you also need to sweep Grammie, Feechie, Benson, cee and the whole bunch into that dust bin for the trash collector.

"Hint: Richard Clarke must have been respected by everyone to be hired in so many administrations."

HAHAHA! Love it, anonymous! Please post this on the Dick Morris discussion thread!

Neanderthals post on this board too. Just look at anon 11:37 PM. As they say on TV..."even a cave man can do it!"

To all the R Clarke defenders, I guess Benedict Arnold was never part of the Continental Army. Part of the revolution. That was just a fairy tale.

R Clarke is a man like all of us are. If your only proof is that of course there is no substantiation b/c everyone else is part of the conspiracy there IS NO evidence.

So many fantasies are accepted as cold hard facts that the conclusions are also fantastical.

Cabals plotting neocon world domination from 1991 and finding their opportunity in the evil idiot Bush. The only thing some of you don't publicly claim, but many do, is that Bush et al planned and executed 911 to further their mad scheme for world domination.

And back at the mosque, the peaceful loving Islamo Fascists are just begging and pleading, can't we all just get along.

Thanks, but no thanks. I like my head attached to my body. And no one one will disagree with this: the main reason I like it that way is b/c I can speak my mind that way.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

But 11:37 is right. Compared to the losses in Vietnam, Iraq is not even close. Remember, we have an all-volunteer military. Did these people really join the armed forces expecting NOT to fight in a conflict at some point in time? So is the reasoning here that they didn't understand what they were signing up for? Are you, like Kerry, trying to insult the intelligence of the troops by even suggesting such a thing?

Withdrawing funding for the Iraq war will mean even more military troops will die in Iraq. For people who profess to be so concerned about the troops isn't this sending the wrong signal to them? They need the support, be it more boots on the ground, more funding, more equipment. And the liberals now want to take that away from them. Way to support the troops Liberals!

"Dubya is truly kitsch, there is no need for anger and polemic. Judgment has been rendered, and justice at long last attained. To the dust bin with the broken bric-a-brac! And bring on the rubbish collectors."

Well, is that your judgement, Kurt?....Is Bush really kitsch..as some anonymous German declared him to be in some German bar... I know it was such a sincere effort for you, Kurt...you finally analysed it and worked it out...just like Nietzsche... Thanks from all mankind...

Cecilia will not post her snippy remarks if you favor death, war and Dumbya.

Transparency is her gift to us.

Amazing the support the Neanderthals get from the right!

I once 'volunteered' and served in the military myself. I was young, inexperienced and naive, like most troops who sign up today. Many of them will change their views as they age, as I did. Many of them will no doubt be damned glad they were not killed in this war that they themselves may some day agree should have never been waged...IF they live.

When I voluteered up for the military, I can assure you that I didn't sign up to die. I DID, however sign up to do my part and be in harm's way....but only IF necessary!

The least we could give these brave young people is a competent Commander in Chief. To me, the biggest 'insult' to our military troops is that we the people have stuck them with a blithering idiot as their supreme commander who won't even listen to his own generals, after claiming for years that that is exactly what he does.

It really bothers me that we have such a fine military being led by such a dolt. Why it doesn't bother you guys on the far right as well is beyond me?

How many Peace vigils have ended genocide ANYWHERE in the world?

All this Leftist Philisophical masterbation has done nothing to save human lives anywhere.

These A-holes claim to be concerned about our soldier’s lives and limbs and could care less about human beings who truly suffer around the globe.

At least our soldiers have the moral fiber to try to save people from far more gruesome realities than these hippy twits could ever envision and all they can complain about is how they aren’t protecting them at home.

Have any of you “humanists” taken a good look at the malnourished pictures Somali children in the 90’s or the similar photos of children in Darfur?

Funny how even a Leftie like George Clooney demands President Boosh bomb Khartoom while crying out against the bombing of Baghdad; where (according to lefties) just as many children were dying under sanctions per year as are now dying in Sudan (now) and Somalia (then).

As long as money spent doesn’t reduce the Federal dollars being exhausted on their useless Liberal Arts Scholarships or keeping them high on the hog with everyone else’s money they could give two shits about anyone else.

Grammie: Cabals plotting neocon world domination from 1991 and finding their opportunity in the evil idiot Bush.

It's been documented and is fact !

The only thing some of you don't publicly claim, but many do, is that Bush et al planned and executed 911 to further their mad scheme for world domination.

Now that's ridiculous.
Like Bush and co could have ever pulled off something as intricate as that with their dismal record as far as competency.

Grammie lives in the house of wrong.

Cecelia, glad to see you here tonight.

I've been wanting to ask you, what should I serve with martinis at a little get together this week.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

How many Peace vigils have ended genocide ANYWHERE in the world?

Vietnam.

If it weren't for the peace marches ( and nightly broadcasts of coffins coming home) The Vietnam war would STILL be going on today.

Cecilia will not post her snippy remarks if you favor death, war and Dumbya.

Transparency is her gift to us."

It's the gift that will keep on giving, even though you'll insist on seeing only something snippy, numbskull.

These A-holes claim to be concerned about our soldier’s lives and limbs and could care less about human beings who truly suffer around the globe.

Hear hear. I agree.

Such is the Bush administration's record to a "T" !

It really bothers me that we have such a fine military being led by such a dolt. Why it doesn't bother you guys on the far right as well is beyond me?

Posted by: Mike at January 23, 2007 12:10 AM

Because their whole body would shake and convulse to actually admit the reality that is staring them in the face.

Party before country is their motto, and they prove it every day in their posts.

"Grammie: Cabals plotting neocon world domination from 1991 and finding their opportunity in the evil idiot Bush.

It's been documented and is fact !

The only thing some of you don't publicly claim, but many do, is that Bush et al planned and executed 911 to further their mad scheme for world domination.

Now that's ridiculous.
Like Bush and co could have ever pulled off something as intricate as that with their dismal record as far as competency.

Grammie lives in the house of wrong.

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 12:13 AM"

Now that is a daunting obstacle. No proof equals proof and proof equals no proof.

How could I have ever doubted you. You've got all the bases covered.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"It really bothers me that we have such a fine military being led by such a dolt. Why it doesn't bother you guys on the far right as well is beyond me?"

I've got four family members in the military, Mike, including a daughter who is an airman and who is married to US Air Force pilot. They just so happen to admire our president.

I doubt any of my family members in the military will accept your label... as being "far right".... but perhaps you should take it up with fellow vets and current vets. There are blogs boards just for that...you know...

It really bothers me that we have such a fine military being led by such a dolt. Why it doesn't bother you guys on the far right as well is beyond me?

And then there's Cee, who is sooooooooooo far gone that he actually has the balls to write that GWb is an honorable and intelligent man.

And where were you Peace vigils during the campaigns in Rwanda, oh I forgot; no one cared did they?
Where were the Peace Vigils during Kosovo? Oh I forgot; a Democrat was in office.
And Somalia? Oh yeah, the same Democrat turned tail and ran while 300,000 people starved to death.

Love you humanists.

Bonus question; Who got us involved in Vietnam in the first place and why? You get extra points if you can tell me what party he belonged to.

"They just so happen to admire our president."

Cecilia's kids are just as empty headed as she.

Sad , really.

The apples don't fall far from the tree.

"The least we could give these brave young people is a competent Commander in Chief."

yeah sorta like mr. clinton......or how about mrs.
clinton.....

"Cecilia's kids are just as empty headed as she.

Sad , really.

The apples don't fall far from the tree."

Right you are. I'm the apple. They are the tree.

And where were you Peace vigils during the campaigns in Rwanda, oh I forgot; no one cared did they?
Where were the Peace Vigils during Kosovo? Oh I forgot; a Democrat was in office.
And Somalia? Oh yeah, the same Democrat turned tail and ran while 300,000 people starved to death.

Love you humanists.

This is the same a--hole who gives Bush a pass for starting a war that has killed 3,000 Americans with many more about to be lost.

Oh yeah, the same Democrat turned tail and ran while 300,000 people starved to death.

Lies , lies and more lies...but that won't stop him from posting them.

"This is the same a--hole who gives Bush a pass for starting a war that has killed 3,000 Americans with many more about to be lost.

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 12:27 AM"

And why do you appear to be so gleeful at the prospect?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"The least we could give these brave young people is a competent Commander in Chief."

yeah sorta like mr. clinton......or how about mrs.
clinton....."

Now there's a surprise.

She voted for the war, and it would become more palatable to anonymous if she were waging it.

"The least we could give these brave young people is a competent Commander in Chief."

yeah sorta like mr. clinton......or how about mrs.
clinton.....

Bill Clinton had his faults, but competency sure wasn't one of them.

They think because THEIR president is such a dolt, they say the same about Clinton.

Little Richard: "Please, help me, save me" !

And why do you appear to be so gleeful at the prospect?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

grammie making no sense, again.
Like I'm gleeful, Just the opposite. I'm not like you , who favors more death of our troops.

What would withdrawing Funding for the war accomplish? The only thing worse than an incompetent idiot waging a tragically underfunded war would be an imcompetent idiot waging an even more tragically underfunded war.

Just because the Dems don't have any easy answers, that doesn't mean Bush gets off the hook. Bush talked tough, Bush talked strong, Bush said, 'Bring it On'...And he broke it...now everyone's blaming the Democrats for not having any glue handy?

That's a pretty tenuous game the Republicans are playing if they think they can blame Democrats for not seeing this coming and not having a plan for a way out, all the while pretending they aren't to blame...

Celelia:

I didn't call anybody in your family "far right". They may be, or they may not be, but I didn't call them that.

I would love to see a REAL poll about what the military as a whole ACTUALLY thinks of their Commander in Chief, but I don't believe such a poll would even be possible. Better still, I would love to see a poll of these people taken 10 years from now.

Regardless, I think the evidence is in on George Bush, but some will never be convinced. They will literally go right over the cliff with the one they admire for no coherent reason.

I'm sure all those souls who lost their lives due to competency are singing his praises in heaven now.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I would love to see a REAL poll about what the military as a whole ACTUALLY thinks of their Commander in Chief, but I don't believe such a poll would even be possible.

Oh really?

Published:
Dec. 29, 2006
Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq

By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editor

The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved.

"That's a pretty tenuous game the Republicans are playing if they think they can blame Democrats for not seeing this coming and not having a plan for a way out, all the while pretending they aren't to blame..."

Let'em keep voting for appropriations bills and we'll see how tenous a game it is.

Cecelia, glad to see you here tonight.

I've been wanting to ask you, what should I serve with martinis at a little get together this week.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 23, 2007 12:13 AM

Maybe if you laid off the juice a bit you wouldn't be such a smarty pants.

Oh yeah, the same Democrat turned tail and ran while 300,000 people starved to death.

Lies , lies and more lies...but that won't stop him from posting them

Really a--hole? Even your beloved UN will back up my claims. Try doing a little reading on Mohammed Farah Aidid you "so called" "caring" piece of crap.

"Bill Clinton had his faults, but competency sure wasn't one of them."

really you can't be that stupid

Janet: "I'm sure all those souls who lost their lives due to competency are singing his praises in heaven in heaven now"....

I don't even believe you said that!

When even the military ( all 4 branches) are down on Bush, it makes grammie , Cecilia etc even look like bigger fools for supporting him.

"That's a pretty tenuous game the Republicans are playing if they think they can blame Democrats for not seeing this coming and not having a plan for a way out, all the while pretending they aren't to blame...

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 12:34 AM"

But I thought that was the point. The Dems were tricked into their support. We have been hearing that for years.

Surely that is long enough for them to have coalesced around some coherent plan.

Unless they are more interested in CYA than they are in the right , by their lights, thing to do.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Bill Clinton had his faults, but competency sure wasn't one of them."

really you can't be that stupid

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 12:40 AM

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man.
If you deny this, you are too far gone to reason with.

Did we ever hear from anyone else besides Grammie that would describe themselves as a 'non-religious' Bush supporter?

There's a couple people on tonight that seem to be big fans of the prez that, judging from their salty language, probably weren't in Church yesterday...

Surely that is long enough for them to have coalesced around some coherent plan.

Unless they are more interested in CYA than they are in the right , by their lights, thing to do.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 23, 2007 12:42 AM

grammie STILL doesn't get it.
There is no plan..for anyone.
You can't win a war in Iraq when the bulk of the country DOESN'T WANT US THERE.
You can't win a war when there is a raging civil war going on.
You republicans are really blind.

Mike, You give Grammie way too much credit.

She hasn't a clue, and if it walked up to her and stared her in the face, she'd spit on it, and then write some wordy, worthless post about it.

"Bill Clinton had his faults, but competency sure wasn't one of them.

"Bill Clinton is a brilliant man."

Is it possible for a "brillant man"(and iam not saying he is or isn't) to be incompetent????

"What would withdrawing Funding for the war accomplish? The only thing worse than an incompetent idiot waging a tragically underfunded war would be an imcompetent idiot waging an even more tragically underfunded war."

"Just because the Dems don't have any easy answers, that doesn't mean Bush gets off the hook. Bush talked tough, Bush talked strong, Bush said, 'Bring it On'...And he broke it...now everyone's blaming the Democrats for not having any glue handy?"

If you think everything is hunky dory in Iraq, why do you care that the Democrats haven't done anything? That should be a good thing in your mind.

If you don't think everything is hunky dory in Iraq, then you should know who to blame.

The conservatives want to have it both ways. Blame the Dems for not having a solution to a problem that doesn't exist!

Mike,

So you're saying that you think most of the military doesn't support Pres. Bush and if there could be a poll where they felt free to speak their minds your conclusion would be born out.

And you're saying those who do support Bush do so beyond all rational thinking.

But you aren't labeling my family members who support our president as being members of the "far right.

Well, thanks, Mike for making clear your broad-minded reluctance to label others with the moniker "far right".

Oh yeah... you just accept folks who don't agree with you about Bush according to their "own unique view of theology and morality".

Far out...

Is it possible for a "brillant man"(and iam not saying he is or isn't) to be incompetent????

Sure it is possible.But it sure doesn't apply to Clinton.
Clinton's presidency has been deemed pertty much a success by historians and anyone not filled with hatred for him.
Even Bill O'Reilly admitted his was a successful presidency for Christ's sake.

Grammie & Cecelia:

Current state in Iraq...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Your Thoughts Please...

Cecilia is ignoring the military Times poll posted above.
Selective vision for that gal.

"why do you care that the Democrats haven't done anything?"

Hey watch it there pal i do believe that they have
banned smoking in the House breakroom so get your
facts straight.

Grammie & Cecelia:

Current state in Iraq...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Your Thoughts Please...

Grammie has already stated that there were SOME mistakes made in Iraq.lolol
Cecilia is like Chill Wills sitting on that bomb in Dr. Strangelove cheering and ahollaring FOR IT.

"Janet: "I'm sure all those souls who lost their lives due to competency are singing his praises in heaven in heaven now"....

I don't even believe you said that!

Posted by: Mike at January 23, 2007 12:40 AM"

Well, Mike, we're even if you say so.

I didn't imply that death by idiocy is worse than death by uncaring competency. I was pointing up yhe viciousness that was implied.

I was not making a JOKE about one of the worst chapters in human history as a gotcha moment in a debate.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Hey watch it there pal i do believe that they have
banned smoking in the House breakroom so get your
facts straight."

That was just a little something something to piss off the tobacco lobby...you know, the guys currently running the FDA.

"If you think everything is hunky dory in Iraq, why do you care that the Democrats haven't done anything? That should be a good thing in your mind.

If you don't think everything is hunky dory in Iraq, then you should know who to blame."

Exactly!

If you're talking about "tenuous games" that the voters want stopped and you're elected to do so...then you'll know who to blame...

Welcome to leadership. Or not. :D

tHE NEO-NUTS on this site will always think the Iraq war is just ( no matter how many die)
They will always blame everyone but Bush for the Katrina debacle.
They will always think it was the liberal media that convinced America to vote out the republicans in nov.
They will always have Bill Clinton as a convenient scapegoat even after 6 years of watching Bush screw everything up.

They are a pitiful bunch !

"Clinton's presidency has been deemed pertty much a success"

A success ......sorta like the "Success" he had in getting the North Koreans to stop their nuke program?????

really you can't be that stupid

"Exactly! If you're talking about "tenuous games" that the voters want stopped and you're elected to do so...then you'll know who to blame... Welcome to leadership. Or not. :D"

You're doing it again, you're blaming the Dems for not putting a stop to something you personally don't want stopped. You can't speak for yourself to win one argument, then pretend to speak for the people to win another. You want to have your war and eat it too.

If you're talking about "tenuous games" that the voters want stopped and you're elected to do so...then you'll know who to blame...

Welcome to leadership. Or not. :D

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 12:55 AM

6 years of Bush and a GOP Congress.
2 weeks of a Democratic Congress where the GOP President still makes all of the decisions except the purse.

Cecilia has her chops being licked for pinning the blame game on the democrats.

What a fair and balanced gal !

"Cecilia is like Chill Wills sitting on that bomb in Dr. Strangelove cheering and ahollaring FOR IT."

So I want to nuke or even Dresden Iraq?

Please provide quotes from me that even imply this, Socrates.

Cecelia:

Supporting Bush simply isn't rational. It HAS to be either denial, withdrawal, or a combination of both. The facts simply don't lie.

Now you can quote that one, instead of twisting my other words and thoughts the way you have been doing.

North Korean Nuclear bombs developed under Clinton: zero

North Korean bombs developed under Bush - 6

nuff said, idiot.

"They will always blame everyone but Bush for the Katrina debacle."

It's interesting that the state run by the Dems had
all the problems......some kind of competency issue.
.....

Please provide quotes from me that even imply this, Socrates.

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 1:01 AM

We know you don't ever actually formulate an opinion. You just pick and snipe at the ones that do.

My Chill Wills analysis was how I THINK you probably feel if you ever had the guts to actually say something.

Clinton will never get the credit he deserves because to the conservatives he is seen as 'immoral' while Bush will never get the blame he deserves because he is seen as 'moral.'

The only thing that Clinton ever accomplished was balancing a budget by stripping our military of everything they needed to protect us (hence the Rummy quote of having to go to war with the military you have) and overseeing a great economy fueled by the economic collapse in Asian markets coupled with Reagan’s tax cuts (leading to major R&D).

There is not one event that Clintonistas can point to that will support their sorry ass arguments that Clinton personally oversaw even a modicum of policy that benefited or changed America for the better.

NONE!!

" North Korean Nuclear bombs developed under Clinton: zero

North Korean bombs developed under Bush - 6"

I think you mean completed you see it takes years
to DEEE VEEEE LOOOOPPP but then again your to stupid
and underdeveloped.

"They will always blame everyone but Bush for the Katrina debacle."

It's interesting that the state run by the Dems had
all the problems......some kind of competency issue.

There is no question that there is blame on the local and state level.
But a president who campaigned to "protect us" and then in his very first chance, wouldn't even leave his vacation to do that very thing, you' have to have some partisan balls to not admit his blame.

Not to mention when he said "He never thought the levees could break"...and then there was a video of one of his staff telling him that exact thing."

Making excuses for the lamest president in history is a full time job isn't it ?

Bill Clinton had his faults, but "potency" certainly wasn't one of them. Oh, and by the way, he actually did rape Juanita Broaddrick. After biting her lip, he told her as he left the room " Put some ice on that." .

"Cecilia has her chops being licked for pinning the blame game on the democrats.

What a fair and balanced gal !"

So speaks the prognosticator... who can only look.... backwards... and that over two weeks of leadership... :D

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the ...
Bill Clinton: 12% outstanding, 33% above average, 29% average, 15% below average, 10% poor.

64% outstanding -average

"But a president who campaigned to "protect us" and then in his very first chance, wouldn't even leave his vacation to do that very thing, you' have to have some partisan balls to not admit his blame."

What? Wishing he had stuck his finger in the levee?...

On the otherhand we haven't had another terrorist attack since '01. Not that you're counting...

So while Al Qaeda plotted and schemed within our borders, Prez Bubba Clinton was coaching Monica Lewinsky on his favorite sex act. Analingus. Yeah, it's in the Starr Report. Clinton loved the old tongue in the a--hole. Meanwhile, the events of 9/11 were being hatched for several years. Talk about dereliction of duty. We would live in a different world today had Big Bill not wanted a rim job.

"Making excuses for the lamest president in history is a full time job isn't it ?"

Maybe we should let cecilia and Grammie testify to that.

Heckuva Job Brownee!

Mike, I don't approve of every step along the way in Iraq. I DO APPROVE of the goal.

I lay some of the blame at GWB's feet. And I lay a lot more of the blame at the feet of those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of and give our enemies more fuel for the fire that has been raging for years.

I fully expect that we will withdraw in defeat from Iraq. The Dems in power now won't even have to exert themselves much.

With all the momentum behind them, they are still playing CYA political games. But they, along with their counterparts in the Repub party, will eventually prevail.

Being part of the crowd is nice, but not necessary to my beliefs. I fear that we are on a long decline and we will suffer for it.

Time will tell.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"That sure is one bad pilot!"

-President Bush (morning of 9-11)

We would live in a different world today had Big Bill not wanted a rim job.

Posted by: Grace Underpressure at January 23, 2007 1:16 AM

Grace under the influence of alcohol or something.

When the shift of power was taking place , the Clinton team warned them that their #1 priority should be Osama Bin Laden. They ignored them, because what did they know ?
Bushco was focused in star wars technology the first 9 months of his presidency( when he wasn't on vacation)
On 9/11 Condi Rice was to give a speech on ...guess what?
Star Wars Technology !
That Star wars really protected us on 9/11.

Don't you even go there about 9/11.
9/11 happened on which president's watch?

And I lay a lot more of the blame at the feet of those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of and give our enemies more fuel for the fire that has been raging for years.

I knew it.

What a f---ing idiot Grammie is.

"That Sure is One Bad President"

(80% of the population as of this morning)

Mike,

I know you want to believe otherwise and think you can have a rational debate with Janet, cecelia, or cee. Give it up. They don't care about the truth, only being against what they see as liberal, or Democrats, secularists, whatever. They read some books and they listen to Fox and the radio and think they have it all figured out. They are drunk on their stupidity when it comes to Bush or the war. They think it is funny to make little quips about peoples concerns that this country has been f---ed over by a bunch of scumbags who would run any company into the ground in a couple of years. Let them defend these mutants all they want. The country is turning their back on them, and it's about time.

"My Chill Wills analysis was how I THINK you probably feel if you ever had the guts to actually say something."

sigh...

As Kurt Kissel says... "As for assumptions, that is often all we have to work on, isn't it? All tangible evidence of Dubya & Co. duplicity and deception is held by Dubya & Co., isn't it? I should be most surprised if we ever see it."

****Folks, these people actually want to elect the pols who will nominate judges and justices...

"...I fear that we are on a long decline and we will suffer for it."

I agree, and it didn't just start with the Dems in control of both houses.

"then in his very first chance, wouldn't even leave his vacation to do that very thing, you' have to have some partisan balls to not admit his blame."

Your right,you are 100% correct..Bush should have been there.. filling sand bags,driving the buses
(assuming Nagin could make up his mind when and where to send them)Bushs' skinny ass should have been in the SuperDome M-16 in hand(he had military training right?dam put that shit to use)keeping order.I mean shit throw his ass up on the roof fixing tiles,instead of his sorry ass clearing brush at his ranch do some good dammit.Hey i don't
mind if he loots a Rolex but at least pop a looter
or two......maybe thats a job for Cheney

What? Wishing he had stuck his finger in the levee?...

See above post about making excuses for the lamest president in history.

No Cecilia, Help organize an effort to help people who were dying !

But instead, clearing more brush took precedent.

You really suck.

"the Clinton team warned them that their #1 priority should be Osama Bin Laden. They ignored them, because what did they know ?"

And how do we know this?

We have the word of Sandy Berger.

Yeah.

Classified documents.

The archives.

Yeah.

Him.

The only thing that Clinton ever accomplished was balancing a budget by stripping our military of everything they needed to protect us (hence the Rummy quote of having to go to war with the military you have) and overseeing a great economy fueled by the economic collapse in Asian markets coupled with Reagan’s tax cuts (leading to major R&D).

There is not one event that Clintonistas can point to that will support their sorry ass arguments that Clinton personally oversaw even a modicum of policy that benefited or changed America for the better.

NONE!!

Can anyone Answer PLEASE????

"You really suck."

You really are so naughty with your mom's new computer.

"I lay some of the blame at GWB's feet. And I lay a lot more of the blame at the feet of those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of and give our enemies more fuel for the fire that has been raging for years."

I think that tactical & strategic errors give more 'fuel for the fire' than 'those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of...'

A smarter war could have been won regardless of opposition at home. And one could make the argument that there wouldn't have been as much opposition at home if a smarter war on terror was waged. Grammie-I think you are all too willing to deflect as much blame from the president as your conscious will allow. Just my opinion. I'm not a trained psychiatrist, just reading between the lines.

"Can anyone Answer PLEASE????"

You can credit Dick Morris with any concern to balance the budget. Revenue flowed in via the dot.com boom of the ninties.

Look it up.

After biting her lip, he told her as he left the room " Put some ice on that."

Thats mark of a "brillant" man.

I don't approve of every step along the way in Iraq. I DO APPROVE of the goal.

I lay SOME of the blame at GWB's feet. And I lay a lot more of the blame at the feet of those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of and give our enemies more fuel for the fire that has been raging for years.

THIS TELLS EVERYONE WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT JANET HAWKINS
AKA GRAMMIE

"But a president who campaigned to "protect us" and then in his very first chance, wouldn't even leave his vacation to do that very thing, you' have to have some partisan balls to not admit his blame."

How many "local" politicians stayed behind or even eschewed their vacations to rescue the people trapped in the floodwaters of a city (run by corrupt Democrat politicians). If I’m not mistaken they all were pullin out of Dodge themselves, in fact one used the Coast Guard to make a visit to his own home for personal effects while people starved and died. Where is the moral outrage there????

Do you honestly think Ted Kennedy would leave the comfort of his cozy chair to bail out a poor shmuck like me had someone blown up the LNG terminal in Everett MA (one mile from my apartment)???

That drunken ass can’t even tolerate a windfarm that might (might!!!!) obscure his view off the vineyard in order to alleviate our energy crisis and you claim your party has moral high ground???

Anyone who votes for (D) should burn in hell for being stupid enough to think that D’s are any less corrupt than R’s.

We have the word of Sandy Berger.

Yeah.

Classified documents.

The archives.

Yeah.

Him.

We have richard clarke's word on this and everybody else who was part of the Clinton team.
For you to doubt this, just goes to show how delusional you really are.

Now you can quote that one, instead of twisting my other words and thoughts the way you have been doing.

Posted by: Mike at January 23, 2007 1:02 AM

You've stated that supporting Bush is irrational and the mindset of someone who you have labeled as being "far-right"... a "winger" perhaps, Mike?

Have you not?

If when you critique Bush, and they bring up Clinton, is that the imfamous "Change the Subject" Johnny Scholar is always talking about?

I'm going to bed...all the Neocons have tonight is 'Clinton's Nasty Talk', and not wanting to be called a "Right Winger."

Meanwhile more Die in Iraq...

"We have richard clarke's word on this and everybody else who was part of the Clinton team.
For you to doubt this, just goes to show how delusional you really are.
"

We have Richard Clark's testimony after he was let loose by Bush. We have Sandy Berger's... and what unbiased Clinton team members?

What were the strides the Clintonites had made that would have prevented 9/11 if they had been in office eight months into the Bush administration?

That drunken ass can't even tolerate a windfarm that might (might!!!!) obscure his view off the vineyard in order to alleviate our energy crisis and you claim your party has moral high ground???

One wind farm will allevialte our energy crisis?

Ya think our lack of having an energy policy might have something MORE to do with it?
Ya think that the SECRET meetings with the oil companies and Dick Cheney have anything to do with our lack of having an energy policy ?

You probably just don't think. That is obvious !

Anyone who votes for (D) should burn in hell for being stupid enough to think that D�s are any less corrupt than R�s.

The last years years of republican rule and their culture of corruption is so far beyond anything you can pin on the democrats its not even funny.
Want a list of disgrace republicans the past 6 years ?

Whining Bush-hating pro-Olbermonkey fools love to say " 3000 dead". The greater the number, the greater the glee of mentioning it. Is a single death any less important? Is 30? Or 3 million? The numbers game is pointless. Your ineffective Congress, including all the Dems that voted for it, were no more or less guilty after the first troop was killed, as they are today. As Americans we all share the same burden. War is as war does.

We laugh at being called "rightwingers" by people who squeal over being called secular humanists and eschew.... "labels"...

What were the strides the Clintonites had made that would have prevented 9/11 if they had been in office eight months into the Bush administration?

Typical cecilia question.
We can never know what may have occurred or not occurred if we haD the more competent Clinton team in.

But WE DO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE BUSH TEAM IN , NOW DON'T WE !

just like FEMA was a competent efficient organization under Clinton. Bush dismantled it, and that is why you and your ilk continue to make excuses for the katina debacle.

You got nothing.

"I'm going to bed...all the Neocons have tonight is 'Clinton's Nasty Talk', and not wanting to be called a "Right Winger."

I am hitting the rack also....have good night all
left, right,middle etc.

"Meanwhile more Die in Iraq..."

and too many other places on this earth

yes more keep dying in Iraq, and grammie and cecilia blame the people who criticize the war, not the archtects of it.
Not the ones who continue TO SEND OUR TROOPS TO DIE.

May their souls rot in hell.

You can credit Dick Morris with any concern to balance the budget. Revenue flowed in via the dot.com boom of the ninties.

Look it up.

Yeah and where did the revenue come from dipshit?

Take it from a tech, not from a damn thing Clinton did!!!!

IBM, Apple, Lotus, Sun Microsystems and Microsoft would not be the powerhouses that they are today had they not benefited from enormous amounts of cash (supplied by tax incentives) and they would not employ the multitude of engineers ($$$) they do today without innovation and money.

BTW. Dick Morris was far from any economic policy; he was the "Rove" of the Clintonistas, a simple advisor; Alan Greenspan drove economic policy for the Fed under Clinton.

You look it up

We laugh at being called "rightwingers" by people who squeal over being called secular humanists and eschew.... "labels"...

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 1:43 AM

But you are "rightwingers" and you know it. I am not a secular humanist. Some have to rationalize that you must be if you don't agree with killing old ladies and little girls who get in the way, as if that is a sign of a bleeding heart Godless liberal. You love being a rightwinger. I don't think it is anything to be proud of, and the history books will agree.

Olbermann couldn't have appeared more foolish had he been wearing a pink bunny suit with feet.

and too many other places on this earth

and EE says we'll still be in Iraq when and if Hillary is elected to office.

That certainly covers all the bases.

War proponents are grinning and war opponents are....well...grinning...and if Hillary was in charge of the war...well...they'd be grinning....

Take their rhetoric in stride, Grammie, Cee, Sharon...

The wing nuts would rather die than give Clinton any credit he deserves.

Clinton left Bush a surplus, which Bush squandered ( before 9/11) .
That is a fact.
You can look it up.

Cecilia likes to forget who's war this is.
Amnesia is her forte.

is this Bush's war, or am I wrong about this ?

I don't think it is anything to be proud of, and the history books will agree.

Posted by: Donora, PA. at January 23, 2007 1:52 AM

Not if you guys write them anyway... :D:

View of US's global role 'worse'
Graphic showing perceptions of US influence over time
The view of the US's role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests.

The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington has dealt with Iraq.

The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas have been handled.

The poll, released ahead of President Bush's State of the Union speech, was conducted between November and January.

The number of those who said the US was a positive influence in the world fell in 18 nations polled in previous years.

In those countries, 29% of people said the US had a positive influence, down from 36% last year and 40% two years ago.

Across the 25 countries polled, 49% of respondents said the US played a mainly negative role in the world.

France doesn't love me! Wah wah wah!

Canada feels superior to me. WAH WAH WAH!!

IBM, Apple, Lotus, Sun Microsystems and Microsoft would not be the powerhouses that they are today had they not benefited from enormous amounts of cash (supplied by tax incentives) and they would not employ the multitude of engineers ($$$) they do today without innovation and money.

BTW. Dick Morris was far from any economic policy; he was the "Rove" of the Clintonistas, a simple advisor; Alan Greenspan drove economic policy for the Fed under Clinton.

You look it up

Sweety, the dot.com boom went belly-up. As for the big corporate technology giants like Sun, MS, etc.... sweety...evidently one man's tax incentives are another man's corporate welfare.

You are dead wrong about Dick Morris' influence on economy policy from welfare to balancing the budget. Look it up... but in the mean time... please keep talking!..

I don't think it is anything to be proud of, and the history books will agree.

Posted by: Donora, PA. at January 23, 2007 1:52 AM

Not if you guys write them anyway... :D:

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 1:58 AM

And if Cecilia writes them, Bush will be the best president over, and the Iraq war would be a huge success.

meanwhile 150 real historians have already written their views on Bush and the other presidents in history.
75% of them say Bush is the worst president in history and this was written in early 2005 before the iraq War REALLY deteriorated.

But what do historians know, right cecilia?
Let have Michelle Malkin or ______pick your favorite ditto head write the final conclusion.

The last years years of republican rule and their culture of corruption is so far beyond anything you can pin on the democrats its not even funny.
Want a list of disgrace republicans the past 6 years ?

BS,

You want to trade lists?

I never claimed that (R’s) were any better than (D’s) or vice versa; and any fool that has the audacity to claim otherwise is a fool; but how does replacing one criminal with another benefit the people of this country?

Kennedy may not have staved off our energy crisis; but blocking the windfarm certainly didn’t help it any; DID IT.

Meanwhile his nephew is getting boatloads of cash for his coffers from an avowed socialist (Chavez) and nary a word is raised “because he is helping the poor”.

Well I’m poor and have a potential deadly hazard in my back yard and the Kennedy’s could give a damn less whether I burn to death or not as long as their view isn’t obscured.

Meanwhile you miss my point that the elites R or D could care less about us poor dumb shmucks.

Liberal elites in western Europe look down their noses at me. Boo hoo! Wah wah!!

The last years years of republican rule and their culture of corruption is so far beyond anything you can pin on the democrats its not even funny.
Want a list of disgrace republicans the past 6 years ?

BS,

You want to trade lists?

I never claimed that (R�s) were any better than (D�s) or vice versa; and any fool that has the audacity to claim otherwise is a fool; but how does replacing one criminal with another benefit the people of this country?

Kennedy may not have staved off our energy crisis; but blocking the windfarm certainly didn�t help it any; DID IT.

Meanwhile his nephew is getting boatloads of cash for his coffers from an avowed socialist (Chavez) and nary a word is raised �because he is helping the poor�.

Well I�m poor and have a potential deadly hazard in my back yard and the Kennedy�s could give a damn less whether I burn to death or not as long as their view isn�t obscured.

Meanwhile you miss my point that the elites R or D could care less about us poor dumb shmucks.

Hey Graceunder ppressure:
How drunk did you get on election night in Nov 2006?

Did anything SINK in ?

Cecilia likes to forget who's war this is.
Amnesia is her forte.

Posted by: at January 23, 2007

Absolutely!

It's only Bush. Every other pol now in power, PLEASE....let that be your mantra.

Number of criminal convictions eminating directly from Bush Administration= zero. Number of criminal convictions eminating directly from Clinton Administration= 54. True.

Cecilia denies this is Bush's war.

Even though he's staked his presidency on it.

Just how dumb are you ?

"meanwhile 150 real historians have already written their views on Bush and the other presidents in history.
75% of them say Bush is the worst president in history and this was written in early 2005 before the iraq War REALLY deteriorated."

Well, how could 75% of 150 real historians country be wrong? :D

You got me there Cecilia. You're right and 150 historians are wrong.

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Grace under Pressure must have been very drunk on Election night.

Must have startled her ass to high heaven.

You mean we have to take responsibility for all of the corruption, war profiterring, the failure of tHE Iraq war, the gigantic deficit,

Yes, yes , yes and YES.

Cecelia, I am still waiting for your advice re what to serve at my get to gether with martinis.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Just how dumb are you ?"

There is a very sound blog board theory that a genuine sense of security is inversely proportional to one's tendency to makes statements such as "you suck", "just how dumb are you" or to proclaim oneself as being the winner of a debate.

Janet,

I suggest you serve martinis with martinis.

There is a very sound blog board theory that a genuine sense of security is inversely proportional ....

I guess you still don't think it's Bush's war.

Alert the presses.

If the republicans would have won Congress, cecilia would still be ignoring the failures of the GOP Congress.
Since the democrats won, now they are in charge and going to be held accountable.

Cecilia's wisdom !

It is amazing how the right brags about a new Dow Jones high yet give no credit to Clinton/Gore. The dow jumped from around 3,500 at the start of Clinton/Gore to around 11,000 by the end 8 years later. Whooptif---ingdo it is around 12,500 after 6 years of puppet and master, and "it's off the chart growth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" OHHHHHHHHH, but Gore claimed to invent the internet, and it was the DotCom that created the boom. FALSE!!!!!!!! Gore proposed a bill that funded the internet and never claimed "TO CREATE THE INTERNET" as the corporate owned media has claimed. The internet has been around since the mid 80's as a government program, but it was Gore that had the vision of funding it so that the masses could us it. Basically, if it wasn't for a bill proposed by Gore, we couldn't bicker as we are. It is amazing that the DotCom crash that according to the wingnuts, never dropped the stock below 9,000 points, about 6,000 points above Clinton's starting point. SO either way the so-called prosparity that we now have was created by Clinton or Gore or Both.

"You got me there Cecilia. You're right and 150 historians are wrong."

Well, I've got you but not for the simplistic bs you spout.

They're not any more "wrong" than any other of we human beings who are saddled with biaes, agendas, idealogy, ect.

They need time and distance.

All vast 150 of them.

duh...

Bush has always accepted responsibility for the Iraq Mission. He will restate it tonight. Just listen.

"If the republicans would have won Congress, cecilia would still be ignoring the failures of the GOP Congress.
Since the democrats won, now they are in charge and going to be held accountable.

Cecilia's wisdom !"

Well, it's not me you have to worry about now is it.

It's the people who elected our democrat leadership to do somehthing about "Bush's war".

To put it YOUR way-- leadership's a bitch... :D

cratorlakeofinfo,

I think it's just lovely that just like Clinton balanced the budget without a Republican congress, Gore funded the internet all by his lonely!

" " Don't you even go there about 9/11.
9/11 happened on which president's watch?

What were the strides the Clintonites had made that would have prevented 9/11 if they had been in office eight months into the Bush administration?

Typical cecilia question.
We can never know what may have occurred or not occurred if we haD the more competent Clinton team in

" More competent ' ? What about all the attacks by Bin Laden during that competent team's term in office ? Why was Osama even around when Bush took office ? What the hell was Sandy Berger trying to hide if Clinton was so ' competent " ? " Which president's watch " ? Every expert who gave reports on this attack said it took years of planning.

'just like FEMA was a competent efficient organization under Clinton. Bush dismantled it, and that is why you and your ilk continue to make excuses for the katina debacle.
It was pretty competent in those Florida hurricanes. And did OK in Miss. Gee, Who were the leaders down there ? And dont tell me Bush played favorites. Truth is he called Blanco before the hurricane and wondered if they had a plan or needed help. She said they had it covered. Her and that idiot mayor who they elected , AGAIN. Some people say he was a blubbering idiot thru it all and they re-elect him. The 'chocolate city ' mayor who now has an unbelievable murder spree going on. Was Bush at fault too ?Of course. But those two get a pass and any time Katrina is brought up Bush takes all the heat.

Hey Bushhater/obsessors. What is it you want to hear said? It's Bush's war? Yes.

Oh, he didn't claim that it was just him that funded it. He proposed it, the congress thought it was a good idea, and passed it. But all the right claimed that he said that he invented it, when he ran for president. He never claimed that he invented it. This is just an example of the right's spin.

Sweety, the dot.com boom went belly-up.

If I�m so dumb why don�t you show me where Dick Morris� influence had even a minute influence on the great economy under Clintons reign instead of telling me to look it up?

Welfare reform? Wasn�t that prompted by Republican initiatives?

One thing you are correct about though; the dotcom bubble did burst� Due to Clintons tax theory. Silicon Valley and MIT both got hit hard and now we have a huge HI-B visa issue of depressed wages of our highe(r) earners; being championed by our colleagues on the left.

Can�t wait to see what you have for the lowest earners besides unemployment.

And as for Clinton, he realized that he had to compromise with the congress to get good things. That is why that horrid peice of shit NAFTA was passed without veto. Clinton believed that a balanced budget was more important for the country than a rape the American Worker plan that the congress wanted. And until this administration f---ed shit up it was working pretty good. The rich were getting richer and the poor were getting richer. Sounds like a win win to me.

why does it look weird when i use apostrophe's ?

They're not any more "wrong" than any other of we human beings who are saddled with biaes, agendas, idealogy, ect.

They need time and distance.

All vast 150 of them.

duh...
Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 2:25 AM

All the time and distance in the universe will not seperate Bush from the truth that he was and is a divider not a uniter. He was either a liar or incompotent. He could barely speak in full sentences. He is the most unpopular president since Nixon.

OH sweetay, it didn't belly up that much. The internet boom bellied up a little, but the stock that this Pigf---er claims as super human economy growth is nothing compared to the growth Clinton gave it and maintained it. And as I stated before, it would not have been possible if a bill wasn't SPONSERED not invented by Gore.

Donora, whats your point?

"Of course the real point was not whether Barack was actually a student at a Madrassa, but that the Clinton campaign was leaking the story to damage him."

No, the real point was that the report that Obama was a student at a Madrassa as trumpeted by Fox was false, something that a competeting news organization (CNN) verified quite easily. Insight is a Moonie publication. That should have caused Fox some hesitation, but hey, they've never felt the need to hesitate about dozens of right wing myths being trotted out.

"I don't approve of every step along the way in Iraq. I DO APPROVE of the goal. I lay some of the blame at GWB's feet. And I lay a lot more of the blame at the feet of those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of and give our enemies more fuel for the fire that has been raging for years. I fully expect that we will withdraw in defeat from Iraq. The Dems in power now won't even have to exert themselves much. With all the momentum behind them, they are still playing CYA political games. But they, along with their counterparts in the Repub party, will eventually prevail. Being part of the crowd is nice, but not necessary to my beliefs. I fear that we are on a long decline and we will suffer for it. Time will tell."

###
Once again, Grammie gets the award for the wisest post.

The hand wringing crowd does not want to face the simple fact that The President of the United States of America, elected and with power until 1/2009, is determined to overcome two challenges:

1) The challenge of the radical islamists in Iraq determined to destabalize a country wishing to live in peace under a democratically established government

2) The challenge of his own domestic POLITICAL opponents determined to destabalize American foreign policy for the purpose of increased influence, increased prestige and the attaining of more politcal power (higher office)

We can argue about #1 until the cows come home and NO ONE will convice me that this is NOT a realistic view of the problem on the ground in Iraq AND a more honorable goal compared to the poorly presented alternatives.

#2 is such a shame but still a reality NO ONE will likely convince me as being untrue. This aspect of human nature for DOMINANCE has played out in the political realm for centuries...Sure, people try to dress it all up as altruism, compassion or "progressive thought," but like I have shown many times before...the behavior at its root is as primitive as Pavlov's Bell.

Having a mob on your side increases the chances of success...However, in rarer cases, being on the side which holds to higher human values does prevail...Time will tell, like Grammie says.

I am still hopeful the rebuttals will be meatier than the typical ones.....

"cee is a war mongering religious nutjob"
"cee is a deluded Bush-worshiper"
"cee is a Republican Chickenhawk"

Or...my favorite so far since posting here at OW....

"cee however, is a mad man. That fact that he is a Christian makes him without excuse for being so in love with killing." Donora, Pa.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"Mission accomplished." How do you statists live that down?

"the hand wringing crowd does not want to face the simple fact that the President of the United States of America, elected and with power until 1/2009, is determined to overcome two challenges"....

And you don't want two face the simple fact that the president of the United States of America is an idiot, and the people of same made a huge mistake in 2000, and an even bigger one in 2004.

Cee:

Since you are so cynical as to believe that war opponents are doing this for 'POLITICAL' reasons at the congressional level, tell me this:

What do you think MY motivations are at my level? Do you think I'M doing this for 'POLITICAL' reasons, when I'm never going to run for dogcatcher, much less Congress?

Do you think Senator Jim Webb is doing this for 'POLITICAL' reasons, with his own son stuck in this mess in Iraq?

Are you really cynical enough to believe that ALL of the Congressional opposition out there is doing this for purely 'POLITICAL' reasons? It just isn't possible that the majority of these people could have the same motivations that people from the grassroots like myself have, is it?

We couldn't possibly believe that continuing this madness is the absolute worst thing we can do for America, could we? We just couldn't possibly be doing this out of genuine concern for our armed forces, and the individual service members, could we?

If you really are this cynical about something so grave, I pity you. You are one hard case!

Cee quotes; "However, in rarer cases, being on the side which holds to higher human values does prevail...time will tell"...

The problem here is that you are hardly on the side "which holds to higher human values".

You are on the side which absolutely guarantees many more young widows, and widowers. You are on the side which guarantees that there will be more children will have to grow up missing a parent.

All of this as you yourself seem to admit that you are also on the side that tends to prevail only "in rarer cases".

Delude yourself all you want, but there is nothing 'honorable' about that!

JerkMeat only books guests on his show that have been widely discredited, such as Richard Clarke, David Schuster, John Dean , Joseph Wilson, Richard Wolfe, Craig Crawford,Dana Milbank, and on and on.

Let me guess, JerkMeat will give his fan a mumbling, rambling, incoherant "Special Comment" on Wednesday.

As KarmaBites1 stated so well...Keith Olbermann is a "Limp-dicked failure"

Re: Oliely

He has, on many occasions on this board, called for the extermination of Israel. He openly supports terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians
His comments are patently offensive and he needs to dealt with immediately

Re: Oliely

Too bad he's right. You neocon girls are always whining that we should bomb this country or that. Genocide isn't something that you Bush-lovers shy away from. Why pretend that O'liely has "offended" you? Is it because you don't have the spines to engage him on the issues?

Why even ask?

Mike,

Your questions, "We couldn't possibly believe that continuing this madness is the absolute worst thing we can do for America, could we? We just couldn't possibly be doing this out of genuine concern for our armed forces, and the individual service members, could we? Do you think Senator Jim Webb is doing this for 'POLITICAL' reasons, with his own son stuck in this mess in Iraq? Are you really cynical enough to believe that ALL of the Congressional opposition out there is doing this for purely 'POLITICAL' reasons? It just isn't possible that the majority of these people could have the same motivations that people from the grassroots like myself have, is it?
" have no answers! I believe we call them rhetorical questions.....

The actions taken by people speak louder than their words....I have seen no large protests since late 2003 (we'll see what happens Saturday with regards to the peace march in Washington), I have seen no concrete Congressional action to change the policy. I have seen no high level administration or military resignations that sepcifically and PUBLICLY revolve around disgreement over Iraq policy. All I have seen is very heated rhetoric during an election season that has since the turnover of COngress not materialized into the concrete steps required to achieve the promised ends.

All I have seen are words....from anonymous sources, in political speeches, in poll questions/results and in editioral pages....This suggests to me a POLTIICAL tact that in no way intends to actually change anything on the ground in Iraq.

Mike, let's talk some more in February when The President asks The Congress for a huge amount of money to support the continuing escalation....We shall see what the representatives of the people actually DO to try to stop more young widows, widowers and children who will have to grow up missing a parent. The rhetoric is noble, but the action is lacking.

Senator Webb will have an opportuinity this evening to lay out a plan to counter The President's policy. Will he have a date certain for Congressional action that will reel in Bush? Will he have specifics, like Bush laid out in his speech two weeks ago, that brings the troops home?

You see Mike, my questions will be able to be answered....This is the difference between trying to solve an impasse vs. PURPOSELY making the impasse continue so that a selfish, personally beneficial outcome can develop....My evaluation of the domestic political paradigm is right on target. You are deluded in the belief your side's ruling elite has loftier goals.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Again, I HOPE Senator Webb proves me wrong tonight!....It would make me feel much more confident about the future of our country.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"You got me there Cecilia. You're right and 150 historians are wrong."

Well, I've got you but not for the simplistic bs you spout.

They're not any more "wrong" than any other of we human beings who are saddled with biaes, agendas, idealogy, ect.

They need time and distance.

All vast 150 of them.

duh...

In cecilia's world the 150 historians who list bush as worst president ever will recant and list him the best.

150 historians

Got a link?

"In cecilia's world the 150 historians who list bush as worst president ever will recant and list him the best."

Well, it's no surprise that you've exposed your "world" (reasoning abilities) in your overstating of my point.

I was out partaking in the joys of shoe shopp'n until late evening and didn't see the MSNBC coverage.

Did they manage to include on the Matthews-Olbermann panel at least one MSNBC or Washington Post staffer who isn't overtly antagonistic to the Administration?

Two flaws in the "150 Historians" hypothesis

1) No such poll or writing has been conducted

2) Any 'historian' worth his weight would not evaluate
a president during his term. Maybe they'll come to that conclusion ten years from now. Hell, most reputable
historians still refuse to evaluate the Clinton years, as
it is too early.

Basically any so called 'historian' currently labeling
Bush as the worst is just a political hack and jack ass.

150 historians have called Hillary's presidential
campaign the worst ever.

150 historians

Got a link?

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 9:31 AM

I'm not entirely sure, but I think in "at's" appeal to authority, he/she is alluding to a letter to the media that was written and signed by 150 historians taking issue with the war.

They went out and had lunch with Bob's 1600 scientists afterwards.

Benson,

How nice to get your proclaimation on historians this morning! Apparently, the first term that Bush spent wrecking everything he touched wasn't enough as far as you are concerned. Funny how you don't know any of the historians in question and yet you have determined, not only their politics, but their overall effectiveness as a historian and a human being.

To sum it all up: Nice snap judgement on people who you believe made a snap judgement. Guess that would make you a jackass as well, eh?...

I am sure it was non-partisan

Actually- if I was to call myself a historian I would judge history and not current affairs. Like I said, most historians think its too early to evaluate Clinton 6 years later.

I guess you are the jackass then, no?

"To sum it all up: Nice snap judgement on people who you believe made a snap judgement. Guess that would make you a jackass as well, eh?...
"

Yes, he/she really did characterize it as a "snap judgement" to argue that historians generally come to conclusions about a president's term AFTER their term in office is complete.... :D

How many Peace vigils have ended genocide ANYWHERE in the world?

Vietnam.

If it weren't for the peace marches ( and nightly broadcasts of coffins coming home) The Vietnam war would STILL be going on today.
=================================================
Right, and the estimated HOW many Vietnamese were slaughtered when we left? I guess their deaths were somehow not tragic? (there seems an implication among people like these that an american life is worth 3-5 lives of "other" people - and they call 'righties' racists...)

"On the battlefields of Vietnam the elimination of all U.S. logistical support was stunning and unanticipated news. South Vietnamese commanders had been assured of material support as the American military withdrew—the same sort of aid the U.S. routinely provided allies from South Korea to West Germany—and of renewed U.S. air strikes if the North attacked the South in violation of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Now they were staring at a terrifyingly uncertain future, even as the Soviets continued to assist the Communist North.

As the shocked and demoralized South Vietnamese military sought to readjust its forces to cope with serious shortages, the newly refurbished North Vietnamese immediately launched a major offensive. Catching many units out of position, the North rolled down the countryside over a 55-day period. In the ensuing years I have interviewed South Vietnamese survivors of these battles, many of whom spent ten years and more in Communist concentration camps after the war. The litany is continuous: "I had no ammunition." "I was down to three artillery rounds per tube per day." "I had nothing to give my soldiers." "I had to turn off my radio because I could no longer bear to hear their calls for help."

The reaction in the United States to this debacle defines two distinct camps that continue to be identifiable in many of the issues we face today. For most of those who fought in Vietnam, and for their families, friends, and political compatriots, this was a dark and deeply depressing month. The faces we saw running in terror from the North Vietnamese assault were real and familiar, not simply video images. The bodies that fell like spinning snowflakes toward cruel deaths after having clung hopelessly to the outer parts of departing helicopters and aircraft may have been people we knew or tried to help. Even for those who had lost their faith in America’s ability to defeat the Communists, this was not the way it was supposed to end."

BUSH APPROVAL NUMBERS HIT NEW LOW; WORST RATING SINCE CARTER; ONLY NIXON LOWER

-- All Rotten Vegetables, Tomato Projectiles, To Be Confiscated From Audience Prior To President's Speech --

WASHINGTON -- On the day of his State of the Union speech, President Bush's approval rating has dropped to a new low of twenty-eight percent, and sixty-four percent "disapprove of the way he's handling his job," according to CBS News. "Two-thirds of Americans remain opposed to the president's plan for sending more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq -- roughly the same number as after Mr. Bush announced the plan," CBS News reports. "And 72 percent believe he should seek congressional approval for the troop increase." Bush's approval rating is the lowest since President Carter's and is exceeded only by Nixon's 23 percent approval rating just prior to his resignation.

How nice to get your proclaimation on historians this morning! Apparently, the first term that Bush spent wrecking everything he touched wasn't enough as far as you are concerned. Funny how you don't know any of the historians in question and yet you have determined, not only their politics, but their overall effectiveness as a historian and a human being.
===================================================
I feel qualified to point out that you can't exactly be called a "historian" if you're harping on something that's not even "history" yet. Bush isn't even out of office but they're already grading his presidency? Tell me, have they already determined the impact of 2007 on the nation and dissected the various campaigns of 2008 and why those who failed, failed?

I thought there was a consensus that X amount of time had to pass before "history" could judge.

Benson,

You have proof that most historians think that it is too early to judge?

Grim,

A large part of studying history is to apply it to current events. I suppose it is the only practical application of history...

If you were a historian some time should have passed AFTER the term is over. I was never graded on a test 60% of the way through it. Makes the 'professionals' look assinine. Pile on after, but obviously this is partisan hackmanship.

Grim,

A large part of studying history is to apply it to current events. I suppose it is the only practical application of history...
====================================================
That's fine and we should all learn from past mistakes to avoid repeating them. But that doesn't mean someone will be able to go "this will now be seen as ____ throughout history!"

Former president Ford anyone?

Right on Grim....the post-surrender history of Vietnam is white-washed by the left. Hyporcites like bystander (Donora Pa) and Bushkill Pa. just like to ignore history when it is obviously showing the stupidity of their statements! "Look away from millions of murdered Asians....not our fault!"

And I'm accused of, "loving the killing!"

Well, anyway....back to action versus empty rhetoric...Please refer to the lefty, Cenk Uygur, at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/democrats-must-really-lov_b_39340.html

and read these typical comments from the committed left....

"The Democrats are trying to stop him? You could have fooled me. What actions have they actually taken (symbolic resolutions don't count. that's why they call it a symbolic resolution.)

"The correct action, dear Democrats, is impeachment. The warrantless wiretapping, a clear violation of the FISA (?) act of 1978 (?) is enough."
By: pelosiforpresident on January 23, 2007 at 07:52am
```````````````````````````````````````````````
"Pelosi... I agree with you that impeachment must be at the top of the list if we truly want to prevent further disaster. However, with the slim margin in the senate and the remaining lemming supporters in the populace,
the only way to accomplish successful impeachment results is to bring on board enough voting members of congress.

"Therefore, having investigations and hearings is the first step. When the facts are clearly laid out, those remaining holdouts will have to support impeachment. The Democrats know this very well. That is why they are not calling for impeachment yet. Bush is obviously still pulling out more and more rope to hang himself with. At the right moment the Democrats will yank it back and we will remove the bastard. I only hope it happens sooner than later, for the sake of our soldiers, for the sake of the U.S., and for the sake of the planet!"
By: whereisJesus on January 23, 2007 at 09:17am

###
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER?....yeah right....try never because all the liberal ruling elite care about is power for its own sake.....2008 is the prize....They are keeping their eyes on that prize!....everything (and anyone) else be damned!

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

You guys are just looking for some credibility behind your constant drum beat of "Bush Sucks" rhetoric. Any historian harping this now is simply a political hack... What credibility does this assertion have in the middle of the term? None! It just gives you blue bloggers some talking point to drop at site like this. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it.

I am looking for the link to the letter/petition and can't find it so it is really a moot point.

Keith and Dnbc ever the schill for the Democratic
Party gets their payoff tonight with a interview
with Hillary!!!!!Which will have more Gushing and Softball(or should i say preapproved/scripted) questions than Olbymoron's kissass interview with
that criminal clinton...........

"Benson,

You have proof that most historians think that it is too early to judge?"

I think we need the link about the 150 historians so we can see exactly what judgements they've made.

Right on Grim....the post-surrender history of Vietnam is white-washed by the left. Hyporcites like bystander (Donora Pa) and Bushkill Pa. just like to ignore history when it is obviously showing the stupidity of their statements! "Look away from millions of murdered Asians....not our fault!"
===================================================
Ignoring the name calling (because it doesn't get us anywhere cee), they too don't seem to realize that... well more innocent iraqis have been killed by the insurgency there than all of US forces. We're doing more to try and save Iraqi lives than anyone else at the moment... but well... I guess I don't have to point out the obvious conclusion to that (hint: 600,000 is b.s.)

Grim,

How do you know that more Iraqis have died at the hands of insurgents than American forces? Our government refused to even tally up the dead after we had bombed residential neighborhoods. Just curious as to who gave you the number...

I'm having trouble finding the "150 historians" via google.

Anyone have a link yet?

"Benson,

You have proof that most historians think that it is too early to judge?"
===============================================================
Yeah, it's called COMMON SENSE. You don't exactly make historical judgements about an event less than 10 years (at LEAST) after it has occurred.

Keith Olbermann is a "Limp-dicked failure"

Yeah but dammit he's a Leftwing Limp -dicked failure
.....aren't they all

"Just curious as to who gave you the number..."

the same place the "150 historians" came from dumbass

Grim,

"at" wants a link for the statement that time and distance is needed for a proper historical perspective... :D...

While you're finding that one, find a link proving to "at" that people shouldn't run with scissors in their hands or eat yellow snow...

Meanwhile, I want a link for this gang of 150 and what they actually said.

"the same place the "150 historians" came from dumbass"

Well, it would be nice if you'd link it so we can read it.

Link?
With lefties...
Knowledge is power...
Propaganda is more powerful!

How do you know that more Iraqis have died at the hands of insurgents than American forces? Our government refused to even tally up the dead after we had bombed residential neighborhoods. Just curious as to who gave you the number...
====================================================
I'll see what numbers I can find, but considering that trooops aren't just walking the streets firing randomly (they are trying to target specific enemies) compared with the insurgents who:
"Sunni Islamist extremist insurgents in Iraq are far more willing to use extreme methods of violence like suicide
bombs and use them against Shi'ite and Kurdish targets. They are equally willing to use them against Iraqi officials
and Iraqis in the military, security, and police services, and Iraqis of all religious and ethnic background that do not
support them in their interpretation of jihad. Moreover, they act on the principle ordinary Iraqi citizens can be
sacrificed as expendable in a war fought in God’s cause: These Sunni Islamic extremists are fighting a war that
extends throughout the world, not simply in Iraq, and their goals affect all Arab states and all of Islam." (source: http://www.comw.org/warreport/fulltext/0509cordesman.pdf)

Of course, exact numbers are very hard to come by because so much is currently decentralized and:
"Iraq Body Count's figures include Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces as well as by insurgents and militia. They also include homicides stemming from the breakdown in law and order."
and even among those numbers, there hasn't been a system put in to filter who's responsible for who's death.

Oh, and for perspective:
"As high as it is, the Iraqi death rate so far is much lower than that of the Vietnamese during the 1954-1976 Vietnam War, when about 1.1 million Vietnamese fighters and some 2 million civilians were killed - a rough average of 12,000 per month."

"Oralmann's continued protection of his friends in Iran is stunning. A top Iranian cleric attacks Ahmadinejad. Iran conducts missile tests, and bars 38 UN nuclear inspectors. As usual on The Hour of Spin, stories that don't reflect well on Iran get spiked."

Johnny, you're getting as bad as Red Wolf - either PROVE that Keith Olbermann is a Iranian sympathyzer (OMISSIONS are not proof) or shut your goddamned mouth about it.

If he "spikes" a story, that's one thing. But calling Iran "his friends" WITHOUT EVIDENCE is galling and I demand satisfaction.

"As high as it is, the Iraqi death rate so far is much lower than that of the Vietnamese during the 1954-1976 Vietnam War, when about 1.1 million Vietnamese fighters and some 2 million civilians were killed - a rough average of 12,000 per month."

Dam Bush you got some work to do son...

EE:
If he spikes to an opposing point of view, its as good as him supporting the Islamic regime.

Trace this if you will,
Iran is deemed a rogue nation (by KO's government) -> Iran conducts missile tests -> Iran supports terrorist factions in Iraq among other places -> KO's nation is fighting in Iraq against insurgents purportedly supported by Iran -> KO opposes action against Iran that would curtail further infractions against KO's nation's military-> KO implicitly supports Iran.

Trace this if you will,
"Iran is deemed a rogue nation (by KO's government) -> Iran conducts missile tests -> Iran supports terrorist factions in Iraq among other places -> KO's nation is fighting in Iraq against insurgents purportedly supported by Iran -> KO opposes action against Iran that would curtail further infractions against KO's nation's military-> KO implicitly supports Iran."

Good lord. Have you been possessed by Kurt Kissel? You certainly are exhibiting his powers of faulty reasoning.

Grim,

So, you don't really know if more Iraqis have died from the hands of insurgents...

Cecelia .... kindly correct my trace then..... if may be so kind.

Grim,

So, you don't really know if more Iraqis have died from the hands of insurgents...
===================================================
I can't find exact numbers yet, but again, common sense: If they stopped fighting us there would be no casualities. Of course, that would be the smart choice, let everything get quiet, America (satisfied that it's over) packs up and leave, then the insurgency can start up again without us there to fight back against them.

"Cecelia .... kindly correct my trace then..... if may be so kind.

Posted by: Macjoubert at January 23, 2007 11:22 AM"

Being against a military action into Iran for various and obvious reasons--- it may further destablize the region.....our military is over-extended already....it may antagonize what allies we have in the region, etc....

The fact that all these arguments for not engaging Iran are debatable, does not mean they are tantamount to tacit support for Iran's government.

Your point will be valid if KO proposes a feasible option about Iran (he hasnt even mentioned the Iranian component), rather than constantly bashing _one_ of the options at the table.
Thats the difference.

Keith's logic... difficult to follow
"I'm neutral"... now that's hard to swallow
For Konvoluted Keith
There is no beneath
The bottom is where he will wallow

I have to back up Cecelia and EE on this one. I don't really think KO can be called a friend of Iran unless you're deliberately trying to use some sort of hyperbolic argument. (or is that the 'proverbial hyperbolic'?)

There might be a case where he's an "unintentional" friend of Iran (i.e. it's a government madate that he's on every station at a specific time over there) but that's a whole other case about whether they enjoy watching him, etc etc.

"Your point will be valid if KO proposes a feasible option about Iran (he hasnt even mentioned the Iranian component), rather than constantly bashing _one_ of the options at the table.
Thats the difference."

Afraid not. Olbermann does NOT have to formulate a "feasible option" for dealing with Iran in order to prove he is not a supporter of Iran's government.

That's the same sort of crappy convoluted opportunistic nonsense that numbskulls here say to their opponents--- if you don't want to pull out of Iraq, you want troops to die.... if you back the war you need to apologize to military families for any deaths incurred...etc...

BTW I agree that military action against Iran is lunacy, further ridiculous if it's to prop up Israel in the name of WOT, but at the same time Iran with a nuclear weapons is dangerous , we made that mistake once by allowing Pakistan to get them through China, look at the way they're (Pakistan) are twisting our arms for money.
Why isn't Doggerman the newscaster talking about *options*?

At least O'Reilly has some ideas on how to save Iraq and isolate Iran however pompous they appear to be.
In other words Doggerman is all fart and no shit.

Grim,

We bombed the crap out of residential areas and killed most of the adult males in Falusia. What does common sense tell you?...

BTW I agree that military action against Iran is lunacy, further ridiculous if it's to prop up Israel in the name of WOT, but at the same time Iran with a nuclear weapons is dangerous , we made that mistake once by allowing Pakistan to get them through China, look at the way they're (Pakistan) are twisting our arms for money.
Why isn't Doggerman the newscaster talking about *options*?
=====================================================
I'm suddenly reminded of what I read yesterday:
http://www.nysun.com/article/47111

Grim,

We bombed the crap out of residential areas and killed most of the adult males in Falusia. What does common sense tell you?...
====================================================
And why might we be doing these things? For fun?

"Why isn't Doggerman the newscaster talking about *options*?"

Because he's partisan hack who couldn't tolerate a conflicting idea, opinion or anything that distracted from his 60 minute knife-fight on the Bush Administration, if they came from his dying grandmother.

However, this fact does not mean he's a traitor to his country.

I hate to defend KO, but I think most of us are a little sick of the sort of reasoning that labels opponents as evil or personally responsible for bad outcomes, simply because they disagree with you.

Oh, and since so many like to post bad news about Bush, here's some good news:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070123/oppose23.art.htm
"Deficit halved 2 years early
Three years ago, skeptics scoffed. Now they're eating crow.

Three years ago, President Bush established the goal of cutting the federal budget deficit by half in five years, without raising taxes. At the time, many — including USA TODAY— expressed skepticism. But it was achieved last year, three years ahead of schedule. Now is the time to build on that success and work with Congress to balance the budget in the next five years.

On Feb. 5, the president will propose the customary five-year budget, showing declining deficits every year and a surplus in 2012.

Getting to balance requires both keeping the economy strong and keeping federal spending under control.

Key to the first is continuing pro-growth policies — including tax relief — that have helped fuel our robust economy. Since the president's tax relief became fully effective in 2003, we've seen a dramatic increase in business investment, more thanseven million new jobs created and higher wages for American workers. This stronger economy has also generated record revenues over the past two years, cutting our deficit by more than$150 billion. This is why it is so important to balance the budget without raising taxes and not put our economy at risk.

Key to the second condition is setting budget priorities and stopping unnecessary orwasteful spending. Fiscal restraint while investing in our national security is equally important to a balanced budget.

The president's budget will demonstrate how balance can be achieved by using cautious economic and revenue projections in line with forecasts by outside experts. On spending, the president will propose realistic restraint, while increasing funding for the global war on terror, including all costs of Iraq and Afghanistan over the next two years.

In demonstrating how we can balance the budget in the next five years, the president will continue to call for bipartisan solutions to the longer term challenges posed by unsustainable growth in important entitlement programs. In fact, a key reason to pursue a balanced budget now is to position us better for that future challenge.

A balanced budget is good for the American taxpayer and for our economy. There's plenty of work to be done, but I am optimistic we can do it — across party lines — as the American people expect and deserve.

Rob Portman is Office of Management and Budget director."

WHITE HOUSE FRETS OVER EXPECTED BOOS, CATCALLS, DURING STATE OF THE UNION

-- Bush To Wear Ear Plugs, Blinders, Rose-Colored Glasses, To Preserve Hopeless Bungler's Deluded Bubble --

WASHINGTON -- When the president stands before Congress and the nation Tuesday night, he'll be facing an angry citizenry dissatisfied with his leadership by a 2-to-1 ratio. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, released on the eve of the speech, found only 34 percent of respondents approved of Bush's job performance while 63 percent disapproved. Two-thirds of respondents say that Bush has done something to make them angry -- a figure that has grown six points since last year and 16 points since Bush's State of the Union in 2004. Fifty-five percent of respondents said Bush's presidency is a failure, and 51 percent said they trust Bush less than they trusted his predecessor in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton.

Grim,

Glad you are thrilled that Bush cut his own deficit in half. He is definitely the best president since himself...

Grim,

>>We bombed the crap out of residential areas and killed most of the adult males in Falusia. What does common sense tell you?...
====================================================
>>And why might we be doing these things? For fun?

Not for fun. I would imagine that Bush is doing them for the same reason that Saddam Hussein was slaughtering civilians...

Grim,

Glad you are thrilled that Bush cut his own deficit in half. He is definitely the best president since himself...
====================================================
Wow, sometimes I think not even coalessing the point into a frying pan and beating someone's head with it would help them get the point. First they complain about Bush's "mess" then they complain about any attempt he makes at cleaning it up.

"I hate to defend KO, but I think most of us are a little sick of the sort of reasoning that labels opponents as evil or personally responsible for bad outcomes, simply because they disagree with you."

Thank you, Cecilia and Challenger Grim - though we don't agree 100%, we do agree that silence does not equal complicity.

Not for fun. I would imagine that Bush is doing them for the same reason that Saddam Hussein was slaughtering civilians...
=====================================================
Man, this kind of hatred just canNOT be healthy. I guess it is true, the left nowadays is, and can only be, defined by their anger.

Key to the second condition is setting budget priorities and stopping unnecessary or wasteful spending.
---
No one could dispute this maxim. But, who will do it? Dubya and the Republicans? The biggest group of borrowers and spenders in the nation's history? I think not. Heavens, they won't even make the occupation of Iraq a budget item.

As for the deficit decreasing: I certainly hope so. And, I don't intend to lavish praise on the man who ran it up. Of course, if we want to truly decrease the deficit, and not just by slight of hand, we will end our occupation of Iraq before the civil war really heats up.
==================================================
I would agree with you Kurt, but I don't think there are very many democrats will be responsible either. Let's face it, as far as spending goes, both parties's hands are flithy green.

"Three years ago, President Bush established the goal of cutting the federal budget deficit by half in five years, without raising taxes. At the time, many -- including USA TODAY --— expressed skepticism. But it was achieved last year, three years ahead of schedule."

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

nonsese.
the budget is hardly balanced
because the war on terror
is not included in the federal budget,
rather, it is covered under supplemental spending bills,
i.e., borrowed dollars from our enemies (chiefly china and Saudi Arabia).

"Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental spending bills, which are not included in the federal budget. Numbers are fuzzy on how much has been spent so far on the global war on terror. According to the House Appropriations Committee, some $471 billion has been committed so far. Spratt says it's closer to $507 billion. By the end of this year, on a cash basis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be closing in on the costs of the Vietnam War ($650 billion in today's dollars) and the Korean War ($691 billion)."

"Man, this kind of hatred just canNOT be healthy. I guess it is true, the left nowadays is, and can only be, defined by their anger."

Where have you been? This sort of sentiment is expressed all the time here.

I remember back in Clinton's day being embarrassed by people who talked about all the people who mysteriously died that were connected to Clinton and other various conspiracies.

Folks capable of equating Bush with Saddam make Freepers look like bastions of rationality...

Grim,

>>Not for fun. I would imagine that Bush is doing them for the same reason that Saddam Hussein was slaughtering civilians...
=====================================================
>>Man, this kind of hatred just canNOT be healthy. I guess it is true, the left nowadays is, and can only be, defined by their anger.

Real thinking people get angry when innocent people die for nothing. Used to be that everyone did. Now, people are such sociopaths that they ignore civilian death and call anyone that complains about it "angry" or "unpatriotic"...

Real thinking people get angry when innocent people die for nothing. Used to be that everyone did. Now, people are such sociopaths that they ignore civilian death and call anyone that complains about it "angry" or "unpatriotic"...
====================================================
Yeah, I don't like innocent people dying either (hence why i'm a stanch anti-abortionist). But do you really think that's going to stop if we leave? Did it when we left Vietnam?

Bill got a check to go on Olbermann. What will Hilary get??

Grim,

Of course it won't stop if we leave; however, it won't stop if we stay in the country for a few more years, then leave. The mistake was invading in the first place.

Leaving might inspire some action on the part of the so-called elected officials in Iraq...

"Real thinking people get angry when innocent people die for nothing. Used to be that everyone did. Now, people are such sociopaths that they ignore civilian death and call anyone that complains about it "angry" or "unpatriotic"..."

No, I would claim "real thinking people," hold those truly responisble for the innocent deaths accountable....and in the case of post-Saddam Iraq it is the insurgents and those who continue to inflame the sectarian hatred (Al Queda in Iraq) that are the reason civilians are killed. Getting angry at the true enemy would be a nice change of pace for some of the posters on this site.

The United States Armed Forces are trying to help establish the order required to stop those who want an unstable Iraq. Please give me good evidence to the contrary, if you disagree with my conclusion.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"Real thinking people get angry when innocent people die for nothing. Used to be that everyone did. Now, people are such sociopaths that they ignore civilian death and call anyone that complains about it "angry" or "unpatriotic"...
"

"Real thinking people" realize that the issue at hand-- WAR--- is intrinsically linked with death and destruction---- as opposed to an issue such as --- campaign financing or affirmative action policy--- and that your not agreeing with your opponent that a particular war is worthwhile or moral, does not make him a "sociopath".

I hate to defend KO, but I think most of us are a little sick of the sort of reasoning that labels opponents as evil or personally responsible for bad outcomes, simply because they disagree with you.
Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 11:41 AM

Cecelia, once again you restore my hope in humanity.

cee however, is a mad man. That fact that he is a Christian makes him without excuse for being so in love with killing." Donora, Pa.

"Leaving might inspire some action on the part of the so-called elected officials in Iraq..."

I suggest you write letters to people who will be approving appropriations bills.

"Cecelia, once again you restore my hope in humanity.

cee however, is a mad man. That fact that he is a Christian makes him without excuse for being so in love with killing." Donora, Pa."

Thanks, Donora Pa, but for your own sake, let me say you're going to be terribly disappointed.

I think your reasoning that Cee is in love with killing because he supports a war that you don't, is idiotic.

Thanks, Donora Pa, but for your own sake, let me say you're going to be terribly disappointed.

I think your reasoning that Cee is in love with killing because he supports a war that you don't, is idiotic.

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 12:28 PM

Cecelia, it isn't that cee supports the war, it's that he does it with his faith in one hand and the military in the other. That has me confused. I can see his points on fighting terrorism and people like the terrorists who are blinded by their faith. I fear cee is not far from being caught up in the same mindset he is fighting against. Also, he continually chooses to label anyone who disagrees as Godless, though he says it in a way that excuses himself from making that accusation. You and Janet support what you support. We disagree obviously, but you don't, I don't think, assume everyone who disagrees is your enemy in a holy war.

Getting angry at George Bush is actually an easy way out....One may actually see something bad befall The President before 1/2009 (meaning impeachment, etc....LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL remedies)....

Being angry yet DOING something about the real problem means having to make the tough call on using force to stop the activity. This is where the powerful Congressional Democrats are now and they should be held accountable with the same emotion, bravado and language we hear regarding Mr. Bush....Especially because they have taken an untested position almost 180 degrees from Bush AND promised to reign him in, according to their pre-election rhetoric.

Let's play fair people.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"I lay some of the blame at GWB's feet. And I lay a lot more of the blame at the feet of those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of and give our enemies more fuel for the fire that has been raging for years."

I think that tactical & strategic errors give more 'fuel for the fire' than 'those who scream to the heavens about everything that they don't approve of...'

A smarter war could have been won regardless of opposition at home. And one could make the argument that there wouldn't have been as much opposition at home if a smarter war on terror was waged. Grammie-I think you are all too willing to deflect as much blame from the president as your conscious will allow. Just my opinion. I'm not a trained psychiatrist, just reading between the lines.

Just because the Dems don't have any easy answers, that doesn't mean Bush gets off the hook. Bush talked tough, Bush talked strong, Bush said, 'Bring it On'...And he broke it...now everyone's blaming the Democrats for not having any glue handy?

That's a pretty tenuous game the Republicans are playing if they think they can blame Democrats for not seeing this coming and not having a plan for a way out, all the while pretending they aren't to blame...

The Conservicons want to have their war and eat it too...Blame the Democrats for not putting a stop to a war they admit they don't want stopped.

Out of one side of their mouth they speak for the President, The Troops, and Nationalism in General saying, "Failure is not an Option." Then out of the other side of their Partisan mouths they invoke the November elections and say, "Hey Dems, the people want us out, do something already!"

...And let's not forget this war began underfunded.

If both parties spent their money and energy fighting an intelligent 'war on terror' with the same zeal they attack eachother, we'd all be much safer for it, And there wouldn't be as many of our Brave Men and Women Dead and Injured.

Which do you think will have a larger psychological toll on America...9-11 and the war on terror, or the reimmersion of all the US service men and women returning home from Iraq.

Right now that might just be too close to call...

"Re: Oliely

Too bad he's right. You neocon girls are always whining that we should bomb this country or that. Genocide isn't something that you Bush-lovers shy away from. Why pretend that O'liely has "offended" you? Is it because you don't have the spines to engage him on the issues?

Why even ask?

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 8:39 AM"

Debate O'liely on the issues he raises.

I have to think about this.

What should my position be on the mode of death of GWB's parents?

1. German Jews in 1943 being gassed or worked to death.

2. American Indians killed by Costner' friends.

3. Innocent Iraqis killed by their son. Such an emotionally satisfying idea, but Oliely laments time travel is impossible.

4. Japanese sterilised at Manzamar.

%. Bush's daughters should be sterilized. So lame I'll skip this one.

Well, chicken blogger, you pick one of O'liely's burning issues of the day to debate. Give me all the reasons you support O'liely on his issues and I'll do my best to refute them.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Cecelia,

>>"Real thinking people" realize that the issue at hand-- WAR--- is intrinsically linked with death and destruction---- as opposed to an issue such as --- campaign financing or affirmative action policy--- and that your not agreeing with your opponent that a particular war is worthwhile or moral, does not make him a "sociopath".

=====================================

A war under false pretenses is murder...

"They went out and had lunch with Bob's 1600 scientists afterwards.

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 9:55 AM"

And a good time was had by all, no doubt.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Grammie,

Oliely's point is that Bush doesn't care about a war that he invented that doesn't touch his family. The debate has been whether or not he should remain on the boards...

As far as the "Chicken blogger" name-calling goes, perhaps if you were on the left and making good points, some jackass might hijack your name, as mine was...

We lefties don't have to stoop to that...

"They went out and had lunch with Bob's 1600 scientists afterwards.

Posted by: Cecelia at January 23, 2007 9:55 AM"

And a good time was had by all, no doubt.

Janet Hawkins"

No, Grammie, only 20 of them reported having a good time. The other 1730 said the other 20 were full of it. However, they all agreed that Chucky and Keith Olbermann are jerks.

"A war under false pretenses is murder..."

=====================================

'and that your not agreeing with your opponent that a particular war is worthwhile or moral, does not make him a "sociopath".'

Of course it won't stop if we leave; however, it won't stop if we stay in the country for a few more years, then leave. The mistake was invading in the first place.

Leaving might inspire some action on the part of the so-called elected officials in Iraq...
====================================================
So we can at least agree that things need to be cleaned up, we're just in disagreement over how.

That's fine, that's what this country is all about. You believe no matter how long we're there, things will never get better, I believe that at some point they will (i.e. Germany, Japan).

I hope we can at least agree that we each have a right here. You have a right to vote for US to leave Iraq as soon as possible, I have a right to vote for US to stay there till the job is done. Eventually, history will judge us both (and I assume it will probably long after I'm dead, not by the time I'm 40).

"We lefties don't have to stoop to that..."

I don't know if one of the "lefties" did it, but off the top of my head, it's been done to Bob Cox, Janet, and me in the past.

Cecelia,

It's not a matter of "agreeing" with the war. It is a fact that Bush lied about why we invaded on multiple occasions. Regardless of why he lied, he didn't feel that the deaths of Americans and Iraqis were particularly important when compared to his ultimate goal (whatever that is)...

But, Bush is worse than a sociopath because a sociopath at least keeps a count of those he kills...

Grim,

We can agree to that...

"A war under false pretenses is murder..."

=====================================

'and that your not agreeing with your opponent that a particular war is worthwhile or moral, does not make him a "sociopath".'
====================================================
Cecelia, of course I have to disagree with a lot of people who like to make the above claim. I might say it was waged under MISTAKEN pretenses, but to claim they were "false" implies that the people waging it knew otherwise than what we were told. I don't believe this, I think Bush and co probably really thought they were doing the right thing.

Of course, I wish those people would make up their minds. One moment bush is "stupid" (thus implying that he did infact believe in the reasons for the war, if for no other reason than he is a 'stupid simpleton'), the next, he is some sort of grand conspirator.

Make up your minds, which is he?

"Of course it won't stop if we leave; however, it won't stop if we stay in the country for a few more years, then leave. The mistake was invading in the first place."

So therefore the world and Iraq would be a better
place with Saddam in power......dumbass lefty logic

It's not a matter of "agreeing" with the war. It is a fact that Bush lied about why we invaded on multiple occasions. Regardless of why he lied, he didn't feel that the deaths of Americans and Iraqis were particularly important when compared to his ultimate goal (whatever that is)...
==================================================
For his motive... I'm inclined to agree with Jonah Goldberg here:
(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjY2M2M2YmY3YWZhODg5ZTQwYjdlN2MxM2FjNzQ0OTA=)
"The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is a side issue. The WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, but calling Saddam Hussein’s bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do."

Can we all agree on this possible solution? (from same article above)
"According to the conventional script, if I’m not saying “bug out” of Iraq, I’m supposed to say “stay the course.” But there’s a third option, and, funnily enough, I found it in an old column of mine (journalistic taboos be damned!). I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay.

If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will."

That's what I'm in favor of.

RUDY! Its about time someone said what we have all been thinking!

Anon (13:35),

>>So therefore the world and Iraq would be a better place with Saddam in power......dumbass lefty logic

Strange that it was you who drew the conclusion and called me a "dumbass", son. Look up "strawman", child...

So therefore the world and Iraq would be a better
place with Saddam in power......dumbass lefty logic
======================================================
It's not so much that, as their apparent belief that security is always preferable to freedom.

Of course, don't try bringing up their complaining about all the freedoms Bush is "trampling" to make us more secure, heads might explode.

Did you say "son"? I recognize that Chicken Blogger!

Grim,

I wasn't just WMD's and it wasn't the so-called connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was the joke that we are giving the Iraqis democracy when we control their press and, if Afghanistan is any indicator, we will allow fundamentalist Muslims to pass any anti-woman law that they want...

I wasn't just WMD's and it wasn't the so-called connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was the joke that we are giving the Iraqis democracy when we control their press and, if Afghanistan is any indicator, we will allow fundamentalist Muslims to pass any anti-woman law that they want...
====================================================
Not bothering to bring up again the strong indicators that there were Iraq+Al Qaeda connections, I am more wondering where you were told taht we're controling their press.

And I'm wondering, why you first complain (or give off the impression of complaining) that we're not giving Iraqis "true" democracy and then complain that in Afghanistan, the people are democratically passing anti-woman laws. Do you favor us doing to afghanistan what we're (according to you) doing in Iraq or visa versa?

""If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will."

That's what I'm in favor of."

CG (Can I call you CG?), I see two distinct problems with this:

1) It places American military decisions in the hands of someone OTHER than Americans. Considering that the President and his Defense Department have made it clear that American troops will NEVER be under the command of foreign military officers, giving the decision on staying or going to the Iraqi people seems too large a leap for this Administration to make.

2)Tying into the first is a similar argument to the one that was made before the 2006 midterms - if we announce "On June 30th there will be a referendum in Iraq to determine the course of American military presence", you can bet the farm that the insurgency will dramatically step up their attacks in order to skew the outcome towards a "No" vote. At that point, would the President say that the vote doesn't count because it was influenced by insurgents and/or foreign fighters in-country?

"Grammie,

Oliely's point is that Bush doesn't care about a war that he invented that doesn't touch his family. The debate has been whether or not he should remain on the boards...

As far as the "Chicken blogger" name-calling goes, perhaps if you were on the left and making good points, some jackass might hijack your name, as mine was...

We lefties don't have to stoop to that...

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 1:09 PM"

Of course, why didn't I see it. That O'liely is such a deep thinker. He also has a flair that few could ever match.

O'liely started out with the Holocaust jocularity and in the face of criticism moved on the other hilarious followups.

Your first post paraphrased was:
Neocon girls whine to bomb countries and don't shy away from genocide so you are pretending to be offended because you won't debate O'liely on the issues he raises.

Now you're crayfishing to your new position. O'liely was just pointing out that GWB doesn't have a personal stake in this war and you were referring to the debate to remove him from the board.

Want to try for three.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Son....I say, son..... Smart boy. Mind like a steel trap. Full of mice."

CG (Can I call you CG?), I see two distinct problems with this:
==================================================
I prefer 'Grim'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) It places American military decisions in the hands of someone OTHER than Americans. Considering that the President and his Defense Department have made it clear that American troops will NEVER be under the command of foreign military officers, giving the decision on staying or going to the Iraqi people seems too large a leap for this Administration to make.
==================================================
So we might have a problem with implementation, but what about YOU? Not to mention, it places the military decision in the hands of people WHERE our military is. Besides, once again I find myself completely agreeing with Jonah on this:
"But at the end of the day, America still might lose. I'd hate to see that happen. But I can't think of a more honorable way for America to withdraw from Iraq and to prove it respects democracy. America won't bow to bullets and bombs—but it will to ballots."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Tying into the first is a similar argument to the one that was made before the 2006 midterms - if we announce "On June 30th there will be a referendum in Iraq to determine the course of American military presence", you can bet the farm that the insurgency will dramatically step up their attacks in order to skew the outcome towards a "No" vote. At that point, would the President say that the vote doesn't count because it was influenced by insurgents and/or foreign fighters in-country?
==================================================
Well, I certainly won't argue that we'll need to do everything we can to ensure the vote is fair and secure. But then, I would hope that (for once) we could even get the U.N., EU, etc etc to join us on this endeavor to ensure the enactment of democracy.

Besides, it seems to me that if the insurgency stepped up their attacks, it might cause a backlash and the vote for US to stay would then be an overwhelming majority. The point is, there's simply too many variables for us to be able to say with any certainty what would happen. But shouldn't we listen to the Iraqi people and give them the say in what we will do in regards to their country?

Cecelia, Leghorn E Leghorn to Henry the chicken Hawk?

Love it on more than one level.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

A smarter war could have been won regardless of opposition at home.

-12:52 p.m.

Believe it or not, I agree with that statement, to a point. (One unfairly gets lumped in the same category if one hasn't degraded Bush to the full extent: You should be digging the graves of the fallen; you have no right to say that you support the troops if you yourself or your children are not on the front lines; you should die, ... you have shi*t for brains, ... . There are nuances of opinion.)

With that said, I don't think every mishap can be laid at the hands of Bush either. If you were against the war from the start because you truly felt it was a mistake, then I can understand the anger. There are those who hated Bush, hated him vehemently before 2003 and had 9/11 never happened, would have vomited the same hatred.

I don't believe Bush lied about the existence of WMD's to take our country into war. If he knew that they probably weren't there, he knew he would be found out. People would be angry. He would be held accountable for sending our troops into harm's way. I don't believe that he has absolutely no regard for the loss of human life.
History may regard him as the worst president ever but I don't think he'll be portrayed as a demon.

He also presented the war in Iraq as part of a global war on terror. There is a legitimate argument (on both sides) that Iraq was not the place to start. There was practically no debate at all. The only person who should have the respect of anyone who hates this war is Kucinich. He has consistently been opposed to the war, from the short span of his run for the presidency until now. He has called for the cutting of funds and getting the troops home now. He is considered a joke candidate. I would never vote for him for reasons unrelated to the war, but he is the only one to have held a consistent position.

Because our servicemen and women are still in the thick of war, I am going to root for them as much as my position in life enables me to. I don't care what that makes me to others.

I don't believe Bush lied about the existence of WMD's to take our country into war. If he knew that they probably weren't there, he knew he would be found out. People would be angry. He would be held accountable for sending our troops into harm's way. I don't believe that he has absolutely no regard for the loss of human life.
====================================================
Sharon, good to see that there are some reasonable people out there. To encourage your point, if Bush lied (blah blah) then why didn't he PLANT WMDs in Iraq to be found there?

EE, I agree with Grim. Having a referendum by Iraqis on a straight up choice, do they vote to have the stay or be invited to leave is not putting our troops under a foreign command. The Saudis invited in and then ten years later askek us to leave. At no point were US troops under the command of Saudi leaders.

If the Iraqis vote for us to leave we start an orderly draw down, which is what the Dems are for and the Repubs wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

If they vote for us to remain than we benefit because it should be a unifying event for us.

Naturally, I would wish for option two, but I would accept option one. There are so many variables involved in such an election the actual process could benefit all parties.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

WITH SELF-INFLICTED UNTENABLE QUAGMIRE, BUSH PERFECTS ORWELLIAN DOUBLETHINK

-- "Iraq Must Stand Up Or U.S. Will Withdraw" ... "Iraq Is Too Important For U.S. To Withdraw" --

WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his top advisers, after nine days of unrelenting criticism from Congress, are warning the Iraqi government that continuing funding for an American troop increase will be contingent on Prime Minister Maliki`s delivery on promises to quell violence. But American officials have been cagey about how they would respond if they conclude Mr. Maliki is unwilling or unable to face down Shiite militias. President Bush recently announced that he would send 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Iraq and sent a signal to the Iraqi government that this is really, really the last chance. Failure in Iraq would be a "disaster" for the United States, President Bush said, and is too important a mission for America to withdraw.

So we found out today in the Libby trial( according to Libby's lawyers) that the Bush Administration
set him up.
Nooooooooooooooo can't believe that one !

TDF.

WASHINGTON Jan 23, 2007 (AP) Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald described for jurors Tuesday a Bush administration effort to beat back early criticism of the Iraq war and accused former White House aide "Scooter" Libby of lying to investigators probing the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

I. Lewis Libby's attorney countered by painting a different White House plot, alleging that administration officials sought to blame Libby for the leak to protect Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling a conversation between Libby and his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, as the leak investigation heated up in 2003. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

I figured these scoundrels would turn on each other in a NY minute.
The rest of this trial will be very interesting !

Liberal America is constantly in tantrum mode. No wonder we are hated we are disrespected and hated oh so much.

From Today's Washington Post Reliable Sources column "Keith Olbermann, eating a hamburger at downtown's Les Halles yesterday with a dark-haired woman whose business suit led onlookers to conclude she was a political source, not a broadcast colleague. The N.Y.C.-based cable yakker has brought his MSNBC show south for the State of the Union address."

FYI: Keith's teenage girlfriend is a blonde.

And what was KO bitching about today on the radio show? That he stepped out for lunch with a "former colleague" and that it made the gossip column in the Post.

Former colleague huh?

Grim said:

"Besides, it seems to me that if the insurgency stepped up their attacks, it might cause a backlash and the vote for US to stay would then be an overwhelming majority."

It might - or it might just as easily sway people to vote for us to leave just to get the increased attacks to stop.

Then Grammie said:

"The Saudis invited in and then ten years later askek us to leave. At no point were US troops under the command of Saudi leaders."

That was with regard to basing and housing forces (during which any combat occurred in another country). This would deal with forces actively engaged in a combat situation in the same country. I don't think you can compare the two fairly.

RUDY! Its about time someone said what we have all been thinking!

Posted by: Benson at January 23, 2007 1:40 PM

Rudy sounds like he's 9 years old.( Tell me he doesn't with those run on sentences) No wonder he tapped into "what all of you have been thinking"

This site is almost as funny as the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Challenger Grim,

I posted several days ago an interview with a police officer from Fallujah who stated that the Iraqis want the U.S. gone, but not now. It seems to me that if an Iraqi were posed with the question, "Do you want the U.S. to leave, withdraw? With just a yes/no option, the answer would likely be yes. It depends on how you interpret the question. If I were an Iraqi, I would want the U.S. out also, but when is key. Michelle Malkin just returned from Iraq and she posted an interview with an Iraqi woman who spoke positively about the presence of U.S. troops. Of course, you can make of it what you want. I think it is a very important question, the Iraqi view. It won't succeed without their wanting it. I read blogs indicating that more and more Iraqis are stepping up. I read what the soldiers are saying.

Grim said:

"Besides, it seems to me that if the insurgency stepped up their attacks, it might cause a backlash and the vote for US to stay would then be an overwhelming majority."

It might - or it might just as easily sway people to vote for us to leave just to get the increased attacks to stop.
===================================================
Very true, but the fact is, we just don't know. But should an uncertain future keep us from doing anything? (and as far as an Iraqi vote goes, I would say it would be the right thing as well)

Liberal America is constantly in tantrum mode. No wonder we are hated we are disrespected and hated oh so much.

Posted by: QQ at January 23, 2007 2:20 PM

QQ must be living in a cave.
I think Bush's Iraq war and his destabilizing the region might have something to do with the USA being so hated.

And BTW, the coalition of the willing is not so willing any longer. Britain just said they are withdrawing 3,000 troops by May.

I posted several days ago an interview with a police officer from Fallujah who stated that the Iraqis want the U.S. gone, but not now. It seems to me that if an Iraqi were posed with the question, "Do you want the U.S. to leave, withdraw? With just a yes/no option, the answer would likely be yes. It depends on how you interpret the question. If I were an Iraqi, I would want the U.S. out also, but when is key. Michelle Malkin just returned from Iraq and she posted an interview with an Iraqi woman who spoke positively about the presence of U.S. troops. Of course, you can make of it what you want. I think it is a very important question, the Iraqi view. It won't succeed without their wanting it. I read blogs indicating that more and more Iraqis are stepping up. I read what the soldiers are saying.
==================================================
Very true Sharon. That would obviously be part of the set up for the vote, how to phrase it. (I would say something like: "Do you want the US to IMMEDIATELY leave Iraq?" with possible apendums referencing perhaps another vote a year or two later)

But I do dislike how so many (both on the left and the right, but especially the left lately) talk about the Iraqis almost as if they're props (look up for examples) with so little talk or consideration about what they may actually WANT. (www.theotheriraq.com)

EE, so explain how and why a vote to invite us to leave would result in foreign leadership during our troops withdrawal.

If we start a drawdown why wouldn't the same be true.

Or am I missing something?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Michelle Malkin just returned from Iraq and she posted an interview with an Iraqi woman who spoke positively about the presence of U.S. troops."

And Michelle Malkin is such a reliable source.
She has been caught lying more times than Pinochio.

I think Bush's Iraq war and his destabilizing the region might have something to do with the USA being so hated.
====================================================
Sure Bob, because it's not like the U.S. was ever hated long before Bush right?

Oh wait... the Cole... embassy bombings...
Seems America's been pretty hated for awhile now.

But Bob- Your man Keith has been caught even more often yet you cite him as a reliable hack.

I figured these scoundrels would turn on each other in a NY minute.
The rest of this trial will be very interesting !

--------

and if you think a lot of rubber-stamping republican congressmen are turning on this white house now, just wait till the 08 elections heat up as iraq deteriorates further. the lion's share of the GOP will end up throwing Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the entire lot under the bus.

big surprise there from scum of their like. no honor. no principles. merely opportunism. tom delay style. bill frist style. BushCO style. flawed values. failed policies. fiasco results. it's just a matter of time, storm troopers. great fun to watch!

Challenger Grim and Sharon are talking about a vote on whether the Iraqis want the US to leave.
There have been two polls in 2 years, and they overwhelming stated that they want the US out of their country.

Maybe Fox news didn't report that.
I wonder why.

Oh wait... the Cole... embassy bombings...
Seems America's been pretty hated for awhile now.

Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 23, 2007 2:32 PM

Grim has amazing perspective.
The US had incredible support the world over after 9/11.
Your president squandered that support and the hatred is now like we have never seen.
Nice try to throw in the other incidents during the Clinton years, but it's not even close.

Bob- that poll has been ripped as open ended. Of course they don't want us to stay. The more recent polls have aked them if they want us to leave 'immediately'. Those results were not positive and definitely not 'overwhelming'

Not sure where to turn, so I'll try here.

Here's a Headline on Drudge's front page:

'DREAMGIRLS' LEADS OSCAR PACK -- BUT SNUBBED IN FILM, DIRECTOR CATS...

What does CATS refer to? Anyone? Anyone?

Liberal America is constantly in tantrum mode. No wonder we are hated we are disrespected and hated oh so much.

----------

um, no, it's because of failed republican foreign policies, dimwit.
god, you people are stupid.

"The view of the US's role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests. The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington had dealt with Iraq. The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas had been handled. The number of those who said the US was a positive influence in the world fell in 18 nations polled in previous years. Across the 25 countries polled, 49% of respondents said the US played a mainly negative role in the world. When asked about US military presence in the Middle East, an average of 68% of respondents across the 25 countries answered that it "provokes more conflict than it prevents".

Bob- that poll has been ripped as open ended.

By whom?

Oh..,let me guess

TDF.

Thank you, Benson; that was my point. Bob only sees what he wants to see.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes released a new poll on Iraqi public opinion, which finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. Moreover, an overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing. The poll was conducted during the first week of September 2006. Here are some of its key findings:

– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little)

2:33 p.m.

What about McCain? He is taking big hits for his support of the surge. (He was always for more troops). Both parties play politics, for the most part. Do clean hands exist anywhere come election time?

Are these the same people who voted 100% in favor of Saddam election after election? Hmmmmmm.

Of course Sharon and Benson are going to poo poo the poll. It doesn't fit into their mindset.
Locked in tightly mindset !

This is the same type of thinking by people who used to say that the Iraq War has been a success, as early as 3 months ago.

Hell, our beloved president said "We're definitely winning the war in iraq" just 2 months ago.

and you all nodded like good sheep.

Funny how you all are now singing a different tune.

Challenger Grim and Sharon are talking about a vote on whether the Iraqis want the US to leave.
There have been two polls in 2 years, and they overwhelming stated that they want the US out of their country.

Maybe Fox news didn't report that.
I wonder why.
===================================================
You should read what I posted Bob:
"Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest. With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow."

Are these the same people who voted 100% in favor of Saddam election after election? Hmmmmmm.

Posted by: Benson at January 23, 2007 2:47 PM

So in Benson's world, We should stay in Iraq, even though the people there want us out.

or maybe the poll was rigged...or maybe.....

you got nothing...as usual.

Bob- In a simple world- a poll like that could be used as the rationale for an immediate pullout.

And then when the country falls into chaos... who do they blame? Do YOU truly think these people would be better off if we pulled out now? If you truly have the professor credentials you profess, you would know better.

Not sure where to turn, so I'll try here.

Here's a Headline on Drudge's front page:

'DREAMGIRLS' LEADS OSCAR PACK -- BUT SNUBBED IN FILM, DIRECTOR CATS...

What does CATS refer to? Anyone? Anyone?

I for one would take you Bush haters more seriously if you hadn't been so ridiculously paranoid since Bush " Stole the Election" vs Al Gore. You'all have cried wolf so often that it's hard to believe you on any level. Really.

I thought Bush was allllllll alone....

One more person who supports the administration's policy in Iraq....

From AP....

"[General Petraeus] said he would not have accepted the nomination to take command in Baghdad if he did not believe Bush's plan could work.

"Petraeus has held a wide range of responsibilities during his 32 years in the Army, including in Bosnia, Germany, Italy and more recently in Iraq.

"He told the Senate committee that he believes ethnic divisions in Iraq are not as severe as in Bosnia, where U.S. and NATO forces intervened in the 1990s to stop a civil war. He noted, however, that Iraq's divisions got worse in 2006."

###
Mmm, this honorable man who has served the country on many fronts, now under oath in front of hostile politicans TESTIFIES he thinks Bush's plan could work?.....stop the presses!

I thought the military, the Iraqi people, the American people, The Congress, The Supreme Court, Elmo and The Ghost of Christmas Past all have agreed the plan WILL NOT work!

Well, I'll be?!?...What happens next?.....A pointless, nonbinding congressional resolution that has taken almost a month to work out because of two or three weasel words the 2008 Presidential Candidates can't agree on! What a joke.

On a realted note.....
Liz Cheney wrote a wonderful piece in WaPo.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201103.html

MY FAVORITE PARTS....

"Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, 'I'm in to win.' Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.

"I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much."

"America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory.

"We must be in it to win."

Oh yeah.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

Grim has amazing perspective.
The US had incredible support the world over after 9/11.
Your president squandered that support and the hatred is now like we have never seen.
Nice try to throw in the other incidents during the Clinton years, but it's not even close.
====================================================
Amazing perspective that I look at the whole of history and the US's timeline? I thought you were a professor Bob.

Are you going to tell me honestly that if Bush wasn't in charge, that the world would have gone on loving us after 9/11? I find it mind-boggling that you believe one incident would have changed DECADES of deep-ingrained cultural resentment/hatred permanently.

With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow."

Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 23, 2007 2:51 PM

It's been 4 years now and civil war is raging, iraq deteriorates every day and Grim is still looking for"minds to change".

Good for you , Grim.
The Easter Bunny may be stopping in at your house for the holiday, too.

Benson, Am I imagining things or did you actually praise the 1:35 post by Rudy??
Please tell me that your 1:40 post was a put on, or are you REALLY that ignorant?

Do you even realize that it sounds exactly like it was written by a brainwashed elementary school student.....and probably was?

Sorry Mike- I was joking. He looked like he needed a shoulder to cry on!

By the way- 1:40 post was one of the funniest ever!

It's been 4 years now and civil war is raging, iraq deteriorates every day and Grim is still looking for"minds to change".

Good for you , Grim.
The Easter Bunny may be stopping in at your house for the holiday, too.
======================================================
This coming from a guy who refuses to acknowledge even the slightest good news to come from there. Again, I'm waiting to hear your reply to www.theotheriraq.com.

Bob,

I would have to know a little more about polling but it seems to me that asking 1,150 people might not get the most accurate picture. (I briefly scanned the report you posted).

Secondly, an open-ended stay has been ruled out by President Bush. In his last speech, he dropped the position of staying until the job is done (paraphrasing).

More like 1150 non-kurdish people!

Good Hillary,

Good Obama,

Good Biden,

Good Dodd,

Good Brownback,

Good Collins,

Good Hagel,

Good Snow.......

Keep your eyes on that prize!....Win itat all costs!....Re-election OR Presidential Primaries are the only important thing in today's America!...We understand.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

Just curious, Bob,

Some time ago you stated that about 1 in 10 of your students support the war. Is that one person failing (failed)?

"I thought Bush was allllllll alone....

One more person who supports the administration's policy in Iraq...."

Laughing out loud.

Lapdog found another person.

AND an article too.

How pathetic is THAT ?

hey Cee, ever heard the story of the little boy digging in a huge pile of shit who said,"There must be a pony under here somewhere"!

The facts remain that 80% of American people want us out of Iraq now and more republicans are coming over to that side every day.
(Cee continues to ignore all the division comanders, generals and ex generals who say the plan will not work, which is unprecedented during war time for the military to speak out like that )

Maybe tomorrow, cee will find ANOTHER PERSON.

Look at her website. She must have done a heck of a job making it look real! (Let's just ignore facts). Considering that the poll you sited only covered 1,150 people, she isn't that far behind.

Good question Sharon....
Bob is your student failing?

Secondly, an open-ended stay has been ruled out by President Bush. In his last speech, he dropped the position of staying until the job is done (paraphrasing).

Posted by: sharon at January 23, 2007 3:01 PM

Oh really.
Since we are building the largest US embassy in history, there, you think we're leaving anytime soon ?

(Cee continues to ignore all the division comanders, generals and ex generals who say the plan will not work, which is unprecedented during war time for the military to speak out like that )

General Petraeus has more credibility than you Bob.

I posted Colonel Jacobs interview on Tucker last week. The Colonel believes that the surge is in preparation for withdrawal.

Good question Sharon....
Bob is your student failing?

Posted by: at January 23, 2007 3:11 PM

It's just not one person.
I have stated that the students are running 10-1 against this war and a much larger % against Bush in general.
My students pretty much mirror the US population as a whole.
Students are not graded on their personal beliefs, nor do I keep a record of what their personal opinions are.

The professor seems to have an issue with sarcasm and irony.....

Just the other day Professor Honeydew (Bob) was claiming NO ONE in the military thought Bush's plan WOULD work....he provided no evidence, no quotes, just the same selected Democrat talking points he is programmed to believe without question.

Ironic that the man nominated and accepting of the important mission President Bush has sent 20,000 more troops to participate in has a different opinion than the brilliant professor!

General Petraeus also stated under oath that nonbinding congressional resolutions DO NOTHING but inflict negative morale into the ranks and sees no purpose in them.....Wow....what will he think of next?

Pull the guy's funding, professor.....General Petraeus must be a nutjob!

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

Thanks Bob! Good man!

General Petraeus has a lot of optimism, I'll give him that. But he's been wrong before:

"Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq." - General Petraeus, September 2004

Two years later and we're still pretty much where we were when this article was written.

Bob,

You have questioned the intelligence, reasoning ability of every person who has a view different than yours. A student (who was brave enough to voice an opinion) with that mindset can't be passing your class? That person would just not have the mental capacity!

General Petraeus has more credibility than you Bob.

Posted by: sharon at January 23, 2007 3:13 PM

Sharon, I'm not sure if it's your reasoning skills or your reading comprehension.
I stated very clearly, and you should know this anyway, that there have been many generals, ex-generals, most of the division commanders etc. who are against this escalation.

Gotta go now kiddies.
Work needs to be done.

Since we are building the largest US embassy in history, there, you think we're leaving anytime soon ?
====================================================
So now you believe we should not have an embassy in ANY country? After all, that apparently represents our decision to... do what Bob? Clear up the meanings of embassies for me.

Mmm, this honorable man who has served the country on many fronts, now under oath in front of hostile politicans TESTIFIES he thinks Bush's plan could work?.....stop the presses!

Cee continues to ignore all the division comanders, generals and ex generals who say the plan will not work, which is unprecedented during war time for the military to speak out like that )

I forgot to juxtapose the two comments.

So, General Petraeus is a sniveling coward. Go on back to failing your students.

BTW Bob,

You never did address the polling issue. Let's just throw the insults around. What a horrible professor you must be with your attitude.

Michelle Malkin is nothing more than a slanty-eyed chink jap slope neocon bitch. Keith Olbermann is smart to stay home where it's safe.

Just the other day Professor Honeydew (Bob) was claiming NO ONE in the military thought Bush's plan WOULD work....he provided no evidence, no quotes, just the same selected Democrat talking points he is programmed to believe without question.

Another lie by the ultimate Bush lapdog.

Isn't lying a SIN,Cee,(the holy man of Bush.)

I not only provided evidence but names also.
I also posted this article, which contradicts your points, which isn't hard to do:

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

I'm outta here...and you lose again, naturally.

I have stated that the students are running 10-1 against this war and a much larger % against Bush in general.
My students pretty much mirror the US population as a whole.
==================================================
Once again, Bob reminds me of something I read the other day:
"That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right.

Translation –
While students are being taught by one of the most liberal groups of people in the country (teaches and professors), they tend to be liberal.

When they graduate and are exposed to the realities of things like the business world, they become conservative."

Sharon is learning to be just as deplorable, closed minded and empty-headed as her role models, Grammie and Ceals.

Sharon...didn't you say your were religious?

Sure doesn't look it !

When they graduate and are exposed to the realities of things like the business world, they become conservative."

Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 23, 2007 3:30 PM

I guess most of America who voted in Nov must be naive college students.

I guess most of America who voted in Nov must be naive college students.
=====================================================
Are we going to have to revisit the debate about whether conservatism really lost in November etc? I mean, I thought a lot of the voting was against wasteful spending and for a balanced budget. Isn't that pretty conservative?

And IF you remember my rebuttal, professor, I said an informed/objective reader would have no idea who the "Pentagon insiders," are and the see NO quotes. The Abizaid reference is out of context and the "reporter" does not specifically question the general with regards to the new plan. The quote was from over 2 months ago!

Anonymous sources.....no direct quotes or primary sources.....no CURRENT/IN CONTEXT comments.....

I would call this WaPo article yet another fine example of nonsense journalism....No sane person (the professor excluded of course!) can make a good judgement of events based on the information provided by the writer.

You lose again, dear professor....slink away....

slink away.....

slink away.....

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

I thought a lot of the voting was against wasteful spending and for a balanced budget. Isn't that pretty conservative?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 23, 2007 3:35 PM

You think a lot of things, and most of them are wrong.

The #1 reason people voted to kick out the republicans was because of their dissatisfaction of George W. Bush and his handling of the Iraq War.

Mea culpa, Bob, for whatever offended you. Look, here is more on the credibility of General Petreaus. If there was ever a time where a General could speak out, wouldn't now be the time? If he wasn't behind the President, he certainly would have the support of many, as you state. He may be one of the rare voices but he certainly has been in Iraq long enough to give valid feedback.

BTW, I didn't realize that you had not already placed me in the melting pot.

And IF you remember my rebuttal, professor, I said an informed/objective reader would have no idea who the "Pentagon insiders," are and the see NO quotes.

maybe Cee doesn't know who the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, but most of America does.

Cee is an idiot.

3:37.

Why was Lincoln Chaffe voted out?

You think a lot of things, and most of them are wrong.
====================================================
Wow, incredible rebuttal. I now see the light and hereafter reform my ways.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The #1 reason people voted to kick out the republicans was because of their dissatisfaction of George W. Bush and his handling of the Iraq War.
====================================================
Ok, fine. But how does that then mean that most people who voted in Nov were liberals? I now rest my case since you have invalidated your previous point for me. Thanks =D

Mea culpa, Bob, for whatever offended you. Look, here is more on the credibility of General Petreaus. If there was ever a time where a General could speak out, wouldn't now be the time? If he wasn't behind the President, he certainly would have the support of many, as you state. He may be one of the rare voices but he certainly has been in Iraq long enough to give valid feedback.

I'm not Bob, but Sharon you are indeed naive.

Our generals know that they are to give the answers that Bush wants to hear. I think someone explained this to you before. Maybe you forgot.
Generals have been fired who gave AN HONEST ANSWER" TO the president. The generals are not dumb. They know what to say, if they want to keep their jobs and pensions.

"Unnamed sources say..."
"An insider say..."
"My sources say..."
"My brother's wive's boss's son who is a soldier says..."

These are the prefixes of way too many of the Olbyloon's 'news' postings

Ok, fine. But how does that then mean that most people who voted in Nov were liberals? I now rest my case since you have invalidated your previous point for me. Thanks =D

Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 23, 2007 3:41 PM

Please show me where i said that most people who voted in Nov were liberals.
You are as blind as you are mixed up in your logic.
People have seen thru Bush's lies and actions.
THAT's WHY the GOP was voted out.
Funny how you seem to not see that well.
Those are the "grim "facts.

"Unnamed sources say..."
"An insider say..."
"My sources say..."
"My brother's wive's boss's son who is a soldier says..."

These are the prefixes of way too many of the Olbyloon's 'news' postings

This moron is copying the lies of the ranting Cee and uses them as words from "Olbyloons".
Disingenous a-holes !

"why was Lincoln Chaffe voted out?"

A really good question about a really good man! He was the one Republican who I would have like to have seen stay (out of the ones who were voted out).

My opinion is that the people in his state were trying to make a statement about the war that they felt could best be made by voting out as many Republicans as possible, even if it meant removing someone who had the good sense to have been against the war himself.

I do know what you are saying. What I was pointing out is that Bob (who quoted a poll of 1,150 Iraqis and never justified the polling) on the one hand quotes how unusual it is for the Generals/commanders to speak out and yet they are. Also, I did a little research on the General you specifically mentioned (excuse me, I have 3 kids running around and I sometimes lose track of things) I can't remember his name. It looks like he did get the shaft for speaking out. But it looks like some would have been out to get him in any case (Iraq or not). I have to go now, but I'll get more specific next time. I'll have to find the article I read). Have to make dinner...

Here's a "Disingenous a-hole" !

Bob 3:29
"Pentagon insiders say..."

Protest to much?

GENERALS WARN GATES AGAINST SURGE ( Bush May Not Defer to Military Opinion)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that senior U.S. commanders in Iraq have expressed concern that sending more troops to Iraq might delay that country from taking responsibility for its own security. In spite of a growing consensus against the surge proposal, President Bush has made it clear that the opinions of the nation’s military commanders may not trump the feeling he has in his gut, which is still telling him that victory is “achievable”. The only calls for more troops at this point come from those troops already in harm’s way, who say they would welcome help fending off constant attacks.

THE RIGHT ARE LIARS WHEN THEY SAY THE MILITARY IS FOR THIS ESCALATION !
CEE IS THE BIGGEST LIAR OF ALL.

"Why was Lincoln Chaffe voted out?"

The least powerful Republican in the Senate, who openly admitted that he was considering leaving the Republican Party, running in a deep blue Democratic state...kinda obvious, isn't it?

Please show me where i said that most people who voted in Nov were liberals.
====================================================
Ok:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"When they graduate and are exposed to the realities of things like the business world, they become conservative."

Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 23, 2007 3:30 PM

I guess most of America who voted in Nov must be naive college students."
===================================================
Now, if that was NOT you... well how can I tell since the poster directly above and the first post way above ARE BOTH BLANK as far as names go. So if the two of you were two different people... how was I supposed to know? (there wasn't even enough to go on to tell a difference stylistically)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are as blind as you are mixed up in your logic.
==================================================
Really? Let's see here. I post:
"While students are being taught by one of the most liberal groups of people in the country (teaches and professors), they tend to be liberal."

A reply is then made:
"I guess most of America who voted in Nov must be naive college students."

Thus, if you believe that those who voted in Nov were naive college students based upon what I said earlier, then you must believe that those who voted in Nov were liberals.
Let me translate the logic for you in an even simpler fashion.
1) x=green, y=purple
2) Majority must = purple
3) therefore, majority = y.

Now, is that too hard for you?

IRAN-IRAQ ARMS LINK UNTRUE, JUST LIKE WMDs; BUSH TO REPEAT LIE IN STATE OF UNION SPEECH

-- White House Assertion Unsupported By Evidence; First BushCo Iran War Lie Bites Dust --

WASHINGTON -- A Los Angeles Times article on Tuesday reports that despite administration assertions that advanced weaponry is crossing into Iraq via its border with Iran, little evidence supports the claim. "The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case," the article reports. "Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran." In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight`s State of the Union speech.

Here's a "Disingenous a-hole" !

Bob 3:29
"Pentagon insiders say..."

Protest to much?

are the JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF too vague for you ?

And you wonder why you lost the election.

maybe Cee doesn't know who the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, but most of America does.

Cee is an idiot.

No...I don't know who they are.....

Do you have a QUOTE from ONE PERSON (not an anonymous source who claims the Joint Chiefs said or did "blank?"

Please, you people are weak....I have a commanding general, with a distiguished record, smacking down your liberal ruling elite....And all you can come back with is a 10 day old WaPo story that relies on anonymous sources, testimony from 2 months ago that was not made in the context of a new plan involving 20,000 new troops.

Nevermind the fact that the impression Professor Honeydew likes to TRY to leave is that President Bush is ALONE in his plan....well that is a lie....a lie Olbermann tries to push on people nightly as well.

Lie.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

As the new items keep streaming in, totally making mince meat of the neo-nuts points, I wonder if they have selective vision !

Liberals quote news "generals expressed concern"

Liberals claims it means "generals opposed to"

Big variance and the stretch worthy of an Olbermann staffer.
Throw a couple unamed sources on top of it and its worthy
of a "speshul comintary!"

NY Times
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The American military command in Iraq is now willing to back a temporary increase in American troops in Baghdad as part of a broader Iraqi and United States effort to stem the slide toward chaos, senior American officials said Saturday.
GENERAL WAS AGAINST TROOP SURGE BEFORE HE WAS FOR IT:

President Bush and his advisers were told Saturday of the new position when Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met with them at Camp David, an administration official said.
Until recently, the top ground commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., has argued that sending more American forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province, the two most violent regions of Iraq, would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington, and in the words of one senior official, "make this feel more like an occupation."