Context Johnny. It's a wonderful thing.

Boxer: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.
You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

It's a legitimate line of questioning - and it's not as clear-cut an attack that you make it out to be. You could easily turn it around and attack Boxer, saying that she has no personal stake in it either.

Would it have been better if Boxer had said "Neither you nor I will pay a personal price"? Probably. But this seems to be picking at nits.

Odds are if Sen. Boxer does start getting some serious heat for her remarks to Rice, Keith will actually start defending the idea that only women with children can really appreciate the fears their sons/daughters will die in war, and his Dec. 15 comments about Laura Bush will simply go further down the Orwellian memory hole, the same way the Soviet Union used to update its history books to eliminate people/things from past editions that were now in conflict with the current party line.

> and it's not as clear-cut an attack that you make it out to be.

Just as Laura Bush's comments were legitimate and not the clear cut attack Olby made them out to be? And yet look how differently Olby treated them. WHY were Laura's comments headline news then, since THEY were certainly not a clear-cut attack? The reason is simple: Olbypocrisy.

Well done, Mr. Dollar... Excellent find.

I keep hearing the Republicons asking the Dems what their great plan is regarding the Iraq debacle.

Since when do Republicons need the dems to bail them out of self-made mess.

Right about now, I guess.

"The reason is simple: Olbypocrisy."

No, the reason is that you seem to kicking over rocks to find anything, no matter how trivial it is.

Note also the source - the New York Post. Why is is that the Post seems to have this telepathic ability that NO OTHER NEWS AGENCY HAS to pick up on things like this. I mean, not even FOX News has made this claim. So maybe it's a tempest in a teapot.

LOL Ensign... *that* was a legitimate line of questioning? How is it legitimate?

Are you kidding Johnny? Laura's attacks were vicious. One of the most vicious attacks i ever saw. Clearly brought on by a jealous rage over the time they spend together.

Barbara was sweet and kind. And since we know she is not partisan at all, she would never intentionaly attack the other side.

I keep hearing the Republicons asking the Dems what their great plan is regarding the Iraq debacle.

Since when do Republicons need the dems to bail them out of self-made mess.

Right about now, I guess.

===============================================

No, they keep asking Dems for a plan to prove a point. Democrats don't have one.

> Why is is that the Post seems to have this telepathic ability that NO OTHER NEWS AGENCY HAS to pick up on things like this.

Again, your own hypocrisy is showing. What about Olbermann's picking up on Laura Bush comments that NO ONE ELSE made a big deal about?

Besides that, you're not telling the truth. This exchange appeared in hundreds of papers because THE ASSOCIATED PRESS reported it. OK?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/ap/politics/mainD8MJEJRO0.shtml

So what excuse will you come up with now to defend the indefensible Olbermann?

"Why is is that the Post seems to have this telepathic ability that NO OTHER NEWS AGENCY HAS to pick up on things like this."

Seems to me it says more about the rest of the MSM than it does about this site or the NY Post.

Just courious about those who dont support the war. This is the official list of targets designated by the War on Terror. Which would you change?

Abu Sayyaf
al-Qaeda
Ba'ath Loyalists
Ba'athist Iraq
Hezbollah
Iraqi insurgency
Islamic Courts Union
Jemaah Islamiyah
Mahdi Army
Taliban
Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

"No, they keep asking Dems for a plan to prove a point. Democrats don't have one."

Foxy the Snowman said on Oh Really last night that he is asking the Dems for a plan in all sincerity. He said he wasn't being (his typical self), he was actually asking in all seriousness because it's important that "we get this right."

Apparently you didn't get the talking points memo.

Dems have floated plenty of plans. All of which have been branded "cut and run" when most actually aren't that at all.

"This exchange appeared in hundreds of papers because THE ASSOCIATED PRESS reported it. OK? So what excuse will you come up with now to defend the indefensible Olbermann?"

Did ANY OTHER REPORT use the same language that the Post did? Only the Post framed it as a personal attack. The AP did not.

As I said, Boxer's comment could have been better phrased. But it is a legitimate question of IMPACT OF POLICY. Laura Bush's remarks were not. That's why one is a legitimate line of questioning and the other is not.

I wish I had someone around to clean up any messes I make. Grown ups clean up there own messes, and The Bush Crime Family's mess just keeps expanding.

> Only the Post framed it as a personal attack. The AP did not.

Wow, that was a quick backpedal from your false claim that nobody reported it except the NY Post. Not even an admission that you weren't telling the truth. And as for what the AP said about it:

AP: "Even Rice's status as a single woman was fair game."

Yeah, slamming someone for not being married isn't a personal attack, is it? Sheesh! The lengths the OlbyLoons will go to in order to justify the hypocrisy and double standards of Monkeymann know no bounds. It certainly shoots their credibility all to hell.

Ensign, I'll ask again... How is it that that line of quesitoning was legitimate?

Anyone care to guess who (Corporation or Individual, since they have the same rights, you know) has made the most money off this war? Anyone? Anyone? Those Billions of dollars a day are going somewhere, and it's not to pay our brave men and women, that's for sure.

Billions of dollars a month, sorry, I got carried away.

LOL YouSoSelfDeluded... Bush Crime Family... boy that was funny. Can you work the McHitlerChimp thing into your next treatise...

What's a few Billion among cronie friends?

Just courious about those who dont support the war. This is the official list of targets designated by the War on Terror. Which would you change?

Abu Sayyaf
al-Qaeda
Ba'ath Loyalists
Ba'athist Iraq
Hezbollah
Iraqi insurgency
Islamic Courts Union
Jemaah Islamiyah
Mahdi Army
Taliban
Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

I think they have already answered the question thusly:

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Big Oil
Focus on the Family
Christians
Newt Gingrich
"the Jews"
Trent Lott
Donald Rumsfeld
Israel
US Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines
American Racism
Economic "Unfairness"
Pro Life Groups
The Internal Combustion Engine
Cigarette Smokers
WalMart

This is who they perceive as our enemies. Islamic madmen with nukes? "Purpoted" "Alleged" "Scare Tactic"

"LOL YouSoSelfDeluded... Bush Crime Family... boy that was funny. Can you work the McHitlerChimp thing into your next treatise..."

It would be funny, if it weren't true.

McHitlerChimp? Don't bring your wife into this.

"It would be funny, if it weren't true. McHitlerChimp? Don't bring your wife into this."

I know you are but what am I?

(Jesus, you guys are sure nuanced)

It's obvious that those who are prosecuting this war will share in the loss the least. Is that even debatable?

I finally caught Olbermann's last special comment; he rocked! "it is fertilizer; and the pile keeps getting higher." Dishing it out! Were there any attempts from the drowning rats here to dispute his statements? I've been too busy lately to waste any time arguing with the usual cast of fascist mind-slaves, so I don;t know what may have transpired on OW.

C'mon, Dollar, Cox, cee, et. al.: admit that your president is a demented shit-for-brains that is derailing our country for temporary power and fast money.

I see... to "prosecute" a war, you must first sacrifice a kid or offer up a close relative? Since Ms Rice didn't have kids, I guess she should have submitted to torture prior to be Sec of State?

You guys are deep...

"(Jesus, you guys are sure nuanced)"

I asssume by "You Guys" you mean anyone who disagrees with you, and by "Nuanced" I assume you mean thoughtful. The opening rants on this blog seem to set the 'name-calling' tone. You can't even read the first sentence without the name calling.

"it is fertilizer; and the pile keeps getting higher."

Sir Loin, we agree. These Special Comments are shit and the pile definitely keeps getting higher. I'm guessing he's going for, and doing well among, the "people that smoke shit and keep getting higher" demographic too.

No, I didn't say to prosecute a war you need to sacrifice a kid. I simply stated a fact that you have yet to refute. A fact you are apparently uncomfortable with. Rice is not the only one prosecuting this war. It's the suits in congress as well.

YouSoSelfDeluded... and your "analyses" have certainly raised the level of the debate (riiiiight)... I'm guessing you're not familiar with the context of Johnny Dollars "name-calling" (and what's behind it).

"I simply stated a fact that you have yet to refute."

Whatever you stated, I'm sure it was simple...

But, I'm really not sure which "fact", among allll of the "facts", you are talking about. Care to enlighten me?

Since your ADHD medication is wearing off, here you go again:

It's obvious that those who are prosecuting this war will share in the loss the least. Is that even debatable?

"YouSoSelfDeluded... and your "analyses" have certainly raised the level of the debate (riiiiight)... I'm guessing you're not familiar with the context of Johnny Dollars "name-calling" (and what's behind it)."

Since the 'debate' was about what aspect of people's personal lives should or shouldn't be off limits, any addition would be 'elevating' the level of debate. All my legitimate Q's like "Who's making the most money off this war?" go sadly unanswered. Belligerently Uninformed indeed.

"It's obvious that those who are prosecuting this war will share in the loss the least."

Here's a tip YouSoSelfDeluted... when you state something that is (in you vernacular) a "fact"... it would be nice if that fact had *a point*.

Personally, I don't know that it's "obvious", and I don't see that it has any place in any rational or intelligent discussion. If it's true or not true, my response would be the same... so what...

"I'm guessing you're not familiar with the context of Johnny Dollars "name-calling" (and what's behind it)."

Oh sure, I know what's behind it, as does anyone with an IQ above room temperature. A sad, pathetic person who's fear of Olbermann rivals only the fear of his own ignorance.

"Oh sure, I know what's behind it, as does anyone with an IQ above room temperature. A sad, pathetic person who's fear of Olbermann rivals only the fear of his own ignorance."

Ok, so you don't know what's behind it... no biggie, and certainly no reason to refer to yourself a having a low IQ.

I'm hoping this copy and paste will help you understand my point, but I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

Boxer: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

YouSoSelfDeluded, I've read and seen the quote. A quote is not a "point". Is your point that not paying "a personal price" means that the Sec of State has less moral authority to prosecute a war? If not, what is your point?

"Ok, so you don't know what's behind it."

Oh, I see, Keith must have spurned your amorous advances. Get over it. There are plenty of 6'5" ex-sportcasters with bushy eyebrows you can go after.

I noticed that Keith was in third place in his cherished 25 - 54 demographic Wednesday night beating out only Nancy Graceless.

"Oh, I see, Keith must have spurned your amorous advances. Get over it. There are plenty of 6'5" ex-sportcasters with bushy eyebrows you can go after."

LOL... I don't see what that has to do with my previous posts, but, please feel free to make homophobic jokes at my expense (if it makes you feel better)...

> The opening rants on this blog seem to set the 'name-calling' tone.

Why don't you cite the name-calling that you find objectionable. Please give me specific examples and I will attempt to defend them.

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

Please, Olbermann isn't going to do or say a damn thing that will open him up to the slightest bit of criticism from his fan base, the crazy Democrat/liberal loonies. He's a regular reader of those sites as his show reveals time and again, where they lift stories without attribution and without fact-checking them either for that matter. He knows how quickly they can turn on someone and he's not going to risk losing all that adulation or alienating his core base of viewers by actually reporting something that is less than kiss-ass to the liberals. Why doing that would make him a real journalist and we know that ship sailed long ago with Olby.

My God you are dense. Do I really have to beat the point over your head with a hammer so you 'get it?'

It's much easier to prosecute an ill-advised war when one doesn't pay a personal price. Duh.

Do you really not understand that the more one is 'removed' from a situation's dire consequences, the easier it is for that person to continue making the choices that lead to those consequences?

Jeezus man, it's amazing you are able to find the floor when you get our of bed in the morning.

And no, that's not to say in order to prosecute a war, one needs to lose a loved one. That would be twisting what I am saying. What I am saying is that if someone has the potential to experience the negative consequencese of their actions, they would undoubtedly make more thoughtful and considerate choices.

"Why don't you cite the name-calling that you find objectionable. Please give me specific examples and I will attempt to defend them."

Nice try. When did I ever say I 'objected' to the name calling? I don't. I was responding to the fact that you seemed to not appreciate my name calling, and I was merely pointing out that the whole basis for this blog begins with name-calling. I don't object. IF that's what you need to do to try to further your POV be my guest. It's you who seemed to not appreciate someone stooping to your level. Hypocrisy anyone?

You have it backwards. It's stooping to Keith Olbermann's level.

"Dems have floated plenty of plans. All of which have been branded "cut and run" when most actually aren't that at all.

Posted by: YouSoSelfDeluded at January 12, 2007 12:59 PM"

I can think of two. Redeploy to that super strategic island Okinawa OR to that other super strategic smaller than New Jersey Kuwait perched precariously on the shores of the Persian Gulf.

They were shot down in the blink of an eye, and not just by the Repubs.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"What I am saying is that if someone has the potential to experience the negative consequencese of their actions, they would undoubtedly make more thoughtful and considerate choices."

YouSoSelfDeluded... thanks (obviously I knew your "point"), however, your point is ridiculous/inane. Given the circumstances you cite, you might make more thoughtful and considerate choices... but, people of intelligence and conscience can make thoughful choices (regardless of the potential to experience the negative consequences). There are many many people who have experienced the negative consequences and fully support this administration's war on terror. I'm guessing that now makes it ok for you? ;-)

Seems the pro-Olbermann results of the site's little poll reflect your less than wonderous results on the "chip away at Keith's cred" front. Personally, I love it when blowhards waste effort and fart into the wind. Isn't O'Reilly on? Better get the Lubriderm out and rub one out, fellas...

"LOL... I don't see what that has to do with my previous posts, but, please feel free to make homophobic jokes at my expense (if it makes you feel
better)..."

Homophobic? Another nice try. I would have said the same thing had the target of your hatred been a woman. You chose your target not me, and I can't change your gender. Only you can do that.

Conservatives love to try to catch who they perceive as liberal doing what they do 24/7. I'm not sure if you are a Conservicon or not, but if the shoe fits...

...And BTW, Surprise, I'm not a liberal or a fan of Olbermann. So the 'You Guys' thing is a bit off-base.

YouSoSelfDeluded you protest too much :-). I was just making an observation (your homophobic joke) and not stating anything about hypocrisy or your politcal affiliation (you're the one doing that). Just because your "joke" was in bad taste, doesn't mean I think you're a homophobe, so relax...

"but, people of intelligence and conscience can make thoughful choices (regardless of the potential to experience the negative consequences)."

Human nature. Heard of it? Those prosecuting this war do have warm blood in their veins don't they?

"There are many many people who have experienced the negative consequences and fully support this administration's war on terror."

And there are many more that don't and the numbers are growing every day. And don't start with the tired 'war on terror' The war on terror is going on in Afghanistan where we are about to pull troops out. The Taliban. Heard of them? Read some news. They are more powerful and influential today than they were a year ago.

"YouSoSelfDeluded you protest too much :-)."

It's my nature. You may not guess it, but I am typing with a smile on my face.

LOL... so, to summarize... if you disagree with YouSoSelfDeluded then you have to have experienced negative consequences in order to have an opinion... however, if you agree with him, then you're good to go (regardless of this "negative consequences" thing).

Got it. Now we can move on... ;-)

I loved this post so much.....I'm posting it again...with some additions.....

Just courious about those who dont support the war. This is the official list of targets designated by the War on Terror. Which would you change?

Abu Sayyaf
al-Qaeda
Ba'ath Loyalists
Ba'athist Iraq
Hezbollah
Iraqi insurgency
Islamic Courts Union
Jemaah Islamiyah
Mahdi Army
Taliban
Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

I think they have already answered the question thusly:

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Big Oil
Focus on the Family
Christians
Newt Gingrich
"the Jews"
Trent Lott
Donald Rumsfeld
Israel
US Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines
American Racism
Economic "Unfairness"
Pro Life Groups
The Internal Combustion Engine
Cigarette Smokers
WalMart

This is who they perceive as our enemies. Islamic madmen with nukes? "Purpoted" "Alleged" "Scare Tactic"

Posted by: Mags at January 12, 2007 1:10 PM

Don't forget....

Gay Republicans
Evangelical Ministers
Patriotism
Conservative Talk Radio
FOX News Channel

Please join in!

"It's my nature. You may not guess it, but I am typing with a smile on my face."

From your posts, it's was apparent that you had a sense of humor and enjoyed the back and forth... (hell, how could I not like a guy who insults my politics, intelligence, wife, and sexual preference... all in one discussion thread! :-))

Have you guys ever heard the adage pick your battles. This one is a strange one to defend.
B Boxer is short on qualifications to be a Senator if that is how she behaves in her official capacity.

What's next, only the disabled are qualified to make policy affecting them. Blind for the blind rules, deaf for the deaf rules.

Only those with children in public school are qualified to run and make policy for schools.

Only students are qualified to determine curriculum, grading sytems and hire and fire teachers. Would Bob keep his job? :).

Absurdity knows no bounds.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I'm glad to know that while Democrats spend time talking about silly subjects like global warming, our president is concentrating on the global war that is being waged against us, which will only get worse if we disengage as the feckless Left wants us to. If they had an ounce of guts, Democrats would defund the war. But they don't and they wont.

Right now, radical Muslims are fighting Ethiopia, Israel, Russia, India, America, Iraq, Lebanon, Thailand, The Philippines ... shall I go on? Yet, the Left makes believe we're not really in a global war. And they call the president delusional!

As writer Jack Cashill says: "Ignorant of the past, our friends on the Left don't have a clue as to causes. Blind to the present, they don't see the need for solutions."

"Seems the pro-Olbermann results of the site's little poll reflect your less than wonderous results on the "chip away at Keith's cred" front. Personally, I love it when blowhards waste effort and fart into the wind. Isn't O'Reilly on? Better get the Lubriderm out and rub one out, fellas... "

Hello, the poll changed over the course of about 1 hour from overwhelmingly "Keith is worthless, fire him" to "$4 million a year sounds about right" about one week ago.....then to "Keith is priceless, give him whatever he wants" in about 30 minutes, I think this week sometime.

Some Olbermann apologist is futz'n with the poll...probably the demogogue himself.

Hey, if GE wants to waste 4 million on a talentless leftist shill with less than 500K audience...let'm have at it....I don't own their stock and I actually find the man's idiocy entertaining.

Right on, Grammie.....Right on, Seth!

The OlbyLoons misunderstand the purpose of the poll. Its purpose is not to determine the correct answer. The purpose is determine how many respondents KNOW the correct answer. If "Keith is priceless" gets a huge surge of votes, that doesn't mean he IS priceless. It just means there are many OlbyLoons who just aren't connected enough with reality to know the correct answer.

The Loons misunderstand a lot about this site Johnny, including the brilliance and hilarity of your KO-show recaps. Keep up the good work!

This is a Nazi site. If you support the war and are able bodied and not fighting, go fight! If you believe in winning the war in Iraq, you go fight for it and die for it. But if you believe in the war and sit at home drinking starbucks then shut up...

"If you support the war and are able bodied and not fighting, go fight! If you believe in winning the war in Iraq, you go fight for it and die for it. But if you believe in the war and sit at home drinking starbucks then shut up..."

LOLOL! That's the new leftloon talking point! LOL... and so forcefully stated too.

So Sirened, you were against the war in Afghanistan too?

I don't drink Starbucks, so I guess I don't have to shut up.

So glad you didn't bring martinis on the rocks.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Ya Grammie, I drink Starbucks, but I don't drink it while sitting at home... so i'm still good to go on the commenting also (which is nice). :)

1
Democrats say: "Bush has made mistake after mistake in Iraq for over three years, including the invasion itself."

Then Democrats say: "Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own country."

Translation: Iraqis are responsible for Bush's mistakes.

2
Democrats say: "Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own country."

Malaki says: We have formulated our own plan to try to bring peace to Baghdad by having Iraqi Forces take the lead in cracking down on violence with support from American forces.

Democrats then say: This is an awful plan we don't support.

Translation: Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own country, but we won't support that.

3
Democrats say: We will not cut off funding for the troops. We will give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself.

Democrats also say: This surge will only kill more troops. This war cant be won militarily. The war is criminal. We care about the lost AMerican lives.

Translation #1: We believe that this war is unwinnable and will only kill more troops. Therefore, we will not do anything to appose it in hopes that it criples Bush's presidency.

Or

Translation #2: We will give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself, and that rope will be made of American lives.

First, to Johnny Dollar:
"It just means there are many OlbyLoons who just aren't connected enough with reality to know the correct answer."

In other words, it's YOU stroking your EGO.

Good to know.

"Wow, that was a quick backpedal from your false claim that nobody reported it except the NY Post."

I pointed out that the New York Post, and ONLY the New Yopk Post, framed it in a negative manner. YOU chose to take it to mean that I said only the New York Post reported on it, which is NOT what I said or meant. So stop twisting my words and comeing up with patently absurd interpretations.

"The lengths the OlbyLoons will go to in order to justify the hypocrisy and double standards of Monkeymann know no bounds."

Sir, with all due respect, you do not know me so do not presume to call me a hypocrite to further your vendetta. You chose to TWIST MY WORDS to fit your preconceived notion of what I was saying. What does that say about you?

Now, to JohnE:
"How is it that that line of quesitoning was legitimate?"

Because it was a question of POLICY IMPACT - if you say "we are going to do X, Y, and Z", I can then ask you "well, what are the consequences of doing X, Y, and Z".

I have already stated that she could have phrased it better. But the underlying question was legitimate - what's the cost?

How many of you that believe in Bush's propaganda have traveled outside the US? I highly doubt very many of you O'Reilly viewers have. How many history majors are right wing?? Not many! Gee I wonder why? I have a history degree and have traveled all over the world, places like Turkey, Vietnam, all over Europe and lived in Australia for a year. I sure as hell believe more of Olberman than O'Reilly. You fools are the people that sophisticated Europeans laugh at and are the people that give America a bad name.

> do not presume to call me a hypocrite to further your vendetta.

I didn't call YOU a hypocrite, but if you chose to read it that way, I'll accept your version.

The fact remains that Olby blew up an innocent comment by Laura Bush into a headline story that he claimed insulted "half the population" (unmarrieds). But when Barbara Boxer makes a similar comment, in a far less innocent setting, he spikes the story. That's Olbypocrisy, and if you defend this double standard, then you have defined yourself.

"But when Barbara Boxer makes a similar comment, in a far less innocent setting, he spikes the story."

It's a matter of interpretation of the comment. YOU choose to see the comment as malicious. I see it as ill-formed, but relating to a matter of policy.

Again, it depends on what lens you use.

Why attack this guy if you think he's so crazy? You insult the intelligence of everyone who reads this by the manner in which you attempt to debunk Olbermann. You're scared because his ratings are rising when your savior O'Reilly's are falling. You're scared because those of us who are young will never trust Conservativism again. And you know it. So either do a coherent breakdown of every point you disagree with (like Olbermann does), or don't do anything at all. Namecalling is just infantile.

"I have a history degree and have traveled all over the world, places like Turkey, Vietnam, all over Europe and lived in Australia for a year"

Oh. my. god. Then let's all bow down to you... cause you've "traveled" and you've taking college courses.

"You fools are the people that sophisticated Europeans laugh at and are the people that give America a bad name"

I don't think "sophisticated" means what you think it means... ;-)

Gobirds... you too don't get the namecalling context in the show summaries that are posted here do you? (That's too bad).

"do a coherent breakdown of every point you disagree with (like Olbermann does)"

Like Olbermann does... that's a good one... my favorite line of this thread so far!

EE, no matter how she phrased it, if the implication was what it appears to be, she was wrong.

By her logic, she herself is unqualified because she has no immediate stake in the outcome either. And neither do I. Kids too old, grandkids too young. And both of us will probably be long gone from this life before the ultimate outcome of any decisions are fully felt.

One could make a far better argument that disinterested parties make far better judges of anything. Hasn't there been a tidal wave of accusations that Bush et al are unqualified because they have a monetary interest, which in their case obviously overrides their familial interest.

Boxer was out of line on that one. She achieved with her base making a moral accusation against Condi Rice in a underhanded way.

What next. Generals have to have a child in every battle they plan?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I also wanted to mention that this is not the first time Boxer has gotten out of hand with Condi Rice. I watched some of the confirmation hearings for Condi Rice.

B Boxer went after her to the point she looked and sounded like a screeching fishmongers wife.

I don't know if there a history between them or not. I do know this makes twice for Boxer.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

JohnE, you didn't answer the question. Have you traveled outside the US? Hmm...it's just like I said. Most of you right wingers are so narrow minded, you just take everything at face value and don't put things in a historical context. Do you know why 9/11 happened? It happened because Muslims like Osama got pissed that we had troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. It angered Muslims that we had troops in near their holiest place. We provoked 9/11. Why don't countries like Holland, Switzerland, Scandavian countries get attacked by terrorists? It's because they mind their own business internationally and take care of their own people. It's why these countries have a higher per capita standard of living than the US. I believe the US ranks about 12th in standard of living worldwide. Did you neocons know that?

This is a Nazi site. If you support the war and are able bodied and not fighting, go fight! If you believe in winning the war in Iraq, you go fight for it and die for it. But if you believe in the war and sit at home drinking starbucks then shut up...
====================================================
ONCE AGAIN, I have to bring up the obvious point that the military DOES NOT ACCEPT ANYONE AND EVERYONE. See, there's this little annoying thing called "physical requirements." If you fail any of those, or have some prexisting conditions YOU CAN'T JOIN.

I know because I applied and was turned down. A good friend of mine joined the Air Force and was forced to come home just a few weeks after basic because of a severe asthama attack (something he hadn't experienced for YEARS).

So to all morons that like to make the above "point", how about asking first if someone has even TRIED to serve? (or have served and their tour of duty is over, etc)

JohnE, you didn't answer the question. Have you traveled outside the US? Hmm...it's just like I said. Most of you right wingers are so narrow minded, you just take everything at face value and don't put things in a historical context. Do you know why 9/11 happened? It happened because Muslims like Osama got pissed that we had troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. It angered Muslims that we had troops in near their holiest place. We provoked 9/11. Why don't countries like Holland, Switzerland, Scandavian countries get attacked by terrorists? It's because they mind their own business internationally and take care of their own people. It's why these countries have a higher per capita standard of living than the US. I believe the US ranks about 12th in standard of living worldwide. Did you neocons know that?
==================================================
Ummm...... Other countries HAVE been attacked. Spain, Britian, (anyone remember the name of that pacific country that was a couple years back?), hey! remember the artist (Theo Van Gogh) that was behead in... I think it was holland.

And where did you get that stand of living statistic. I'm calling BS until I get a source on it. (your post seems to make "liberals" seem even MORE narrow minded)

JohnE, what were you thinking? Those sophisticated caring for their people who gave us both World Wars have spoken.

What else did you expect UBL to do other than give us our just deserts for provoking them. I hadn't heard that line for a while, so naturally it slipped my mind that we brought 911 on our own heads. US bases and troops in Saudi Arabia during the terms of three presidents. Lets impeach them all.

As a narrow minded rube, I'm so glad to have my sophisticated nuanced betters tell me what to believe.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"It's a legitimate line of questioning"

It's only a legitimate line of questioning if you think that foreign policy decisions should only be made by the families of those in the military. I give Boxer the benefit of the doubt that she's not that stupid, in which case the line of questioning could only be illegitimate hyperbole.

Having said that, it's only a wonder Olbermann didn't think of it first.

Blame American First Democrat...hurrah they arrived! American STINKS, the rest of the world is great!

Hey Sirened...what has your party done to change United States Foreign Policy to fit your narrow world view....Isolationism? Sounds great, but is it really realistic? Did Bill Clinton act like The Prime Minister of Sweden?

Have you thought this one out, Sirened? Do you remember who Sweden supported during WWII? Do you remember where all the victim's of The Holocaust's money was put....neutral Switzerland's banks? Nice...be practical...learn some history.