Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    April 27, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - April 27, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • IRAQ: Larry Johnson, fmr. CIA officer and fmr. deputy director of the Office of Counterterrorism at the State Department; Dana Milbank, MSNBC political analyst
    • DEMOCRATIC DEBATE REACTIONS: Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com national political reporter
    • CELEBRITIES IN TROUBLE: Michael Musto, Village Voice

    Shockingly, the opening spiel began with Olbermann asserting that the President clearly lied because Tenet stated in his book there was no "serious debate" about the war. Dick Durbin tells the truth like no one else. Would he have been a patriot if he violated his oath of secrecy regarding classified intelligence to stop the Iraq war? The great attorney scandal [Ding!]. The hour of spin ensues.

    UPDATE: Video & Transcript

    #5: The hour of spin began like all before it, Bush lied! According to Herr Olbersturmfuhrer, there was no doubt anymore. Why? Because Dick Durbin said so. George Tenet, now worthy of being mentioned on Keith's show in a way that's not completely hateful because he's criticizing the administration, fills in the gaps for Keith's continuing argument the war was sold on lies. Though Keith doubts his sincerity because of the money he received for his book. Larry Johnson parrots Keith and suggests that Mr. Tenet was like "Al Capone's accountant." Thus, George Bush is Al Capone. Huh? Is Larry suggesting that the administration is like that of organized crime? Or is the President a tax evader because he is talking about the accountant? Proof? Not necessary on Olby Planet. Slander and smear whomever you want. Unusual for KO, he plays a clip of Dan Bartlett, Counselor to the President, rebutting the claim the war was sold on the "slam dunk" claim. Of course, Keithy couldn't contain himself and called Mr. Bartlett the "designated hatchet man" to discredit people who write "dangerous books." Dick Cheney clip follows using the "slam dunk" line yet the clip is strangely silent. Two-minute clip of Dick Durbin on the Senate floor aiming for forgiveness because he didn't tell the American people about the lies the administration was spreading about intelligence. Durbin "wanted to do something about it" but he couldn't, because he had to follow the law. Olby, of course, forgives him because he voted against the Iraq war bill. Keith leaves out the fact that several other Democrats on the committee voted for the war despite seeing that intelligence and hearing the administration's "lies." Man on Fan wonders what prevented Durbin and Tenet from "telling the truth." Johnson replies "carelessness." I guess so. They must have been too lazy to pay attention to the intelligence until four years later. Again, House Boy wonders if people should accept jail to stop a country from being "destroyed" and causing the deaths of 3,000 American soldiers rather than respecting the oath they take. Johnson continues to pleasure Keith by suggesting that Tenet himself is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq. Keith pretends that he knows how history would have turned out if Colin Powell had resigned - never gone into war in the first place. Keith knows all, as usual. Johnson sums up Keith's dream by calling Tenet a coward and again suggesting that Tenet is solely responsible for all American soldiers killed in Iraq. Keith responds as if he's the listening to his preacher: AMEN! Lame joke follows about the Medal of Freedom surprisingly not leaping from Tenet's neck. Great thanks.

    Dana Milbank, sadly without any interesting apparel, chimes in on the Iraq funding bill. Monkey Man claims Bush is "pretending Democrats are not sending him the funds." Of course, the President has never said anything to that effect. He is vetoing the bill because it has a timetable, not because he's not getting the money he wants. Big difference. Milbank parrots and agrees. KO, ever the one who wonders, asks what the symbolism is behind the veto coming on the four-year anniversary of the "Victory Accomplished" speech. Question about Dick Durbin's "extraordinary" statement. Is there a point in having a Senate intelligence committee? Apparently not. Classified information doesn't really matter. A great time is had by all. Great thanks.

    Quick commercial break about the "fresh stench of scandal [Ding!]."

    #4: Incredibly funny caption of "No E-mails For You" testing his viewers knowledge of Seinfeld. Blabbing for a couple minutes about the "scandal" and missing e-mails. Picture of Rep. Christine Jennings (D) mistakenly put up for Scott Jennings. Olbermahn's idea of a hard news segment.

    Oddball. Skydiving stylist. Deer-inquents (har!) invade nursing home. PCs turned into dominos. Yawn.

    #3: Meet the Dems. Debate seems like a job interview to Keith. Democrats are nice to each other. The President is the target. Requisite clips bashing the war in Iraq. Chris Cilizza enters the Spin Zone when Keith throws out the hardball of, "When people up to and including Pat Buchanan say Hilary Clinton looked Presidential last night. When people up to and including Chris Matthews say she sounded and appeared likeable and pleasant, does that mean she scored most highly last night?" But of course she did! Like one had to wonder what the answer was to that in OlbyLand. Cilizza lauded Clinton followed by Keith's doubts on Obama and Richardson's "gun stance" (aka, not in favor of a complete firearm ban) and "benefit of the doubt" vis a vis Attorney General Gonzales. More wondering if, gasp!, attacks may follow after the niceness of last evening's debate. Snooze inducing musings. Great thanks. Clips of Matthews laughing in a funny way. Keith's way of getting back at Matthews making note of Keith's inability to deal with anyone who disagrees with him.

    #2: Regurgitated video from HQ on Stephen Hawking on a zero gravity flight. Keeping Tabs segment follows with Fat Ass using not one, but TWO gut busting fart jokes regarding Hugh Grant. I believe Edward R. Murrow pioneered the use of fart jokes in his broadcasts. Grant is in trouble for using a "silent, but deadly" weapon (throwing a container of baked beans). He was released on bail after being charged with suspicion of assault under the common law principle that "whoever smelt it, dealt it." Classy.

    #1: The totally normal Michael Musto chimes in on Richard Gere for offending some Indians for kissing a Bollywood actress, which was regarded as obscene. Alec Baldwin clips from The View on his daughter. Musto makes reference to the gerbil rumor from the 90s. Murrow would be proud. Great thanks.

    In the Media Matters minute, all the necessary slots were filled. The bronze went to John "Gibby" Gibson (Fox News) for comments on Iraqis (Blue Blog source: Media Matters). Runner up: Richard McCain for declining to call for Alberto Gonzales resignation soon enough for Olby (Blue Blog source: Media Matters). The gold goes to, guess who, a Republican! John Boehner for calling for a withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, which is totally comparable in a world changed by 9/11 (Blue Blog source: Think Progress).

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name slumped to #4,875 at amazon.com, but "Culture Warrior" is #542. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) The OlbyTome remains unranked at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #1,008 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. The MisterMeter was bored.

    UPDATE: Video & Transcript

    Keith Olbermann interviews Larry Johnson on George Tenet book



    Posted by Edward Schatz | Permalink | Comments (247) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    247 Comments

    A big Olbermann Watch welcome to newest OlbyWatch contributor Teddy Schatz who is going to fill in for J$ who is taking the night off.

    So "Big Pussy" Tenet goes state's-evidence in book form. The lies on which the Republican world-view is based are still spinning off into space - what are you morons going to do?

    Good for Olbermann! - sticking it to Durbin as well as Tenet for keeping his mouth shut when it mattered. Don't expect an old-school status quo Democrat to win the presidential nomination - progressives are looking for a change.


    "Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%). The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 35% of voters are opposed to both of these options for ending the war."

    The principled Kucinich is being noticed by angry voters who don't give a crap about what over-fed gossip columnists like Milbank have to say about him.

    Wouldn't it be fun if the Elf Lord ran as an Independent?

    Is this envious Olby's payback for being constantly overshadowed by Chris Matthews? A videotaped montage of HA! Sorry, Olby - you stink at both live coverage and panel discussions.

    Cillizza, "the highlight of the night was Biden's "yes" answer" Wow, go dems, yawn....

    Boehner makes Worst Person!! About time. That mercenary used to be my representative, and I can vouch that there's not a decent, honest, or honorable bone in his body - in any case not one that's not for sale.

    f--- Cilliza and all the other fading gossip-mongers. Was he really saying that the debate goes to the guy that some pundits think made the best joke? The swelling ranks of American progressives all know the high points were really:

    - Gravel calling Biden out for being a blowhard; always talking tough but in reality too timid to buck the Republican war machine. This guy is a breath of fresh air.

    - and Kucinich pointing out that we "already are paying for universal health care; we're just not getting it". Sharp, quick, and spot on.


    Richardson did OK, made a lot of sense, but was not sufficiently inspiring - but he's on my list.

    Everybody else was and remains a waste of time; shifty realism, campaign-stump piety, and scripted poll-results.

    Sir Loin:
    Clean up the posts or take your junior high school gutter lingo elsewhere.

    If you can't act like an adult; you'll be treated as a child.

    Boehner makes Worst Person!! About time. That mercenary used to be my representative, and I can vouch that there's not a decent, honest, or honorable bone in his body - in any case not one that's not for sale.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 27, 2007 9:51 PM
    Translation: He actually has a back bone.

    Chris Matthews is no journalist - he a gushing, drooling (I swear Axelrod - even over the video feed - was wiping Tweety's flying spittle off his face with that hankerchief) sycophant.

    Matthews has said that Bush "shines...with a sunny nobility", that he is "Lincolnesqe", and a couple of my favorites:


    "He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign?"


    "We're proud of our president. Americans love having a GUY as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president."


    He's stupid as well as being a power-worshipping closet-fag. He tries harder than Monica ever did to earn those "presidential kneepads".

    Has Matthews handed a politician a check on air during an interview?

    Has Matthews handed a politician a check on air during an interview?

    Posted by: at April 27, 2007 10:41 PM


    I don't know; but I suspect he generally is on the recieving end of such transactions.

    ....and I don't really know the point of your question, unless the charity-check that Olbermann gave Clinton, to which you are apparently referring, happened to be made out to someone"looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot."

    Of course you don't get the point of the question. You, like Olbermann, don't get the first thing about journalistic ethics. If you did, you and he'd know that was a clear sign of a huge conflict of interest and something that is just NOT done by ethical journalists.

    I never said Olbermann was an ethical journalist.

    Bob,
    What have you done to Johnny Bu$hwipe?
    What is this mockery of Johnny Bu$hwipe's tradition?

    "Posted by ESchatz at April 27, 2007 8:20 PM"

    Could you have at least resorted to that other useless moron Brandon?


    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    (I liked how Matthews is smiling the whole time as he sticks the knife in. Priceless.)
    olby@olbywatch.com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    >Teddy Schatz
    >OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch

    More news from the family values party !

    Deputy Sec Of State Resigns...
    Was Client Of DC Escort Service.

    Too damn funny !

    Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation.

    Tobias, 65, director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), had previously served as the ambassador for the President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief.

    A State Department press release late Friday afternoon said only he was leaving for "personal reasons."

    Another great hire in the long list of great decisions by Bush.

    And this is YOUR party...the people YOU support.

    Idiots...one and all !

    "WASHINGTON - Randall Tobias, head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said two people in a position to know the circumstances of his departure."

    Geeeeee... Bush Supporters... let's focus on K.O.'s dick size for the weekend.
    By Monday, the latest embarrassment and the Iraq war will be all better.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.

    Idiots, one and all!

    Way to switch gears and pages little Jeffrey..after getting your ass handed to you with FACTS !

    jUST KEEP "PUNTING".

    So investigate Feinstein - but she needs to get in line and wait her turn.

    For all the loyal republicans who can ONLY find fault with Democrats or Olby....and refuse to see what this White House is doing...let me repeat :

    The Bush Administration has now cut out reporting car bombs and explosive devices when reporting of the violence in Iraq !

    ( and then right wing blogs and news organizations report on "improvements' in Iraq)

    That's like not counting the drowning victims on the Titanic !

    Way to switch gears and pages little Jeffrey..after getting your ass handed to you with FACTS !

    jUST KEEP "PUNTING".

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 12:32 AM
    Call it what you want, anonyloon, I was making a point. You obviously aren't bright enough to understand or your vision is a little clouded.

    patty, are you stupid enough to think no democrats have their phone numbers logged in those 15 lbs. of phone records? You're a joke.

    Fascist BovineQueen sez:

    patty, are you stupid enough to think no democrats have their phone numbers logged in those 15 lbs. of phone records? You're a joke.
    Posted by: royalking at April 28, 2007 1:26 AM

    Bovine, obviously you still haven't been to the eye doctor.

    Let me help you here open them big blue bovine peepers:

    "Randall Tobias,
    head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs,
    abruptly resigned Friday
    after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said
    two people in a position to know
    the circumstances of his departure."

    You Bush Supporters might as well start bathing, again, with the Real Raygun Repuglikunt waters to wash off the BU$HWIPE as you head toward '08.

    Oh, wait... you are doing it already!

    GO RUDY!

    My apologies for taking so long to post the write up. I'm still learning the ropes and trying to make sure what you read is somewhat enjoyable. Except the OlbyLoons. They'll love it no matter what.

    Mr Schatz, I am most impressed! Very nicely done. Welcome to OlbyWatch and thanks for giving me the night off!

    Ed Bu$hwipe Schatz sez:

    My apologies for taking so long to post the write up. I'm still learning the ropes and trying to make sure what you read is somewhat enjoyable. Except the OlbyLoons. They'll love it no matter what.
    Posted by: Edward Schatz at April 28, 2007 2:04 AM

    You are welcome, Ed!

    We know them Johnny $'s big assclown shoes are a tall order, but if you are willing to take the abuse, come and show the world what a BU$HWIPE you are.

    BTW. You need to post the K.O.s recap in real time. And don't forget a little innuendo about K.O.'s dick size. Always a clincher to defend from the "LBURLS" claims that Moron in Chief has lost the war and wrecked the (R) party.

    Thank you! Bob!

    Not just any inside "Seinfeld" reference, but a "Soup Nazi" reference. Keef is up to his old trick implying the Bush Administration uses Nazi tactics.

    Eight Dem candidates for Prez. All flew in on seperate private jets. These hypocrites ain't walkin the walk. Olbyloons will probably spin some sh-t and try to say it's no big deal. Damn hypocrites.

    bobby, aren't there any bridges within walking distance of your institution? I read your post, you didn't have your nurse read mine. Now, go get her or him ( I have a feeling you like hims) and have them read my response to your post. There will be many dems on that list, you wait and see.

    Geee... there goes BovineQueen again.

    There will be many dems on that list, you wait and see.
    Posted by: royalking at April 28, 2007 2:50 AM

    We have been over the list so many times, and every time you Bush Supporters come out as pervert, corrupt, inept, delusional liars.

    Let's see here:

    Nixon,
    Dick Cheney,
    Dumbsfelt,
    Raygun,
    Bush,
    Bush (the Stupid one)
    ... wow... what a legacy (R)

    just wait and see.

    Booby, do you read your posts? What are you even talking about? I was joking about you being institutionalized, now I am wondering if I was right.....you are one sick idiot.

    Bovine, I sure read my posts.
    And I'm glad you do too.

    Everybody can see your stupidity in your "shut the prick" and "There will be many dems on that list, you wait and see" hallucinations.

    I was making a broader reference to the disastrous paranoid policies on the side that you defend.
    Oh, wait... BovineQueen (I) is defending:

    Nixon,
    Dick Cheney,
    Dumbsfelt,
    Raygun,
    Bush,
    Bush (the Stupid one)
    The Iraq war
    ... wow... what a legacy (R)

    Oh Bovine, we all are wondering, just how many muslims have you shot with your cowboy hat and the trusty bud light 40 oz?

    So Tenet is angry because his "slam dunk" comment about weapons of mass destruction was leaked out? Well excuse me Mr. Tenet but you shouldn't be saying anything is a "slam dunk" unless it acutally is a "slam dunk". It was a real cowardly move to pass the buck to a guy with a 9% approval just to take some heat of yourself. And don't think I forgot about your failures to kill Osama Bin Laden in the 90's when you had the man located multiple times.

    And Dick Durbin. Oh brother. Where to start with this guy. He couldn't tell the American people what was going on because he was "sworn to secrecy"? Well, that hasn't stopped you guys before when you revealed classified materials to the media time and time again.

    Tenet is saying..and remember...HE WAS THERE...that ther ewas no debate...no discussion over going to war in iraq.

    It's been well documented how the seeds of this war germinated in the early 90's.
    Anyone who knows history,knows THAT'S the slam dunk of guilt on this current administration.

    BUsh took Tenet's "Slam Dunk" and ran with it to the American people, while bypassing other CIA reports doubting WMD.
    That's dishonest...and just one of the lies that lead us into the disasterous war we are now in .

    Good job, ESchatz!

    Notice how idiots like little jeffrey , James,Cee etc never mention "4 deferments" Cheney when speaking of cowards.( and AWOL Bush)

    It's only decorated military men that are the "cowards " in their book....like Jack Murtha, W. Clarke Kerry etc.

    Cecilia notices how all of her beliefs are crumbling all around her ( if she's even noticing)
    The worst things get for her party and president the more esoteric, vague and convoluted her posts become.

    At least Cecilia isn't afraid to put her NAME on her posts. More than I can say for the anonymous loving freaks that post here, the ones who seem to think that this board is devoted to their personal persecution of the Bush administration and all things Republican. Yes, we're horrible people for trying to discuss a left-wing hack "journalist" like Olbermann on a site called Olbermannwatch. The nerve of us!

    Cecilia notices how all of her beliefs are crumbling all around her ( if she's even noticing)
    The worst things get for her party and president the more esoteric, vague and convoluted her posts become.

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 10:40 AM


    Now, Anonyloon, if Bush had an approval rating of 100%, you wouldn't be any more complimentary of my posts.

    I'm thinking of doing "wishful thinking" narratives for myself since I get so many stated to me "Cecelia feels her world is as a surreal china pattern from the table of Beetlejuice and his eccentric 18th century aunt and name-sake."

    We 're not "persecuting Bush and all things republicans"...the facts do that for us.

    (Much to your chagrine)

    And to think the best you have is criticize what NAME or lack of name people write down shows how utterly shallow you wingnuts are.

    "At least Cecilia isn't afraid to put her NAME on her posts..."

    Thanks for summing up the total substance of her posts.

    At least Cecilia isn't afraid to put her NAME on her posts..."

    Thanks for summing up the total substance of her posts.

    Posted by: at April 28, 2007 10:58 AM


    I think it's perfectly reasonable that you wouldn't want to sign yours.


    Here's one you can use Anonyloon:

    Cecelia feels her feet are as tired and numb as an aging cowboy-president's polling digits served up on the sweaty paper plates of a wingnut prayer breakfast.

    Less than a year ago, you mental disorder toting whack jobs were blasting Tenant every chance you got. Now, he writes a book about the Bush administration (negative) and he is your new hero. Simply pathetic and proving you couldn't think for yourselves if your lives depended upon it. Did I mention how pathetic you are?

    "Bovine Queen"/"BU$HWIPE", did you notice on another thread that AAP characterized the use of satirical nicknames as an abandonment of reason... :D

    Who is presenting Tenet as a "hero"? He's an oportunistic piece of sh-t. He isn't writing anything that I didn't know five years ago - he is only confirming now - for millions of dollars and at a time when his capo's crew is folding - that he toed the lfascist ine when he could have done the honorable thing.

    Cecelia sez:

    >I read someone calling John Edwards by the
    >perfect nickname.

    >"Silky Pony" :D
    >Posted by: Cecelia at April 28, 2007 12:23 AM

    DAMN!!

    Finally Cecelia is dropping all pretenses of
    reasoning.

    "If Silky Pony wins, the terrorists will strike again..."

    Cecelia, go sit over there next to BovineQueen, shut up and try, do try to look pretty.
    Posted by: Average American Patriot at April 28, 2007 12:31 AM

    "Bovine Queen"/"BU$HWIPE", did you notice on another thread that AAP characterized the use of satirical nicknames as an abandonment of reason... :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 28, 2007 11:22 AM

    Now Cecelia, let me help you to read so you'll understand what you have posted before.

    Change "Silky Pony" for "Billary," like this:

    "If Billary wins, the terrorists will strike again..."

    Better yet, as in your original post:

    "I really think....this terrific country will survive Silky Pony, Billary, Obama Hussein... (a Democratic President) in office....

    I really think....this terrific country will survive a Democratic President in office....

    Here's your ritual suicide sword back. It looks like you're going to need it....
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 17, 2007 8:57 PM

    Dick has used the line, Cecelia repeats it, and now Rudy too.

    Capisce?

    Not just any inside "Seinfeld" reference, but a "Soup Nazi" reference. Keef is up to his old trick implying the Bush Administration uses Nazi tactics.

    Posted by: ObserverDan at April 28, 2007 2:42 AM


    Have you ever seen the movie "Judgement at Nuremburg"? That was all about exploring the subversion of German justice and the rule of law through a legal system subverted into a network of partisan magistrates fulfilling the arbitrary desires of those in power. This is precisely what Bush/CHeney/Rove were doing through Gonzales in the US attourney scandal.

    They aren't Nazis, but they're sure as hell fascist.

    Less than a year ago, you mental disorder toting whack jobs were blasting Tenant every chance you got. Now, he writes a book about the Bush administration (negative) and he is your new hero. Simply pathetic and proving you couldn't think for yourselves if your lives depended upon it. Did I mention how pathetic you are?

    Posted by: royalking at April 28, 2007 11:19 AM

    ...and royalking, perhaps you should apply the same standard to the mind-slaves on your side. Tenet was just fine with you all when he smiled and recieved that medal from Bush. How many times was his word cited by Cheney et, al, as a keystone for their war plans?

    Tenet's revelations are useful to the case being rapidly built against the Bush administration, but hopefully we'll see an indictment go his way as well - for official negligence, or maybe treason.

    US Attourney David Iglesias on Bill Maher last night on why he was fired by the Bush administration:

    "I swore an oath to the US Constitution, not to the Republican Party of New Mexico"

    A Republican with integrity - driven out and falsely maligned. You should all take note and hang your miserable heads in shame for what you've let your party become.

    ...and royalking, perhaps you should apply the same standard to the mind-slaves on your side. Tenet was just fine with you all when he smiled and recieved that medal from Bush. How many times was his word cited by Cheney et, al, as a keystone for their war plans?

    Tenet's revelations are useful to the case being rapidly built against the Bush administration, but hopefully we'll see an indictment go his way as well - for official negligence, or maybe treason.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 28, 2007 12:28 PM
    Nice to see you hold yourselves to a very low standard. That "same standard" you refer to is where the word "sheeple" came from, no thanks. I prefer to draw my own conclusions rather than to follow the herd with no leader, just wondering aimlessly looking for something to munch on. Where's "philby" hiding? Or "rudy ramirez?"lol

    Nice to see you hold yourselves to a very low standard. That "same standard" you refer to is where the word "sheeple" came from, no thanks.

    Posted by: royalking at April 28, 2007 12:40 PM


    So truth and legal accountibility represent a "low standard"?

    By the way, the "same standard" - the one you say is responsible for "sheeple" - is the one you weighed in with - your attenton span is remarkably short.

    What's funny is all the cowards that were fired were invited on Bill O'Reilly's show and none of them have the nads to go on with him, as of yet. The offer was made right after the "scandal" broke weeks and weeks ago. Bill Maher, what a joke. No there's a fine "journalist," not.

    The "same standard" I was referring to is the one that jumps on the first band wagon that criticizes Bush, anyone and everyone, no matter who. If the devil himself wrote a book criticizing Bush, you sheeple would be right there aligning yourselves with him, too!

    Bill Maher is a commedian. Iglesias is a principled prosecutor who spoke clearly and directly on his show.

    Do you only believe things that you see through O'Reilly's lens? ...that was a stupid question, of course you do.

    I'm telling ya Bovine.

    Better go to see the Bovine eye doctor and have them peepers checked out.

    Cows do see color!

    Not you Bovine.

    The "same standard" I was referring to is the one that jumps on the first band wagon that criticizes Bush, anyone and everyone, no matter who. If the devil himself wrote a book criticizing Bush, you sheeple would be right there aligning yourselves with him, too!

    Posted by: royalking at April 28, 2007 12:50 PM


    Once again, you are creating your own narative to mask the psychic pain of losing your world-view. No one is "aligning themselves" with that fat f--- - Tenet is a self-serving mobster who is cashing in on what he knows when its clear that his Family is going down the tubes along with their apparatus of retribution.

    The legal system listens to turncoat mobsters all the time, but that's hardly "aligning themselves" with them.

    At least Cecilia isn't afraid to put her NAME on her posts. More than I can say for the anonymous loving freaks that post here, the ones who seem to think that this board is devoted to their personal persecution of the Bush administration and all things Republican. Yes, we're horrible people for trying to discuss a left-wing hack "journalist" like Olbermann on a site called Olbermannwatch. The nerve of us!

    Posted by: brandon at April 28, 2007 10:42 AM

    Oh, Baby Brandon wants us to play the game his way or he'll take his doll and go home to mommy. Shame on us! Why can't we understand that this game is sticking pens in Keith not Bush!

    Yeah, it's just so arrogant of me to want to discuss the biases and f----ups of Keith Olbermann on a site called Olbermannwatch isn't it? Do you realize how insanely stupid you look in your childish insistance that you should be allowed to set the agenda on someone else's website? But I guess running your own websites would take money and time and since you're probably living of Mommy and Daddy or sucking off the goverment's tit, you don't really have the money to do that now do you?

    Brandon the BU$HWIPE sez:

    Do you realize how insanely stupid you look in your childish insistance that you should be allowed to set the agenda on someone else's website? But I guess running your own websites would take money and time and since you're probably living of Mommy and Daddy or sucking off the goverment's tit, you don't really have the money to do that now do you?
    Posted by: Brandon at April 28, 2007 3:15 PM

    Oh, Bob, Johnny, Brandon, Levine, et al.

    Do you realize how insanely stupid you look in your childish insistance that you should worry about KO's dick size instead of the sorry state of the BU$HWIPE administration?

    "Know something about Keith Olbermann?
    Send it to us!"

    Thank you Bob!!

    Do you realize how insanely stupid you look in your childish insistance that you should worry about KO's dick size instead of the sorry state of the BU$HWIPE administration?

    "Know something about Keith Olbermann?
    Send it to us!"

    Thank you Bob!!


    Posted by: Average American Patriot at April 28, 2007 3:45 PM
    Idiot, you bring up keefy's dick size in most of your posts, I think you should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who is obsessed with his dick sizesince 90% of your posts include that crap. If I went back and reposted all of your posts mentioning it, it would fill 2 pages. All others combined would be maybe 3 or 4 posts total.

    "Bodies of the dead" of 9/11 WTC "used to fill potholes"...?!?

    Yo, Cox, before you say another word about Olbermann's "Special Comment" bits, you really need to address 9/11 victims mixed into pavement (he mentioned it Wednesday, and I'd never heard of it before. As if I wasn't disgusted enough already.)

    WTF is this $#!+...?!?
    http://www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com/

    good writeup !

    "But I guess running your own websites would take money and time and since you're probably living of Mommy and Daddy or sucking off the goverment's tit, you don't really have the money to do that now do you?"

    Brandon, do you have anything better to do? Or do you insist on being an a--hole because you enjoy it? I find you REPULSIVE, VILE and a LIAR. If I met you on the street, I would punch you in the face!

    And before you ask, I DO have a job (a very well-paying job in an office), I DO NOT live at home and I DO NOT "suck off the government's tit". You can take those statements and SHOVE THEM UP YOUR ASS!

    "If I met you on the street, I would punch you in the face"

    I wouldn't...If I met Brandon on the street, I'd be too busy laughing to throw a punch, the same way I keep laughing at his absurd drivel every new day on this site.

    If I've had a bad day, all I've got to do is come to this site and view Brandon's and Jeff's latest nonsense to get real comic relief.

    If I've had a bad day, all I've got to do is come to this site and view Brandon's and Jeff's latest nonsense to get real comic relief.

    Posted by: Mike at April 28, 2007 7:28 PM
    Yea, right. I think Cecelia described it best. I can picture you sitting there just wringing your hands with your blood pressure off the chart, your face beet red, foam spewing out of your mouth every time I or someone else nails your lies and hypocritical blather. LMAO big time.

    aken from soldiersperspective blog

    CJ Sucking the Egg
    April 22nd, 2007 by CJ

    This post is mostly contained in a comment under my "I'm a Loser" post. But, I think it needs to be brought up front for debate and public ridicule. This is in response to a comment in which the author plainly stated "the war IS lost".

    Indeed several hundred Iraqis were killed last week - IN TWO ATTACKS!! The surge has reduced the number of attacks DRAMATICALLY!! Didn't you read that in all the reports about last week's bombings? Oh, that's right, the media doesn't want you to know the big picture. The big picture looks too good.

    Instead, you want to focus on TWO ATTACKS. Was it heinous? Yes. Were a lot of people killed? Hell, yes. Is it acceptable? Hell, no!! But the fact that two bombs were able to kill so many people doesn't equate to a lost cause. Did you stop investing after Enron because it was such a huge loss for investors? Probably not. It was ONE HUGE incident. Did we stop electing Presidents after Nixon abused his office? No, we didn't. Did we stop electing Presidents after Clinton abused his office? No, we didn't. They were TWO INCIDENTS!!

    At the battle of Gettysburg, 3,155 Union troops lost their lives on one day. Did they lose? NO! On D-day, more than 2,400 troops died at Omaha Beach. An entire companies were killed. Did they lose? NO!

    CF, you're just plain wrong and refuse to accept the big picture. You're invested in our failure. In fact, there's so much you either don't know or refuse to admit that contradicts your assertion that "the war is lost." For instance, the media didn't tell you that the very week you say we lost the war an Iraqi soldier shot and killed a suicide bomber near the Nablis neighborhood, causing his vehicle-borne improvised explosive device to explode prematurely April 17. The insurgent was attempting to attack an Iraqi Army combat outpost. Iraqi soldiers responded to the scene.

    They also didn't tell you about other signs that we're actually winning. Local citizens in the neighborhood of Buhriz informed Iraqi and Coalition forces of six terrorists in the area, leading to their detention. The terrorists admitted responsibility for placing and detonating improvised explosive devices and have been transferred to a detention facility.

    These are just a few of the ways WE'RE WINNING THIS WAR!!

    This entry was posted on Sunday, April 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm and is filed under Military Perspective.

    Now CJ is having T-shirts made "I am a Loser ... according to Harry Reid."

    HYPOCRITE ALERT:

    Brandon, do you have anything better to do? Or do you insist on being an a--hole because you enjoy it? I find you REPULSIVE, VILE and a LIAR. If I met you on the street, I would punch you in the face!

    Oh would ya?

    I thought it was Bush who is eroding the Constitution? Everyone has freedom of speech, is even free to be an a**hole, as long as you don't break the law. Assault is against the law, isn't it?

    What a suprise. Olbermann is in the tank for Billary. Sorry all you Obamanation supporters. It looks like the hour of spin will turn the sites of its slander machine on Obamanation. I can't wait until he makes WPITW. Don't you democrats just love that Media Matters is going to pick your candidate.

    What a suprise. Olbermann is in the tank for Billary. Sorry all you Obamanation supporters. It looks like the hour of spin will turn the sites of its slander machine on Obamanation. I can't wait until he makes WPITW. Don't you democrats just love that Media Matters is going to pick your candidate.

    Posted by: The Factor at April 28, 2007 9:33 PM
    The puffington post is pulling for Hussain Barack. It's all Hussain all the time over there. Billary only get's negative news. Pretty funny. The libby's will be babbling confused by election time.

    Surely there's some professional wrestling pay-per-view thing on television so you guys don't have to turn this place into that.

    The Bush Supporters say:

    "If a Democrat is elected president in 08, the terrorists will strike again!

    VOTE REPUGLIKUNT!!"

    "Yo, Cox, before you say another word about Olbermann's "Special Comment" bits, you really need to address 9/11 victims mixed into pavement (he mentioned it Wednesday, and I'd never heard of it before. As if I wasn't disgusted enough already.)"

    Keith Olbermann did a live show from Ground Zero a while back, complaining that the 9/11 Memorial wasn't being built fast enough. Then he goes and complains that they should have delayed any work on construction to look for bodies. Keith can't have it both ways.

    Sure he can James. Remember when he was looking down at his nose at HRC but now suddenly he's her BFF since he handed her husband a check in an interview? Now he's a big HRC fan. Little Keithy sticks his thumb in the wind, sees what way the liberal winds are blowing and jumps in that direction, just like he did with the 9/11 memorial/rebuilding. By the way, that's something else that Olby was dead-wrong on. He claimed that it was Bush's fault taht the buildings and memorial had not been built, although as a NYC resident, he certainly should have been fully aware that there have been prolonged battles between the owner, developers, insurance company, city and state governments and the families of the survivors on the fate of the WTC site, something he oh-so-carefully failed to mention in his 9/11 "Special Komment".

    More Evidence of Success
    April 28th, 2007 by CJ

    I've said it numerous times, but the message gets drowned out by the drumbeat of defeat in this country that come from our politicians, our media, and agenda driven Americans - we're succeeding all over the place!

    Local citizens in Baqubah's Tahrir neighborhood led Iraqi Army, police and Coalition Forces to more than 20 caches and assisted in capturing five suspected terrorists and engagements that left approximately 25 anti-Iraq forces dead.

    The most significant cache items, many of which were found due to tips by local citizens, include small-arms weapons, more than 5 mortar tubes, nearly 140 artillery and mortar rounds, more than 10 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, approximately 55 RPG rounds, more than 10,000 rounds of small-arms ammunition, grenades, and improvised explosive device materials to include several hundred pounds of home-made explosives, timers and blasting caps.

    Aside from the caches, the security forces have also discovered and cleared more than 20 IEDs emplaced throughout the neighborhood.

    "As we continue our aggressive and persistent operations, the discovery of these caches shows that our forces have entered yet another perceived safe haven," said Col. David W. Sutherland, 3-1 Cav. commander and senior U.S. Army officer in Diyala. "The enemy shows nothing but hatred and disdain toward the innocent people of Diyala, and these weapons systems are clear indicators of that."

    The ongoing operation will allow the Iraqi Security Forces to maintain a permanent presence in the area while simultaneously providing security for the people of Tahrir.

    "As in Buhriz, the citizens of Tahrir are gaining more and more confidence in the Iraqi army and police," Sutherland added. "It is vital that their security forces maintain a permanent presence as they are the true defenders of this country. Together with the ISF, we remain focused on targeting the enemy and disrupting their operations."

    Also,

    Based on a tip from local residents, Iraqi Security Forces discovered a weapons cache at the Al Nur Mosque in Baghdad’s Jihad neighborhood. Iraqi National Police raided the location after locals reported seeing insurgents firing mortars and fleeing into the mosque The weapons cache consisted of four 155mm artillery rounds, 21 blocks of military-grade C-4 explosives, two propane tanks with C-4 explosives attached, three rolls of wire, one 107mm rocket rigged as an improvised explosive device, a rifle, and a roll of wire wrapped around a soda bottle. Iraqi Security Forces conducted the raid while Coalition forces cordoning off the area and did not enter the mosque at any time during the operation.

    I'd provide links to MSM reports covering this and other similar stories but they aren't. Instead, they're busy spreading the message of defeatism and tearing down our country.

    This entry was posted on Saturday, April 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm and is filed under Military Perspective.

    CNN is reporting this. Of course, MSNBC can't be bothered to report the truth, just as Olbermann couldn't be bothered to study up before the debates. If he did that badly covering the Democratic debates, imagine how badly he'll suck ass with the GOP debate coverage.

    I'd provide links to MSM reports covering this and other similar stories but they aren't. Instead, they're busy spreading the message of defeatism and tearing down our country.

    This entry was posted on Saturday, April 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm and is filed under Military Perspective.

    Posted by: at April 29, 2007 2:38 PM


    This pathetic. We have over 150,000 troops in harm's way, and we're spending over 10 billion dollars a month on this occupation, and you sit at your keyboard crowing about the seizure of a couple dozen small arms and some Fred Sanford weaponry, and a couple dozen deaths of people identfied as insurgents. Are these really the metrics of "victory" to you people?

    Forget the fact that American deaths in the first quarter of 2007 have been 50% higher than in previous quarters - forget that bombings are up by a similar percentage. Forget the fact that the Iraqi people poll nearly unanimously that we get out of their country.

    The Bush administration has eliminated from its published casualty rates any assessment of deaths by explosive - did you know that? they arbitrarilly decide to stop counting deaths caused by car-bombs and "suiciders" and VOILA! the "violence is decreasing"! You people are vapid morons.

    The surge is nothing new - its painfully, blatantly more of the same; whack-a-mole.

    Leave it to Beef and his fellow Olbyloons to actually be SORRY that the US Military has seized weapons which might very well possibly have been used against them. I guess you're feeling sorry for MOhammed and Acqbar and his buddies that they aren't "properly" armed against the big bad U.S. Military aren't you ther Beef? You claim you "support" the military but your post above reveals you for exactly what you are. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for cheering for the insurgants and against your countrymen. Hey, why don't you move over to Iraq and help out those poor little misunderstood terrorists since you have so much sympathy for them?

    Leave it to Brandon to completely DISTORT what Beef just wrote into something that doesn't resemble anything he actually said or thought.

    And you think you are qualified to judge Keith Olbermann?

    Brandon, are you truly this stupid or just very successful at appearing obtuse when your positions are abandoned by facts?

    Leave it to Brandon to actually be HAPPY that American deaths in Iraq are up 50% in the first quarter of 2007. I guess he's buying a fourth car or second swimming pool with the dividends he earns through his investments in companies that replace the the armaments, uniforms, and vehicles that were used by these dead soldiers. What a miserable parasite.

    Hey, why don't you move over to Iraq and help out those poor little misunderstood terrorists since you have so much sympathy for them?

    Posted by: Brandon at April 29, 2007 3:05 PM


    Homeland security sold be alerted to this blatant case of attempted incitement to treason. There are people in Guantanamo on less evidence than this.

    I just noticed the "Bring our troops home" ad at the bottom of the page. Kudos to Cox and Dollar for acknowledging the tide of opinion in this country, and accepting that market forces are favoring the proactive end to this disastrous occupation. The TroopsRibbon website declares clearly:

    "Our vision is to create awareness that there is a majority of people in this country who support the idea and find it patriotic that our troops come home as soon as possible. We need a clear vision for the future of how and when our troops will come home."

    "How and When" = benchmarks and timelines.

    "How and When" = benchmarks and timelines.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 29, 2007 4:38 PM
    Good thing you aren't in charge!

    Leave it to Brandon to completely DISTORT what Beef just wrote into something that doesn't resemble anything he actually said or thought.

    And you think you are qualified to judge Keith Olbermann?

    Posted by: Mike at April 29, 2007 3:13 PM
    Leave ti lil mikey to accuse someone else of doing what he does on a daily basis. LMAO, again.

    This pathetic. We have over 150,000 troops in harm's way, and we're spending over 10 billion dollars a month on this occupation, and you sit at your keyboard crowing about the seizure of a couple dozen small arms and some Fred Sanford weaponry, and a couple dozen deaths of people identified as insurgents. Are these really the metrics of "victory" to you people?


    This post by philby/rudy is more evidence she is a defeatist, thru and thru. She sees no good in any accomplishments, no matter the size. She is so "worried" about our troops, yea right. That "couple dozen small arms" cache of weapons taken out of that terrorist hide out/mosque saved countless lives, you dumb ass! Put me on the list with Brandon, I think you should move to Iraq, also. I'll up the anty and make the first donation to your cause!

    "How and When" = benchmarks and timelines.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 29, 2007 4:38 PM
    Good thing you aren't in charge!

    Posted by: royalking at April 29, 2007 4:51 PM


    Hey - talk to Cox and Dollar - they're the ones taking the money and providing advertising space for the people advocating a withdrawal from Iraq "as soon as possible", and with clear public understanding as to "how and when".

    Congradulatons to Cox and Dollar for recognizing at least one minor tenet of actual conservatism: supply must respond to demand.

    Another day...another example of the Bush Ad.'s incompetence !

    "Most Katrina Aid From Overseas Went Unclaimed" so runs a story in today's Washington Post.

    Defending this adminsitration is like trying to explain why sh-t tastes so delicious.

    You know you could very easily substitute the word "Olbermann" for administration.

    "You know you could easily substitute the word "Olbermann" for administration."

    But Olbermann isn't the the one who has screwed things up so badly...he's just a news commentator.

    The wingnuts seem to lose sight of that fact !

    Hey idiot Sir Loin,

    In response to:

    and you sit at your keyboard crowing about the seizure of a couple dozen small arms and some Fred Sanford weaponry, and a couple dozen deaths of people identfied as insurgents. Are these really the metrics of "victory" to you people?

    Why don't you tell that to CJ whose blog I took it from? It is called a Soldier's Perspective. Guess what? He is a SOLDIER!

    I am going to forward your response to his blog. You can duke it out with one of those you claim to support.

    Why don't you tell that to CJ whose blog I took it from? It is called a Soldier's Perspective. Guess what? He is a SOLDIER!

    Posted by: at April 30, 2007 12:37 AM
    anon, you're dreaming if you think sir loin lamb chops, lilo mikey, patty or any other olbyloons would try to debate with a REAL soldier. It isn't going to happen, ever. They would have their asses handed to them in no time! Just like they do here. They are armchair warriors of the cowardly kind. All spew, all the time.

    No need, I'll gladly debate him/her here (but you're welcome to join the fray over at ASP any time). I'll start with his original comment - "you sit at your keyboard crowing about the seizure of a couple dozen small arms and some Fred Sanford weaponry, and a couple dozen deaths of people identified as insurgents. Are these really the metrics of "victory" to you people?"

    Allow me to construct some analysis that you fail to comprehend because the hand isn't right up to your face. Iraqis are turning in insurgents in record - I just HIGHLIGHTED two; not the only two. The NUMBER of bombings has indeed DECREASED, not increased. The severity is what has increased. The casualty numbers aren't reported by the military, they're reported by the Iraqi government UNLESS those casualties are American troops. Oh, and the media likes to count bodies too - it's good for ratings, I suppose.

    The metrics of victory are easy to measure: more trained police, a high GDP than ever, record oil exports ever, a free market economy, and an elected government among other things. When I was in Iraq not so long ago (and I'm going back this summer), there wasn't a day that went by that I wasn't invited into a home for lunch, dinner, tea, or a snack. And these were different people, not one gracious, suicidal fool.

    As for the death toll of my fellow Soldiers, if you paid any attention before the "surge" ocurred, this was prognosticated beforehand. The generals said right off the bat that during the buildup, there would be a rise in the number of troops killed just due to sheer numbers. That's what we Soldiers do - sacrifice our lives and livelihood for peace and those that can't protect themselves. And we don't do it in vain. The more you keep up your "pull em out now" rhetoric before we complete the job, the more those numbers will continue to rise as you embolden those we're fighting. If it weren't so late I'd keep talking, but I gotta be up early for formation.

    One more thing. I don't usually "sit" at my keyboard. I was injured in Iraq and it's too painful to sit for long periods of time so I usually stand when I "crow".

    James,
    "Keith Olbermann did a live show from Ground Zero a while back, complaining that the 9/11 Memorial wasn't being built fast enough. Then he goes and complains that they should have delayed any work on construction to look for bodies. Keith can't have it both ways."

    This isn't about speed it's about honoring the dead. And hurry up and respect the dead. Congrats on completely missing the point, prooving, once again, that nothing stands in the way of your anti-Olbermann agenda.

    CJ's rationalizations make no more sense coming from a soldier than they do from a chickenhawk president or a right-wing talking head. What's happened to the middle class of Iraq? More than two million of the best-educated professional class who remain alive have fled the country. Our latest answer to the problem is to build walls around sunni enclaves - and everyone in Bagdhad despises the idea. 100 of Cj's fellow soldiers have died so far in the month of April.

    This war is not making our country safer - its making us broke, its creating more enemies worldwide than CJ and his fellow troops can kill.

    I'm sure that CJ's attitudes are held sincerely, but they contrast drastically with those of the majority of American soldiers recently polled in Iraq, not to mention the timeline of facts from this invasion.

    Actually you're the one who didn't understand what Olbermann was saying in his 9/11 rant. And by the way, he couldn't have chosen a more ill-timed or ill-located venue for his little anti-9/11 diatribe had he tried. That day was intended to honor the victims. What did he do? Use the opportunity to yet again try to pimp his show's ratings.

    philby/rudy/loinoflamb-you have just proven, again, the severity of the degree a person can brainwash themselves. Can it be severe ignorance, too? CJ, I would like to thank you for your brave service. I appreciate it. Jeff

    "The metrics of victory are easy to measure: more trained police, a high GDP than ever, record oil exports ever, a free market economy, and an elected government among other things."

    I don't know if you are saying that these things have occurred already or the things that if they were to occur, would be the signs of victory. I would just note two things in either case- first, they are all both subjective and relative ("more," "higher," "record," etc.). That means that they do not imply any real end, just like someone who says they will retire when they have "more" money. Metrics of this sort are the recipe for perpetual occupation.

    Second, they all are second order goals. If Iraq is not allied and friendly with the U.S., but is our enemy or allied with our enemies, then they are all at least somewhat counter-productive in a strategic sense. And at this point, given the history, polls, religious politics, and hollowing out of the middle class, it is hard to see how Iraq as a whole turns out as a more reliable ally of the U.S. than Iran. It looks to me like we have not been strong enough spokesmen for secularism and human rights to overcome the powerfull pull of sectarian medievalism that we are fighting.

    That said I think that one of the most important and long lasting aspects of occupation occurs in the personal contact and cultural exchange between the soldiers of the occupier and the occupied civilians. While it seems clear to me now that the invasion and occupation was an incredible strategic mistake, I am hopefull that the exposure of a lot of Iraqis, especially children, to our good people like CJ will have some good long-term effects in redeeming the cause of the west. This is where I think a long term victory could perhaps be won. Or at least the seeds for such a victory can be planted. Do you often get the chance to talk politics with Iraqis, and if so, do you speak up for secularism? Or is that not possible? I'd really like to hear about the content of some of those teas.

    In any event, thanks CJ. I'm kind of glad that you have a positive view of the possibilities in Iraq. You do some of the most important work in the world. I think your in-country conduct will have a lot more effect on the world than anything you or I or 100 other "commentators" ever write.

    Before the war in Iraq the U.S was polling at 34% favorably in Jordan. we are now at 1%.

    In Indonesia We were polling with about a 67% favorable view before the war. We are now arounf 13%.

    These are two I remeber from a report I saw a few weeks ago. About 6 or 7 other muslim countires were named and the reults were pretty much the same across the board, although I don't rember the exact percentages. This war is as Sir Loin said making us a lot of enemies.

    Indonesia and Jordan matter, how? When you come up with some REAL news, let us know, ok?

    Middle class in Iraq?!?! There were no middle classes in Iraq. There was privilege and poverty. When I rolled into Iraq in March 2003, the distinctions were obvious. The only families that even resembled middle class only did so due to large numbers living in the same home and contributing to the lifestyle.

    I don't rationalize anything. That's a good cast-off for someone who doesn't want to admit the realities in the country - to redefine success as simply a "rationalization".

    More than 2 million have left Iraq for many reasons: jobs, security, standard of living to name a few. If you were a lawyer and needed to feed your family, would you WAIT until opportunity came around or go somewhere you could seize it immediately? The same goes for many educated. But what you fail to acknowledge is that since the mere ANNOUNCEMENT of a surge of security forces in to Iraq, thousands of Iraqis have begun moving back INTO Baghdad. I apologize that I have to break that to you instead of letting the media tell you, but they haven't yet, so...

    As far as the wall goes, WE thought it was a stupid idea on the ground as well. However, that was an officer decision, not some Bush administration GFI. And it backfired as it should have. The media and left have done a good job of making that one mistake by an overzealous officer (who, coincidentally had the best interests of the Iraqis at heart) a central argument in how things APPEAR faulty with everything Iraq.

    We are making enemies worldwide, but it's not completely because of Iraq. The Democratic, and some Republican, leadership in this country has gone out of their way to ensure that we look as bad as possible. Congressmen have visited our enemy to spread the message that this country's leadership is off base. This emboldens the enemy and gives the impression that we are weak. Think I'm making this up. Take a trip to an Iraqi market and visit the local DVD stand. Contained within the various selections of bootlegged AMERICAN movies are DVDs comprised of our Democratic leaders extolling how wrong we are to be in Iraq and using those positions to further their insurgent goals. That's right, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, and Conyers are STARS and HEROES to the insurgency in Iraq. Their news conferences can be found on computers and thumbdrives. Congratulations to them!!!

    Success is difficult to measure and is largely subjective. Perhaps you should subject yourself to acknowledging those successes and stop tacitly supporting the insurgents and terrorists as they kill "100 of [my] fellow soldiers" in April alone.

    “Our soldiers have paid a tragic price to free over 50 million people. In the long term, their sacrifice is going to change the world.” - David McGrew.

    "...since the mere ANNOUNCEMENT of a surge of security forces in to Iraq, thousands of Iraqis have begun moving back INTO Baghdad."

    That would be news. Do you have any any source for this?

    "The Democratic, and some Republican, leadership in this country has gone out of their way to ensure that we look as bad as possible."

    You are suggesting that the decline of U.S. prestige in countries as diverse as Britain and Indonesia is because people around the world think we should be more solidly behind the occupation? That certainly surprises me.

    I really do regret that this is such a partisan issue, especially in the eyes of a soldier on the ground. Democrats should own their part in by-and-large approving the invasion rather than pretending they always knew how fubar this thing was going to be. The administration should start owning the realities on the ground and stop pretending that somehow it is domestic war opposition that somehow "ties their hands" or "emboldens the enemy." What emboldens our enemies (Al Qaeda on the one hand and Iran on the other) is that we are acting incompetently and playing right into their hands.

    "That's right, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, and Conyers are STARS and HEROES to the insurgency in Iraq. Their news conferences can be found on computers and thumbdrives. Congratulations to them!!!"


    CJ, I've been saying this for months and these left wing loons have been denying it up and down. Thanks for confirming what some of us already knew. This would be known as "proof" to you left wing enemy supporters!

    Thanks, C.J. You so eloquently state from first hand experience what so many of us here have been attempting to do. I know I don't have the credibility you have nor the proof! I have been told here that soldiers would spit on me for my view, basically of wanting to believe that victory is still possible, with all the blunders and mishaps. You have done so much for the discussion here. I hope you are able to pop in from time to time to share the Soldier's Perspective. I plan to check your site as often as I am able. You have my prayers.

    "You so eloquently state from first hand experience what so many of us here have been attempting to do."

    Do you mean deliver the good news about progress in Iraq? I suppose it is possible that the announcement that U.S. forces would concentrate their efforts on pacifying Bagdad might result in some people coming back there from other provinces anticipating greater relative security. I don't think that is documented, though, and if so, that would be more like a redristribution of population in anticipation of the next round of whack-a-mole. Indeed I think the preliminary stats on the surge show that violence in the provinces rose to offset a drop (if you don't count suicide bombings) in Bagdad. The overall exodus from Iraq continues, which would seem to me to be the big picture.

    "I have been told here that soldiers would spit on me..."

    really?

    Not just that issue specifically, but that morale is low, soldiers don't know their mission anymore, that sort of thing and more. I check the Jawa Report and find articles contrary to that. Recently, I discovered CJ's site and asked him to respond over here, specifically to SLOB.

    Yes, I was told that soldiers would spit on me. Awhile back I was commenting late at night with Grammie, a.k.a. Janet Hawkins (I post as Sharon but have decided to go back to my nickname) and we were both verbally assaulted. I was a little taken aback by the suggestion. I don't believe that honorable soldiers would ever spit on someone, even if they hate the war.

    Oh and one more point VOK. The fact that DVD's are for sale with Pelosi, Mutha, et al speaks volumes. This is coming from a source, C.J., whom I believe. Do you?

    Murtha

    Here we go again..blaming not the the ones who designed this war...who keep our troops w/o the proper armor..who deny medical benefits to soldiers, who continue to send them to die in another country's civil war... but blaming Murtha and Pelosi...

    You ignoramuses are pathetic and oh so predictable.

    We now have more information about the months leading to 9/11.
    George Tenet told Condi Rice that he has information that we are going to get hit...big...massive. What did she do about it?
    She delegated that information to a lower level who basically ignored it.

    Yeah...Keep blaming the Democrats you morons !

    Bob,

    Read the context please. If you read CJ's comment, you will see it. He has been in the market place in Iraq with the DVD's for sale. Have you?

    There are enough war correspondents who risk their life each and every day who give us the truth in Iraq....and they say it's worse than we think.
    Almost everyone who goes there says the same thing...including many troops.
    Not surprising that you would latch onto one person who tells you what you want to hear.

    and I totally agree with with Sir Loin who says;"CJ's rationalizations make no more sense coming from a soldier than they do from a chickenhawk president or a right-wing talking head. What's happened to the middle class of Iraq? More than two million of the best-educated professional class who remain alive have fled the country. Our latest answer to the problem is to build walls around sunni enclaves - and everyone in Bagdhad despises the idea. 100 of Cj's fellow soldiers have died so far in the month of April.

    This war is not making our country safer - its making us broke, its creating more enemies worldwide than CJ and his fellow troops can kill. "

    VOK said: "That would be news. Do you have any any source for this?" You're damn right it SHOULD be news!! Is it? No. Yeah, I have a source - ME!! I've had to assist families moving back into Baghdad because they had squatters when they returned. Oh, do you mean MEDIA sources? bwhahahahaha! You naive person you. Better yet, when YOU find that story, will you share it?

    "I really do regret that this is such a partisan issue." I didn't realize that victory was supposed to be a partisan issue. I'm of the belief that if you're American you should WANT and DEMAND victory or just get the hell out of my country. The French are hiring cowards. No politics needed.

    We aren't acting incompetently in Iraq. You want to believe that, but our military is the furthest thing from incompetent one can get. The incompetence comes in voting for a war then doing everything possible to end it before we can leave peacefully. The incompetence comes from people like Murtha who speak out of both of their mouths with respect to troop support.

    VOK, even in the game of whack-a-mole, points are awarded for hitting the target before it ducks back down. Let's just say we're still racking up points and will continue to do so until the Iraqis can finish whacking them. Then, we'll most likely assist them as allies in the war on terror in telling them where they'll pop up next. I don't mind the "whack-a-mole" comparison. I welcome it. Too bad I don't get tickets for each one I hit that I can exchange for Stone Cold Creamery ice cream!!

    Finally, and then I need to get back to work. This business is spitting is real. I've been spit at, but not on...yet. It doesn't happen often but it sure happens a lot especially during the so-called peace rallies. I've also been called all the Vietnam War favorites like "baby-killer" and "warmonger" by groups like Code Pink and ANSWER and others. While I believe in principle that it's possible to support the troops but not the war, I have yet to see it in action except on an extremely rare basis. I don't want any sympathy. I just bring this up to highlight that the anti-war crowd has an image problem and they're not doing anything to improve it in the eyes of most troops.

    Iraq WILL NOT and cannot be won militarily.
    That much is a given .

    Add that Bush is putting our troops in the middle of a civil war, decimating our troops by over- extending them and you have a real bad and losing situation.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    That sums up you chickenhawks who refuse to see reality .

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    That sums up you chickenhawks who refuse to see reality .

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at April 30, 2007 7:32 PM
    nobody cares what your name is, you just proved you are insane because you say the same thing over and over again!LMAO!

    Funny not a single word (that I've seen) about Tenet's interview last night.
    " I can't believe they revealed one of my undercover agents " !...not to mention more evididence about the runup to war and Cheney/Bush making Tenet the scapegoat for their failed policies.

    Wingnuts probably were watching the Simpsons instead.

    BUT WHEN KEITH REPORTS THIS NEWS HE'LL BE BLASTED BY YOU GOONS( as biased)

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    Anon, you're right! I don't care what your name is. I, for one, appreciate the term "chickenhawk". After all the definition of a chickenhawk is "Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of preying on chickens." I'll count you as prey, my friend.

    Bob, war correspondents is such a loose term. Most of these so-called correspondents never leave the safety of their hotel room. They report on what's given them at the front gate entrance to their hotel by Iraqis (agenda driven?) who walk up and ask to talk to reporters. Yup, I know that from Soldiers who are there RIGHT NOW. It's quite telling that the ones that actually get imbedded with the troops, have nothing but GOOD things to say because they see it first hand and don't regurgitate, like mother robins, everyone else's stories.

    >Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Are you getting different results today, Jeff?

    I didn't think so...

    "Take a trip to an Iraqi market and visit the local DVD stand. Contained within the various selections of bootlegged AMERICAN movies are DVDs comprised of our Democratic leaders extolling how wrong we are to be in Iraq and using those positions to further their insurgent goals. That's right, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, and Conyers are STARS and HEROES to the insurgency in Iraq. Their news conferences can be found on computers and thumbdrives."

    Posted by: CJ at April 30, 2007 2:38 PM

    So only "insurgents and terrorists" shop in Iraqi markets? It aught to be quite easy to catch them, in that case. Have you considered the possibility that the Iraqi people - the ones we are ostensibly "liberating" - might be interested in the debate being held in America as to how we are to shape their fates? The right has been busy branding anti-war voices in the US as "aiding the terrorists" (you just did it in regard to me in your post above), and I guess its only natural that you categorize questions and criticisms originating in Iraq in a similar manner.

    I have no data regarding the tone or nature of the electronic goods you cite - whether they feature bitter intros by Osama or whether the are forthright presentations of a highly relevant political debate. But whatever the case, I don't think the implications are helpful to your case either way. If market forces feed the demand for insurgency by providing inflammatory videos at every street corner to the degree you suggest, it seems highly likely that the battle for hearts and minds is essentially lost. Why, in that case, would you bother liberating a population you fear and distrust, and who hates you enough to revel in the brutal battle against you? If, on the other hand, these materials are sought out of mere curiosity or as salient current events information, this would suggest that the polls showing 70% of Iraqis desiring the immediate or rapid exit of American forces were based on the opinions of an informed and dissatisfied population.

    Your position - while noble in motivation -makes no sense in either case.

    You know, SLOB, I can't argue with ignorance. Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying about the DVDs. Imagine I'm speaking very slowly. I'll try to write this so even a two year old can understand.

    The DVDs at Iraqi markets are not just political banter and media soundbites. These are insurgent videos, cut between shots of IEDs killing YOUR Soldiers, my friend. The a--holes in Iraq who get their jollies off of killing me and my buddies use what our Democratic leaders say TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. Caps cannot begin to protray my anger at your refusal to understand how our elected leaders are UNDERMINING any success we have. These are INSURGENT PROPOGANDA VIDEOS I'm talking about!! And they star those individuals I spoke of earlier. You say you have no data blahblahblah. GO GET IT THEN!! Stop being spoonfed by the boobtube bottle.

    What makes no sense is that you site there behind your computer screen, in the comfort of your own home, and criticize what our troops are doing (or in your case NOT doing) without so much as lifting a finger except to type more vitriole. What makes no sense is that you can't see the forest for the trees. What makes no sense is me sitting here arguing with someone who has no clue about Iraq except what is piped into his home by people who have purchased stock in defeat and need their investment to pay off. You want to know the truth in Iraq, visit the milblogs. It's no coincidence that 95% of military blogs by troops who have been there are overwhelmingly in support of our efforts.

    I'm done with you. Piecemeal my comments all you want, I'll continue to put my life on the line for something higher than myself in the name of freedom and humanity.


    "What makes no sense is me sitting here arguing with someone who has no clue about Iraq except what is piped into his home by people who have purchased stock in defeat and need their investment to pay off. "

    Posted by: CJ at April 30, 2007 8:11 PM


    Who are these people who have "purchased stock in defeat..." that you are talking about?

    "Nearly three-quarters of the American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should withdraw within the next year and 29 percent feel we should get the hell out of the war immediately, a poll of military personnel serving in country reveals."

    03/01/06

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_doug_tho_060301_soldiers_in_iraq_kno.htm


    (CNN) --" Seventy-one percent of Iraqis responding to a new survey favor a commitment by U.S.-led forces in Iraq to withdraw in a year. The majority of respondents to the University of Maryland poll said that "they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less," according to the survey's summary."

    09/27/06

    http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=23199

    You should tone down your rhetoric - I don't think for a minute that you intended to write of your comrades in arms that way, or of the Iraqi people that you suffer to protect.

    CJ, if the Iraq war was declare a total victory tomorrow by 100% of all people involved on both sides, SLOB would still find something negative to say. You are smart enough to see this, by now, I'm sure. She sits in her "media room" brainwashing herself with people like Olby Onesided Kanobie and Wolfie Blitzer, what do you expect?

    BovineQueen sez:

    >if the Iraq war was declare a total victory tomorrow by 100% of all people involved on both sides

    Oh, Bovine!

    Tomorrow is "Mission Accomplished" Day!

    Guess what K.O. is going to say?

    patty, what happened to bob?

    >patty, what happened to bob?

    I have him on IM right now. Along with Mike, VOK, Sir Loin, Colbert, and about 50 other puffers.

    We are thinking of new ways to make you look even a bigger idiot.

    We think we'll keep feeding your paranoid hallucinations.

    " if the Iraq war was declare a total victory tomorrow by 100% of all people involved on both sides, SLOB would still find something negative to say."


    No, I'd be too busy banging my way through the "Coyote Ugly" lineup in aswimming pool filled with Lagavulin to say anything but "Thank you, Jesus".

    We are thinking of new ways to make you look even a bigger idiot.

    We think we'll keep feeding your paranoid hallucinations.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at April 30, 2007 9:10 PM
    Sounds like you got your work cut out for ya, since you haven't even done it once!

    BovineQueen sez:

    We are thinking of new ways to make you look even a bigger idiot.

    We think we'll keep feeding your paranoid hallucinations.

    Sounds like you got your work cut out for ya, since you haven't even done it once!
    Posted by: royalking at April 30, 2007 9:20 PM

    I just did!... again!

    LOL!!

    No, I'd be too busy banging my way through the "Coyote Ugly" lineup in aswimming pool filled with Lagavulin to say anything but "Thank you, Jesus".

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at April 30, 2007 9:19 PM
    In your wildest dream!

    In your wildest dream!

    Posted by: royalking at April 30, 2007 9:31 PM


    That was my point, Bumblef---.

    On a serious note, Bovine.

    What do you suggest the USA should do with the probably thousands of Iraqi refugees as the USA pulls out?

    "Indonesia and Jordan matter, how? When you come up with some REAL news, let us know, ok?"

    They matter because we are pissing off every muslim country in the planet you f---ing idiot. When you learn to think... Well that will never happen. never mind.

    The mantra here for many is that if you (or family member(s) are not serving, your opinion is useless. A soldier currently serving who is not hiding behind anonymity, who has a website, debates here and is treated in the same condescending manner. VOK was respectful and actually heard the point, even if not in total agreement. After listening to the rest of you guys, it is amazing that soldiers aren't entirely demoralized. Yet they aren't.

    Here is a link to a fair article on the Zogby poll cited above.
    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:rIyugmqLoBYJ:www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/02/the_zogby_poll_.html+zogby+poll+iraq+military&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Sharon, one more interesting point, a couple olbyloons that claim to know all things about war avoided CJ like the plague!

    I hear ya Royal!

    IRAQ WAR
    Price tag for war in Iraq on track to top $500 billion
    By Ron Hutcheson
    McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON - The bitter fight over the latest Iraq spending bill has all but obscured a sobering fact: The war will soon cost more than $500 billion.

    That's about ten times more than the Bush administration anticipated before the war started four years ago, and no one can predict how high the tab will go. The $124 billion spending bill that President Bush plans to veto this week includes about $78 billion for Iraq, with the rest earmarked for the war in Afghanistan, veterans' health care and other government programs.

    Congressional Democrats and Bush agree that they cannot let their dispute over a withdrawal timetable block the latest cash installment for Iraq. Once that political fight is resolved, Congress can focus on the president's request for $116 billion more for the war in the fiscal year that starts on Sept. 1.

    The combined spending requests would push the total for Iraq to $564 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

    What could that kind of money buy?

    A college education - tuition, fees, room and board at a public university - for about half of the nation's 17 million high-school-age teenagers.

    Pre-school for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country for the next eight years.

    A year's stay in an assisted-living facility for about half of the 35 million Americans age 65 or older.

    Not surprisingly, opinions about the cost of the war track opinions about the war itself.

    "If it's really vital, then whatever it costs, we should pay it. If it isn't, whatever we pay is too much," said Robert Hormats, author of "The Price of Liberty," a newly published book that examines the financing of America's wars.

    Before the war, administration officials confidently predicted that the conflict would cost about $50 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey lost his job after he offered a $200 billion estimate - a prediction that drew scorn from his administration colleagues.

    "They had no concept of what they were getting into in terms of lives or cost," said Winslow Wheeler, who monitors defense spending for the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research institute.

    Bush and his economic advisers defend the growing cost as the price of national security.

    "It's worth it," Bush said last May, when the tab was in the $320 billion range. "I wouldn't have spent it if it wasn't worth it."

    For war opponents, the escalating cost is a growing source of irritation. A Web site showing a running tally of the war's cost, http://costofwar.com/index.html, attracts about 250,000 visitors a month, according to the National Priorities Project, the site's sponsor.

    "It comes down to the question, how do you want to spend a half trillion dollars? Do you want to spend a half trillion dollars on this or would you rather spend it on something else?" said economist Anita Dancs, the organization's research director. "It's all a matter of costs and benefits."

    As wars go, Iraq is cheap. World War II cost more than $5 trillion in today's dollars. Korea and Vietnam each cost about $650 billion in today's dollars, but spending on those wars took a much bigger share of the economy when they were fought.

    "For the average American, there's really been no economic consequence of the country being involved in a war," said Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (International). "It doesn't have as much impact on the economy as those previous wars did."

    But the painless approach to financing the Iraq war could cause problems in the future. Hormats worries that the decision to cut taxes and increase domestic spending while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will complicate efforts to deal with the financial strains that threaten to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare.

    Calling for sacrifice now, in a time of war, would give Americans more of a psychological stake in the long war on terrorism and prepare them for the sacrifices that will be needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare, he said.

    "When you go into a war, you have to figure out how you're going to pay for it and be candid with Americans about it," Hormats said. "You can't have business as usual."

    The combined spending requests would push the total for Iraq to $564 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

    What could that kind of money buy?

    A college education - tuition, fees, room and board at a public university - for about half of the nation's 17 million high-school-age teenagers.

    Pre-school for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country for the next eight years.

    Screw the kids: let's spend billions on a war we can't win !
    Signed Cee, Royala--hole, Cecilia, Grammie, Brandon, Puck

    And our good Christian , Sharon.

    You have more death, right , babe ?

    That should read, you WANT more death, don't you Sharon ?

    That should read, you WANT more death, don't you Sharon ?

    Posted by: at April 30, 2007 11:35 PM


    No, actually that should read [frighteninly sick anonymous poster] wants more death in Iraq so he/she can insult political opponents on a blogboard.

    I am tempted to say that the only death I want is yours, anon, but that wouldn't be very Christian-like of me now would it? You're a real man, calling women "babe" like you do. Sooo pre- Gloria Steinhem. Why don't you take a dirt nap? oh oh there goes heaven

    "The combined spending requests would push the total for Iraq to $564 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service."

    While this post was certainly not put across nicely, it does raise an interesting question (at least to me). For those who support the iraq war how high does the price tag go before you decide the cost is too great?

    Are we anywhere near it now or would you double or even triple the above number? Are you willing to sacrifice all the social service items listed above for x number of years to continue the war (hopefully to win)?

    I'm genuinly curious btw, I don't believe any of you are really interested in more bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed. I'm sure your reasons for supporting the war are based on a genuine belief that it is the best course of action given the data we have now or have had in the past.

    But I just want to figure out at what point in terms of money, life, goodwill in the world, would you say the cost has become too high?

    Or if you just want to flame, I'm game for that too :)

    Why wasn't all this "essential funding" in Bush's annual budget? Did he forget we were in Iraq? Now he threatens to veto the Bill - only his second veto, by the way. The moron has never objected to pork before.

    Why wasn't all this "essential funding" in Bush's annual budget? Did he forget we were in Iraq? Now he threatens to veto the Bill - only his second veto, by the way. The moron has never objected to pork before.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 1, 2007 9:06 AM
    If you had half the intelligence you CLAIM to have, you would know the answer to your own question.

    But I just want to figure out at what point in terms of money, life, goodwill in the world, would you say the cost has become too high?

    Or if you just want to flame, I'm game for that too :)


    Posted by: craigs at May 1, 2007 1:49 AM


    I don't know. When do we decide that affirmative action programs are no longer needed? What sort of costs must be incurred with public education, or social security, until we decide that enough is enough and let's try vouchers or tax breaks or alternate retirement programs, etc. No sorts of ceilings are ever placed on programs like that. These things aren't without human costs as well.

    Craigs, I do understand and appreciate the honesty and the validity of your question. I can't imagine there being any war supporter here who wouldn't admit to being discouraged about the course of the war and fearful of its aftermath. It's that cost, the cost of pulling out , that must be calculated as well.

    Like it or not we're in Iraq and we've got an obligation there that may continue to cost the lives of our sons and daughters. But the consquences of the sort of bloodbath that will happen for our supporters there when we leave and the utter loss of the sort of public relations war that you've already mentioned is just incalcuable.

    There's got to be some sort of coming together over this fact. I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton understands this in a way that her fellow candidates do not, and I'm hopeful about her and her ability to forestall members of her party, rally international support in a way the Bush Administration ignored, and act with caution. As far as dem candidates go, my hopes ride with her as opposed to the Dems she's running against.

    But I'd be more hopeful if we were past the elections and either Hillary or one fo the Republicans were in office. I think then, with Bush and what he represents to many, out of the picture, that some actual way to handle this thing could come about.

    I'm not optimistic about it as it stands currently. There's so much pressure now to pull out, I don't think anything but public opinon is going to matter to politiicians as we get closer to '08.

    At some point, we have to get beyond all the partisanship ---we are fellow countrymen, you know---and realize that we can't undo this and we can't walk away.

    Jeff sez about SLOB: "If you had half the intelligence you CLAIM to have, you would know the answer to your own question."

    A couple of right wingers on this site so love to use the word 'irony'....So lets talk about the 'irony' of a total dunce like Jeff insulting the intelligence of SLOB...someone obviously MANY times his superior in that very regard.

    Jeff's one funny and sad little character...all rolled into one.

    Cecelia sez:

    "But I'd be more hopeful if we were past the elections and either Hillary or one fo the Republicans were in office. I think then, with Bush and what he represents to many, out of the picture, that some actual way to handle this thing could come about.

    I'm not optimistic about it as it stands currently. There's so much pressure now to pull out, I don't think anything but public opinon is going to matter to politiicians as we get closer to '08.

    At some point, we have to get beyond all the partisanship ---we are fellow countrymen, you know---and realize that we can't undo this and we can't walk away.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 10:59 AM"

    Yup.
    You wish the '08 elections were over. You know where the "LBRLs" stand on the Iraq war and what they will, and are demanding from Hillary.

    On the other hand we have the Pubbies, trying to find a tougher-than-Bu$hwipe-himself pose to run on.

    "If the Democrats win, the terrorists will strike again!
    If the Democrats win, they will make us lose the Iraq war!"

    Keep chanting Pubbies, as we head for '08:

    "We are heading for the cliff, and we can't pull out now!
    In fact, we are turning the corner, I mean the surge!
    Years later and hundreds of billion$ more. Nooooooooo!
    We can't pull out now!
    Wait until after '08!
    So we Pubbies can lay blame on the Demos for our 8 years of BU$HWIPE failure!
    NOT NOW!!"

    Abu Ayyub al-Masri is dead. Thank goodness for "whack-a-mole" or he'd still be killing Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians! Now the anti-war crowd has to find another political strategizer. Don't worry, we'll kill him too.

    Hurry, AAP! The conductor on the Disoriented Express is asking for your ticket.

    "It doesn't happen often but it sure happens a lot especially during the so-called peace rallies."

    It doesn't happen often but it sure happens a lot? O.K. So you go to the peace rallies? What is your purpose there? Do you have any film of these spitting incidents? Does anyone?

    "While I believe in principle that it's possible to support the troops but not the war, I have yet to see it in action except on an extremely rare basis."

    Well, do you think it is any less rare to see someone who supports the war AND the troops? Point of fact, Americans by and large don't lift a finger to do anything either for the war effort or against it, for the troops or against them. regardless of political stripe. For every liberal who has spat on a soldier (really??!!) there are 1000 that are donating time and money to soldier's welfare causes. I am one of them. I supported the invasion and I feel some responsibilty for how fubar the situation is now. You have chosen to put your focus where you want, on those you say hate you and who you perhaps hate. That is your prerogative. It isn't going to stop me from trying to do the best by my country and it's soldiers. And I have faith that there are a lot more like me than like the cowardly liberal strawmen that you want to address.

    "You want to know the truth in Iraq, visit the milblogs. It's no coincidence that 95% of military blogs by troops who have been there are overwhelmingly in support of our efforts."

    "In support of our efforts" is a far cry from what you are proposing, that people who see little reason to continue the occupation and favor some pullback are allies of "the insurgents" or terrorists. That is interesting given the general military polls slightly favor a pullout timetable that coincides pretty much exactly with what the cowardly traitorous insurgent-loving democrats have proposed. As a point of interest, what kinds of restrictions and oversight does the military put on soldier's blogs? I seem to remember several being taken down a while back.

    It is possible to let your desire to "win" cloud your vision and your ability to actually produce a better situation. There is no win and lose here anymore. We easily won the part that was definitively winable. This is nation building. There is better and worse. The majority of civilians and military in both countries now believe that a defined end to this deployment will create a better situation, one in which Iraqis form an Iraqi solution. That could well be wrong. It could be catacylsmic. But so could the alternative, and this is our best guess.

    "Oh and one more point VOK. The fact that DVD's are for sale with Pelosi, Mutha, et al speaks volumes. This is coming from a source, C.J., whom I believe. Do you?"

    Sure, I guess I have little reason to disbelieve it, although I'm getting a little suspicious with all the spitting stuff. So what? I don't believe we ought to censor or change what we think or say or do in order to please or displease some guy in Ramadi with a camcorder and FinalCut who thinks he is the vanguard of Jihad. I wouldn't argue against Bush's approach by citing that some Jihadi was using his words to motivate the insurgents. I'm sure they are doing that too, or else missing a fine opportunity. But that whole line of thinking about what "they" seem to like and then doing the opposite sounds like a bugs bunny villain think to me. We need to talk about what is good for this country, without the calculated chatter and noise of the enemy thrown in.

    ""Oh and one more point VOK. The fact that DVD's are for sale with Pelosi, Mutha, et al speaks volumes." It does? What does it say to you? I really don't get this thinking.

    VOK: "I wouldn't argue against Bush's approach by citing that some Jihadi was using his words to motivate the insurgents. I'm sure they are doing that too, or else missing a fine opportunity. But that whole line of thinking about what "they" seem to like and then doing the opposite sounds like a bugs bunny villian think to me. We need to talk about what is good for this country, without the calculated chatter and noise of the enemy thrown in."

    This bears repeating.....well said!

    VOK/Mike, I think it's important to note that the insurgents don't use Bush/Cheney quotes to support their cause. For those confused, the insurgent cause is death to American and Iraqis. In other words - terrorism. In even more simplistic terms - bad guys love Pelosi, Reid, and MurthaNow THAT bears repeating.

    VOK, I was pretty clear when I said that I had been spit at only ONCE. It's not a common thing, but it happens, especially during the "peace" or "anti-war" rallies. Nothing to be suspicious of. However, if it happens again (and the guys is still walking) I'll save the spit for you as evidence to belay your suspicious nature.

    Hurry, AAP! The conductor on the Disoriented Express is asking for your ticket.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 12:31 PM
    Don't forget to get mickey off the couch and take him with you, he'll fit right in!

    CJ, I respect your opinion...and I respect your service, but the alledged fact that the insurgents are quoting people like Murtha should not really surprise anyone, nor should it change anyone's position.

    The idea that we should be forever shamed into supporting an action that is ultimately detrimental to the well being of our own country because it just might have an unwanted side effect of encouraging our enemy is absurd.

    Good medicine often has negative side effects.

    "CJ, I respect your opinion...and I respect your service, but the alledged fact that the insurgents are quoting people like Murtha should not really surprise anyone, nor should it change anyone's position."


    Oh looky, lil mickey is acting like selling dvd's with Pelosi, Dinjee Harry (his hero) and Murtha in Iraq is no big deal. No surprise, here.

    "I think then, with Bush and what he represents to many, out of the picture, that some actual way to handle this thing could come about."

    I hope you're not suggesting Bush was a divider, not a uniter!

    In any event, I think the basically McCainian line that you are laying down is noble but abstract. There seems to be a continuing assumption on the eyes-wide-open right that they've inherited from the eyes-wide-shut crowd. That assumption is that the problem is at heart one of determination and morals. If only we can stick to it long enough, a situation of "victory" will materialize. We "owe" this to ourselves and the Iraqis. The costs of doing anything else are just too high.

    But what if instead of getting closer and closer to victory with our determination, we are getting further away? What if every day we stay there the Iraqi view of America becomes worse and worse? What if the ground for Al Kaeda is becomming better and better. What if the ground for Iran is getting better and better. Isn't that a possibility? Isn't that exactly what has happened so far? Is the problem really "public pressure?" Was that the fundamental problem with Viet Nam? Or is the public pressure really a sympton and sign that maybe the whole thing really is fubar and needs to be rethought, that it is in our strategic interest to do so.

    I make no bones about the fact that a pullout may accelerate violence and civil war. As someone who supported the invasion, the prospect makes me sick with worry. But it isn't exactly disneyland right now. A phased pullback may simply force an Iraqi solution that, while no doubt not nearly what we would have drawn up as ideal, is nonetheless better, more stable, and more sustainable than what we've got now. Probably some kind of organically developing soft partition. What is the alternative?

    I certainly respect the "responsibility" argument of the McCainiian position, but I wonder to what extent it simply trades on it's inherent nobility at the cost of letting it's inherent American triumphalism go unexamined. Witness McCain's market visit. It was borderline Soviet. And this from a guy who has nearly impeccable credentials when it comes to American ideals. Something's wrong here.

    We really are guilty of unleashing chaos in Iraq. It would a terrible irony if that guilt itself, which seems to be no small part of the McCain view, lead to prolonging the ills as we are unable to face reality.

    "In even more simplistic terms - bad guys love Pelosi, Reid, and MurthaNow THAT bears repeating."

    Wow, it's getting really really really simple, isn't it?

    "the alledged fact that the insurgents are quoting people like Murtha should not really surprise anyone."

    Mike, it's no surprise to me that Pelosi, Murtha, and Reid are in bed with the terrorists. No argument here.

    Iraq remains the central arena for terrorist activity worldwide, and Iran and Syria continue to play a destabilizing role in the Middle East by supporting terrorist groups in the region and yet these same people want us out of there. And don't go there with the argument that "they wouldn't be there if we weren't there" crap. We're in Afghanistan as well and that isn't the central arena for terrorists.

    CJ, on spitting, maybe the problem is that you originally meant to say "it certianly does not happen a lot." You said "it certainly does happen a lot." I took that to mean that you though it certainly did happen a lot. Since I don't think the act has ever been caught on tape, I think we can say it is very rare indeed. Something on the order of the white-eyed river-martin.

    "Mike, it's no surprise to me that Pelosi, Murtha, and Reid are in bed with the terrorists. No argument here.

    Posted by: CJ at May 1, 2007 2:14 PM"

    Here we go again:

    IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN, THE TERRORISTS WILL STRIKE AGAIN!!

    IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN, WE WILL LOSE THE IRAQ WAR!!!

    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMONRATS ARE COOOOOOMING!!
    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMONRATS ARE COOOOOOMING!!
    THE MUSLIMS AND DEMONRATS ARE COOOOOOMING!!

    Bush Supporters AND WOMEN TO THE KOOL-AID FIRST!!

    CJ: Your assertion that "Murthe, Pelosi, & Reid are in bed with the terrorists" is just plain wrong...and quite frankly, overly simplistic.

    You tell me CJ, exactly what are our choices? None???? Either support a war effort we strongly feel is damaging our own country, possibly irrepairably, or just keep quiet?...Because THOSE are the ONLY options people who use the kind of arguments you're using seem to allow.

    It is every bit as patriotic to speak out when you feel your country is on the wrong track as it is to support it if you think it is on the right track. On the flip side, there is nothing patriotic about keeping quite when you feel your country is hurting itself.

    I am a Vietnam era veteran, and I have seen first hand what an ill advised war can do to the moral and readiness of both the US Military, and America in general. I also know what it is like to wear the uniform of my country and not recieve as much respect as I would like, and believe me, it is far better today than it was then in that respect (although I was never spit on, nor did I ever meet anyone who said they were).

    "they wouldn't be there if we weren't there" crap


    CJ, that is the #1 liberal talking point. There is rarely a day that goes by that one of these loons don't use that one. They have said it and they read it every day on the puffington post, move on, daily kos so many times it's permanently stamped in there head.

    Yep, the truth hurts, doesn't it? They wouldn't be there if we weren't there!

    LMAO....at Jeff.....again!

    Mike and his buddies wouldn't know the truth if it screwed them up their asses.

    mickey, tha fact you believe the "if we weren't there, they wouldn't be there" explains your stupidity, ignorance and your knowledge of history, none!

    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we were'nt there!
    They wouldn't be there if we weren't there!
    They wouldn't be there if we weren't there!
    They wouldn't be there if we weren't there!

    Now Jeff, YOU write "the truth hurts, doesn't it" 10 times, and maybe you'll start to understand a little pre-war history...naw...you're just Jeff...the pistol packin cowboy!

    At some point, we have to get beyond all the partisanship ---we are fellow countrymen, you know---and realize that we can't undo this and we can't walk away.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 10:59 AM

    ...and I would have to asume that this "point" from your perspective would be when the anti-war left just shuts up with their questions and criticisms and starts parroting the same irrational scripts that fuel today's Republicans.

    I would be willing to consider any plan that might actually have some hope of ameliorating the situation in Iraq - but productive solutions as of yet are hamstrung by the unwillingness of our country at large to admit to the scope and nature of the mistakes made and crimes committed to date. Accountability accruing to those in the wrong is essential to any move in a postitive direction.

    For instance - why are any of you still listening to a single thing this deceptive and bumbling administraton has to say?

    Do you and bob live in the same mental ward? You must. I'm wondering, did you make it past junior high? You know nothing about history. The terrorists were in Iraq long before we were there, mickey. Keep saying they weren't to prove how ignorant and braindead you are. I'm not sure who makes less sense you or bob with his "bushwipe" posts. Yours make about as much sense, that's not saying much! LMAO!

    (although I was never spit on, nor did I ever meet anyone who said they were).

    Posted by: Mike at May 1, 2007 3:12 PM


    Mike, I've said here before that I was raised in the thick of the antiwar movement in the 60's and '70s, and have more recently been attending marches and rally's since before the current war started, and I 've never seen anyone in any of these contexts express anything in regard to our troops but a concern that they are suffering and being used unjustly, and that we as American citizens are responsible.

    However, the Church commission hearings did reveal that federal agents under Johnson and Nixon had posed as protestors and engaged in the destruction of property and the defamation of soldiers in the effort to discredit the anti-war movement. Truly a despicable form of subterfuge.

    Columnist Bob Greene (no saint, to say the least) skeptically researched reports of ill treatment towards Vietnam vets and wrote book called Homecoming.

    Here's some reviews from Amazon:


    Editorial Reviews

    From Publishers Weekly
    Chicago Tribune staffer Greene composed several of his syndicated columns around responses he received from Vietnam vets after he asked whether any of them had been spat upon. Unfortunately, the enormous impact of the columns is lost in their expansion to book form. Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference. Many contributors point out that they did what their country asked them to do, and they were stunned by the cruelty, even savagery, of some of the anti-war protesters, many of whom proclaimed belief in love and peace. Some are still not reconciled to the treatment they received, while others welcome the change in the attitude toward them as a chance "to wipe a little spit off our hearts."
    Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.

    From Library Journal
    "Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of "hippies" (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war's most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming. Recommended. Richard W. Grefrath, Univ. of Nevada Lib., Reno
    Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

    Cecelia,

    That is a sad chronicle. Whoever these reported perpetrators may have been, they exhibited reprehensible behavior. No such sort of hate-speech or vile behavior would be tolerated in any of the events in which I have participated.

    For one thing, the Veterans Against the War units I have marched beside on many occasions would probably have beat the living sh-t out of them.

    For one thing, the Veterans Against the War units I have marched beside on many occasions would probably have beat the living sh-t out of them.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 1, 2007 5:12 PM


    I think that's the sort of thing that rings more truthful than revisionism on either side.

    Political causes and movement are generally based on both pragmatic and emotional appeals. They are going to disinhibit people who might otherwise be good people and they are going to attract their fair share of jerks, just as anything garnering an audience attracks all types.

    The Vietnam vets may have experienced something that had hardened into a group norm, I don't know. But generally when you're using incidences like videos of Pelosi in Iraq or spitting on returning vets you're making an appeal to something that in of itself is no indication of anything other than opportunism and garden variety human failing.

    The Vietnam vets may have experienced something that had hardened into a group norm, I don't know. But generally when you're using incidences like videos of Pelosi in Iraq or spitting on returning vets you're making an appeal to something that in of itself is no indication of anything other than opportunism and garden variety human failing.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 5:22 PM


    I do however make an exception here of Harry Reid's unconscionable and irresponsible remark.

    Jeff sez: "The terrorists were in Iraq long before we were".

    Wrong again Jeff!....Well maybe there WAS one or two hiding out from Saddam's henchmen.

    Cecelia sez:

    "...Political causes and movement are generally based on both pragmatic and emotional appeals."
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 5:22 PM

    Now let me ask you, WTF is this:

    >I really think....this terrific country will survive a Democratic President in office....

    Here's your ritual suicide sword back. It looks like you're going to need it....
    Posted by: Cecelia at April 17, 2007 8:57 PM

    Pragmatic? emotional? maybe both?

    Start to foam, Cecelia.

    ...but Cecelia, what would you say to MY reports of face-to-face threats of beating and death from Police, ROTC hotheads, and random cliques of fascist goons who have harrassed some of the smaller anti-war events I frequent?

    ...but Cecelia, what would you say to MY reports of face-to-face threats of beating and death from Police, ROTC hotheads, and random cliques of fascist goons who have harrassed some of the smaller anti-war events I frequent?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 1, 2007 5:32 PM


    I have no difficulty whatsoever believing it. I've seen rednecks in action and I've seen police officers who made you feel like you needed the police to protect you from them.

    Again, I don't feel like either situation makes a compelling case for much of anything.

    Pragmatic? emotional? maybe both?

    Start to foam, Cecelia.


    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 1, 2007 5:26 PM


    AAP, the foam you see is your jonesing from going without saying "Bushwipe" for three whole posts.

    >AAP, the foam you see is your jonesing from going without saying "Bushwipe" for three whole posts.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 5:47 PM

    Why would I do that?

    When I have you "you know what's" yapping and barking at the mere omission of the stimulus.

    Wrong again Jeff!....Well maybe there WAS one or two hiding out from Saddam's henchmen.

    Posted by: Mike at May 1, 2007 5:26 PM
    LMAO! CJ, are you seeing this whackodoodle! What a piece O' work, lil mickey is. First I'm wrong, them I'm not, what a freak.

    VOK,

    You asked CJ about censorship of the military blogs. I don't know if there is or isn't. But do you think guys like CJ were forced to start a blog and take the positions they hold?

    ""Oh and one more point VOK. The fact that DVD's are for sale with Pelosi, Mutha, et al speaks volumes." It does? What does it say to you? I really don't get this thinking.

    Why would a terrorist use Pelosi, Murtha et al in the propaganda tapes? I would be curious to hear your response.

    Cecelia,

    What you said below makes sense to me:
    Like it or not we're in Iraq and we've got an obligation there that may continue to cost the lives of our sons and daughters. But the consquences of the sort of bloodbath that will happen for our supporters there when we leave and the utter loss of the sort of public relations war that you've already mentioned is just incalcuable.

    There's got to be some sort of coming together over this fact.

    For the first time here, there has been a soldier (who has been wounded, who will go back to Iraq this summer and who has a family) giving us a soldier's perspective. He is legitimate, not a figment of someone's imagination to blow off steam. I am grateful that he has taken the time to post here. You can give your opinion (as well as myself) from the safety of your home. He opines based upon direct experience, facing death. It would be courteous to take the time and read some of the past posts on his site (A Soldier's Perspective). Compare the response of John the Angry Vet to CJ's response toward those who attack his viewpoint. Yes, he can get angry at times but there is substance to his posts and a willingness to debate the issue.

    Compare the response of John the Angry Vet to CJ's response toward those who attack his viewpoint. Yes, he can get angry at times but there is substance to his posts and a willingness to debate the issue.

    Posted by: Sharon at May 1, 2007 6:02 PM


    I agree, Sharon, and it's gone both ways in that CJ's been treated respectfully too.

    By everyone except Bob and What Do You Care What My Name Is. (one and the same? who knows or cares).

    Again, I don't feel like either situation makes a compelling case for much of anything.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 1, 2007 5:44 PM

    DAMMIT! You've forced me to agree with you!

    >Again, I don't feel like either situation makes a compelling case for much of anything.

    NOOOOOO!

    We have to wait until we are going off the cliff under a (D) President.

    WE CANNOT PULL OF NOW!!

    I thought hell already froze over when the Eagles got back together?

    By everyone except Bob and What Do You Care What My Name Is. (one and the same? who knows or cares).

    Posted by: Sharon at May 1, 2007 6:19 PM
    mike had to throw in a couple "allegedly's" in a response to CJ to show his self-righteousness, the prick that he is.

    You're right, Royal, but I suppose he restrained himself as much as he is able.

    Hey AAP, why don't you read! Your response at 6:27 makes absolutely no sense.

    They were discussing protesting. Is it that important to you to fight with Cecelia?

    "Why would a terrorist use Pelosi, Murtha et al in the propaganda tapes? I would be curious to hear your response."

    Cecelia,

    Since I did not see a response from VOK to this question, (although I am sure that any such would have been measured and sensible) I would like to take a stab at it.

    People in Iraq are hooked into the global electronic network - the recent study by the Inspector General regarding the Iraqi reconstruction found uneqivocally that telecommunications was the sector that has experienced the greatest degree of development in that country.

    They are also, understandably, very interested in what their occupier has in store for them - they watch our news, and pay attention to what our politicians are saying. Polls indicated very clearly that the majority of Iraqis favor a rapid withdrawal of US forces - suggesting that the messages of the Democratic figures denounced by CJ resonate with average Iraqis very strongly.

    That being the case, why would a virulent foreign movement (ie. the "terrorists") not try to acquire this message and associate it ham-handedly with their own agenda? Its called "propaganda", a force within which form and intent rarely have anything to do with one another.

    Throwing the truth at CJ is NOT showing him respect to you olbyhaters.
    Funny !

    The respect was shown by everyone except Bob and Why. There were various responses, all in opposition to CJ, but done with more respect than those two.

    Regarding polls, I doubt the reliability of any poll taken in Iraq. A poll that Bob was extolling last month or so stated that there was no way to determine how many of those polled are either insurgents or in support of them. I would have to search the archives to get more specific. (It was not the same poll but indicated essentially what this poll suggests). I also put a link from a pollster who analyzed the recent poll to which you refer, fairly, and brought up some concerns. The pollster spoke to Zogby. The link is somewhere above.

    Additionally, from what CJ says, the propaganda DVD shows our guys getting attacked. You can't see how this can be read as caving? Isn't that possible?

    When I said caving, I meant that by listening to Pelosi, Reed, the U.S. is caving into demands of insurgents. You'll have to excuse lapses in train of thought. I have little ones around.

    You can't see how this can be read as caving? Isn't that possible?

    Posted by: Sharon at May 1, 2007 6:52 PM

    Sure, it can be "read" that way - but the entire point of propaganda is to use deception to elicit a response desired by the propagandist. You (the right wing) are "caving" by falling for terrorist bullsh-t and lashing out at some of the most sensible messages available. By all appearances you are very easy marks.

    I think it was Sharon who was questioning on that, beefy, not Cecelia. I can't really reply to Sharon because I have no idea who made the video or what their political or military goal is, or whether it even exists. CJ is gung ho. I've visited over on his site and he seems to me to show a strong willingness to oversimplify and emphasize only one side of things.

    I have no doubt at all that George Bush must appear all over jihadi literature, certainly he comes up in a couple of OBL tapes I think. Means nothing to me. I really don't care who is using which politicians for which kinds of tapes. I don't care if someone in Iraq finds such talk "heartening." This isn't a question of having the right attitude and censoring our political system to please or displease Jihadis.

    The Iraqi scene is complicated enough that you have to know clearly who and what you are talking about. "The terrorists love Pelosi and Murtha" is an empty, meaningless statement to me. I'd like to hear from Sharon, who apparently thinks it proves something and "speaks volumes", just what it says.

    The respect was shown by everyone except Bob and Why. There were various responses, all in opposition to CJ, but done with more respect than those two.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 1, 2007 6:52 PM

    First of all show me where there wasn't "respected"...and this guy could be ANYONE.
    You DO know that Sharon ?

    I'm not going to bow at this feet like you...especially when he's speaking a small minority opinion...kinda like you.

    Regarding polls, I doubt the reliability of any poll taken in Iraq."

    But you don't doubt when an administration who has been wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq tells you we need a SURGE to glorious victory !

    ...and who "caved"?

    Prior to and following 9/11 Osama bin Laden's only expressed grievance against the US was the presence of troops on the Arabian peninsula. A year and a half later all US troops and bases had been removed from Saudi Arabia by president Bush.

    So much for "caving to insurgents' demands"

    VOK/Mike, I think it's important to note that the insurgents don't use Bush/Cheney quotes to support their cause. For those confused, the insurgent cause is death to American and Iraqis. In other words - terrorism. In even more simplistic terms - bad guys love Pelosi, Reid, and MurthaNow THAT bears repeating."

    What bears repeating is that Al Qaeda WASN'T IN Iraq before Bush invaded the country...and who CJ keeps forgetting that a large % of the American and Iraqi people want us out of that country.

    Continuing to blame any of the Iraq mess on Democrats( instead of the real culprits) just shows CJ is a blind partisan wingnut.

    Continuing to blame any of the Iraq mess on Democrats( instead of the real culprits) just shows CJ is a blind partisan wingnut.

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at May 1, 2007 7:11 PM
    This shows you are a disrespectful idiot, to put it lightly. Oh, and a coward.

    *But you don't doubt when an administration who has been wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq tells you we need a SURGE to glorious victory !

    -Who said there are no doubts? Nothing is ever 100% except death.

    *and this guy could be ANYONE.
    CHeck CJ's website called A Soldier's Perspective (which I referenced about 5 times)

    *What bears repeating is that Al Qaeda WASN'T IN Iraq before Bush invaded the country.

    -In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

    Hillary Clinton

    *..and who "caved"?

    Prior to and following 9/11 Osama bin Laden's only expressed grievance against the US was the presence of troops on the Arabian peninsula. A year and a half later all US troops and bases had been removed from Saudi Arabia by president Bush.

    So much for "caving to insurgents' demands"

    Some would say that withdrawal is another cave. I am not a wingnut. I don't agree with every move of the Bush Administration.

    I have family obligation right now VOK. ALthough even when I do reply, I doubt that any answer would be satisfactory.

    That being the case, why would a virulent foreign movement (ie. the "terrorists") not try to acquire this message and associate it ham-handedly with their own agenda? Its called "propaganda", a force within which form and intent rarely have anything to do with one another.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 1, 2007 6:36 PM


    Well, there's a certain amount of truth to that, no doubt. It's hard to voice any sort of opinion that it doesn't help some kook on one side or the other, so any accusation that you've done that needs to weighed as to whether it's not some ploy to stifle discussion.

    That said, it's just as obvious that pols do have a responsibility to use some caution in their speech. We know people are going to die when we pull out. We know this will inspire our Iraqi friends to, at best, shut the hell up as far as telling us anything, at worse side against us in an attempt to save their necks later.

    It's a tightrope, when it comes to pols-- between honest political dissent and in making what's bad worse.

    It's something where rules can't be formulated before hand. Unfortunately it takes discernment before and after the fact.

    I have family obligation right now VOK. ALthough even when I do reply, I doubt that any answer would be satisfactory.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 1, 2007 7:36 PM

    Not when you continue to make excuses for a president who lied us into a war !

    First off, I want to say I've enjoyed this thread more than any I've read in a while! It is full of moslty thoughtful, sincere and even polite replies. with a few exceptions of course. maybe we could talk Bob cox into creating a place just for flame wars where certain folks can have at each other?

    What bears repeating is that Al Qaeda WASN'T IN Iraq before Bush invaded the country...and who CJ keeps forgetting that a large % of the American and Iraqi people want us out of that country.

    Continuing to blame any of the Iraq mess on Democrats( instead of the real culprits) just shows CJ is a blind partisan wingnut.

    Posted by: Why Do You Care What My Name is at May 1, 2007 7:11 PM
    What bears repeating is you are spewing. Al Qaeda was in Iraq long before the war began. Deny it all you want, loon. You should get your news from an honest source.

    "That said, it's just as obvious that pols do have a responsibility to use some caution in their speech."

    Absolutely. For instance: "We don't want the smoking Gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud"; or "...quantities of uranium from...Africa"; or "Bring 'em on!" All very irresponsible and destructive statements.

    "It's a tightrope, when it comes to pols-- between honest political dissent and in making what's bad worse."

    OK, but why do limit your critique the dissenting end of the continuum? Would you not agree that you could say "honest PUBLIC SERVICE" instead and be making a far more relevant statement?

    What bears repeating is you are spewing. Al Qaeda was in Iraq long before the war began. Deny it all you want, loon. You should get your news from an honest source.

    Posted by: royalking at May 1, 2007 9:22 PM

    Similarly, Al Qeada was in the US prior to 9/11. Should we be attacked and occupied?

    VOK,

    The soldiers are over there, making an impression by their numerous kindnesses demonstrated to the people. As you pointed out to CJ, that is probably the best chance of mending fences with Iraqi people, particularly with the young people. Prior to the fall of Saddam, what was the source of the average Iraqi's view of Americans? Propaganda. When the soldiers are helping them (of course there are terrible rare exceptions), they see a different America. Using the faces and voices of those governing to put our military in a bad light is the second best way to stop any cooperation (the first is killing those who do cooperate, in my opinion). Bad soldiers need to go home! Speaks volumes is a figure of speech. I meant it in terms of those in power who carelessly throw words around. Would you feel better if I retracted speaks volumes?

    Maybe you are aware or maybe not that so often Why Do You Care ... and some others stated over and over how your opinion is not valid if you are not serving (or a family member) and it is even shameful to voice it, unless you parrot their views. When I saw CJ's site, I requested him to respond to SLOB (on a topic concerning a recent post of his). I didn't think he would change anyone's point of view but I thought it would lead to better discussion because the aforementioned argument would be taken out of the picture.

    If you haven't heard me say it before, I'll say it again now. I don't think Bush lied. I think reasonable people can differ about how long he should have waited for Saddam to comply. I believe there was poor reaction time at many points. If you believe Bush did lie for personal gain, your anger should be directed at those who have the power to do something about it. Ask Cindy Sheehan. Maybe you should consider (if you haven't already) donating your time, talents, money to her cause. Or do some stumping for Dennis Kucinich. Why isn't he a top candidate?

    OK, but why do limit your critique the dissenting end of the continuum? Would you not agree that you could say "honest PUBLIC SERVICE" instead and be making a far more relevant statement?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 1, 2007 10:20 PM


    I was addressing a specific subject that you referenced-- CJ's and your comments on propaganda pieces and the like.

    Okay, allow me to give you all a little history lesson about terrorists in Iraq since the naysayers here have all swallowed the "there were no terrorists in Iraq" prior to our involvement or "just one or two".

    Google the name Ansar Al-Islam (Supporters of Islam). Ansar Al-Islam is a terrorist organization. Ansar Al-Islam is based in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Ansar al-Islam provided training support to Al Qaeda at its training ground in the north. In response, they received more than $600,000 from Al Qaeda. Additionally, was comprised of members from the Taliban that was able to escape in December 2001. Terrorism is terrorism.

    Saddam Hussein's government paid more than $35,000 to Ansar al Islam and provided vehicles and tactical support to the group in their fight against the semi-autonomous Kurds, whom Saddam loathed. Whether Saddam knew or not that he was indirectly supporting AQ through Ansar al-Islam (I believe he did, but just personal opinion) isn't the point. We took out Saddam because he was supporting terrorists who were supporting AQ and that's the link!! AQ WAS in Iraq and they were actively training there before the invasion. And if they weren't, we were justified to go in there anywhere simply because of their support to AAI.

    Even Human Rights Watch, a group that traditionally enjoys doing whatever it can to make the US look bad has written stories that support this contention. So, the whole "they weren't there until we got there" is BS! And it proves that those who continue to argue this benign point, are mindless drones who won't investigate for themselves anything that isn't published on some liberal website.

    Let me make something clear here: I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm registered Independent, but I consider myself Libertarian. So, I can agree with both sides on certain issues. But, when it comes to this war and fighting terrorism, as a Soldier it sure is difficult to side with the majority of Democrats. Because most of what I discuss on my blog is military related, and the Democrats are decidedly not interesting in military success, I tend to lean towards Republicans. I'm no "blind partisan wingnut". The Republicans are WAY off base on many issues: government spending, immigration, and civil liberties to name a few. But, that isn't the scope of my site, A Soldier's Perspective.

    There, I've educated you on the Al Qaeda link in Iraq and absurd notion that we CREATED terrorists there. You can spit out that koolaide now and switch to mineral water.

    SLOB, your assertion about AQ being in the states makes no sense. The absurdity in that argument is that mere presence doesn't justify an invasion. Otherwise, we'd be invading Europe all over again. The difference is that they aren't being SUPPORTED by the government here. They operate under cover in sleeper cells and we expend great amounts of energy tracking them down. That was just an ignorant statement, I'm sorry.

    And, yes, SLOB, I accidentally left out the "not" when referring to the spitting incident. It is NOT a widespread incident and I hope I cleared that up earlier. Just wanted to reiterate that again. I meant to say "it certainly does not happen a lot."

    Similarly, Al Qeada was in the US prior to 9/11. Should we be attacked and occupied?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at May 1, 2007 10:23 PM
    Your get debunked then you try to spin? Nice.

    lil mickey, debunked again, right along with his buddy, SLOB. I keep telling you guys, THINK before you post!

    CJ, the fact that there were 'terrorists' in the extreme border regions of Northern Iraq prior to the invasion is not new information. Note that I said 'terrorists', and not Al Qaeda. Ansar Al-Islam is said to have numbered between 300 and 700 fighters, depending on whose information you accept. They controlled a group of difficult to access border villages near the Iranian border and their ultimate goal was the defeat of the semi-autonomous Kurds, who already enjoyed almost complete autonomy from Saddam at that time.

    Once you get beyond the above factual information, actual facts become increasingly hazy about who they had ties to, who their enemies were, and who may have been financing them.

    Actual links to Al Qeada are tenous at best, and there is no hard evidence that there was any actual connection, other than being assumed common enemies of the Kurds. Thus they were also assumed by some to be connected with Saddam because of his animosity towards the Kurds, whom he was never able to exercise complete control over, especially after the establishment of the no fly zones after Gulf War I.

    In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This appears to be the basis for any claims of a connection between Saddam and Ansar Al-Islam, who once again, was not Al Qeada. However, leaders from both groups also denied any connection and maintained that Saddam was also an enemy.

    The main source implying connections between Saddam and either group were Kurdish informants, who were obviously common enemies to all Jihadists groups AND Saddam. These would hardly have been unbiased sources. In doing a little searching myself, the only source I found for the financial aid alledged by CJ was on a web site called "Iraqi News", which was clearly a pre war site run by Iraqi exiles, who were known to have been chomping at the bit for us to go in.

    Colin Powell used this very information as part of his justification for invading in his famed UN speech that sealed the decision, and he is now on record as being sorry for this becuase the information, including the alledged AL Qeada links were unreliable and unprovable.

    Whatever is believed to be known or not known about this Ansar Al-Islam organization is strickly a matter of personal and professional opinion and hardly provided grounds for an invasion. Ansar Al-Islam was declared an International terrorist organization long AFTER the Iraq invasion, and have known to have rebuilt their organization since the occupation. They have been alledged to be behind many of the attacks in and around Iraq since the invasion.

    So, we are back to square one. You can believe that Al Qeada had a presence in Iraq but it is not provable. I 'link' can be argued, as CJ just did, but that is not ironclad fact either. Missing from all of this analysis is the FACT that Saddam had no control over the region in which Ansar Al-Islam were known to be active...control over which he desparately wanted to regain.

    Conclusions: AL Qeada was not in Iraq prior to the invasion...and now they are. AL Qeada was the enemy of our enemy (Saddam). Neither of those conclusions can be disproven, and both are more likely to be true than not.

    This was simply no justification for invading Iraq...and that leaves us with none.

    "Ansar Al-Islam was declared an International terrorist organization long AFTER the Iraq invasion"

    Can you be any more wrong? The FACT is that Ansar al-Islam was finally declared a terrorist organization exactly on 20 February 2003, a month PRIOR to the Iraq invasion. You see, research is important. You can't come here and just make stuff up to get people to believe your tales. I'm a thinking Soldier. And if you can't tell yet, I work in counter-terrorism, so I can go at this all day long.

    It was executive order 13224 that designated Ansar al Islam a terrorist organization in 2003. And one more piece of fact about Ansar al Islam, who you admit is a terrorist organization, so you can no long claim the Iraq war was not about terrorism. In 1999, President Clinton began supporting a group (military assistance) called the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan. Because of its role in the eventual formation of Ansar al-Islam group, the IMIK did not receive U.S. funds after 2001, under President Bush. Ansar al Islam was informally considered a terrorist organization way back then as well. It was with this organization that a strange individual named Zarqawi trained.

    Next. You set em up and I'll knock em down.

    CJ, after reading mike's last post (psycho babble) you would think that he thinks he was Secretary of State or a 5 star Gen. He's a legend in his own mind.

    First off, my quote was "International Terrorist organization", not simply "terrorist organization", and I will find my source and get back to you on that. If I am wrong on that point regarding a date, I will admit it, but that certainly would not change the central point of my post even if I did remember that detail wrong. In fact, I'd go so far as call that splitting hairs.

    I haven't seen where you have 'knocked' anything down, unless I happened to be wrong regarding a date concerning an immaterial fact.

    I never 'claimed' the Iraq war was "not about Terrorism"....for the Neocons. It certainly was in Bush, Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Perles, Kristols, etc., feeble minds. My claim, along with many others is that the invasion was never about who attacked us on 911, as it SHOULD have been.

    The invasion was unjustified....plain and simple, and the intelligence was no "slam dunk"...knock that one down!

    1. "I'd go so far as call that splitting hairs."

    Everything is "splitting hairs" to you. Especially when you're proven wrong.


    2. "I haven't seen where you have 'knocked' anything down, unless I happened to be wrong regarding a date concerning an immaterial fact."

    All I can do is laugh at this one.


    The US State Department OFFICIALLY labeled Ansar as a terrorist group in March 2004, only after it was involved in several high profile bombings. I believe March 2004 qualifies as being "well AFTER" the invasion. (Gobalsecurity.org).

    THIS was the time and declaration I was referring to.

    But before that, On Febuary 20, 2003, The US State Department asked the UN sanctions Commitee to add Ansar's name to it's consolidated list of entities and individuals associated with AL Qeada & the Talaban.

    Funny, this seems to be the same date YOU were referring to, but that doesn't sound like the OFFICIAL declaration as a "terrorist Organization" to me.

    Even after proving my point, I still think this point is splitting hairs and evades the larger point.

    Damn Jeff...if you were only smart enough to see just how incredibly stupid you look with your little troll posts.

    By the way CJ, that last comment was for Jeff...AKA RoyalKing, the site troll, NOT you. (just in case you are so new that you didn't know RoyalKing's real name is actually Jeff). Jeff inserts himself into everything.

    CJ, you are by no means stupid, and I still respect all you are doing, and have done immensily, even if I disagree with you about the war, and it's origins.

    "Using the faces and voices of those governing to put our military in a bad light is the second best way to stop any cooperation (the first is killing those who do cooperate, in my opinion)."

    That's a fine answer, Sharon, but I guess we just disagree that this cuts only one way, and disagree more fundamentally perhaps as well. I do not believe the statements of the Democrats "put the military in a bad light" any more than the Republicans do. There is simply nothing one can say that can stand up, if pulled out of context and spliced between scenes of IED attacks to a happy driving rock beat or ululating or Islamic chanting. I think that is a preposterous standard.

    On a deeper level, in the U.S., we do not change our discourse to fit our enemy. This is a fundamental principle of the open society. Our discourse IS our decision making apparatus. If we modify that apparatus from fear, we will make poor decisions. We cannot have a secret decider that we just trust, and when we do, we make massive, tragic mistakes. Arguing over what can be said due to the reaction of our enemies is simply wrong. Strategically wrong. It takes the real moral force of our nation and pawns it for phony unanimity that anyone can see through.

    We need to think and talk simply about what we believe is right for the United States, and not worry about whether this creates good or bad propaganda. We are not in the propaganda business. Our mode of government IS our propaganda. We seem to be forgetting that.

    I will note too that both sides can be guilty of this irresponsibility of shouting about what is permissible to say or do in light of our enemies reactions. But in the context of this discussion, it is CJ, who is admittedly giving the soldier's perspective. I think it is the wrong perspective for a civilian debate, and our political policy in the U.S. is a civilian debate.

    "Maybe you should consider (if you haven't already) donating your time, talents, money to her cause."

    Kucinich and Shehan? If you really think these people represent my arguments or stance, you simply aren't listening. Or are you just trying to stay comfortable within comfortable if combative divisions? How about you donate your time and talents to Rush Limbaugh, Alan Keyes, and the DAR?

    I donate to the Intrepid Fallen Heros fund, a charity providing grants and assistance to the families of the wounded as well as a free clinic in Texas and more projects on the way. 100% of your donation goes directly to grants and services because the board of the charity personally underwrites all administrative costs. An A+ rating and total transparency. Anyone who wants to say they "support the soldiers" should look into this.

    One of the WAY underreported stories of this war is that there is a much higher percentage of wounded and maimed than ever before, because we are now so good at saving lives on the battlefield. People tend to think "only 3,000 dead, that's pretty low for a war...and it is. But the flipside is that we have tens of thousands of disabling injuries. We need to stand by these people for a generation. And you can bet when the drum beats die down there will be no more rememberance of these people than in past wars.

    As I've mentioned, I create savings to donate by collecting, sawing, splitting and burning wood to offset my use of fuel oil. I consider this to be helping to contribute to energy independence which I think has a lot to do with this war. So something direct and specific, and something more global and general, and something that keeps me thinking about this practically every single day.

    You're a dumbass, mickey. You must be really dizzy after that little spin. Your spew was that there was "maybe one or two" AQ members in Iraq before the war, which was a lie. Then you throw in (after the fact) that they weren't "official," what a joke you are. Chalk up another "debunk" for lilo mickey.

    "You asked CJ about censorship of the military blogs. I don't know if there is or isn't. But do you think guys like CJ were forced to start a blog and take the positions they hold?"

    Of course I don't think that. He made a claim though that 95% of the military blogs voiced his opinions. If there used to be a diversity of opinions in these blogs, but some were shut down so that they are now uniform and tow the party line complete with outrage at Democrats, then his statement would be little more than an indictment of the very point he is trying to make.

    Suffice to say, I have 4 total Iraqi Freedom acquaintances, 3 boots on the ground patrol, 2 of whom I call friends. All 4 are Republicans or were upon deployment. And only one of these 4 has anything like the strident political tone of CJ. And CJ is saying he has been spat upon by anti-war folk and essentially saying that domestic dissent is hampering his efforts and causing soldier deaths. This is so far from what I've heard, and so far from what internal military polls say, that I am very interested in his claim that 95% of military bloggers agree with him. I'm not saying he is fake, and I'm not saying he is being censored or told what to say. I just want to know what the blogging rules are and whether they might play some part in this 95% figure.

    I do know that 1 of the 4 I know considered blogging but felt that it did involve some kind of hassles or oversight that he did not want to bother with. I don't know what kind of restrictions these guys face. I am genuinely interested to know from CJ.

    VOK,

    I don't want to pretend to be more than I am. I don't disagree with every point you make. Sure there are other possible interpretations of propaganda videos. I am glad to hear of your efforts to support soldiers and I am certainly not in the dark about the number of wounded. I have seen several moving specials on the care the wounded receive and how a large majority of them would have died in prior wars. I can't talk counter-terrorism; I admit my ignorance. That is why I find it incredible that Mike uses Google to come up with his arguments when CJ works in counter-terrorism as a career. I sometimes will comment here often, sometimes not. If I feel I have something to contribute, I will. You don't seem to have the same belittling attitude as others here and appear knowledgeable.

    "That is why I find it incredible that Mike uses Google to come up with his arguments when CJ works in counter-terrorism as a career."

    Wrong, Sharm. I use google to verify and confirm dates and details, as many on this board seem to demand...or they will accuse you of simply pulling something "out of your ass".

    I used Google last night to simply verify document what I already knew. That the case for an Iraq Al Qeada connection prior to the invasion was extremely weak at best, and non-existant at worst. This is why the exactly why the so called liberal MSM has treated the 'story' the way has...because there isn't one.

    Sharm, are you arguing that because 'CJ' suddenly showed up on this board claiming to be a military counter-terrorism expert that the rest of us are supposed to simply come to attention, shut up, and simply say "yes sir, anything you say sir"?

    I would also ask you why you would place so much faith in military counter-intelligence considering the mess our country has gotten itself in...partially because of poor intelligence?

    One more thing...my father was a career military man....in the intelligence career field.

    I would also ask you why you would place so much faith in military counter-intelligence considering the mess our country has gotten itself in...partially because of poor intelligence?

    One more thing...my father was a career military man....in the intelligence career field.

    Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2007 6:31 PM
    So, CJ is dumb and your dad was smart? Think before you post!

    Jeff, you're the pnly one who said "CJ is dumb". Icertainly never said that!

    Thank before you post Jeff!...oh thats right...you can't!

    Hittin the bottle a little early today?

    And if you can't tell yet, I work in counter-terrorism, so I can go at this all day long.
    Posted by: CJ at May 2, 2007 2:43 AM

    Instead of 'going at this all day long' shouldn't you be countering terrorism?

    Just a thought...

    Well, since I'm apparently responsible for the "mess our country has gotten itself in", I'll leave you to yourself. I can't enlighten people who don't want to be enlightened.

    I don't know. When do we decide that affirmative action programs are no longer needed? What sort of costs must be incurred with public education, or social security, until we decide that enough is enough and let's try vouchers or tax breaks or alternate retirement programs, etc. No sorts of ceilings are ever placed on programs like that. These things aren't without human costs as well.

    Craigs, I do understand and appreciate the honesty and the validity of your question. I can't imagine there being any war supporter here who wouldn't admit to being discouraged about the course of the war and fearful of its aftermath. It's that cost, the cost of pulling out , that must be calculated as well.

    Like it or not we're in Iraq and we've got an obligation there that may continue to cost the lives of our sons and daughters. But the consquences of the sort of bloodbath that will happen for our supporters there when we leave and the utter loss of the sort of public relations war that you've already mentioned is just incalcuable.

    There's got to be some sort of coming together over this fact. I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton understands this in a way that her fellow candidates do not, and I'm hopeful about her and her ability to forestall members of her party, rally international support in a way the Bush Administration ignored, and act with caution. As far as dem candidates go, my hopes ride with her as opposed to the Dems she's running against.

    But I'd be more hopeful if we were past the election

    I've been meaning to respond to your post for eons Cecelia but got rather busy with some work stuff.

    So first off thanks for the reply. I have heard the arguements before, but usually in matters with this much emotion attached you don't get don't a reply devoid of anger over the other position, or presented in such a lucid way.

    I think the primary thing I was curious about regarding your views on this matter revolve around my curiosity about perception and at what point do the right (broadly speaking) and the left (again very broadly speaking) start to interpret events differently?

    obvisouly just reading through here there are many points where this occurs.

    I liked your points on common ground but I'm not sure if there is much chance of that anymore. Personally I wish Bush had followed the Iraq study group's recomnedations because it may have provided the best opportunity for the left and right to get together on Iraq. Now I think that that point has passed. I guess whether that is true is the primary point of conflict and debate on the issue.

    I liked your points on common ground but I'm not sure if there is much chance of that anymore. Personally I wish Bush had followed the Iraq study group's recomnedations because it may have provided the best opportunity for the left and right to get together on Iraq. Now I think that that point has passed. I guess whether that is true is the primary point of conflict and debate on the issue.

    Posted by: craigs at May 2, 2007 8:21 PM


    I hope not, Major.

    Fact #1:We will eventually get out of Iraq.

    Fact #2: There will not be a military solution.

    Summary: The only thing occupying Iraq does for the US is to bring more boys home in a box.

    Should we wait more years ?
    Or end the carnage right now ?

    These are not difficult questions !

    Anon who insults someone who may come home in a box.

    Anon who insults someone who may come home in a box.

    Posted by: Sharm at May 3, 2007 3:01 AM


    Sharm, I've been wanting to ask if you are Sharon under a new name?

    I just saw this. Sharon/Sharm is me. I used to post as Sharm, a nickname given to me by a dear friend. When some were being abusive, I didn't want to hear Sharm associated with the abuse. But I use Sharm all the time otherwise and decided to go back to it; however, I have to keep typing in Sharm or the TypeKey identity reverts back to Sharon.

    "Personally I wish Bush had followed the Iraq study group's recomnedations because it may have provided the best opportunity for the left and right to get together on Iraq."

    The administration has not taken a completely different path from ISG in real terms. They did take perhaps the hardest line broadly within the confines of ISG. But the real difference is mostly in rhetoric. They slammed Polosi for talking to the Syrians, but where is Condi this morning? (Did Cecelia's low-level friend at State have something there?) ISG does contemplate a temporary security surge. The democrats do hold the purse strings and they could simply announce they are funding now but won't fund past March or something, but they don't. Words and actions, politics and reality, two different things. There will be an orderly redeployment out of Iraq within a year no matter what. Everything else being fought over is semantics and how it plays in domestic politics going forward.

    So in light of that, how much of what we are worrying about being "unbridgeable" is just rhetoric? The administration and it's allies have escalated the domestic politics by introducing words like "surrender" and "retreat" and talking points about vocal opponents of open-ended occupation helping our enemies, endangering the troops, and so forth. They are trying to transfer and trade on the right wing popular notion that the reason we "lost" Vietnam was lefty snarking. This mostly seems to me to be poorly aimed damage control, trying both to stall the inevitable and to shore up their base political strenth. This calculated rhetorical escalation comes out in spades in internet chat.

    But look at the the realities. Does anyone think we are going to be patroling the streets in Iraq one year from now? Does Bush? Do the Republicans in congress? I don't think so. Even in his "defiant" veto speech, his main argument is not that you can't pull back until the original objective is achieved, but that you can't tell your enemies the exact day that you are redeploying, for operational security reasons. You could as easily read this as saying we need a surprise pullout as an indefinite occupation. Gone are clear words about staying until "the job is done."

    The reason for this is that there is no more definition of "job" and "done" in this case in the general American estimation. We don't know anymore if standing up the IP is a path to security or simply more efficient civil unrest. If these guys are allying with Iran, are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Why do the Sadyrists say they hate us but want us to stay a little longer because they are not yet ready. What are they getting ready for, peace and stability? In short, is patroling Iraq right now giving us any more control over the final outcome there?

    There is common ground here, you just have to look past the rah-rah political rhetoric to see it. But it would help if a lot of that rhetoric on both sides quit demonizing positions that in reality do have America's good as their sincere goal, if some significant disagreement about how that good is to be pursued and how much of American values must be sacrificed in the attempt.

    This idea of division and conciliation over Iraq is one reason why I have my eye on the Obama campaign. Here's a guy who stated his opposition to OIF up front, pretty accurately predicted the dangers, and yet has a pretty mild tone towards the administration and has gone so far as to say he might have voted for authorization if he had been in that position, that we can't turn towards isolation, that we still need to maintain a response force over the horizon to prevent total disaster in Iraq...Put all this in the context of that great speech he gave at the convention.

    In short (yeah right!) I think it's almost natural that we be somewhat polarized in light of what has happened, that we don't disagree as much as we pretend, and that ultimately we'll get over this period.

    "The administration has not taken a completely different path from ISG in real terms."

    I think much of the study group was ignored VOK. My memory of the report (I will have to check when I get home to make sure I'm right) is that the panel was in favor of timetables followed by a phased re-deployment. The idea being to put pressure on the iraqi govemrnet to get it together. I have a copy at home so I'll check to make sure I am factually correct. Not to mention while we are talking to Syria, the report called for talks with Iran (based on their self interest in avoiding a refugee crisis if a civil war breaks out) as well as to renew the mideast peace process (even with Hamas there) and to try and get every regional player involved in creating iraqi stability.

    You may be right in that what we are seeing is just basic politcal postioning, before we get the hell out. but my point was that Baker/Hamilition commision may have been the last best chance for the left and right to come together in trying to save iraq.

    I think that point has passed and now it's just a matter of each side blaming the other for losing iraq before we do pull out.




    Craigs, I don't deny that on the face of it the administration itself is not really unilaterally pursuing ISG and pretending that they are sticking to their old line. But look at the reality. We are now talking to Syria, we have made noise about talking to Iran, there are going to be (non-binding) timetables, the Iraqi government is being pressured, and every major mideast player is at the conference today. You have to look past the admin's rhetoric. They can't simply say "oops, O.K., we'll try something else." That would give them 0 credibility. They are backing away from their mistakes slowly, whistling a happy tune, which is the only way they can do it. They might not have wanted to, but they have to, and they are. And the total effect of this gradual compromise will look not unlike ISG I think.

    I welcome the coming headlines of the Democrats "backing down." The hard left will get in a tizzy, the right will save enough face to move forward, and we will wind this down in a rational way and manage the new risks of the outcome. I think a lot of Democrats feel like there should be an apology or something from Bush. Not only can that not happen, it wouldn't hasten any kind of reconciliation or unity even if it could.

    Republicans didn't lose Iraq and Democrats didn't win it. Democrats didn't lose Iraq and Republicans didn't win it. It turns out to have been a pretty naive idea, we are all a little responsible for it, and now we all have to manage the consequences responsibly.