It is a moronic piece. You disappointed me and you did violence to your credibility. It is fine to wish Bush to succeed, but there is a point at which you have to say he is not worth your fealty. That point was passed long ago. We would all do better if we were to say Bush is not worth my frustration or Bush is not worth my praise. Bush's only relevance is in how many more Americans must die to feed his sordid and ghoulish pride.

That the OlbyLoons don't like it is a high compliment indeed!

Robert: the new Conservapedia needs your expertise on the Keith Olbermann page:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Keith_olbermann

That the OlbyLoons don't like it is a high compliment indeed!

-----

Very, very childish, indeed.

STC, I have said it several times, even gave examples, that GWB is a piker compared to both Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt in terms of claiming special powers during times of war and/or rebellion.

Both great Presidents suspended Habeus Corpus for American citizens in ways that GWB has neither claimed nor has done. Additionally, FDR's attempt to 'pack the Federal Judiciary' was unequaled as a raw attempt at a breathtaking power grab. From The Constitutional Rights Foundation:

"The series of anti-New Deal decisions by the Supreme Court angered President Roosevelt and prompted him to attempt to reform the federal court system itself. This included a so-called "court-packing" proposal that would have enabled FDR to appoint an additional six justices to the Supreme Court. Suddenly, the non-political branch of the federal government was caught up in an intense and bitter national political debate. The Supreme Court would never be the same again."

I sometimes think that history began for many either on the day they were born or the day GWB was elected. They certainly don't bring any historic perspective to their cries that GWB has shredded the constitution and is a wannabe King or Dictator.

The ebb and flow of power between the three branches of our government is a constant battle. And the history of our country is that over time any shift between the branches comes back to balance.

Mr Cox, loved your essay. It should give pause to anyone who thinks that GWB is an anomaly unseen in our history. Hopefully it will spur some to do some research.

Grammie

PS STC, you are Save the Cats? I still chuckle when I see your name.

Great op-ed, Bob. It puts a lot of things into perspective.

great perspective Bob. History does have the last word doesn't it?

AAP: Of course you wouldn't get the point that Bob was trying to make. But what do I expect from an Olbyloon?

Dopey, exactly what did I write, or any others, that justifies this statement:

"I know this is a popular Right Wing theme these days, history will vindicate Bush."

Is it that difficult for you to address what is actually said, or are you compelled by some unseen force to careen off into tirades.

The entire point made by R Cox's essay and subsequent comments addressed the issue of historical precedence and how these were perceived at the time. Not a difficult concept for someone who can see beyond the end of his own nose.

Oh, Patsy, if you are going to quote me please do the honest thing and not pick one phrase from someone else and with the fraudulent use of ellipsis combine them to make a lie. I would think that if both you were as sure of your position as you claim you wouldn't have to resort to such deceptive tactics.

Grammie

Dopey, you certainly are full of it to the point that it is overflowing.

Do you genuflect and pull your forelock when you look in the mirror? That is the least you owe yourself based on the persona you present here.

Grammie

I guess that means Dopey does genuflect and pull his forelock when he looks in the mirror.

Grammie

You should know, Dopey. You are the world champion at worthless and mundane comments.

Grammie

Why, thank you, Dopey.

It is always gratifying to see juveniles giving their betters the respect that we are due.

Grammie

Patsy, you obviously have so much fun playing with, er, playing alone, have at it.

I wouldn't want to interfere with the little gratification you have.

Grammie

Patsy, the one trick pony, still standing in one spot, crapping and standing in it.

Grammie

Mr Cox, loved your essay.
-----
You can be such a suck-up. The essay was drivel. Poorly researched, trying to force the reader towards a conclusion not warranted by the facts presented. Your Extreme Right Wing types real have to subvert yourselves to somone, it seems, Bush, Cheney, Paul, Cox. What gives? Paranoia? Fright? An appalling lack of self-confidence? Whatever, I would encourage you to get some perspective. If you don't begin to distance yourselves from this arrogant, inept, dishonest Administration and its failed policies you are going to all begin to look like drooling fools. Some of you already do, Jeff not excepted.

An anonymous OlbyLoon wrote: "Poorly researched, trying to force the reader towards a conclusion not warranted by the facts presented."

Setting aside that it is an Op-Ed piece which is short for "Opinion-Editorial" and therefore my OPINION not a scholarly account of the Civil War, what "conclusion" do you imagine that I am "forcing" the reader towards?

The piece was inspired by reading a biography of Lincoln by Carl Sandburg, from which I quoted several times. So, in what way is the piece "poorly researched" since I provide my source and indicated where I am quoting directly from the book.

And for the OlbyLoon who is quoting the inane commenter on the Examiner.com site, you might want to also post my replies which effectively shred is "half-assed 'critique'".

News flash AAP, newspapers writers and columnists do not write headlines...editors write them.

AAP,

You are not making any sense. Do you actually believe that writers for newspapers write their own headlines? Maybe you think photographers write the captions for their photos?

Keep it up, it's useful for the clear-thinking readers on Olbermann Watch to witness the depth of your ignorance exposed yet again.

US military arming Sunni groups in Iraq: report

Mon Jun 11, 2:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US military commanders in
Iraq are turning to a new counterinsurgency strategy, which involves arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al-Qaeda, The New York Times reported on its website late Sunday.

Citing unnamed US commanders, the newspaper said the strategy has been successfully tested in Anbar Province, and US commanders have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong.

In some cases, the US commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups, the report said.

Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.

Officers, who have engaged in what they call outreach to the Sunni groups, say many of them have had past links to Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia but grew disillusioned with the Islamic militantsÂ’ extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, the paper said.

In exchange for US backing, these Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al-Qaeda and halt attacks on US forces, according to The Times.

Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases, Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps, the report said.

But critics of the strategy say it could amount to the United States arming both sides in a future civil war, The Times said.

The critics say there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites, according to the report.

There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against Americans themselves, the paper noted.

Chicken Blogger, no doubt it is a risk.

Just like it was a risk that Churchill recognized much better than FDR when we armed and supplied Stalinist Russia and then allowed them to advance well into Western Europe thereby setting the stage for the fifty five year cold war and all its spin offs that we are facing today.

The geneses of Al Qaeda was the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Lets hope that it is done very carefully and smart.

Grammie

Grummpie supports the freedom fighters!

----
The geneses of Al Qaeda was the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Lets hope that it is done very carefully and smart.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 11, 2007 9:25 PM
=======

You mean like when Ronald Raygun armed and financed Saddam and Osama?

*That* worked really well.