Very strange for Keithy to comment that O'Reilly loses 1 station to a sports show. His tone indicated he was implying Bill is losing popularity. That must have finally been a fun meeting with his bosses, after all the ones where they discussed getting creamed in the ratings.

I have to disagree with your view that Gen. William Odom is a "far left" individual.

He's an old fashioned realist - paleoconservative kind for the most part - who never wants (or wanted) to get involved in just about any conflict anywhere that didn't directly (as he saw it) threaten the security of the United States.

He was against, for example, the bombing of Belgrade to stop Milosevic from his ethnic cleansing.

To be blunt, he doesn't really care whether the Iraqi people are slaughtered after we leave. He would argue, "That's their problem", not ours".

Cold-hearted, 100% calculating realpolitik rules the world of William Odom.

For good or bad, that's his view.

Ohboy,

I disagree with you about Gen. Odom. He's an old geezer who has gone dingbat. He does not demand of his own side that we win what is called the "War On Terror".

All this free press and campaigning for Al Gore - his advisers are geniuses. Stage a worldwide media event to paint him as the left-wing messiah before he announces his intention to run (perhaps) - and he's not bound by any campaign rules or "fairness" standards at all. This event is carried by every National Broadcast for Communists (NBC) outlet both on TV and on the web. What a scam.

Rico:
"I disagree with you about Gen. Odom. He's an old geezer who has gone dingbat."

Well, he's got some odd views, that's for sure.

But, if I read him correctly, they're pretty much the same ones he's had for a long time.

His overall view is: The rest of the world can go to hell; just leave us alone. Sorta' Pat Buchanan "America First, Second and Third".

That's a good policy for America in 1907. Unfortunately, it's 2007.

And , to make things even worse for Man Tan Man, Nancy's 10 PM RERUN even beat KO's 8PM blockbuster spin show!! Could it be that Danny A is going to decide to replace him with Rosie in the Fall???

Holy fucking shit!

"These aren't the droids you are looking for."

Funniest comment of 2007!

Someone prove me wrong.

The J$ recaps are pure genius!

JD:
"I have to disagree with your view that Gen. William Odom is a "far left" individual."

My mistake.

You described Gen. Odom as a "far left favorite" NOT a "far left" person/figure.

I stand corrected.

Everything else I wrote is brilliant and needs no revision.

As Reported in 'The New York Post'

Dan Patrick ESPN radio host didn't show up for work thursday fueling speculation he's still in a protracted battle with his bosses.......

.......perhaps telling his listeners he was leaving ESPN after 18 years.........

........various guests subbed for Patrick yesterday.........

Well it looks like if Dan leaves ESPN, Dopey is about to lose a whole bunch of radio stations!!!!!

Meanwhile, on the Malcom Forbes 151 foot yacht, The Highlander on Wed. night watching the fireworks were the following people:

Not Malcom, he left us in 1990. But his three son's were on board! Along with a half dozen grandchildren and a couple of great grandkids, plus some non-relatives.

Robert Iler and John Ventimiglia from 'The Sopranos'.

Public Advocate Betsey Gotbaum

Mystery Writer Harlan Cobern

Fox News's BILL O'REILLY

Restaurateur Drew Nieporent

Sean Patrick Maloney, top aide to ny GOV. ELLIOT SPITZER.

Keep up the Olbsession there Dopey!!!!!!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

JD:
"I have to disagree with your view that Gen. William Odom is a "far left" individual."

My mistake.

You described Gen. Odom as a "far left favorite" NOT a "far left" person/figure.

I stand corrected.

Posted by: Ohboy at July 6, 2007 11:23 PM

I guess Ohboy didn't get to this part in any of his re-readings of Dollar;s post:

"Jeffries is next up, and his far-left politics, like those of Odom, are also not disclosed."

No , Ohboy, you stated it correctly the first time; Dollar will call anyone who thinks this war is a destructive, self-defeating enterprise a "far left" individual. I never noticed before that Saint Ronnie had so many commie moles in his cabinet.

How lonely you drowning rat psychos must be getting.

His overall view is: The rest of the world can go to hell; just leave us alone. Sorta' Pat Buchanan "America First, Second and Third".

That's a good policy for America in 1907. Unfortunately, it's 2007.

Posted by: Ohboy at July 6, 2007 11:12 PM

Pay attention: is "overall view" is that Bush policies have undermined the potential and effectiveness of our military. Did you miss the whole part about the deleterious effects of physical and mental fatigue resulting from ceaseless exposure - unique in US military history to this conflict - to high-stress and violent conditions?

Odom's recommendation is to end the pointless conflict. If there were really a necessary war to be fought, is it unreasonable to have expected a US administration to have actually gotten serious about it after six years?

"Saint Ronnie had so many commie moles in his cabinet"

Well, SLOB, my turn to correct you.

Odom did not serve in Reagan's cabinet.

He was in charge of the National Security Agency.

Not a cabinet post.

Anyway, it's one thing to be in favor or leaving Iraq. It's entirely different to have, as Odom apparently does, no concerns whatsoever as to what will happen to the Iraqi people once we do leave.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003607658

Maybe if Bush promises to commute the impending sentences for Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and his wife the Doolittle will switch back to supporting the endless occupation in Iraq.

.....but I doubt it. Even this crooked Republican congressman seemed to be sincere in his valid criticisms he leveled against Bush's war.

"Pay attention: is "overall view" is that Bush policies have undermined the potential and effectiveness of our military"

I know what his views are.

He supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq because he believes that the costs we are incurring far outweigh any benefits we will accrue.

That's a tenable argument.

But one has to include in any equation measuring the benefits and costs of the probable slaughter of the Iraqi people if we just leave. And with that, a possible wider regional war as the powers (Iran and Syria) who are opposed to pro-Western forces take advantage.

Odom's analysis is cold-hearted realism. He views the US interest, such as it is in Iraq, as measured solely in military increments.

That seems awfully simplistic to me.

The moral component seemingly is missing. Or, at least, not applied to non-Americans.

I reject it.

"Attacking a country that didn't attack us is considered moral?
In what universe ?"

Right.

Good post.

It ignores about a decade of history of Iraq's actions against the US and our allies and interests.

Gulf War (killed a bunch of Americans there), his support for terrorism, his attempts to assassinate Bush Sr., et cetera et cetera et cetera.

As President Clinton said, "Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction before. He'll use them again" and "Saddam is a threat to the US and our allies in the region".

Anyone with IQ's less than 90 , should stay away.

Posted by: Bob at July 7, 2007 12:36 AM

Tha counts you out, "bob."

If you want to educate yourself about the Truth in regards to 9/11 and WTC Building 7, how about going to http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/ and reading the personal accounts of the FDNY guys that were standing right in front of damaged, burning WTC 7 and told they were not going to engage in firefighting opereations due to the building's danger.

Quite a bit different than the people who weren't there claiming the building wasn't damaged.

If you want to educate yourself about the Truth in regards to 9/11 and WTC Building 7, how about going to http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/ and reading the personal accounts of the FDNY guys that were standing right in front of damaged, burning WTC 7 and told they were not going to engage in firefighting opereations due to the building's danger.

Quite a bit different than the people who weren't there claiming the building wasn't damaged.

A link to a Truther web site. LOL. They support Ron Paul. There's a shocker.

Ohboy,

Lets take a look at what constitutes "cold-hearted realism". Below are synopses of recent opinion polls taken of Iraqis regarding your pie-in-the-sky fantasies:

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

Iraq Poll 2007 (March 2007)

According to this poll conducted for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today, the feeling of insecurity has been growing in Iraq since the beginning of the occupation and pessimism increasing, with only one-third of Iraqis expecting things to improve in the next year. Further, the survey reveals that support for the occupation is dwindling, with 82 percent of the population expressing lack of confidence in Coalition forces and 69 percent of Iraqis thinking the US occupation has exacerbated the security situation. In addition to violence and the lack of security, Iraqis deplore their poor living conditions, including the lack of availaibility of jobs, clean water, electricity and medical care, and they have low expectations that things will improve in the future. (D3 Systems)

Public Attitudes In Iraq: Four Years On (March 2007)

According to one of the largest Iraqi opinion polls ever published, a majority of Iraqis feels “the security situation in Iraq will get better in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of the MNF.” The study also asks respondents what they think of the US troop surge and the Maliki Baghdad security plan, whether they believe their country is in a civil war and their views on a federal Iraq. (Opinion Research Business)

Public Opinion Survey in Iraq : Security & Political Situations (November 2006)

According to this survey, 95 percent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces and about 66 percent think violence would decrease if US forces were to leave. The poll finds respondents pessimistic that there will be a change in the US approach and lacking confidence in their own government. (Centre for Research and Strategic Studies)

The Iraqi Public on the US Presence and the Future of Iraq (September 27, 2006)

Conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), University of Maryland, this poll finds that Iraqis believe, by an overwhelming margin of 78 to 21 percent, that the US military presence is “provoking more conflict that it is preventing.” Seven in ten Iraqis want the US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year, but a very large majority believes that the US will remain in the country, even if the Iraqi government asked it to withdraw, as the Washington plans to maintain permanent bases . Further, support for attacks against US forces has increased substantially and as of September 2006 reached 61 percent. But PIPA points out that “if the US were to make a commitment to withdraw according to a timetable, support for attacks would diminish.” [Click here to see PIPA's January 2006 Poll] (WorldPublicOpinion.org)

US Department of State: Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas (June-July 2006)

The Washington Post obtained a copy of a confidential US Department of State report and described some of its findings. According to the report, “a strong majority of Iraqis want the US-led Coalition forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying that their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence.” Results of the study showed that nearly three-quarters of residents polled in Baghdad said “they would feel safer if US and other foreign forces left Iraq,” with 65 percent in favor of an immediate pullout.

------------------------------------
and some slightly older polls that show the persistence of these attitudes throughout the occupation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html

http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html

So Ohboy, glued to a website dedicated to hating an american newsman/entertainer, knows better than the Iraqi people what is and has been in their best interests. Great.

....and what about the American troops? You appear to believe that there is a noble job to be done in Iraq, and yet Odom empirically points out that doing this job is is crushing our soldiers in body and spirit. Is it not "cold-hearted realism" to condemn them to this endless milleu of stress and violence in pursuit of your very ephemeral, highly dubious objectives?

I would think a warm-hearted humanitarian such as yourself would take your beliefs and perceptions to heart and enlist in the military in order to give one of these over-stretched troops a break. I know I would, if I believed the things you claim to believe.

Oh the radical left believes all of 9/11 was an "inside job". It's part of their mental illness that makes them think that Olby is the next Edward R. Murrow.

Oh the radical left believes all of 9/11 was an "inside job". It's part of their mental illness that makes them think that Olby is the next Edward R. Murrow.

Personally, Brandon, I'm on the fence about 9/11 being an "inside job" - rank incompetence often appears to be a better explanation. The sectarian violence in Iraq, however, I do belive to be the work of "the coalition" (i.e. US and UK). creating chaos, and then sifting servicable casus belli from the ashes is easy work for an occupying superpower - our British mentors have had centuries of experience in this sort of greivance manufacure - just ask the Irish and the Indians. We took their cues in 1954-1956 Vietnam when we staged car-bombs to further divide that artificially divided country and destroy the 1956 national elections that had been agreed to by all parties (except the US) at the 1954 Geneva convention.

In the fall of 2004 two British SAS agents - dressed as "Arabs" - were caught by Iraqi police in Basra with a Toyota Cressida packed with explosives and wired to detonate by remote control. There was a shootout accompanying their arrest in which several Iraqi policement and bystanders were killed, and the SAS agents were sprung from jail shortly afterwards via an attack on the poice station by an armored unit of British military. The story then disappeared.

The goal is chaos, within wich the international military industrial complex can solidify its presence and milk fortunes from the taxes of the imperial homelands.

So who, exactly, blew up the golden Mosque?

As Keith's ratings funnel the drain
Behavior approaching insane
Crushed by O'Reilly
(He's rated quite highly)
Like roadkill, Countdown leaves a stain

Krazy Keith talks a good conspiracy
Plain for all mooonbats to see
Libby lied, justice died
Dick did hide, Fitzmas denied
While Armitage, the shooter, goes free

Olby has an O'Reilly fixation
Has to display it before the nation
Unhinged about Bill
Somebody, give him a pill!
To stop his deranged ruminations

Let's try this alternate history with a quiz at the end for our leftwing friends here:

The US is taken over by a dictatorship (a real one not the typical lefty Bush is a Nazi nonsense). A George Lincoln Rockwell-type figure attains power. He kills hundreds of thousands of African Americans and Catholic Americans during his reign.

Then, he decides to invade Mexico to steal their oil. The US army invades Mexico, steals everything in the country and kills and tortures thousands of Mexicans.

The UN declares the invasion illegal and demands we leave. Dictator Rockwell refuses to leave. The UN, led by France, sends an army that removes the US from Mexico. They are moving towards Washington to remove Rockwell but Rockwell agrees to a cessation of hostilities.

As part of the cease-fire agreement with France, Rockwell agrees to disarm all of the US weapons of mass destruction - our nuclear arsenal, our ballistic missiles et cetera.

Over a 10-year period, the US harasses UN arm inspectors, supports terrorism in Central America, tries to assassinate former French President Chirac and tries to shoot down French airplanes protecting enclaves where black and Catholic Americans are hiding from being killed.

Then, after 10 years of these actions by the US, France decides to invade and remove the dictator Rockwell and his supporters from power.

Question: Who is to blame for France's decision to remove Rockwell?

The US or France?

...what happened to France's claims that our WMD stockpiles (which I woud have to assume the US would still have in your fantasy scenario) presented an existential threat to France and all of Europe? Why wouldn;t Rockwell have used our nukes rather than letting the US get into that situation? When did France cange its rationales for the invasion from protecting its own national security to that of protecting oppressed minorities in a foreign country?

Ignoring that flaw in your ridiculous construct; what does France do after it overthrows Rockwell? Does it stay for years fighting and torturing the same blacks and Mexicans it came here to liberate?

Boy this is embarrassing; please get serious.

...what happened to France's claims that our WMD stockpiles (which I woud have to assume the US would still have in your fantasy scenario) presented an existential threat to France and all of Europe? Why wouldn;t Rockwell have used our nukes rather than letting the US get into that situation? When did France cange its rationales for the invasion from protecting its own national security to that of protecting oppressed minorities in a foreign country?

Ignoring that flaw in your ridiculous construct; what does France do after it overthrows Rockwell? Does it stay for years fighting and torturing the same blacks and Mexicans it came here to liberate?

Boy this is embarrassing; please get serious.

SLOB, I haven't seen a response from you to this from me:

SLOB, I think you misunderstood the question that Hitchens actually asked and the meaning behind it. The caps are mine to illustrate what I think the question meant:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

In other words, what US POLICY would it have taken to make Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, and by extension all his ilk, content?

Should we abandon a decades old promise and policy re Israel and throw them to another Holocaust. They demand that.

Should we withdraw completely from any attempts to influence The Middle East and leave control of the world's essential building block, energy, to the likes of The Taliban, Syria, Iran and Al Qaeda. They demand that.

The following points are all taken from:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

This document, Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", was printed in its entirety in The Guardian. It is quite long so I wouldn't just do a copy and paste. So, I am just going to pull the salient points from it. So, please forgive if I make any typos.

The theme is based on two questions:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

The answer to the first question is pages of polemic using phrases such as :

"....and you are the leaders of its criminals.... The creation of Israel is a crime ...Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

"The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged."

It goes on to say that we "have attacked them in Somalia, supported atrocities in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon, etc ...It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge."

There is so much let me paraphrase:

We Americans claim we elect our leaders so every dollar in taxes paid, every man or woman who votes, serves our government, pays taxes are all as guilty as our leaders.

Back to actual quotes:

"This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us."

This madman finally got to question two, what do they want from us.

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

"It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment.

"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

The rest is a litany of all our sins and No 4 on the list is "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"

And it goes on for several more pages. Pithy and OBL can not be used in the same sentence.

He seems to have several conclusions. So, let me just pick a few:

"We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins."

"....If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."

Reading this maniacal madman's screed would gag a maggot. I only touched on part of his rantings and I feel sick.

I left out, of necessity, a great deal. But I hope it puts in perspective what Hitchens' rhetorical question meant. Which was:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

One last quote from OBL that I think sums it up:

"THE NATION OF MARTYRDOM; THE NATION THAT DESIRES DEATH MORE THAN YOU DESIRE LIFE"

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 5, 2007 4:52 PM

SLOB, I haven't seen a response from you to this from me:

SLOB, I think you misunderstood the question that Hitchens actually asked and the meaning behind it. The caps are mine to illustrate what I think the question meant:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

In other words, what US POLICY would it have taken to make Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, and by extension all his ilk, content?

Should we abandon a decades old promise and policy re Israel and throw them to another Holocaust. They demand that.

Should we withdraw completely from any attempts to influence The Middle East and leave control of the world's essential building block, energy, to the likes of The Taliban, Syria, Iran and Al Qaeda. They demand that.

The following points are all taken from:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

This document, Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", was printed in its entirety in The Guardian. It is quite long so I wouldn't just do a copy and paste. So, I am just going to pull the salient points from it. So, please forgive if I make any typos.

The theme is based on two questions:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

The answer to the first question is pages of polemic using phrases such as :

"....and you are the leaders of its criminals.... The creation of Israel is a crime ...Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

"The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged."

It goes on to say that we "have attacked them in Somalia, supported atrocities in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon, etc ...It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge."

There is so much let me paraphrase:

We Americans claim we elect our leaders so every dollar in taxes paid, every man or woman who votes, serves our government, pays taxes are all as guilty as our leaders.

Back to actual quotes:

"This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us."

This madman finally got to question two, what do they want from us.

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

"It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment.

"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

The rest is a litany of all our sins and No 4 on the list is "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"

And it goes on for several more pages. Pithy and OBL can not be used in the same sentence.

He seems to have several conclusions. So, let me just pick a few:

"We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins."

"....If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."

Reading this maniacal madman's screed would gag a maggot. I only touched on part of his rantings and I feel sick.

I left out, of necessity, a great deal. But I hope it puts in perspective what Hitchens' rhetorical question meant. Which was:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

One last quote from OBL that I think sums it up:

"THE NATION OF MARTYRDOM; THE NATION THAT DESIRES DEATH MORE THAN YOU DESIRE LIFE"

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 5, 2007 4:52 PM

SLOB, I haven't seen a response from you to this from me:

SLOB, I think you misunderstood the question that Hitchens actually asked and the meaning behind it. The caps are mine to illustrate what I think the question meant:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

In other words, what US POLICY would it have taken to make Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, and by extension all his ilk, content?

Should we abandon a decades old promise and policy re Israel and throw them to another Holocaust. They demand that.

Should we withdraw completely from any attempts to influence The Middle East and leave control of the world's essential building block, energy, to the likes of The Taliban, Syria, Iran and Al Qaeda. They demand that.

The following points are all taken from:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

This document, Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", was printed in its entirety in The Guardian. It is quite long so I wouldn't just do a copy and paste. So, I am just going to pull the salient points from it. So, please forgive if I make any typos.

The theme is based on two questions:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

The answer to the first question is pages of polemic using phrases such as :

"....and you are the leaders of its criminals.... The creation of Israel is a crime ...Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

"The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged."

It goes on to say that we "have attacked them in Somalia, supported atrocities in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon, etc ...It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge."

There is so much let me paraphrase:

We Americans claim we elect our leaders so every dollar in taxes paid, every man or woman who votes, serves our government, pays taxes are all as guilty as our leaders.

Back to actual quotes:

"This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us."

This madman finally got to question two, what do they want from us.

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

"It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment.

"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

The rest is a litany of all our sins and No 4 on the list is "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"

And it goes on for several more pages. Pithy and OBL can not be used in the same sentence.

He seems to have several conclusions. So, let me just pick a few:

"We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins."

"....If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."

Reading this maniacal madman's screed would gag a maggot. I only touched on part of his rantings and I feel sick.

I left out, of necessity, a great deal. But I hope it puts in perspective what Hitchens' rhetorical question meant. Which was:

"(What would you SAY TO A POLICY that MADE HIM CONTENTED. instead?)."

One last quote from OBL that I think sums it up:

"THE NATION OF MARTYRDOM; THE NATION THAT DESIRES DEATH MORE THAN YOU DESIRE LIFE"

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 5, 2007 4:52 PM

Ohboy,

...and more crucial questions about your "alternate history" senario: Would Jack Bauer be on our side or theirs? What part would Fred Thomson be playing?

So sorry to have triple posted, especially such a long post.

I can't figure out how to get around the problem I've been having getting my comments to appear.

I have noticed that when I click on 'Post' the the indicator at the bottom left of my screen just stays on 'waiting for OlbermannWatch.com and never times out.

Is it just a matter of waiting a very long time to refresh and check on it.

Sorry,

Grammie

"In other words, what US POLICY would it have taken to make Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, and by extension all his ilk, content?"

The simple answer to your question is: The policy that the US has followed for six years.

But I wonder why you and Hitchens put Zarqawi as the terrorist representative in your question rather than Osama - I suspect it is because Zarqawi is purported to be dead (although he once grew a leg back, so who's to say if and when he might pop up again), while Osama is chilling out in either his fuedal fiefdom in northern Pakistan or back home by the pool in Saudi Arabia.

The fact that the ONLY DEMAND every levied by Al Qeada specifically at the US was when he insisted in a number of statements both before and after 9/11 that we remove all of our troops and military bases from the Arabian Peninsula. By late spring of 2003 Bush had done JUST THAT. Whatever Bush's real reasons for doing this, it sure must have looked and felt like a victory to Osama.

Whats more, Bush used these mlitary assets to overthrow bin Laden's most bitter rival in the region; a dictator that Osama reviled as a "secular socialist", and called upon Iraqis to overthrow in the weeks immediately prior to our invasion in 2003.

Furthermore, everyone with any credibility on these issues agrees that Al Qeada/Islamic radical recruitment has skyrocketed since our invasion, following the same trajectory as bin Laden's personal popularity in Islamic countries around the world.

Those policies, along with the fact that we have somehow avoided actually pursuing bin Laden in the handful of places where everyine is pretty sure he could be, certainly must result in a certain level of "contentment" (to persist Hitchen's somewhat odd choce of concepts regarding this matter)

SLOB,

If you want US troops back in the Arabian Peninsula then say so. If you disaproved of the removal of US troops from arabia then say so.

Fuck off, Rico, and pay attention.

SLOB, did you read the full statement by Osama. If you had it would be obvious that his remarks are about the US and any of her allies being mentioned in that context.

I simply pulled the quote from Hitchens that he made as a starting point. His article was not about al-Zarqawi per se. I will go back and find the article so you can read it if you want to.

"The simple answer to your question is: The policy that the US has followed for six years."

That statement was a great comeback. Unfortunately it was also specious and non reponsive, as I am sure you well aware that that is what is was.

Why don't you take five minutes or so and let me know. He made multiple demands of what it would take to reach peace with him and the many millions he represents.

Grammie

Because of the posting problems I am going to tag my subsequent post to that I made originally almost back to back.

"
I know my last post was overlong. I did my best to condense it while not altering both the meaning and context.

Believe me, I left out a lot.

One thought and image kept coming back to me while I worked on this.

Hitler speaking to the Reichstag pre 1939 checking off his laundry list of countries to be invaded. With very few exceptions, Winston Churchill being the most notable, the Western Power Structure ignored Hitler's own words in favor of their more genteel analysis that HE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN IT.

When psychopaths such as Hitler and OBL so forcefully declare their intentions I believe we ignore them at our peril.

Does anything OBL and his sycophants say and/or do raise any doubts in your minds that GWB is NOT the ultimate threat to us that this maniacal madman and his countless followers are?

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 5, 2007 5:34 PM "

Yes, Grammie, bib Laden did also include polemics, as you correctly term them, regarding his perception of our complicity in the plight of the Palestinians (no specific demands associated), and a stock statement requisit for any Jihadist leader that he is intent on converting the Western infidels to Islam...

but the demand that we witdraw from Saudi Arabia remains the only specific demand Osama has ever issued to the US. Its clearly the only thing that Bush had the power to respond to directly. And respond he did; complete compliance.

How do you interperet Bush's removal of all of our forces from Saudi Arabia following Al Qeada's demands specifically in that regard and the 9/11 attacks? How do you think Al Qeada interperets this?

Does anything OBL and his sycophants say and/or do raise any doubts in your minds that GWB is NOT the ultimate threat to us that this maniacal madman and his countless followers are?

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 5, 2007 5:34 PM "

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 7, 2007 1:33 PM

Any leadership that can convince this country to act as if Al Qeada represents the "ultimate threat" to this powerful country is, in fact, the real ultimate threat. I know you don't understand this, because you don't understand what it is that gives America such great potential.

you don't understand what it is that gives America such great potential.

-----

This is such a good point, Mr. Beef. It is, in fact, the totality of our freedom along with our desire to allow others to be free which makes America strong and great. We have always had men and women willing to protect that freedom. It is not military superiority that makes us great, for in both of the 20th Century's great wars, the Germans had far greater military minds and lost, nor is it our refined, enhanced law enforcement, for Stalin was a far greater policeman yet we are safer. It is those very freedoms which make America great that are being attacked and lost in this on-going "war". The shameful members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who lined up after 11 September to be the first to offer up these freedoms (and believe me, by two Republican Senators were the very first to claw their way to the head of the line) to a President, Vice-President and Administration far too willing to accept and discard them, are a blemish on the American fabric, and the President, Vice-President and Administration are a filthy, smelly blotch on it. Everyday on this site, we see posters who still want to surrender even more of our freedoms in the name of protection.

A free people are not fearful, but far too many of us have been turned into cowering little girls not getting into our beds without looking for a "Radical Islamo-Fascist" under them.

A free people are innovative, energetic and productive. On all counts, we have been on a downward spiral during the last 6 years, while Europe and Asia have botled ahead. That is the real Surge.

A free people will not be enslaved for long. And, the chains are being broken.

Reagan always spoke of a new dawn in America, of America's best days being ahead of us. He was prophetic, and no doubt a bit surprised to find out the darkness comes from his beloved Right and the light from a far different direction.

"A free people are innovative, energetic and productive. On all counts, we have been on a downward spiral during the last 6 years."

Posted by: clunker at July 7, 2007 3:42 PM

clunker, sorry to hear things are not so good for you..........things could not be better in my neck of the woods.

SLOB, if I understand you correctly you did read the OBL "letter to the American people"and you are describing it as 'polemic'.

He does use Islam as a justification of past and promised future indiscriminate violence and war. That is not surprising because Islam is fairly unique in preaching that religion, politics,and government are all intertwined together so closely as to be one thing rather than separate entities that influence each other.

I think that to call it polemic, a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc., is way off the mark. The following is from a link embedded in the story that says it better than I could:

"Bin laden issues a direct threat to the West: 'Anyone who tries to destroy our villages and cities, then we are going to destroy their villages and cities. Anyone who steals our fortunes, then we must destroy their economy. Anyone who kills our civilians, then we are going to kill their civilians.'

Most of his letter comprises a lengthy list of grievances against the West. The fugitive terrorist, who is believed to be hiding in the border regions between eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan, mounts a sustained attack on the 'immorality' of Western society.

The letter has been posted on a number of Islamist websites. One carried bomb-making information. Another offered a link to a site with information on chemical and biological weapons.

Although there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the letter beyond all doubt, senior Arab journalists in the Middle Eastern media believe the letter is from bin Laden. 'It is an extraordinary glimpse into his mind,' one told The Observer. "

Although there is not the tone and format that one from Western Civilizations would use, such as 'If you do not follow the UN Resolutions or abdicate then we will invade you and force it upon you with or without another UN resolution'. There is though the same bottom line, for example here:

"We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins."

And here: "(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington."

And here: "(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you."

And SLOB, I do think the most serious threat facing us right now is the Islamic threat. And that threat is completely different in nature from the threats we have faced in the past because it is not one nation or a coalition of nations. It is a fanatical religion with billions of followers in certain Theocracies and followers interspersed, sometimes in large percentages, in countries all around the world.

I don't think the Romans thought that a man from a third world country executed as a common criminal and a handful of followers would have changed the world in a few centuries. Our world has gotten effectively smaller and for good or ill everything is accelerated now.

I know we could very easily use our resources to effectively take out enough of them and as many of them as we needed to to walk in and effectively take control without even having to resort to things like neutron bombs. I don't think we will do that.

I don't want to shock you but I think we disagree about this. That does not mean that the only true Americans are those that agree with you. The only ones who understand the strength and beauty of our system are those that agree with you.

"Any leadership that can convince this country to act as if Al Qeada represents the "ultimate threat" to this powerful country is, in fact, the real ultimate threat."

If I make the logical next step based on GWB as the ultimate threat to our Constitution and the system based on it then what do you think will happen in 2009 when it is time for the inauguration of a new president? Will he refuse to step down? Will he make an attempt at a coup backed up the military or hordes of wild eyed indoctrinated conservatives? Or do you think he will prevent the 2008 elections from taking place? You must have some idea of what he will do to keep his hold on this unprecedented grab of power that threatens us more than anything external. Surely he won't go willingly.

Grammie

SLOB,

You are sounding a little unhinged. You Olbyloons always get that way when somebody asks you where you stand.

There are two possible reasons for that. One is that you don't want anyone to know what you really stand for. The other is that you do not stand for anything at all. Or perhaps you are doing what Krazy Keith has accused W of doing, of "conflating" both of those things.

So "Fuck off" from you really means "I quit!"

Peace, Baby!

If you were in Japan, you even would get to drink beer and have daily massages.

BTY, where is your stupid little paranoid list.

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 7, 2007 5:30 PM
patty, no shortage of beer or massages, here in America, either. One of my riding students is a cmt and she does everything, thanks for caring!

patty, I'll post mylist as soon as clunker posts his. That will be never because clunker knows he is making crap up, his usual mo.

How does someone bunked up in mexican hovel know anything about Japan?

How does someone bunked up in mexican hovel know anything about Japan?

-----

Several years ago when my Liberal friends & I were bringing Mexicans across the border to vote against Bob Dornan, I paused at a Donkey Show in Tijuana and during a ciagarette break for the donkey, I looked out the window and thought I saw Yokohama. It was an unusually clear day in the Baja and Mexico del Norte. Maybe AAP was in the La Cucaracha Internet Cafe, next to the El Hovel Bates and across from La Donkeyrama at the same time and saw Yokohama as well. That would explain it all, wouldn't it, Ye of Many Names?

(You'd think with all those names, a single intelligent thought would be possible. I guess not!)

Janet, have you lost your mind or are you just fucking with me? What is your problem with my echoing of your own use of the term at the top end of our discussion today:

"The theme is based on two questions:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

The answer to the first question is pages of POLEMIC (empasis mine) using phrases such as :

"....and you are the leaders of its criminals.... The creation of Israel is a crime ...Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution...blah blah blah."

I've said it before, you are one weird chick.

Your last message totally ignored my repeated emphasis on specificity of demands which might actually be possible for a leader of a democratic nation to comply with. "Stop supporting our bad leaders"; "Stop supporting the Jews" - just general rhetoric lacking actionable directives or any sort of bench marks. Now "Get all of your forces out of Saudi Arabia or we will kill Americans," That was specific, and that was complied with.

Why do you refuse to comment on this central factor in our discussion, rather than spinning off on irrelevant gramatical critiques?

SLOB, lets get one thing off the table before I go any further. It's up to who whether tis ends here or not.

Your accusation that I want to 'fuck with you' or am trying 'to fuck with you' is obviously absurd on its face to anyone who read OBL' screed "A letter to the American people", what I wrote with any understanding or followed the back and forth between us on this thread. I am completely baffled by your obviously angry and personally insulting response.

Grammie

SLOB:
"Ignoring that flaw in your ridiculous construct; what does France do after it overthrows Rockwell? Does it stay for years fighting and torturing the same blacks and Mexicans it came here to liberate?"

I'm not surprised - you're very predictable - that you can't answer my alternate history quiz.

I'll try again: If France invades the US to remove the Rockwell regime after the Rockwell did all of the above, WHO is to blame for that removal?

Was France to blame for taking action?

Or were the actions of the Rockwell regime to blame for causing the war?

It's a simple historical analogy.

You know the answer. But you just can't give it because if you did, your entire house of "Bush is evil - the neocons are evil" card would collapse on your head.

Blame America first, and second and third.

Our enemies are never responsible for their actions. Only America.

Amazing really.

SLOB:
One more quick point.

Clean up the language in your posts.

We're all adults here. We've all heard and used the words before when we were growing up and trying to impress our friend.

But as we realized (some of us), they don't really impress anyone.

I'm not impressed.

And believe me, I'm not alone.

For anyone who might be interested in reading OBL's own words instead of getting second hand and third hand reports of what he said meant here is the full tex:

"Online document: the full text of Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", reported in today's Observer. The letter first appeared on the internet in Arabic and has since been translated and circulated by Islamists in Britain.

Observer Worldview

Sunday November 24, 2002
Observer.co.uk

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]

Article continues
Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him.

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]

The Nation of honour and respect:

"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]

"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]

The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life:

"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers." [Quran 3:169-171]

The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]

"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]

The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?

It is from:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Grammie

Janet, slob resorts to name calling because it is easier to divert from the fact that OBL and his henchmen want to kill us rather than face the irrefutable facts. A common secular progressive tactic, diversion. When you posted the link to OBL's "speech" slob probably looked at it for 2 seconds and immedialtely dismissed it. I know the kind. They are submersed in denial. Hatred for Bush and Cheney and any part of the administration that doesn't agree with their views is ALL they know and preach. The evidence is all over this blog.

I'll only add: Thank God the Bush-Cheney Administration captured Bin Laden as it promised it would. Remember: "Wanted Dead or Alive"? As in so many matters, the Adminsitration kept its committment to the American people. We no longer have to worry about Bin Laden, and with the well-planned and executed Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, the central theatre in the War Against Radical-Islamo Fascism, capped by the outstanding success of the Surge, the world respects us and is a safer place for us.

Good heavens, do you realize the irony in knocking your knees over Bin Laden and praising this Administration in virtually the same breath?

Is there a threat from groups with the Islamic community? You bet.

Are we dealing with it effectively? Almost as effectively as we dealt with Katrina.

The song is getting very, very old indeed.

As for me, I don't intend to live my life in fear. Not one minute of it. I don't intend to countenance people who revel in fear.

I do intend to vote for and to support those people who will take AGGRESSIVE, MEANINGFUL and EFFECTIVE steps to protect us while bringing us back into the good graces of the international community.

And, the last I checked, we are pushing 75% of the American public that disagrees with this Administration's "view," so spare us the preaching. Even the choir doesn't listen anymore.

And, Ye of Many Names, you know nothing. Nothing about anyone, nothing about anything. No one is interested in your sharing your nothingness.

All the rock stars appearing live
Gonna save the world, and that's no jive
Lots of music galore
Including Madonna, the whore
Who will never give up her Gulfstream 5

How about all the jet fuel and electricity you "earth savers" are using to put on the concert? Want to talk about that?

How about all the jet fuel and electricity you "earth savers" are using to put on the concert? Want to talk about that?

-----

How odd coming from a man who used all that kerosene to douse crosses.

Looks like SLOB couldn't take the heat and got out of the kitchen...Another moonbat COOKED!!! Mmmmm..tastes like chicken!

Looks like SLOB couldn't take the heat and got out of the kitchen...Another moonbat COOKED!!! Mmmmm..tastes like chicken!

Looks like SLOB couldn't take the heat and got out of the kitchen...Another moonbat COOKED!!! Mmmmm..tastes like chicken!

clunker, have you always been a racist? Just curious.

Olbyloon Ed 101a
Subject: Terrorism and Propagandists

It is interesting to note just how erroneous the media’s reporting on that incident was as exemplified by Washington Post reporter Ellen Knickmeyer who six months later took the word of a so-called “Iraqi witness” from Haditha and reported that the men in the cab “happened upon the scene inadvertently” while riding in the cab.

Nat Helms is author of a new book, “My Men Are My Heroes” which provides an account of the incredible bravery of Sgt. Brad Kasal in the second battle of Fallujah.

He stated that Knickmeyer wrote about a witness who said that the taxi driver turned onto the street and saw the wrecked Humvee and the Marines, and then the cab driver tried to back away at full speed. The Marines opened fire from about 30 yards away, killing all the men inside the taxi. Dela Cruz reportedly pumped his 30-round M-16 magazine into the car when they tried to run.

Even worse, later media reports said the cab carrying four known insurgents was occupied by four “college students,” along with the cab driver, who were on their way to school.

These false reports however, pale in the face of the role played by Time magazine Tim McGirk and Time itself. According to McGirk’s first story, a “budding journalism student” had given him a video he had taken after the killing of the civilians in the houses near the site of the IED explosion.

Almost immediately, Time had to correct the story, revealing that the “budding journalism student” was actually 43-year-old Taher Thabet al-Hadithi who just happened to be on hand to videotape the aftermath of the killing in the houses.

Time also identified al-Hadithi as head of something called the Hammurabi Organization for Human Rights and Democracy Monitoring. Time reported that the Hammurabi Human Rights group was affiliated with Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch vehemently denied they had any connection or any ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, and Time wrote a retraction.

It was then revealed that the Hammurabi Human Rights group was a group of two: Hadithi and Ali Omar Abrahem al-Mashhadani, a Reuters News Service reporter who was previously arrested by U.S. Marines in his home town of Ramadi and underwent weeks of interrogation at the infamous Abu Ghraib Prison.

His American warders told Reuters that he was released in a general amnesty in late 2005 along with about 500 other Iraqi prisoners. Reuters also reported that he spent five months in U.S. custody before being released without charges.

Three months later al-Mashhadani was the darling of Time magazine, Nat Helms wrote sarcastically.

NewsMax can now reveal that the battalion S2 knew that the insurgents were following their usual practice of videotaping an ambush. And it was a series of cell phone communications between Hadithi and Mashhadani, both known insurgents, that alerted the Marines to the impending ambush.

False Charges Under False Pretenses

The Marine Corps, however, had discovered al-Hadithi more than a year before Nov. 19, among other anti-government, anti-American Sunni insurgent sympathizers inhabiting Haditha. He was still under their microscope in late February when he gave his video to McGirk after shopping it around for weeks. Helms described it as “ugly and inflammatory, full of dead children and women and blood-covered walls.”

Al-Hadithi claimed the deaths were the handiwork of out-of-control Marines who wantonly charged through the innocent victims’ homes slaughtering women and children in revenge for Terrazas’ gruesome death.

In late March, McGirk released al-Hadithi’s “evidence” to the world. Marines who specialized in signal interception told Helms they were shocked when they heard al-Hadithi and Mashhadani were mixed up in it.

In his testimony Capt. Dinsmore revealed that both men were operating freely throughout the province before purportedly announcing the creation of their human rights organization in early 2006. Marine intelligence officers were aware of their intelligence activities because their frequent cellular telephone conversations were monitored, they said.

McGirk’s sources were known insurgent propagandists and it was McGirk’s Time reports that created the Haditha massacre hoax.

Marine sources told NewsMax that when McGirk first contacted the 3rd Battalion and asked to interview the men of Kilo Company, he was invited to come to Haditha and the men were told by Chessani to answer all his questions fully and truthfully.

On the day before he was due to arrive in Haditha from the safety of Baghdad’s Green Zone, NBC reporter Bob Woodward and his cameramen were badly wounded. McGirk promptly canceled his trip, saying it was too dangerous.

This, incidentally is the same McGirk who partied with the murderous Taliban after 9/11 and proclaimed them to be a fine upstanding bunch of just plain folks.

The courageous McGirk has now refused to testify at Chessani’s Article 32 hearing where defense attorneys insist he would have been torn to pieces in cross examination.

Live Earth will go the way of every other benefit concert - the world will forget about it soon enough. The producers, talent and fans used so much energy to stage and attend the shows that the effort probably removed a year from the moonbat estimate of when polar bears will be extinct. Way to go, Al and Tipper! Start buying even more carbon offsets.

Yeah, and the attendance-- well, it was reminiscent of a typical Meltdown viewership, touted as something much more than it really was. Ha!

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=59398&feedType=RSS&rpc=23&sp=true

I did my part to go green when I was at the concert. I put the green in my bong and smoked it. Wicked stuff, dude.

Live Earth will go the way of every other benefit concert - the world will forget about it soon enough. The producers, talent and fans used so much energy to stage and attend the shows that the effort probably removed a year from the moonbat estimate of when polar bears will be extinct. Way to go, Al and Tipper! Start buying even more carbon offsets.

Posted by: at July 8, 2007 8:10 AM

-----

I am pretty sure the concert target audience was semi-literate RW bigots who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004. Since the WORLD-WIDE event did not cause a conversion of them, it must be a failure. And, we were all so hopeful that they would be converted. Perhaps, if we had been more realistic, we could have targeted the next couple of generations in a broader effort to bring about real change. Well, the "best laid plans ...."
-----
Speaking of semi-literate RW bigots, H-2 for the He Of Man Names Sunday School lesson.

Narcisistic rockers gonna save the world some more
To most discerning people it's just one big bore
Ethiopians saved by Live Aid equals zero
But Sir Bob Geldof still became a hero
Polar bears overheating is mythical lore

Grammy,

because I feel a bit chagrined having used offensive language in my last post to you, I will try once again to explain to you my points, and my frustration in your absolute avoidance of them. Perhaps we are not even discussing the same topics, although I am fairly sure that our debate began with your posing Hitchen’s question; which I answered quite clearly. I did become frustrated when you took me to task for having accepted your own word “polemic” as a description of bin Laden’s statements, and I apologize for any unintended offence my reaction may have caused, although I remain utterly confused in regard to your thought processes at that juncture.

Anyway, I have stated repeatedly that the only demands ever made my Osama which were specifically aimed at the US government, and contained directives which could actually and demonstrably be satisfied by our leaders was that we leave the “Land of the Two Holy Places” (i.e. Saudi Arabia). Osama’s letter you posted includes a great quantity of critiques of our culture and government, but only seven statements classifiable as admonitions or demands:

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

I concede that the “advice” from Osama that we stop supporting Israel, India, etc, approaches my criterion of specificity and actionability, but I maintain that Bush’s pulling our troops and bases out of Saudi Arabia in 2003 clearly satisfies bin Laden’ demand #5 above.

That’s been my point - wholly unaddressed by you who initiated the conversation. I remain unclear as to what your point has been. Is it that we should fear that Osama actually has the power to “bring us to Islam”? Or to adopt is concepts of good manners? What is your point?

SLOB:
"Ignoring that flaw in your ridiculous construct; what does France do after it overthrows Rockwell? Does it stay for years fighting and torturing the same blacks and Mexicans it came here to liberate?"

I'm not surprised - you're very predictable - that you can't answer my alternate history quiz.

I'll try again: If France invades the US to remove the Rockwell regime after the Rockwell did all of the above, WHO is to blame for that removal?

Was France to blame for taking action?

Or were the actions of the Rockwell regime to blame for causing the war?

It's a simple historical analogy.

You know the answer. But you just can't give it because if you did, your entire house of "Bush is evil - the neocons are evil" card would collapse on your head.

Blame America first, and second and third.

Our enemies are never responsible for their actions. Only America.

Amazing really.

Posted by: Ohboy at July 7, 2007 8:26 PM

You are a simpleton, Ohoy. Firstly, this is not an"historical analogy" - its a fictional construct you put together leaving out all of the elements that destroy your current position. Your analogy pretends that we invaded Iraq for a whole list of reasons which were NOT used as the primary casus belli prior to the invasion. The lies regarding WMDs and imminent threats are ommtted from your little exercise, so I have chosen to ignore it as anything but a launcing pad for ridicle against you.

Do you foind yourself incapale of discussing things as they really are? If so, I can't say I really blame you, given your entrenched position on the right wing.

SLOB,

We did not put US troops in the Arabian peninsula because of OBL, and we didn't take them out because of him, either. Don't be such a moron.

If one of OBL's demands were that American Idol be cancelled, and the show did get cancelled, would you be saying that we "satisfied" his demand?

One of OBL's demands is that we give up "immorality and debauchery". I don't hear you saying to OBL(in response): "Fuck off, motherfucker!"

OK, Rico, then why were they there 10 years after the 1st Gulf war; and removed totally within 18 months of Osama's making good on his threat?

And why aren't we actually looking for Osama in the few places in which everyone agrees he must be?

One of OBL's demands is that we give up "immorality and debauchery". I don't hear you saying to OBL(in response): "Fuck off, motherfucker!"

Posted by: Rico at July 8, 2007 12:14 PM

Perhaps that's because I know that OBL holds no power over me unless I will it. My debauchery, such as it may be, is my birthright and my business.

The Right has no such spine. From what I can glean from Grammie's garbled argumets, she feels that her compulsory bowing to Mecca is one videotaped fatwa away.

"At one location (Rio) the crowds weren't what was expected.
Such hard hitting commentary . . ."

It wasn't meant to be. Just having a little fun at the expense of the preening prima donnas who show up for these overwrought and overpublicized shows of fundamentalist environmental dogma.

"The wingnuts are just unhappy that they've been proven wrong about another major issue of our times: global warming !"

No, those who have not drunk Al Gore's Kool-Aid take the position that a rational conversation about the uncertainties surrounding climate change should be had. Unfortuantely, you have been brainwashed to believe that the catastrophic forecasts about our environment made by Gore and his minions are beyond dispute. You need to take a closer look at the claims made by Gore and his acolytes. Here is a good place to start.

www.aconvenientfiction.com

SLOB,

After Saddam went down our troops were no longer needed in Saudi Arabia. That's why our troops aren't there anymore. Please stop pretending that you do not understand this.

If OBL's demands are of no importance to you then why did you list them?

As far as the persuit of OBL is concerned, he is supposed to be in the mountainous border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are you saying that you would have caught him by now? I would have. Of course, that probably means that the current government of Pakistan would have come down by now. I'm willing to pay that price. Bush isn't. Are you?

When we first went into Afghanistan there was a caravan or something of suspected Al Queda higher ups escaping. We didn't bomb them because some Pentagon lawyers said not to. Maybe OBL was in that caravan. I would have said "Fuck Off" to the Pentagon shysters and bombed them. Would you have, too?

SLOB, damn good thing this wasn't part of Fitspatrick's Grand Jury investigation. You would have sworn I used 'polemic' and I would have sworn I didn't and I'm too old to go to jail. :)

I just checked and I did use it. I used it in a sense that is not a definition in the dictionary. I looked it up after you agreed with my characterization and I knew I didn't mean what obviously you thought I meant.

I did say "The answer to the first question is pages of polemic using phrases such as :"

I meant, and still think, that his letter was a screeching tirade full of Islam as the basis and justification for everything he believes and does. It was in that sense I used the word 'polemic'. I understood your use of the word to mean that all he said was nothing more than a 'sermon?' and had no political or practical meaning to us and by extension our allies.

With that in mind would you want to start over once we both have a clear understanding of what we are debating?

1. C Hitchens made a statement what would we think of a policy that made OBL and his minions content by granting their demands.

2. You maintain that the only demand OBL et al ever made was satisfied when GWB closed our base in Saudi Arabia and withdrew those troops.

3. I maintain, based on the above statement of OBL's, that he/they have multiple demands from abandoning Israel to a total overhaul of western society into one that conforms to Islamic law.

4. You maintain that what I consider demands you consider, correct me if I am wrong, religious rantings and, can't help myself, pure polemic. :)

5. I maintain that he clearly warns us that if we do not accede to those demands he/they will attack and kill with no regard to status any of us.

6. You maintain that he made only one specific demand that we have already met and the rest is hype, religious rantings, PR, playing to his base. On this I am not sure.

Do you want to start over?.

One Weird But Really HOT Chick, oh OK, Hen,

Grammie

Sorry SLOB, I read the first two paragraphs of your post and immediately quit reading and responded.

I still would like to discuss this based on some understanding of what each of us means minus the personal attacks and put downs.

With one exception that I claim by right of being a girl. From hereon out for the purposes of this discussion I will be known and referred to as 'One HOT Chick'. :)

Grammie

Rico arguing with SLOB is much like a typical four year old arguing with his mother. The four year old (Rico), sounds intelligent only to himself, but everyone else just sees the rantings of a four year old.

Grammie arguing with SLOB sounds more like the fanatic on a street corner yelling "the end is near" through a megaphone. Everyone who passes knows they are being screamed at, but no one knows, or cares what is being said.

OhBoy's silly execise conjuring a French Occupation of America as a hypothetical metaphor for what we did in Iraq just about takes the cake as one of the silliest things I've ever read.

Someone else who calls himself RoyalKing identifies himself as a total ideological idiot with every new post they make.

Question: Are these people all typical examples of how Right Winger's brains are wired?

If so, I'm glad I'm on the other side. It's all great entertainment though.

Grammie,

"With that in mind would you want to start over once we both have a clear understanding of what we are debating?"

-absolutely

"1. C Hitchens made a statement what would we think of a policy that made OBL and his minions content by granting their demands."

- yes, and your reiteration of his question began our discussion.

"2. You maintain that the only demand OBL et al ever made was satisfied when GWB closed our base in Saudi Arabia and withdrew those troops."

- I originally stressed that it was the only specific demand to which the Bush administration could directly and unequivocally respond, one way or the other. I now admit that "Abandoning Israel" could concievably be placed in this category, but is a very complex diplomatic matter which could be and is spun in a variety of ways through rhetoric, revisionism, and conflicting policy decisions.

Pulling troops and materiel from Saudi Arabia or leaving them there, however, is a binary proposition with clear measures of refusal or compliance. I maintain that Bush complied, and Al Qeada has not atacked the US since.

"3. I maintain, based on the above statement of OBL's, that he/they have multiple demands from abandoning Israel to a total overhaul of western society into one that conforms to Islamic law."

- I've discussed the Israel issue above.

Converting America to Islam may technically be a "demand", but currently beyond Bush's powers to comply with. This, like so much of OBL's screed, I interperet as requisite verbage for a then aspiring Jihadist leader.

However, should the neocons succeed in demolishing our checks and balances entirely, and create the American Dictatorship that they seem intent upon, then such a conscession to an adversary may be a more realistic option for Bush or one of his sucessors to use to ameliorate a foreign entanglement. It used to happen all the time in the old British Monarchy we cast off.

"4. You maintain that what I consider demands you consider, correct me if I am wrong, religious rantings and, can't help myself, pure polemic. :)"

- Some of his objections to our foreign policies do warrant credence on their face - depite the source. For instance: our support of dictators and oppressors worldwide is clearly destructive to global society and self-destructive to our nation. But these are all other, lengthy discussons on which I am sure we disagree.

His admonitions regarding our personal beliefs and personal predelictions, however, are nothing but ridiculous puffery. OLB can demand this shit (excuse me..."stuff") all he wants, but the America I grew up in would only laugh at him for it. I wish that America were around today.

"5. I maintain that he clearly warns us that if we do not accede to those demands he/they will attack and kill with no regard to status any of us."

- Absolutely. Since we as a nation clearly have no intent to stop drinking the fermentation of the grape or to cover the sinful beauty of our hot chicks, I am alarmed that more has not been done to apprehend this mobster.

It may be that Bush's capitulation on the one specific demand regarding the removal of our troops from Saudi Arabia may have staved off additional attacks in the interim, but it, and the removal of Saddam/creation of chaos in Iraq that was conducted simltaneously have only strengthened the hand of AlQeada's potential for blackmail.

6. You maintain that he made only one specific demand that we have already met and the rest is hype, religious rantings, PR, playing to his base. On this I am not sure.

I think I covered this above, but to clarify - correct. Osama, like the Neocons, require chaos and the deaths of others in order to increase their power. If we were to actually take an even-handed approach, for instance, to the Palestinian situation then Osama would become that much more irrelevant and powerless to scare us. Bush has "comforted" Osama and his aspirations at every possible turn.

"Do you want to start over?. "

- Who doesn't?

"One Weird But Really HOT Chick, oh OK, Hen,"

- just how hot?

As far as the persuit of OBL is concerned, he is supposed to be in the mountainous border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are you saying that you would have caught him by now? I would have. Of course, that probably means that the current government of Pakistan would have come down by now. I'm willing to pay that price. Bush isn't. Are you?

When we first went into Afghanistan there was a caravan or something of suspected Al Queda higher ups escaping. We didn't bomb them because some Pentagon lawyers said not to. Maybe OBL was in that caravan. I would have said "Fuck Off" to the Pentagon shysters and bombed them. Would you have, too?

Posted by: Rico at July 8, 2007 1:38 PM

Thank you for a comment warranting a serious response. I definitely agree that, since Osama has claimed responsiblty for a vile attack against us, we have justification to aprehend or kill him despite the concerns of any government that harbors him. This would have been a relatively simple matter had the US not inflamed the entire Islamic world against us by our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. For undisclosed but fairly transparent reasons the Bush administration has let bin Laden go his own way, and matters are considerably more hazardous and complicated than they were in 2001/2002.

The brutal dictatorship of Musharaff should not be considered a friend of the US, but the existence of Pakistani nukes and a hatred of America expressed by 90% of that country's population today make the possibility of Pakistani destabilization a development very much to be avoided. However, I would not object to an operation that would eliminate bin Laden, and I think that the opportunities detailed by you and others above on this forum that were rejected by Bush could have been accomplished without a power-vacuum arising in Pakistan (i.e. No Invasion/ocupation!)

But they still just let him be. Why? I refer to Orwell: Bush needs Osama like Big Brother needs Goldstein - and vice versa.

"5. I maintain that he clearly warns us that if we do not accede to those demands he/they will attack and kill with no regard to status any of us."

- Absolutely. Since we as a nation clearly have no intent to stop drinking the fermentation of the grape or to cover the sinful beauty of our hot chicks, I am alarmed that more has not been done to apprehend this mobster.

I realize that I was unclear in regard to this response - let me stress that I do not think these particular "demands" are the actual grounds on which we have been and may yet be attacked. Conflict an peace, as Marx posited, are factors of social class structure and resource allocation. Religion, philosophy, insults, etc, are merely the used by leaders to confuse their followers in regard to the real sources of their plights, and to focus their anger and needs into unrelated undertakings.

But if you and our government choose to take them seriously, then many explanations are required to explain our own reactions to Osama's threats.

SLOB,

We had troops in Saudi Arabia because and only because of the threat of Saddam's Iraq to Saudi Arabia. Saddam is gone, so the troops are gone from Saudi Arabia, too. For you to suggest that Bush "complied" with OBL is silly. Again,
if you want our troops back there, then say so.

You assert that the invasion of Iraq "inflammed the entire Islamic world". Why would that inflame anybody other than those who did not want Iraq to become a democracy? No leftist ever suggests that anybody in the world should have any anger torward the "insurgents", who are the cause of virtually all the problems in Iraq. You have no anger toward the insurgents. I know this because you never say so. The implication is that all who "hate us" spend their lives all across the world, sitting there in neutral, waiting for "us" to do something that will piss them off. Of course, for that to be so, then it would have to be that "we" are responsible for what we do, and also for what "they" do. "They" are not responsible for anything at all. They just exist, mindless little ones, who are are never "at cause" for anything they ever do.

"Hank's the one that has been brainwashed"

Wrong, I know the arguments on both sides. That's why there needs to be calm rational discussion about how to address issues related to climate change rather than Al Gore's call for immediate massive scale governmental interventions with consequent far reaching and deleterious impact. I see you have been well trained to mask your fundamentalist intolerance of any further discussion of the issue by using soft phrases such as "get involved" and "exacting constructive changes". I actually think there is a chance you are sincere about wanting to help the environment, but so am I. I think you simply don't understand the competing arguments and you haven't bothered to follow my suggestion to educate yourself with information that Al Gore doesn't want you to have.

You assert that the invasion of Iraq "inflammed the entire Islamic world". Why would that inflame anybody other than those who did not want Iraq to become a democracy?

Well, because no aspect of anything we have done in Iraq has provided any evidence to anyone that our intent in Iraq has been to create democracy. Quite to the contrary, I think if you held a contest among evil geniouses to devise a plan to more effectively create civic chaos in a once-functioning society there would be no winning entries.

- we destroyed the country's physical infrastructure with "shock and awe"

- we made no efforts to impede the looting of whatever scaps of that infrastructure remained - or of the munitions that continue to kill our troops today.

-They fired Jay Garner when they learned of his plans to hold national elections "no later than June of 2003" and to give priority in reconstruction contracts to Iraqi firms. The replaced him with Paul Bremer, who immediately began to take the civic infrastructure apart piece by piece:

- disbanding the army

-disbanding the police

-eliminating the civic bureaucracy through de-Baathification.

-blocking Iraqi firms from reconstruction contracts in favor of Bechtel, Custer-Battles, Halliburton (now of Dubai), etc. etc. - who brought in labor from the Europe, Indonesia, etc. - anywhere but Iraq!

-building over a dozen giant military bases across the country, and literally the world's largest and most expensive "Emabassy" on 20 acres of the most valuable real estate in Bagdhad.

- and all the while our troops are put in a situation in which they have to shoot innocent people at checkpoints just to ensure that they themselves make through another day

You may remember that I discussed the other day my belief that a certain amount of civilian car-bombing was on the coalition's to-do list; evidenced by the curious incident regarding British SAS agents arrested in Basra with a car bomb in 2004, and the documented propensity of the British Army/intelligence agencies to commit deadly terrorism in Northern Ireland with the goal of discrediting/disrupting their enemies. In short - we intentionally orchestrated the insurgency to keep the Iraqi loot and American fools' (i.e taxpayers) money flowing.

No one who looks at this list of accomplishment could honestly harbor any belief that we did this with any humanitarian intent whatsoever.

SLOB,

So it's a conspiracy, then. I won't even try to debate that one; it's just too far out for me. I do wonder, though, how many out of 535 members of congress would agree with you. I believe the number is zero, or very close to that number. You must then believe that any member of congress who does not agree with you must be a fool. That would include Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc.

Hold it! There is one. Republican Ron Paul must be your guy. I so will not be able to sleep tonight pondering that one.

SLOB,

So it's a conspiracy, then. I won't even try to debate that one; it's just too far out for me. I do wonder, though, how many out of 535 members of congress would agree with you. I believe the number is zero, or very close to that number. You must then believe that any member of congress who does not agree with you must be a fool. That would include Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc.

Hold it! There is one. Republican Ron Paul must be your guy. I so will not be able to sleep tonight pondering that one.

Posted by: Rico at July 8, 2007 11:33 PM

That's right; its a conspiracy accurately and emphatically defined and warned against by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address upon his retirement from his honorable lifetime of service to this country. He called it the "Military/Industrial Complex".

And yes; few in congress will express these same observations. Paul, Kucinich, and Sanders come the closest, with a few others perhaps willing to caress the margins of these crucial matters. Who knows what any of the "front-runners" might think about this empirically obvious truth - and who could care? - because the system that chooses these people to be put in front of us is controlled by this same "conspiracy" lock, stock and barrel.

Because it creeps me out to think of you lying awake with me on your mind, let me tell you that I financially and otherwise support Kucinich and Gravel - people who actually speak their clear, sane minds and who have socked away heroic legislative laurels from their long careers. I respect Ron Paul greatly, but disagree with him emphatically in regard to taxation and the role of government.

SLOB,

"Because it really creeps me out......."

SLOB, when you can't get a joke then you are really too far gone.

Kucinich!!!!! Have fun with that... You would be spending your money better to give to the Salvation Army.

"SLOB when you can't get a joke you are really too far gone."
---------------------------------------------

SLOB did get Rico's joke, and then came back with a decent punch line in response. The funny thing is, Rico didn't even get SLOB's punch line, but then accused SLOB of not getting his joke.
-----------------------------------------------

Earth to Rico!

anonyloonbat a 12;26. Are you a psychic? You know these things, how? Do you know what I am going to say or think next?

Bush says "no troop pullout imminent and congress doesn't control me, leave my white house aides alone, too!" Here, here.

patty, like I said, I'll post mine right after broke down beat up jalopy clunker posts his. P.S. Shouldn't you be rolling around on your dirty floor in a hysterical rage from overdosing or scouring the internet for troop death counts?

Jeff drivel again: "Bush says "no troop pullout imminent and Congress doesn't control me, leave my White House aides alone too. Here, here"

Jeff likes having a virtual king posing as president of the United States. That is what makes you anti - American Bovinedumbass.

We are supposed to be living in a Democracy, not a monarchy.

Another thing that makes you anti-American is the way you keep slobbering at your cud eating lips to see more and more troops killed.....just as long as none of them are you or yours.

"SLOB when you can't get a joke you are really too far gone."
---------------------------------------------

SLOB did get Rico's joke, and then came back with a decent punch line in response. The funny thing is, Rico didn't even get SLOB's punch line, but then accused SLOB of not getting his joke.
-----------------------------------------------

Earth to Rico!

Posted by: at July 9, 2007 12:26 PM

I have to agree. Rico is a petulent twist.

Cheer, cheer, cheer, hooray, hooray, hooray, raaahh, raaahhh, rahhhh! Another day, another loss for the sp's! What will they lose tomorrow?

Olbyloon Ed 101b
Subject: Executive Privilege
Todays student: Nobody cares

Read it and weep, prick. Bush isn't the first one to do it or will he be the last.

Executive Privilege Invoked
For Two Aides
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 21, 1998; Page A01

President Clinton has invoked executive privilege in an effort to keep two of his top aides from having to testify fully in independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation of the Monica S. Lewinsky matter, sources said yesterday.

No wonder puck calls you average clinton c**k smoker, I've never seen a bigger apologist for the scum bag cheater. If the shoe fits, wear it!

I'm not surprised you would discount the fact that the ap prints false reports about casualties in the middle east. Not surprised one bit. You must be proud of that, huh?

This just in: The Iraqi gov't has met NONE of it's projected targets to date, NONE! I say bring our troops home and protect our own borders.

New gal, yes, I watch Fox News, among others like slobber face Mathews, Wolf man Blitzer and yes, the ap is one notch from being FAR left. Problem with facts?

He of Many Names is Nixonian in his approach to the media: If I don't like the news, the reporter is biased. If I am the news, the reporter is after me. You have to admit, it worked well for Nixon.

Turdbrain, RK saying they are biased doesn't make them so.
This is a ridiculous argument, and I can't even believe I'm discussing this issue with you.

Posted by: new gal at July 9, 2007 8:49 PM

On the same token, saying it isn't so doesn't make it so, got it?

Xmas on the 25th.
---------------------
Another AP lie, I imagine.

Xmas on the 25th.
---------------------
Another AP lie, I imagine.

There have been a number of people who have proven the AP is our best source of news,

Posted by: at July 9, 2007 8:58 PM

Care to name one that isn't an olbyloon?

Here's another question the Royalfraud won't answer: Name a more legitimate news source than the AP ?
-----
He will as soon as he remembers whether it's WIENER or WEINER. That German "ie-ei" has felled lesser women than Ye of Many Names. Perhaps, we should build a wall along the Eastern Seaboard to keep the Germans, Austrians, Swiss and Liechtensteiners and Luxembourgers out.

AP and its staff have won the Pulitzer Prize over 40 times.

Thanks for proving my point broke down beat up jalopy/clunker. How many of those "prize" winners are America haters? 90%? 95%? What's funny is the ONLY people that think the ap isn't a left wing biased orgy is the LEFT WING!

I thought you were ignoring me, Ye of Many Names.

Can I suggest two (2) other names?

Old Faithful.

Everytime you get caught in some idiotic statement, you come up with some even more idiotic statement to avoid admitting the error of your ways. As reliable as Old Faithful.

Shrub.

You can never admit you are wrong, even when you would be better served (and more honest) by doing so.

On behalf of all the LW'ers and under the authority of our International Brigade, meeting at Casa Jane Fonda, I can promise we will only count Old Faithful and Shrub as one (1) additional name.

patty, your "scour" is about an hour late, I already posted on that subject.

This just in: The Iraqi gov't has met NONE of it's projected targets to date, NONE! I say bring our troops home and protect our own borders.

Posted by: royalking at July 9, 2007 8:43 PM

No bait was taken, patty, try as you may, your desperation shows....

Fucks Noise. . . did you make that up all by yourself there AAP? You're just so. . .original.