Keith is one helluva woman. Those hips. Junk in the trunk. WOWZER!

When I'm not shouting BUSHWIPES, I'm masturbating to Keiths Speshul Komments.

Olbys "special comment" tonight was embarrasing to witness. He's jumped the shark bigtime. After all, you can only proclaim "watershed" moments soo many times. Reminds me of the childrens story about "the boy who cried tipping point". Poor embarrasing Olby.

2 "special comments" in a week, desperate, indeed. Like the olbyloons, desperate. Good at calling names, diverting, blaming Bush for everything under the sun, horrible at defending Olbermahn, without a doubt. Then again, how do you defend the defenseless?

"This cow is the Running of the Bulls MVP" - Keith Olbermann

1. A cow does not have horns because...
2. A cow is female
3. There are no cows in the Running of the Bulls for obvious reasons
4. There is no such thing as "Cowfighting"
5. Keith is an idiot.

Rachel Maddow again tonight?
And who's representing the right?
The answer is no one
That's zero, zip, none
Because Keith can't put up a fight

Should I give credence to the following?

An E-Mail Interview With 'Master Gunner' of TankBrothers.com

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2618814&page=3

Interviewer: What's your opinion about the mission in Iraq and how it's going?

Master Gunner: The mission in Iraq is a righteous mission. The average Private in the U.S. Army has a better understanding of the reason we are there than 99.9 percent of the American Public. I believe that a democratic and stable Iraq is crucial to victory in the Global War on Terror. (Oct 2006)

Excerpt from July 10, 2007.

http://mikegulf.blogspot.com/

Here at Tanker Bros we are used to the msm ignoring, or distorting the facts of what is going on with our troops. Far too busy resorting to uninformed opinion pieces and giving ink to treasonous politicians, msm usually doesn't let the facts get in the way.

Well this day appears to be different. A Soldiers' Angel from MO mailed me this story. It seems the mother of one of the soldiers quoted in this story (Sgt. Philip Ness-Hunkin, from Kansas City no less!) came across this and found her son.

Tonight on Meltdown, one fat ass leads the other
Unhinged loons ranting, word to your mother
Stuck in their own miopia
MM big enought to feed Ethiopia
Diagnosis: both fucked up in the head you will discover

Olbys "special comment" tonight was embarrasing to witness.
-----
It was dreadful tonight, wasn't it? I am no Chertoff fan, by any means. In fact, I find him both repulsive and ineffective, an odd combination. But, Keith was straining and over-reaching. There was no focus at all. I have enjoyed some of his Comments and agreed with many points, but tonight was flat and ... pontless.

2 "special comments" in a week
-----
Yes, but you do have to admit, Ye of Many Names it was a strong and wonderful Comment. His best ever. I agreed with every word. Restrained, targeted, focused, on point. Delivered clearly and well. A stellar performance for which I thank Mr. Olberman.

NOBODYLOON is here whining again
Starts every night around half past ten
Screws ejecting from his brain
We laugh at all his psychic pain
Lighten up, dumb fuck, try a little Zen

I'll just recopy pertinent parts from above:

Should I give this any credence?

An E-Mail Interview With 'Master Gunner' of TankBrothers.com

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2618814&page=3
Interviewer: What's your opinion about the mission in Iraq and how it's going?

Master Gunner: The mission in Iraq is a righteous mission. The average Private in the U.S. Army has a better understanding of the reason we are there than 99.9 percent of the American Public. I believe that a democratic and stable Iraq is crucial to victory in the Global War on Terror. (Oct 2006)

Excerpt from July 10, 2007.

http://mikegulf.blogspot.com/
Here at Tanker Bros we are used to the msm ignoring, or distorting the facts of what is going on with our troops. Far too busy resorting to uninformed opinion pieces and giving ink to treasonous politicians, msm usually doesn't let the facts get in the way.

Not ee cummings,

I don't usually comment on you limmricks, but I did like your 1:16 piece of work. Word to your mother

Just a Suggestion,

My client, e e cummings, would like to know if you think that it is a good or bad thing that "Bush is ruining the republican party".

Sharon,

My client, not e e cummings, appreciates your compliment, but he wants you to know that his inspiration is little Katy Turic. If there were no Katy on this board, there could be no "not e e cummings".

"...when you are going to be releasing a book titled, "Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values," 6 months from now, I think you walk a fine line between doing "special comments" that you really believe in verses the fact that they will "pad" the book, which equals future sales/more "celebrity" exposure."

Posted by: STC at July 5, 2007 8:08 PM

--that explains the 2 Speshul Komments in a week, royalking. STC was right...

ANONYLOON continues to vent galore
He/she/it is a Krazy Keith whore
Not of sound mind
And certainly not one of a kind
Another disease brained loon who's a bore

Sharon, a guy I work with has a son on the front line doing recon in Iraq. It was really sad for me to see him say goodbye to him about a year and a half ago as he shipped off.
As a person who completely disagrees with Iraq (and always has) I could only tell him that I hoped his son was safe and that I appreciated his son's sacrifice.

For the first half of a year or so his son was training here stateside. My friend went down to see him repeatedly. He was so excited and rightfully proud when his son completed his training and left first for Afghanistan and later for Iraq. It was really amazing to see the kid and his dad this way. When he was in Afghanistan the son would call home a lot. My friend would get the details of what was going on and share them with us all.

Soon the excitement turned into caution as the group then got sent to Iraq. Two out of his son's group of 15 specialists were killed almost immediately, and the nervousness mounted. My friend grew more and more worried as the stories grew more and more horrific. The gung ho kid was getting more and more jaded.

Then one day a bullet ricocheted off something in his area and hit him in his eye. He was wounded badly and will likely lose that eye. My friend is now a different person altogether. He is now questioning the whole situation in Iraq. This is normal IMO, having a son that was maimed and all. Not surprisingly, the son is also VERY MUCH against the war now too. He said that it didn't take long for him to feel this way after he landed in Iraq. He described the whole situation as a complete mess. He said that morale is at an all time low, and the military is taking active measures to try and change that. They are insulating the troops more than ever now and taking away more of their links to home life. Everything is monitored and they don't feel safe speaking candidly.

He is due to come home soon and says he absolutely can not wait. He said this is the general feeling over there, and I believe that he is being truthful. Obviously he hasn't polled the whole military, but he is absolutely convinced that most of the troops he's had any contact with are dying to get the hell out of there (no bad pun intended).

This isn't to discredit your source, but to simply state that not everyone is feeling the same love for the situation that your gunner is. Many of them are scared shitless and begging to come home NOW.

The Truth, with all due respect to your source, those who go volunteer to do so. They understand the risks and accept them. I cannot feel more sorry for anyone maimed in combat, but at the same time I must remind myself and others that they went willingly. That's not to suggest they don't have a right to think the mission is a mistake or wrong, but you cannot take one person and extrapolate your conclusion that they are "scared shitless and begging to come home now." Maybe they want to come home - hell I would. I admire anyone who has the guts to go over there on their own volition, but let's not forget that, ok?

Chastising Chertoff's gut
to get out of a ratings rut
that demo's elusive
his future inconclusive
which is why his piehole he won't shut

It makes me very sad. I ones that support this lost debockle, are the ones that are too fearful to actually try to enlist. As of this time the military is very excepting of most recruits, unless they are gay, but the brave supporters that use that as an excuse could just conseal it.

Here at Tanker Bros we are used to the msm ignoring, or distorting the facts of what is going on with our troops. Far too busy resorting to uninformed opinion pieces and giving ink to treasonous politicians, msm usually doesn't let the facts get in the way.

Posted by: Sharon at July 13, 2007 1:29 AM

This is worth reposting over and over. Something I have said countless times. Now, from the horses mouth. "Treasonous politicians"........worthless bastards is what they are. From Reid and on down the line.

Royal if this war is making us safer and is a worthwhile war, go grab a uniform. If you have worn the uniform put it back on and get back to Iraq. That is, if this war is saving the world.

Royal if this war is making us safer and is a worthwhile war, go grab a uniform.
-----
While it would be justice of some sort to have He of Many Names walk his talk, the last thing I would want to happen to our real soldiers is to have them posted with a loud-mouthed, bellicose coward. It is better he remain near the majical forest and conduct intelligence operations at Piggly Wiggly.

Excellent recap Edward.

From the Special Comment.....

"We cannot and will not turn this country into a police state."

###
I reread the "evidence," Keith Olberman gave previous to this statement about 4 times and came to the conclusion that he actually presented no evidence from credible sources or documents that proves the motive for the secretary's statement was intended to bring about a police state.

Journalism at it's finest.....an editorial based only on the man's "gut reaction," about a "gut reaction."

Once again, another silly Special Comment easily dismissed....In fact, I would say anyone who feels Keith Olbermann has anything thoughtful or useful to say, based on this latest attempt to spark a real and sustained positive ratings trend, is an ignorant fool.

The shrill hack's selfish and obvious motive (I have just as much evidence of this as the man uses in his work....just my gut talking), is......

SPECIAL COMMENT = "I need better ratings!"

Sorry to be so blunt, but this last editorial was very poorly written, researched and executed. The man is a marginal entity only worth ridicule.

So, I will follow up with yet another example of the left's idiocy in addition to the pathetic Olbermann.....

"In an evident jab at critics of Bush's war policies, the report also said progress toward political reconciliation was hampered by 'increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq.'"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBB9H80&show_article=1

###
It's a good show the democrats are putting on....An unenforcable resolution that only has PR value to show the terrorists they should continue targeting good Iraqis and our troops in this war of attrition. Just like 35 years ago....

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Atorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses." Former NVA colonel Bui Tin

###
The democrats should be doing something brave and real to accomplish their stated anti-war claims.....

Cut the funds and get the troops out now if you are against the war and stop giving comfort to the people trying to kill the troops and their Iraqi allies.

And this is my post today, the 1,535th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

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

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

"Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

"American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

"If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

"You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

Rachel Maddow and Michael Moore
Krazy Keith is a moonbat whore
There's no opposition
To his supposition
And that's why Meltdown is a bore

Olby's trying hard to goose those ratings with his Special Education comments but he seems to be stuck perpetually in third-place these days.

Olbermann and Maddow are each a loose screw...
Whenever they talk, the audience says "BOO!"
One's a fat lez-
the other attacks the Prez
all for doing what the left just won't do.

The Truth, with all due respect to your source, those who go volunteer to do so. They understand the risks and accept them. I cannot feel more sorry for anyone maimed in combat, but at the same time I must remind myself and others that they went willingly. That's not to suggest they don't have a right to think the mission is a mistake or wrong, but you cannot take one person and extrapolate your conclusion that they are "scared shitless and begging to come home now." Maybe they want to come home - hell I would. I admire anyone who has the guts to go over there on their own volition, but let's not forget that, ok?

Posted by: Edward Schatz at July 13, 2007 2:25 AM

This is pristine chickenhawk strategy. The National Guardsmen/women who signed up for the experience; for the education; to provide a safety net for their respective regions in the event of a natural disaster;.... these people all "went willingly". This is why professional politicians of both parties, and chickenhawks across the political spectrum, despise the idea of a draft. Such shared national risk would rob them of their ability to blame the over-extended troops for their own situation.

Is it our volunteer military's fault that the Republicans this week successfully fought Senator Webb's bill to ensure adequate rest and care for our natonal guard between deployments?

Schatz; you, cee, royalking, hank, Laura Bush, Dollar and Cox, etc. realy should enlist and make honest heroes out of yourselves.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864795/posts

John Boehner (R-OH) calls fellow Republicans who now oppose Bush'e endless occupation of Iraq "Wimps".

I would love to see this limp-wristed, pursed-lipped fake-tan fop - who got a Vietnam deferment for doing missionary work in France - say this to multi-tour combat-vet Chuck Hagel's face.

How can anyone in NBC management state, with a straight face, that Keith Kronkite's nightly embarassment is a "news program?" Or, that Olbermann, himself, is a "news anchor?

Oblermann's fixation with "all-things-Fox" used to be humorous; now, it's just pathetic.

His fixation with Bill O'Reilly used to be amusing; now it's just sad.

The nightly parade of the same left-wing characters parroting what the "newsman" bellows has gotten very stale.

Even Chrissy Matthews has, occasionally, diverse opinions on his program. Not so with our boy, Keith.

Great thanks...

Where is my idiot friend Blind rat?

SICKO- 9 MIL TO MAKE
9 MIL TO MARKET

bOX OFFICE- 11 MIL

Moore who pushed is movie 2 weeks ago, is back at it to get people to go see it...Olby and Moore talking the war, Keiths proverbial wet dream

That said I do have to admit, Chertoff's comments about his gut were ridiculous

That said I do have to admit, Chertoff's comments about his gut were ridiculous

Posted by: DAN at July 13, 2007 10:49 AM

...and this walking skeleton will remain the chief bone in the skeleton crew that bears the name of "Department of Homeland Security", without comment or repercussions from his ostensible boss, Bush. Don't you realize that this "gut feeling hunch" is the default paradigm for governance followed by Bush's entire government?

No firm policy; no science; no transparency; no accountability. But there are results - horrible, horrible results.

SLOB- throws out a vague reference to Webb's bill... saying that the bill's rejection is a sign of Republicans anti-troops stance? I believe the bill is commendable in its purpose but timing was poor.

Actually - very few people WITHIN the military thought the bill was a good idea because of how it effects the current campain. It would have undercut the troop surge by limiting the number of troops available for deployment. In essence it was a backdoor withdrawal.

Why can't you pussys wait until September for the surge to take foot. The surge started a month ago, and already you patsies are trying to decalre it a failure.

If substantial progress is not made by September, you will see major defections in the Senate (R) for staying in Iraq. And odds are against it satisfying the public, and in October Washington will declare victory, and begin a slow pullout. And soon after the country will fall into chaos... and you freaks will blame Bush for leaving it in shambles.

Keith Gooberman

I can get that Loin, Bush has lost me, its Just Olberman loses me too with a nightly barrage of Bush sucks, intro guest, hey doesnt bush suck? Great thanks!

That and the fact that he has taken his own signature piece, whether you like it or not, and driven it into the ground in a silly game of attempting to get Bill O Reily to say his name by naming in the world we live in BOR the worst person in the world every night?

Thats just hypocrisy, I mean Olberman in the end rises and falls on his own terms, either he'l be good enough to overtake Bill O or he wont

AND I AM SICK AND GOD DAMMED TIRED OF EVERY LIBERAL IN THIS US OF A TELLING ME WHATS WRONG WITH THE WORLD IS FOX NEWS, GET A NEW FING SLANT ALREADY

benson,

Speaking of pussies, you are one, son...

If you had ANY experience with the military, especially during war time, you'd know that they need time off from combat or they will become far less effective. This translates into deaths quickly. This is NOT the first time this bill has been introduced, so your imbecilic remark about "timing" is...well...ILL-TIMED...

Try not being so stupid, child...

While it would be justice of some sort to have He of Many Names walk his talk, the last thing I would want to happen to our real soldiers is to have them posted with a loud-mouthed, bellicose coward. It is better he remain near the majical forest and conduct intelligence operations at Piggly Wiggly.

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at July 13, 2007 6:31 AM

This post brought to us by the fraud formerly known as Mrs. Philby/Rudy Ramirez. What will her name be next week?

Dan, Shouting won't help. I could care less what you are sick and tired of hearing about from 'liberals'. Fox 'News' IS a very big part of the problem in my view. For one thing, they have rabidly cheerleaded the war along with every bumble the president has made along the way from the start to the present.

In other words, they did not do their job, they're still not doing their job today, and are therefore partially responsible for the debacle we find ourselves caught up in.

Get used to it!

Why can't you pussys wait until September for the surge to take foot. The surge started a month ago, and already you patsies are trying to decalre it a failure.

If substantial progress is not made by September, you will see major defections in the Senate (R) for staying in Iraq. And odds are against it satisfying the public, and in October Washington will declare victory, and begin a slow pullout. And soon after the country will fall into chaos... and you freaks will blame Bush for leaving it in shambles.

Posted by: benson at July 13, 2007 11:19 AM

The "surge started a month ago"? The surge started in January, bumblefuck. And the "surge" is in actuality only more of the same, more of the same, more of the same. "New strategy" my ass - unless you count thrying to keep a failing quagmire alive long enough to get yourself the fuck out of the Oval Office before it all comes crashing down.

Pussies? We're not the ones sitting at home while others are legislatively trapped fighting a war that we ourselves deeply believe in.

AND I AM SICK AND GOD DAMMED TIRED OF EVERY LIBERAL IN THIS US OF A TELLING ME WHATS WRONG WITH THE WORLD IS FOX NEWS, GET A NEW FING SLANT ALREADY

Posted by: DAN at July 13, 2007 11:33 AM

You're not listening (shouting too much, I guess). Fox News is only a component of what's wrong with the world in this context. It is the most overt propaganda arm of the Military/Industrial Complex that tirelessly conspires to create endless war. Fox, being so blatantly overt, supplies cover for the more insidious sycophancy of ABC, CNN, and to slightly lesser degrees NBC and CBS.

The king o the loons has reached a new low! It's ALL Fox News' fault! You can't make this stuff up!!!!!!!!! Just when we think we have heard it all.......I thought the whack job that made that video on youtube a few months back was cuckoo.....the loons never cease to amaze and baffle.

It is the most overt propaganda arm of the Military/Industrial Complex
Posted by: SOB at July 13, 2007 12:00 PM

You mean because they report on positive's coming out of Iraq and don't dwell on negatives? That makes them "propagandists?" Using that logic, what does that make your hero, Olbermahn? I am very curious to hear this.

"Posted by: Mrs. Phylby at July 13, 2007 at 6:31 AM"

Correction: That post was made 'Clucker'. The same Clucker that Jeff (RoyalKing) accused of being ME about a week ago. Jeff has no proof of his assertion nor does he have any inate clairvoyant ability to identify posters, yet he keeps trying, regardless of how many times he ends up being wrong and making himself look like a fool.

Jeff is the same idiot who once accused me of being "every other liberal poster on this board except maybe one" even though I wasn't using ANY name but Mike at the time (nor am I doing so now). In addition to 'Clucker', he also wrongly identified me as 'Cecil', 'Beverly', 'LMAO', 'AAP', and a whole host of others. It's not just me, he's made the same stupid accusations about others as well.

As for his identification of me as 'Clucker', he will not respond to the issue now that he knows he was wrong about that one as well. Jeff's motto seems to be: "When I lie and make a fool of myself, go on to the next lie...eventually one of my lies will turn out to be true out of pure chance!"

And despite being proven wrong all those times, he keeps doing it. In a pathetic kind of way, he seems to be a lot like the failure of a president who will 1) - Never admit to a mistake, 2) - Never admit he was wrong, ever, 3) - Listens only to those who sings his song, 4) - Will not change course regardless of how badly he has screwed something up, & 5) - Is not nearly as smart as those around him that he should be listening too.

Ironically, I know that Jeff will somehow be flattered that I have compared him to his stupid and stubborn hero, but trust me Jeff, it WASN'T a compliment!

rk,

>>You mean because they report on positive's coming out of Iraq and don't dwell on negatives? That makes them "propagandists?" Using that logic, what does that make your hero, Olbermahn? I am very curious to hear this.

Name something positive coming out of Iraq, son...

SLOB- The Surge was approved in January. Read the news bitch! The actual troop surge didn't really take shape til last month. Read about it!

"You mean because they report on positive's coming out of Iraq and don't dwell on negatives. That makes them "propagandists?""...

EXACTLY! A 'news' organization should be 'dwelling' on everything...otherwise they are nothing but commentary.

As for calling me a pussie ratboy....

The only thing you have going for you is your stupidity. Next time you pick up news about something (ie. the Webb bill) do research beyond the blue blogs. You would find that it was a political ploy that was rejected because it had few merits, in light of the surge. Eat up the propoganda dumb ass. Then come hear and puke it out. What a loser!

benso,

When I called you a "pussy", I simply meant that you were a coward for not only wanting troops to fight in an unneeded war while you sit at home on your ass, but also that you wanted them to put in more time without rest than for any other war. Maybe "pussy" wasn't appropriate. I would've used the term "coward" but you neocons use that on Vietnam veterans so much that it is apparent you don't know the meaning of the word...

Again, my apologies, son...

I understand... all good.

Actually unless anyone here is blogging from Iraq, the pussy and coward commenst on either side are shameful.

It is damned funny to see loosers like Benson come on a blog like this and call other people 'pussies' because they don't support a war that is getting OTHER people killed. Benson is obviously not in the military...and he faces no personal danger himself from the war, yet somehow calling someone else a 'pussy' makes sense to him. I guess he just does not see his own comical hypocracy.

Kind of reminds my of congressional 'leader' John Boehner doing the same thing this week, after crying like a baby on the podium only last week.

SLOB- The Surge was approved in January. Read the news bitch! The actual troop surge didn't really take shape til last month. Read about it!

Posted by: at July 13, 2007 12:13 PM

I like that: the "actual" troop surge "didn't really take shape" until last month - meaning that the current number of new troops - at least double that "approved in January", and who have ariving in large numbers since February - arrived recently, at a time when the White House is on the ropes.

You fail to address the act that this "surge" is not a new strategy - just more of the same.

Furthermore, as opposed to your concept of the "actual surge", do you recognize a "bullshit back-stabing surge" comprised of National Guardsmen/women denied their obligatory relief by chickenhawk Republicans in congress?

Mike- you over there? End of discussion.

"Mike - you over there? End of Discussion."

Can you point out where I called anyone a 'pussy'? End of discussion.

touche

It is damned funny to see loosers like Benson come on a blog like this and call other people 'pussies' because they don't support a war that is getting OTHER people killed. Benson is obviously not in the military...and he faces no personal danger himself from the war, yet somehow calling someone else a 'pussy' makes sense to him. I guess he just does not see his own comical hypocracy.

Kind of reminds my of congressional 'leader' John Boehner doing the same thing this week, after crying like a baby on the podium only last week.

Posted by: Mike at July 13, 2007 12:25 PM

Amen, Mike, and let me take this opportunity to repost a message of mine (below)regarding the effite Boehner, illustrating the irony of these tools calling us (particularly you - who have served) pussies.

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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864795/posts

John Boehner (R-OH) calls fellow Republicans who now oppose Bush'e endless occupation of Iraq "Wimps".

I would love to see this limp-wristed, pursed-lipped fake-tan fop - who got a Vietnam deferment for doing missionary work in France - say this to multi-tour combat-vet Chuck Hagel's face.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 13, 2007 10:46 AM

I dont know what more Liberals want, you got a democratic congress, unless the moon crashes into the sun, you will probably retake the white house in 08, and yet fox news remains the biggest problem on the planet?

Its silly guys come on, Ill say the same thing here that I say to other people, theres a little device called the remote, change the channel

I am serious though, the fox news propaganda war spewing hate mongering leading the country into the toilet thing is silly, just plain old silly, I like to give people more credit than that, if you disagree turn it the fuck off

"I don't know what more Liberals want,"

Lets start with two things:

1) - I for one, want us the hell out of Iraq, where we DON'T belong, and we have NEVER belonged!

2) - I want these screwballs out of the White House who have screwed up everything they have touched, and will continue to do so until they are put somewhere they can't do any more harm!

Is THAT enough for you Dan?....Or do you want more?

Rachel Maddow is twice the man Olby will ever be.

I actually enjoy Rachel Maddow. She's far more insightful than the idiot Olbermann. Her view from the left isn't cluttered with nutty conspiracys, venom and spittle that Keiths is.

Rachel Maddow is twice the man Olby will ever be.
Posted by: Gleason at July 13, 2007 1:02 PM

She's waaaaaay hotter! :D

Mike, I hate to break this to you, but we ARE in Iraq. We WILL have a presence in Iraq for decades to come. Wish all you want, although maybe some constructive ideas for beating back Al Qaeda and securing these territorys would'nt hurt. Just a thought.

Truth,

I e-mailed your story to Master Gunner and received permission to copy his response:

Sharon:

You know that old saying "War is Hell"?

It's true.

Of course, it would be foolish to say that 100% of every one of us in
Iraq right now is for staying, just like it would be equally foolish
to insinuate that 100% of us would want to come home.

But the truth of the matter is this: re-enlistment rates are very,
very strong. While we are struggling to meet our recruiting goals, the
numbers of people staying in are as strong as ever.

Think about what those two figures mean:

1. About the number of new recruits being down, I attribute to the
horrible media slant that the War is getting. If you tell someone a
hundred times a day that they will go to Iraq and surely die, beat it
into their heads that the war is all about lies, and show graphic
pictures of bombings and killings, then some people who are "on the
fence" probably won't join.

2. About the number of reenlistments being up: think about this: if
you are in the Army right now, there's a good chance that you have
been deployed to Iraq. If you haven't been, then there is an excellent
chance that you will be. I'm on my second extended tour. I know some
guys who have been here three, four times. Guess what? They keep
reenlisting. And guys and gals who are here. reenlist here, to stay
with their units, knowing they will be right back over a year after
they get back.

Why?

-MG

The news from the Diala and Anbar Provences of Iraq is good. Progress is being made against Terrorists. The native citizens turn against them in a heartbeat if they believe they will be secure afterwards. This is happening. Why cut and run now when we are finally getting a foothold on security>?

"The surge started in January, bumblefuck."

Posted by: SOB at July 13, 2007 11:55 AM

The surge was approved in January, SOB. Not a single troop left until at least late April, SOB. See what happens when you listen and slobber all over Olbermahn? You get your ass handed to you.

Mike, Genius, easy cowboy

If you are blaming the War on Fox news, then you are in a fog

Did you read my earlier post? Unless the earth crashes into the sun or the sun into the Moon, I have no reason to think The democrats wont take the white house back

People get off point here so easily, lets not forget what my point is, my point is, as someone who fancies himself somewhat rational, i grow tired of people such as KEITH OLBERMANN blaming Fox News for everything thats wrong with the world tody

Liberals got the congress, they gonna get the White house, if I so choose to still watch fox news, thats my business, and for jackass hacks like olbermann just work harder

Geez people really do get off point here, I even said I had no problem with his comments about the dopey homeland security guys "gut"

Stop blaming fox news for everything, grow a pair and change the world and if i want to watch something leave me alone, Ill leave you alone I promise you that

"...when you are going to be releasing a book titled, "Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values," 6 months from now, I think you walk a fine line between doing "special comments" that you really believe in verses the fact that they will "pad" the book, which equals future sales/more "celebrity" exposure."
Posted by: STC at July 5, 2007 8:08 PM

--that explains the 2 Speshul Komments in a week, royalking. STC was right...
Posted by: John-O at July 13, 2007 1:53 AM

Thanks for the shout out John-O. I was caught off guard by another Special Comment so soon after he just doing one. It was reported that he would be doing a "special comment" book, but what makes it interesting is announcing that title, clearly he will have to "produce" more anti-Bush special comments to fill a book, therefore, one could honestly question his motivation on at least one level (even if only in passing).

Maybe when Bob Cox returns he will create a thread to explore this topic specifically. I would like to hear Doug's take on this topic.

I just hollered to my wife from the bathroom: " Honey, could you please hand me another roll of 'Special Comments'.

Truth,

I asked for a response to this part of your comment from Master Gunner-

Sharon:

""They are insulating the troops more than ever now and taking away more
of their links to home life. Everything is monitored and they don't feel
safe speaking candidly.""

Here is the reply:

You have to look at this from a different point of view, and put it
into the context of wars fought in our past.

Soldiers have free and open access to Internet. Soldiers are
encouraged to write home, both via email and letter mail. As a matter
of fact, postage from Iraq to the United States for a letter is
absolutely free.

While the constraints of OPSEC can be tough, when you're bursting at
the seams to tell your family and friends about an operation you went
out on, or a raid you conducted, it's very, very dangerous to do so.
Electronic communications are indeed monitored, by the enemy.

Phone calls from US Government (DSN) phones CAN be monitored, but I
doubt they are. I am unaware of ATT calls or Cell Phone calls being
monitored.

As far as the internet, and taking away "links to home life", that can
be "true" in a very loose sense of the word. Pages like MySpace and
YouTube are indeed restricted, in order to save bandwidth. Streaming
music and video places HUGE burdens on the Army's IT systems, so they
cut them out altogether.

I will say this: Soldiers are encouraged to share their experiences
with their family members, when they are positively sure OPSEC cannot
be violated.

Let me give you an example: I can tell my wife that I went out on a
mission the day/night prior, and we accomplished our objective and
that I am safe.

I CANNOT tell my wife that at XXXX hours, we rolled out in XXX
hummvees and XXX trucks, with each of us carrying XXX rounds of ammo.
I cannot tell her that my route to the objective was through a
particular river and though some particular woods, and that we
captured XXX suspected terrorists that were alleged to have committed
a specific crime. I cannot tell her that we usually roll out at XXX
time, and return to the FOB around XXX, after spending XXX hours
outside of the wire and overwatching the objective at XXX.

Can you start to see why OPSEC is important now?

Now, gone are the days when US Army censors used to go through
Soldier's mail with black markers and line out things people weren't
supposed to read. The US Army hasn't done that in DECADES.

My commander is COMPLETELY comfortable with me speaking candidly to
him and any other leader under his command. LTG Odierno and GEN
Petreaus (both of whom I have had the honor of meeting) regularly
circulate among the troops, asking us how we are and what we think. I
don't think there is a leader in the Army that is worthy of command
that WOULD NOT ask his Soldiers to keep him informed of the morale in
the unit.

Part of being a leader, from a Corporal all the way up to the
President, is having regard for your Soldiers and listening to their
concerns.

-MG

To Dan (as in NOT Jeff):

"If you are blaming the War on Fox News, then you are in a fog": Now that certainly was an oversimplification if I have ever read one!

_ I blame the war mostly on this corrupt Neocon administration, but they didn't pull this off ALL by themselves.

As for Fox, Instead of asking the hard questions and expressing doubts, they sat back and cheerleaded the charge to war. A news organization is supposed to express scepticism as well as investigate the honesty and integrity about government policies, especially when it comes to something as serious as war. They didn't do that!

But it wasn't just Fox. CNN sat back and swallowed everything the government was feeding them as well. The administration even played NBC's "Meet the Press" like a drum in the process. The so called 'Liberal' New York Times" was used by them as well, mostly through the infamous Judith Miller.

And yes, Congree played a major irresponsible role in the process themselves.

What is most galling to me about Fox is that they are STILL beating the war drums, as well swallowing every crumb this administration is feeding them.

I mean, damn! Bush needs a better White House propaganda artist, where does he go to find one?.....Straight to Fox 'News'.

Maybe if we get through all of this in one piece we will stop bashing the mainstream media and come to understand once again that a vigilant and honest media is the ONLY thing that stands between us and potential tyranny.

As for your "change the channel" argument; I agree! I've made that argument myself regarding this very site and why Olbermann Haters can't find it in themself to simply change the channel?

Sharon, thanks for posting those responses from PEOPLE THAT KNOW. Olbermahn knows jack diddly squat. I am SURE the olbyloons will discount and spin what you posted. I, however, appreciate it. Thank you.

Thanks. I was hoping he would come on live, but these guys are really busy. No matter what their viewpoint, those serving are tremendous people. I think I would find it abnormal if they don't experience some degree of PTSD.

Well done Mike until the Last sent....this site is for us who hate Olbermann!!! Ha

I hate Olbermann because his is a propaganda machine for the Left, and yet I watch even though I dont agree with anything he says, ha

Whatever you say about Fox when a topic is open, there is a person from each side, now i agree the host may have his opinion, but again there is a voice on each side

O Reily has people on who disagree with him ALL THE TIME

When Olberman has someone on who disagrees with him, it will be an abject first

You must see this video. I posted on the other thread as well. There is no translation to the voice over but the title below is literal.

Iraqis/Troops Dancing in the Streets!

Celebrating the Anbar Awakening (Glenn Greenwald doesn't want you to see this video):

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

Let's face it. Olby is manipulating the rabid left with nothing but Horse Shit. Yes, it inflates his ego, but does nothing for reality. RESIGN. HA!

I just hollered to my wife from the bathroom: " Honey, could you please hand me another roll of 'Special Comments'.

Posted by: Gleason at July 13, 2007 2:02 PM

Wow Gleason, not smart enough to make sure there's enough toilet paper before you sit your stinking backside down on the crapper?

Your wife must be a very happy woman to have such a resourceful husband to take care of...

HA! got under another ones skin . It's too easy. HA!

HA! got under another ones skin . It's too easy. HA!

Posted by: Gleason at July 13, 2007 4:24 PM

Just because I make fun of you doesn't mean you bother me.

The only persons whose skin you're likely getting under is your wife's, since you obviously need her assistance to do what all of god's creatures can do all by their little old selves.

But then again, since you are always posting about how 'womanly' Olbermann is, one can only assume your wife bears some resemblance to Keith.

Does she dress like Keith too?

New GOP measure challenges Bush Iraq policy: Lugar, Warner draft bill requiring president to narrow mission of U.S. troops

Key GOP Senators draft Iraq plan
July 13: Republican Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar drafted legislation that would require President Bush to quickly come up with a plan that narrows U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

Updated: 32 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush to come up with a plan by mid-October to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

"Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future," the Warner-Lugar proposal said.

Bush has asked Congress to hold off on demanding a change in the course of the war until September, when the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, delivers a fresh assessment of its progress.

Warner, R-Va., and Lugar, R-Ind., are well regarded within Congress on defense issues. Warner was the longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee before stepping down last year, while Lugar is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
_______________________________________

I guess Cox, Grammie, Cee, et al (those who propose we just keep doing what we're doing in Iraq) will have to start their own political party, since even the GOP is starting to abandon their position regarding the war.

Let's help them with some names for their new party. Here are a few suggestions:

1.) Head-in-the-Sand-icans

2.) Dumbassacrats

3.) Fox & Friends

or we can just go with old fave...

4.) NeoCons

Fox and Friends HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....ah ah ah HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....OOOOOH funny funny HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....I get it Fox, the evil satan,,,,,,,,,,HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bushblablabladumby, In case you didn't know, there IS another party. It's called Independant, you know (I)'s?

there IS another party. It's called Independant
--------------------------------------
All the Saints In Heaven, help me.

Why must I be so tested?

I never frequent sites that target one person. I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, but I never visit sites that dedicate themselves solely to bashing him exclusively. This is indicative of obsession, and thus, lack of credibility and professionalism.

Robert Cox's "Olbermannwatch" is probably one of the worst. The first and only time I ever visited was his post regarding Olbermann's report on the foiled "terror plot" to attack Fort Dix. Cox's analysis was so pathetically full of holes I almost felt sorry for him.

And his usage of parody pictures is another indication of Cox's credibility.

And how about his pathetic farewell message? Back in March, Cox decided to close Olbermanwatch after becoming distraught that Keith signed a new contract with NBC. Boo freakin' hoo. Somehow, Cox found the emotional strength to open his P.O.S. blog back up.

Not to say that it has any bearing on credibility, but just look at that site traffic. Are you the only one visiting Olbermannwatch?

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=olbermannwatch.com

- pete592 / Friday July 13, 2007 06:17:49 PM EST

Great name to use 7:17. Easy to address you. The fact that Olbermann names O'Reilly the worst person in the world constantly, mentions him frequently in his show, is not obsession? The great thing about this country is Cox is free to operate a site you find irrelevant!

7:17, If you "never frequent sites that target one person" what are you doing here? The "first and only" time you were here was when the "Fort Dix Six" incident took place? Wait, then you were here before the closing of Olbywatch, which was BEFORE the Fort Dix incident! Think before you post next time and save yourself the embarrassment.

Truth,

I'll look for your response. I hate technology :)

Thanks, Bob!

FDR killed millions of people, and annihilated a few countries. We turned cities to rubble, killed men, women, children, and infants suckling at their mothers' breast. We used flame throwers on Japanese boys in the Pacific, napalmed Tokyo, dropped nukes, and bombed every major city in Germany for years on end.

If that's what you dumbfuck libshits wanted Bush to do then fuckin' say so.

FDR put over 100,000 Japanese americans into the interment camps. No charges, no trials, no hapeas corpus. But not a "progressive" in this country ever considers FDR to be a fascist war criminal.

Rico, convenient how the perfesser left out that fact, among many others. Nice goin', "teach." Maybe I should cut and paste the whole history of FDR's "perfect war" for the perfesser so he can learn a little something.

Yes, FDR really botched WWII. As a matter of fact, he only did correctly:

Vest the American people in the war and in victory.
Build and nurture strong alliances.
Listen to the Generals.
Keep to American people informed about the actual progress and actual challenges.
Defeat the Italians.
Defeat the Germans.
Defeat the Japanese.

We are the poorer for not having a president like Bush lead us. Can you imagine what would have been accomplished? Schade!

Sharon,
I wanted to thank you for passing along my post to MG and posting his response. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and how he puts his life on the line day in and day out. There is no doubt in my mind that he is 100% sincere in everything he says. It was also a breath of fresh air to see that someone who is so embroiled in such tragedy is also completely respectful and thoughtful. Some of the people who defend everything this administration does by putting down and insulting the opposition could learn a thing from him for sure. If anyone has earned a right to be bitter and short-tempered it would be him; and he is just the opposite.
Having said that I do disagree somewhat with his biggest explanation of the reason people aren't willing to join the military to fight in Iraq.

"About the number of new recruits being down, I attribute to the
horrible media slant that the War is getting. If you tell someone a
hundred times a day that they will go to Iraq and surely die, beat it
into their heads that the war is all about lies, and show graphic
pictures of bombings and killings, then some people who are "on the
fence" probably won't join."

This would all be true IF the negative media slant was a fact. It is not. It is a perception.
When the Battle of Iraq started there was almost NO opposing view point to the administration's plans of attack clearly represented. The coverage of the Shock & Awe and the Fall of Saddam was reported around the clock. It was reported as the historical military success that it was from the embedded reporters and the talking heads on TV couldn't get enough of the proud moments and imagery. Enrollment in the military was up, and everything was looking pretty rosey from that point of view.
Then things took a change. The same people responsible for one of the finest military conquests in history were also responsible for one of the most equally inept occupations ever. Many of the reasons for choosing to go to war were proven to be wrong, and the tide started to turn both on the battlefield and in the hearts and minds of many of the people at home.
People wondered:
"Where are the WMDs we were told were there?",
"I thought we were going to be viewed as liberators?",
"Why were we told that the Iraqi oil would pay for this if it is killing us economically?" and
"Why are our troops constantly under attack from a growing number of insurgents when we were told that the problem wasn't a big concern early on?".
Many showed unwavering support of the war and continued approving of the way things were handled. Many didn't though.
Soon many were questioning the methods that drew us into the war in the first place. The links between Iraq and Al Qaeda were proven to be false, and much of Bush's pre-war conjecture had also proven incorrect. When the administration was accused of some shady dealings to quiet those who disagreed with the pre-war rationale many people got more and more fed up. They wanted answers. Then the stone-walling began. Bush promised "full-investigation" after full-investigation of any and every problem, and never accepted accountability for any of the failures.
Then the Abu Ghraib and Pat Tillman stories hit. The military was its own worst enemy both internationally and at home with the emergence of those scandals and cover-ups. Almost overnight the images and opinions of our involvement shifted.
More middle of the road people were asking questions than ever before, and it started to get harder to find people who believed in the mission whole-heartedly.
The mission was shifting from a noble one to a flawed one in the minds of the majority of Americans.
What was the media supposed to do? Cheerlead for the cause regardless of any developments in the story or climbing death tolls?
Of course not.
The same embedded reporters and news outlets that broadcast the successful and proud images of the Shock & Awe and Fall of Baghdad HAD to broadcast the scandalous images and stories now associated with the war.
Many people (not all) started to feel as though they were misled into believing the war was just. They felt manipulated by this President and his administration when they were vulnerable. They gave their trust to a man who asked for it, and felt it was squandered to satisfy an agenda. As the dots began to be connected, more and more people started to see that maybe we weren't fighting in Iraq to disrupt Al Qaeda. Maybe we were fighting there for reasons only truly known by a few secretive and arrogant men. The trust was simply broken.

This is where I honestly feel we are now. The images of death don't always have a negative impact on enrollment, sometimes its just the opposite. Sometimes people want to avenge attacks.
I personally don't know anyone who disagreed with fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I know plenty of people who feel lied to and misled about Iraq. Most of the country feels this way now in fact.

In my opinion anyone who wants to blame the negative view of the war on the media is not getting to the true problem.
The problem lies with the fact that most Americans feel as though we were patriotic and trusted this administration.
Time has shown that they were wrong on many levels, and people are just tired of watching soldiers die for reasons that never proved to be true.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Truth. An astounding piece. I found the mission analysis particularly compelling.

Thanks for the compliment Clucker. Astounding?
I don't know. Sad really.
I just hate when the events are re-written and then the semantics come into play.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to re-write the way things went down.

"FDR won a world war in around 5 years.
GWB can't even secure the main road from the airport to the center of Baghdad in 5 years."

This is maybe the most profound two sentences I've ever read regarding the war.

Someone should make a bumper sticker out of THAT.

I have a question for the hundreds of people out here that were defending Scooter Libby's commutation last week.

The prevailing thought was, "For Christ's sake it wasn't LIBBY who outed Plame, it was Armitage."

Now that Bush came out and said it was someone in his administration who outed her, no one mentions it EVEN ONCE.

Anyone else find this odd?

One more thing...

A few days ago I made some bad comments about moving the US capital to a bunch of ficticious southern cities.
I made rude references in a joking way to the south. It was dumb and juvenile, but I did it.

It really pissed off a bunch of southerners who immediately told me so.
I felt genuinely bad, apologized, and admitted my jokes were tasteless.

Now I read a couple of posts where the northern cities were similarly attacked, and NO ONE mentions a thing.

A little hypocritical if you ask me.

You loons have no clue of American History if you think WW ll was peaches and cream. My grandfather fought in Germany and he just laughs at the fact that liberals make mountains out of molehills when it come to Iraq. Just do a "ww ll disasters" search and you will have months of reading/education.

"My grandfather fought in Germany and he just laughs at the fact that liberals make mountains out of molehills when it come to Iraq."

I appreciate your grandfather's service.
I find it odd that a vet of such a bloody war laughs at over 3,000 "molehills".

"You loons have no clue of American History if you think WW ll was peaches and cream."

And I don't recall anyone saying that WWII was peaches and cream.

They said that it took less time for FDR to fight and win a global war than Dumya has taken to secure ONE road.

I appreciate your grandfather's service.
I find it odd that a vet of such a bloody war laughs at over 3,000 "molehills".

Posted by: The Truth at July 14, 2007 9:35 PM

I don't recall anyone laughing at 3000 deaths. Depending on your source, there are many, there were at least 300,000 casualties during WW ll. Some say 250,000, most say around 400,000. Don't put words in m mouth, every American death is a tragedy.

Royalking,

The libshits are fillibustering, like usual. When confronted with facts that they do not want to deal with they always find a way not to.

I made a slight alteration (ALL CAPS) to your text, Mr. Rico. I hope you don't object:

The SENATE REPUBLICANS are fillibustering, like usual. When confronted with facts that they do not want to deal with they always find a way not to.

I am sure you will agree that is more reality-based.

"I don't recall anyone laughing at 3000 deaths... Don't put words in m mouth, every American death is a tragedy."

Posted by: royalking at July 14, 2007 10:03 PM

My grandfather fought in Germany and he just laughs at the fact that liberals make mountains out of molehills when it come to Iraq.

Posted by: royalking at July 14, 2007 8:46 PM

What molehills in Iraq are causing your grandfather to laugh?

Poor public transportation in Tikrit?
Long lines at the supermarket in Baghdad?
McDonalds all out of sweet and sour sauce after someone paid for their McNuggets in Al Basrah?

Or maybe:
Daily death tolls climbing?
Terrorism growing to pre 9/11 levels?
Thousands killed?
Hundreds of thousands maimed?

Sounds like a real comedy to me.

The libshits are fillibustering, like usual. When confronted with facts that they do not want to deal with they always find a way not to.

Posted by: Rico at July 14, 2007 10:10 PM

????
What FACTS was anyone confronted with?

Truth,

These facts:

FDR killed millions of people, and annihilated a few countries. We turned cities to rubble, killed men, women, children, and infants suckling at their mothers' breast. We used flame throwers on Japanese boys in the Pacific, napalmed Tokyo, dropped nukes, and bombed every major city in Germany for years on end.

If that's what you dumbfuck libshits wanted Bush to do then fuckin' say so.

Posted by: Rico at July 14, 2007 11:43 AM

What FACTS was anyone confronted with?

I think the choices are:

(1) An opinion about Iraq.

or

(2) An opinion about WWII (when the opinion about Iraq was debunked).

I am not sure there is a fact that has been offered for some time.

Clucker,

Context is everything, baby!
---------------------------------------

Posted by: Bob at July 14, 2007 2:11 AM
FDR won a world war in around 5 years.
GWB can't even secure the main road from the airport to the center of Baghdad in 5 years.

You hit that one out of the park, Bob.

Even the Royalfleabag thanks you.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 14, 2007 9:47 AM

FDR killed millions of people, and annihilated a few countries. We turned cities to rubble, killed men, women, children, and infants suckling at their mothers' breast. We used flame throwers on Japanese boys in the Pacific, napalmed Tokyo, dropped nukes, and bombed every major city in Germany for years on end.

If that's what you dumbfuck libshits wanted Bush to do then fuckin' say so.

Posted by: Rico at July 14, 2007 11:43 AM
FDR put over 100,000 Japanese americans into the interment camps. No charges, no trials, no hapeas corpus. But not a "progressive" in this country ever considers FDR to be a fascist war criminal.

Posted by: Rico at July 14, 2007 11:49 AM

You are correct, Mr. Rico, context is everything, and therein lies your problem. One cannot put the Iraq Occupation in a WWII context. Just a few minor distinctions:

In WWII, one enemy, a soverign nation, attacked us, and another enemy, a sovereign nation, delcare war on us. In Iraq, we were attacked by terrorists, not a sovereign nation, and Iraq was not the place from which the terrorists came, from which the plan was hatched, from which the funds to support the attack was originated.

In WWII, we had a President who understood the importance of vesting people in the conflict, in sharing the sacrifice. In so doing, he built enormous popular support for the war. That popular support was a key to going the duration and to winning. On a more negative side, that support also made it possible to overlook and even to accept the abuses around us. That does not make them correct, by any reason, but it was a wonderful way to make even these tolerable. With Iraq, we have a President whose great rally cry was "Go About Business As Usual." He sees no value in vesting people. As a consequence, if all is as usual, abused seem highly unusual. Bush's wounds in this regard are self-inflicted.

IN WWII, we had the draft and induction. The draft puts pressure on a government to produce results and end the engagement. People want to get back to their normal lives. In Iraq, we not only have a volunteer army, but also an isolated one. It's taken a period longer than the duration of WWII for virtually every American to know someone who has been sent to Iraq and someone who has been injured.

Roosevelt shared information about the progress of the war, or the lack of progress in an unusually open fashion. Of course, battle plans were not shared, but Roosevelt actually told people to buy maps so he could lead them in plotting out progress. Guess what? Maps were sold out the next day. In Iraq, we have a President who secrets negative news and who merely trumps platitudes usually descredited within the next news cycle.

In WWII, we had leaders' children fighting, including Roosevelt's, and we had celebrities in the actual action. In Iraq, none of the Bush's or the Cheney's are fighting, indeed none of them in the President's generation and thereafter have ever fought. Except for the children of a few members of Congress, including but not limited to Senators McCain and Webb, the war is not impacting members of Congress.

We could go on all night.

If you want context, don't look for any WWII context to be applicable to Iraq. Vietnam would be more promising, but even that was better handled politically and militarily.

FDR killed millions of people, and annihilated a few countries. We turned cities to rubble, killed men, women, children, and infants suckling at their mothers' breast. We used flame throwers on Japanese boys in the Pacific, napalmed Tokyo, dropped nukes, and bombed every major city in Germany for years on end.

If that's what you dumbfuck libshits wanted Bush to do then fuckin' say so.

Posted by: Rico at July 14, 2007 11:43 AM

Rico,
Easy there, tough guy. You might want to think before you throw around "dumbfuck libshits" to make some sort of point. It doesn't exactly make you look like Einstein.

For the record, since you want to say "FDR" killed millions I hope you're comfortable with all of the blame for this war being put on Dumya.

If so, then W has:

Killed hundreds of thousands

Turned ancient cities to rubble

Killed men, women, children, and infants suckling at their mothers' breast

Picked only certain items out of pre-war intelligence reports and framed those points to make the case for this war of choice

Demoralized prisoners of war in a way that will only further stoke the flames of terrorism for years to come

Used the high-profile friendly fire death of an American hero (Pat Tillman) as a battle cry and enlistment tool, concealing the true nature of his death for weeks to suit his agenda

And committed many, many, many other atrocities before and during this QUAGMIRE.

The only difference is that only ONE of these wars was necessary. Only ONE of these wars should have been fought. Only ONE of these leaders was able to actually WIN THE WAR.

Please, don't keep trying to compare the two wars in an equal way. Iraq is NOTHING like WWII.

If you want to compare Iraq to anything, start with Vietnam. Anything else is so inaccurrate its sad to read.

Clucker,
You hit on many of the same points I did. Your response didn't post until I posted mine, as I didn't want to merely parrot your words.

Great points.

Rico or RK,

Do either of you actually wish we went after the country that the terrorists came from?
Do either of you think that Saudi Arabia was a worse choice of target than Iraq?

I'm just interested in your opinions on this.

We went into Iraq because of things that happened in the past, i.e. Shoe Shine boy kicking out UN inspectors, mostly. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back, no pun intended. Just my opinion. As far as which country to go after, tough choice. Syria? Saudi? Iran? Afghanistan? Pick your poison. They're all hotbeds for terrorists. Not to mention the pot belly pig in N. Korea.

Clucker,

Bob compared FDR's war to Bush's. I responded to him. If he hadn't brought up FDR and WWII I wouldn't have either. If you think the comparison of WWII to Iraq is bogus then that's fine. Go tell that to Bob.

I do not disagree with what you say about WWII. Of course, it was total war, and there have been no total wars since them. But the most important thing about that war is that we annihilated the enemy(along with our allies) before same could be done to us. If you kill enough of the enemy you always win, no matter what you do wrong. No matter what you do right, if you do not kill enough of the enemy, you will always lose.

During WWII all Americans wanted their own side to win. That is not true about Iraq. If you want your own side to win in Iraq, or if you ever wanted your own side to win, then say so.

Truth,

We have not killed "hundreds of thousands" in Iraq. Don't get your numbers from Michael Moore. He lies. We have not "turned ancient cities to rubble". There certainly has been damage, but you are exagerating again.

In every war in human history there have been innocent civilians killed. We are doing our best to minimize that. The "insurgents" are trying to kill as many as possible, but you don't blame them. Have you been hired as their PR agent?

And yes, Iraq is very similar to Vietnam. We are mostly playing defense(no way to win a war), while we wait for a third world people to step up and defend themselves. I wouldn't bet on it working. And tens of millions of Americans, who never wanted the mission to succeed, are problably going to get their way. Congratulations.

Every Islamic terrorist is our enemy, whether or not they have ever attacked the US. Islamic Jihad, Hezzbolah, Hamas, the PLO, Al Queda, they are all the enemy. And Saddam was the pre-eminent Islamic terrorist in human history. But he didn't have to live in a cave because he owned his own country. So he had to go. If you think the "War on Terror" will have been won if that day comes when Al Queda no longer exists and all the other terrorist organizations are alive and well, then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

And I definitely would have done terrible things to Saudi Arabia as soon as we found out that 15 of 19 911 hijackers were Saudis. Would you?

I noticed the similarity of the responses, particularly in regard to the Vietnam factor. The comparisons are undeniable.

I did like the manner in which you addressed Tillman. Bush's explotation of Tillman and his family does show not only total insensitivity, but also desparation.

Speaking of desparation, I read with interest Kristol's op-ed in the Post. With articles like that of Cox, giving us the reason the neo-cons were right, but we still lost, and Kristol, beginning the historical re-write prior to the history being made, I think it is pretty clear this is wrapping up, and not at well for the neo-cons. My own sense is that they will be roundly discredited, paying an even higher price than Bush. They deserve to be discredited.

"I'm sure Bob, who teaches about WWII is totally aware of what happened." anon

A scary thought, indeed.

Bob,

Don't be such a dingbat. FDR did a competent job of winning the war by killing lots and lots of people, without any concern for who would be pissed off by that. FDR did not care how many civilians he killed, and so he was able to kill millions. It worked. If Bush had killed the right millions by now he would have won, too. The "War on Terror" could be so over by now. But you don't really want that, do you?

I love how you conventiently forget that FDR committed "tresspasses against the Constitution". He put 110,000 Japanese americans into the internment camps, no charges, no trials, no habeas corpus. Not a peep from you about that. Bush has a couple of hundred terrorist picked up on the battlefield at Gitmo, and you act like he's got a hundred thousand innocent people there or something. Don't be such a dingbat, Bob. You act like Americans during WWII were out there "dissenting" to their hearts' content.

"...damage to our national reputation..." You talking about the French and Germans? Sorry, Bob, but they elected governents from the right the last couple of years, so your complaint is bogus. But, just so you know, anybody who "hates us" is either the enemy or a dingbat. Why do you "hate us", Bob?

"al-Qaeda is now stronger"

Why is it whenever anybody comes up with an assertion that is bad news for America you dumbfucks always accept it at face value. This "fact" doesn't even need to be verified. Somebody said it, and you love it.

I say that if we lose in Iraq that it will be a victory for you, Bob, the victory you wanted from day one. If you ever wanted the mission in Iraq to succeed, then say so. If you don't, then you didn't.

Peace, Baby!

Average American Asshole,

I did not say "genocide". Why are you? We killed millions in WW II. We carpet bombed cities, napalmed Tokyo, used nukes. Was that genocide? Was it wrong? Was FDR a war criminal? If so, say so.

How many people can we kill in the "War on Terror"? Who gets to set the upper limit? Nobody asked me to be on the rules committee. Are you on it? It looks like a lot of people want to commit genocide against us. I am opposed to that. Are you?

I want all Islamic terrorists, and all of their supporters, and anyone who is a possible future member of either, to be killed by us. If we do that, we win. Do you say if that we do that we don't win? Do you even want "us" to win?

Say, Rico, when should Moron in Chief nuke Mecca?

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 15, 2007 11:52 AM

ASAP!

There we have it. The perfesser gives the Letterman/Rosie answer to the question, "do you want to win the war?" He avoids it. We'll take that as a "no."

patsy, how many times are you on record defending our enemy? Countless.

Only a complete and total moron would read and interpret AAP's posts as "defending our enemy".

Jeff.....your brain is broken!

Only a complete and total moron would try to defend Olbermahn......

Bob and Average American Asshole,

I love how you ignore questions that you don't like. It interferes with your perpetual stream of consciousness rants.

Krazy Keith forever!!!

Rico, do you recall the question you asked me more than once when I first started posting here?

Your 'question' went something like this: 'If someone hit me at work, whet would you do to keep it from ever happening again?' Your question was supposed to have some relevance to the Iraq war. I guess in your black and white right wing mind, it somehow did! You badgered me with that 'question' all day long.

That still strikes me as one of the most simplistic and silly 'questions' I have ever heard. It was obviously intended as a loaded question you intended to use as a vehicle to somehow justify our occupation of Iraq....by using simplistic personal circumstances, and in your mind, it somehow served as a relevant metaphor for the War.

I however, was both and amused and mystified that someone would attempt to badger someone else with such a ridiculous question....that could not possibly be answered without first filling in many, many more parameters regarding circumstances.

I see you're still asking such 'questions'. The problem is all of your questions are equally simplistic.

Trust me, no one is evading your 'questions'! Your problem is that you need to ask deeper and more relevant questions before anyone is ever going to take you seriously.

Sorry Mike,

But you are full of it.

Your explanation as to why lefties don't answer my questions is bogus.

When you proposed marraige were you told "that question is too simplistic for me to answer"? Or did she say "I don't answer 'yes' or 'no' questions"? I don't think so. Most questions, and most issues, are simple. All of your nuance is really phoney; an attempt to avoid putting your cards on the table. You just do not want to reveal what you are really about, what you are really for, and how you say things really work.

But your assertions are pretty simple. Let us review a few of them:

Bush bad.
Iraq bad.
Cheney bad.
Rummy bad.
Scotter Libby bad.

I don't see no nuance there, Mike. WTF?

The thoughts, ideas, and emotions that are the cause of all your posts on this site are secrets that you will never reveal. What's the big secret, Mike?

"mike," the preacher, says, "No simple questions allowed! All questions MUST be deeper and more relevant!" Yea, ok, "mike."

Mike:

If Rico's question was, in fact:

'If someone hit me at work, whet would you do to keep it from ever happening again?' ,

I don't see how you could answer "yes" or "no" as in a marriage proposal, because it is not a "yes or no" question. You would be right to pass on that.

Now, if I could recast the mode of answering, I'd say, "Nothing, because I don't know where you work."

It would have been better if Bush had answered: "I am not going to do a damn thing about capturing Bin Laden because I don't know where he is." Honesty is always a better tactic.

If tomorrow's GUARDIAN is correct, we're in trouble:

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

I can't imagine where th troops or the funds will come from. I suppose Bush will just keep depleting the National Guard, make deployment in the Middle East permanent. Perhaps, have the troops pull 0700-1500 in Bagdad and a 1700-0100 in Teheran. Lord knows, men, material, funds and reality never stand in Bush's way.

OK Rico, lets elaborate on this a little further. How about your equally simplistic question you asked of Bob: "Do you want us to win in Iraq?"

Your 'question' would be much like you asking me "if I want a Corvette?" and expecting a yes or no response. What you didn't ask was "was I willing to PAY for a Corvette"?...along with all the other liabilities and practicality problems that might go along with driving a Corvette, instead of something more practical?

In other words, if your question is "do you want a Corvette AND am I willing to pay for it"? The answer to that question would be a resounding 'no'.

On the other hand, if the question is "do you want a Corvette if I give it to you with no strings attached?", then the answer would be a resounding 'yes'.

Now lets move on to Iraq. You and the O'Reilly's of the world keep asking this ridiculous "do you want to win in Iraq" 'question', ....But here are the questions you HAVEN"T asked that has to be part of the same question:

1) - What price in additional American lives am I will to pay to "win in Iraq"?

2) - What additional cost to America's image and moral high gound am I willing to pay for us to "win in Iraq"?

3) - How much more money am I willing for us to borrow from our future, China, and other potential future adversaries for us to "win in Iraq"?

4) - What is your definition of "winning in Iraq"?

5) - How long would I be willing for American troops to be placed in harm's way in order for us to "win in Iraq"?

So you see Rico, you simpleton, ....there is no way in hell that 'question' can possibly be answered unless you fill in all the blanks above as an integral part of the question...get it?

Now here's MY conditional 'answer':

DO I "want to win in Iraq"? ....HELL YES!....Just as long as not another American life has to be sacrificed, ....and not another dime has to be borrowed to finance it, ....and we don't have to sacrifice any more of our cherished principles in the process, ....and we can get out of there tomorrow as part of the deal!

And by the way Rico......What is "victory in Iraq"????

Mike,

Well, miracles do happen. Thanks for your reponse. It's "conditional", but that is a lot better than nothing.

Let's define "winning". My definition of winning and W's definition may not be the same thing. I don't work for him, he did not fill me in on the details of his "plan" for Iraq after removing Saddam's government. I am not an insider. My definition of winning is a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the West, and that supports the West against Islamic terrorism and that is effective doing so.

W somehow had that idea that he would just remove Saddam, plant a few seeds, and democracy would grow naturally. That is not a plan. I never thought it was. But when my country is taking down Saddam I am always going to support that.

I am aware that our troops can get Haagen-Dazs while they are waiting to get blown to smithereens. That's why so much money is being spent in Iraq to not much good effect. I would rather have had our troops living in foxholes with rules of engagement that permit them to cause success. Just like in Vietnam, our troops are, for the most part, playing defense. That is not how to defeat anybody.

We could have taken care of business in Iraq long ago, and with fewer US casualties than there are now, and with a lot less money spent. But we would have killed a lot more people in Iraq, and pissed off a lot more Iraqis than we have Bush's way. And I don't think that you would have liked it any better than what he have now, either, Mike. But I would be a lot happier.

You used the word "simpleton" to describe me. I am still waiting for you to express even one complicated or sophisticated idea.

Your 'question' would be much like you asking me "if I want a Corvette?" and expecting a yes or no response. What you didn't ask was "was I willing to PAY for a Corvette"?...along with all the other liabilities and practicality problems that might go along with driving a Corvette, instead of something more practical?

Posted by: "mike" at July 16, 2007 12:12 AM

Translation, he doesn't want to win the war. He puts a nice spin and word play to it, but, he finally admits it. Who's unpatriotic? Who's un-American? Who defends the enemy? "mike."

This is not a large wave any longer, it's a friggin tidal wave !!!!

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 16, 2007 1:01 AM

Thanks, patsy! How long did you have to "scour" to find that?

Rico, I should not have used the word 'simpleton' to describe you in my post and I apologize for that. Jeff is the only proven simpleton who posts regularly on this site.

In examining your post, you express the desire for a "stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the West"....

Who doesn't want that????

The real question is how do we get there from here? That is where we differ because you also endorsed a policy that would have killed and therefore "pissed off" more Iraqis than we have now. It seems to me that your idea of creating a friendly stable government is mutually exclusive to your other idea of pissing still more of them off.

I feel the only chance we ever had of pulling it off was derailed as soon as Garner was replaced by Bremmer. Garner had the right idea but Bremmer thought he could just tear everything down and start from scratch. That certainly "pissed off' a whole lot of Iraqis, and became a major reason why we are in the fix we are today.

You, like most of us, have some "coulda, shoulda" ideas about Iraq, and yours are certainly different from mine....but all of that would be mute if we had left Iraq alone in the first place, as we SHOULD have done.

Saddam was brutal and an enemy, but he was not really an Islamic terrorist....he was in fact an enemy of the enemy that actually attacked us (Al Qeada). Saddam's brutality was exactly what kept a lid on that sectarian powderkeg we call Iraq. The best we can hope for today is to somehow put a lid BACK on that powderkeg, and not end up with a country that is completely hostile to us. Thats obviously a tall order.

There is no evidence that staying there is going to achieve that, nor is there any hard evidence that leaving is going to automatically create the hostile state many are predicting either. We just don't know! ... Therefore, we should not keep wasting American lives in what really amounts to little more than a colossal crap shoot.

Posted by: The Truth at July 16, 2007 3:02 AM

Mercy...

Well, great... FDR felt badly about Dresden, et al.... because he said so.... and god knows it's a good thing that NATO united around killing so many Germans and Japanese... particularly the Japanese....it wasn't like there was many of them...

Hiroshma and Nagasaki anyone?

I don't quite understand your commentary.
Are you trying to say that because FDR (who by the way didn't drop the nukes, Harry S did) was responsible for large death tolls in this war he was happy with that?
Do you really think that was a part of his job that was easy to live with?
Seriously?
I just don't understand the thinking.

Comparing WWII with Iraq will NEVER EVER make GWB look good.
The fact that FDR was President during a huge death toll in the most important war in our history doesn't mean that it didn't bother him. Sometimes you have to make tough calls that have all kinds of consequences. Isn't that what we've been hearing ad nauseum since 9/11?

If all Presidents love everything that happens on their watch, how's Dummy feeling about Abu Ghraib? Is that something that he takes as lightly as FDR apparently took D-Day?

MERCY.

Posted by: The Truth at July 16, 2007 3:15 PM

Truth,

You might ask yourself these things.

I'm not arguing that ANY president has taken these sorts of things lightly... (FDR, Truman, Bush)... YOU are... and with the flimiest of evidence....Bush says he sleeps well at night... and you have no similar quote from FDR.... compelling....

What's more... I'm not arguing that billions of Muslims are potential terrorists (it doesn't take billions)... YOU are...

Cecelia is a double-agent for the Olbyloons.You can't expect any better from her.

How many times has DoucheBag visited our tropps in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Just curious

Just curious
--------------
You're not curious in the least. You know the answer and you are simply trying to make a "pointless point". If that is all you are going to do, I would suggest you go to Senor Dollares' website instead. Your are likely to be challenged beyond your prowess and abilities here if you continue to put forth drivel and pablum.

How many times has Olbermann visited the troops in Iraq? That would be Zero. How many times has Olbermann, the "Edward R. Murrow" of his generation per the liberal lunatic fringe, covered a hurricane? That would be Zero. Covered an earthquake? Zero again.

P.S. Clucker--the plural of Dollar's is not Dollares'.

P.S. Clucker--the plural of Dollar's is not Dollares'.

------

En Espanol? The key is "Senor". Sorry, I can't do the tilde for either word, and "Dollares" is not Spanish, but Tex-Mex.

Once Shock & Awe commenced, the U.S. had to follow through. I look to Tony Blair. He was for going to war but from what I have read, was extremely concerned about the aftermath. Some of the great mistakes I think have been made:

1) number of troops at the onset (keep in mind the 3rd I.D. was stuck in Turkey for awhile and could have helped contain the Sunni Triangle which I believe could have made a big difference in early containment of violence);

2) disbanding the army;

3) firing Garner;

4) not getting rid of Rumsfeld sooner

5) not talking to the American people enough

6) poor planning in general for after the completion major combat operations to remove Saddam and his regime from power.

These are at the top of my head.

I ask why so many Iraqis came out to vote? Why did they bother? Why was there somewhat of a truce to allow it to happen? I am not asking to pound the war justification theory. I generally want to know why so many people came out to exercise their voting privilege. They were absolutely forced to vote when Saddam was in power. Saddam's last year in power yielded 100% of the vote! Could it be that when the vote was, let's say 98.5%, the population immediately decreased by 1.5%? I would be curious to know the death toll of Iraqis under the rule of Saddam. You have to factor in the people he gassed. AGain, just truly wondering about that stat.

Sharon, I hope I catch you here tonight.

Thanks for the links you provided in a few threads. I usually follow links but yours are a go back and find always.

And, I appreciate your standing up for me when I wasn't around.

Grammie

Hiya Grammie!

I tried to post some useless Democratic pork in response to Angry Man but couldn't. I think it was because I tried to make two comments in a row. Has that ever happened to you? I don't feel like going back to find them again but they were mostly from an expose by CNN. I don't know how long I'll last tonight. When you don't come on for awhile, I worry about you!

That is a pretty good list, Sharon.

I think disbanding the Iraqi army is the source of so many of the problems on the ground in Iraq, and not adequately vesting and preparing the American people the source of most of our domestic political problems.

I am anxious to read history's verdict on Rumsfeld. Clearly, out of his league and well after his prime.

I have sometimes wondered if, perhaps, Shock and Awe itself didn't have one findamental flaw: the speed of the advance. We really made no effort to secure anything. I am sure you watched the tanks rolling through Iraq, without any resistance. How many supply depots did we just roll by? How many Baath leaders did we by-pass? How many Iraqi civilians in the less hostile south did we forfeit an opportunity to win over and make allies? I do understand the value in proceeding quickly, but we may have shot ourselves in the foot. The start to this unfortunate episode, as stunning as it was, may have hurt us in the long run.

Actually, it was the 4th I.D. that was stuck in Turkey. My bad!