Democrats/Liberals would be far more convincing if they weren't such creepy, hateful, lying bastards.

It really is troubling that Oralmann is in bed with these blue blogs. There's a tacit understanding that whatever they post will be rehashed on Countdown. Does this bastard even HAVE a staff of researchers??

Well, you do have to admit: You can't point to anyone in this Adminsitration who is a creepy, hateful, lying bastard.

Sounds a lot like the Clinton administration to me Clucker.

The radical leftists are drinking up the "Bush assinated Tillman" story like it was free beer. It's their favorite new conspiracy theory. Well, after the Cheney shot Tillman bullshit.

JohnDoll, I have been wanting to mention that your recap the other night was masterful. It can't be easy to satirize the parody that KO already is.

Grammie

ChickenBlogger, what was that you were saying on the July 26 thread that you didn't notice anyone putting forward a theory that Pat Tillman was murdered?

Grammie

thanks, Grammie!

"It really is troubling that Oralmann is in bed with these blue blogs. There's a tacit understanding that whatever they post will be rehashed on Countdown. Does this bastard even HAVE a staff of researchers??"

I'm guessing the fact that bush held a conference with right wing bloggers to discuss how to use the administrations arguments over executive priviledge is fair game tho, huh john-o?

Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, I am so disappointed that you, the most creative and innovative opponent here, has succumbed to that tired old bromide 'senile' that has been used by dozens before you to describe me.

Your trademark phrase, BU$HWIPE, is still so fresh and original I would think you come up with something that every Tom, Dick and Harry hasn't used already.

Oh, wait. My mistake. I forgot, senility you know creeps up when I least expect it, BU$HWIPE is your ONLY trick.

Please ignore my earlier comments. I temporarily forgot why I have my loving nickname, Patsy the One Trick Pony, for you.

Senility is a bitch. But hey, the alternative is so permanent.

Grammie

Look what I did... or didn't do!:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytopz5

Keeping it real in the world of Fairly Unbalanced!

the horrendous Pat Tillman episode
----------------------------------------
To the RW, he was disposable, his family is disposable, everyone serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan is disposable, all their families are disposable. Why else could the Occupation continue? The Invasion and Occupation were seen as "necessary" to consolidate power, and now the continued Occupation is some desperate effort to retain power. Even the most strident RW'er knows power is seeping from their grubby little hands. That is why we should all be alarmed about our policy in Iran. Is that going to be a final attempt to keep in power? You have to wonder. It would be imprudent not to be cynical when you're dealing with these people.

Gummies,

In your hundreds of years have you learned anything?

Have you at least learned to stay away from a steaming pile of shit like Johnny BU$HWIPE or Robert 'sucking' Cox?

Rhetorical question. Of course NOT.

But don't mind me. You are so busy making room in Mt. Rushmore for Dumbya, as once you praised your retarded son, Robert Cox.

Looks like KO is getting closer to my prediction that he'll blame Bush for 9/11...after all if he's willing to get in bed with Daily Kos on the "Bush had Tillman killed" theory then thats just one "Special Comment " away from calling 9/11 an "inside job"...wait for either this September or next year for it to happen.

It would be imprudent not to be cynical when you're dealing with these people.

Posted by: Clucker at July 28, 2007 12:04 AM

You better believe it.

To the dozen or so people who still watch MESSNBC to see their favorite liberal whiner, KO, why not just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source, DailyKos, Media Matters, etc?

Patsy, your bile is leaking through.

You took a shot at me and I returned the favor.

Didn't your mama ever teach you that if you dish it out be prepared to take it.

Grammie

"There is no single nor cummulative event(s) of the Bush Administration that would ever stir the RW'ers to a moment of clarity or admission of culpability for them"

Yes, there is, WDYCWMNI (sorry, can't be troubled to type all the letters in your name, this is easier)......

Amnesty for illegal immigrants.....Harriet Miers.....Julie Myers (wtf is the Bush obsession with unqualified Miers/Myers and all other variations anyway?)

That's 3.

Sorry, WDYCWMNI....I suffered from premature poster-ation there......

Google "Bush Ice Nominee" and see how many supporting links come up.

Naw, Bush didn't fly those planes on 9/11, but his Saudi friends, including those directly related to Bin Laden, were flying that day. Anyone here recall the Saudi family members allowed to leave the country while the air traffic across the country was in lock-down?

I guess that was a national security issue, just not America's.

OUCH!

Gummie BU$HWIPE is down to 'your mamma' insults.

Go on Gummies... we always knew you had it in your self.

"I'm guessing the fact that bush held a conference with right wing bloggers to discuss how to use the administrations arguments over executive priviledge is fair game tho, huh john-o?"

Posted by: dontblameme at July 27, 2007 11:16 PM

Hacks are hacks, left or right. But where was that reported? And which bloggers?

Nice post, Bob.

On a somewhat ironic note, I know a couple of the guys who tour with him, one in particular a devote Christian, who has yet to say anything negative about Thompson's religious status.

The zealots of otherwise noble religions make the rest of us look bad in the eyes of other zealots., including a few who own networks.

I have a friend that is an immigrant from Bosnia, and a Muslim.

Check out the history of Bosnian Muslims during WWII....

Do I think she is an anti-Semitic, kill-the-Jews fanatic? NO!

Do I think every Muslim wants to kill Americans and Jews and is a suicide bomber? NO!

Do I think every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive is an anti-American traitorous bastard? YES!

Just kidding.....stereotypes are bad, m'kay....

Patsy, dear, Gummie has been used by every Tom, Dick and Harry here too.

If you live long enough I have every confidence that you will be able to learn a new trick eventually.

If not, your BU$HWIPE never fails to amaze and entertain us no matter how many times you regale us with it.

Grammie

19th greatest of all time, huh?

How important is he? I bet Rush and Sean Hannity get way more hate mail than he does.

It as if getting hate mail in and of itself is some sort of achievement.

It really makes me wonder who would bother to send this guy hate mail in the first place.

To the dozen or so people who still watch MESSNBC to see their favorite liberal whiner, KO, why not just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source, DailyKos, Media Matters, etc?

Posted by: Jay Williams at July 28, 2007 12:31 AM

Have you heard of hooked on phonics? Watching the orange faced prick is like putting on the record, saves them from having to sound out all of the words online..........

Tillmans mother deserves grief. She's a despicable friggen liberal. No mercy for cowards.

Fox news drives em crazy. HA! loser pussys.

These are not good times for republicans.

Posted by: at July 27, 2007 10:06 PM

I beg to differ with you, patsy.

Any propaganda machine presenting itself as a reputable news organization should warrant skepticism by a rational-thinking public regardless of political affiliations.

Continuously misrepresenting the truth is not news reporting, little one. Isn't that a primary reason this site exists? Or are we just spewing more falsehoods to amuse and vex one another?

*heh*

Royal "Don't blame me, I voted for Goebbels" King!

RK would have been positive, encouraging force for Adolph in the bunker during his last days.

Posted by: Truth flashlight at July 28, 2007 2:06 AM

"Positive" and "encouraging," 2 things you know nothing about.....thanks anyways.

RK: "Like I'm going to believe a left wing site like Fox news.
Heeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyy, wait a minute .
The Fox news Poll said WHAT" ?

Posted by: Truth FLASHBACK at July 28, 2007 2:28 AM

Step away from the pipe, patsy, you've had waaaaaaaaaaayyy too much for one day.

Hillary will be president when pigs fly. It ain't gonna happen.

Obama will never be president. He says too many stupid things.

If it ain't Hillary, and it ain't Obama, then it must be Rudy, Mitt, or Fred.

Enjoy your fantasy, loons, before your dream turns in to a nightmare.

Cheney this weekend gets a new heart
Playing the part of president, Bush gets a start
Freelancing the truth,
With his own words to boot,
While pace-making the Undead seems more so a lark

it ain't Hillary, and it ain't Obama, then it must be Rudy, Mitt, or Fred.

Enjoy your fantasy, loons, before your dream turns in to a nightmare.
Posted by: A Pig Who Don't Fly at July 28, 2007 2:35 AM

FOX News Poll: Most Think Democrats Will Win White House in 2008

How far right will the RW'ers have to go to find a publication or web site that predicts a republican victory in 08?
Now they can't even believe their golden cow, Fox News.

Yes, a very bad time for republicans !

Posted by: Truth flashlight at July 28, 2007 2:42 AM

What is this stupidity?

You're probably of the age where you spent most of your time in a playpen when there was a Repub minority in '94 and watching cartoons in '2000 when Bush was elected Pres, but trust me on this, Democrats still managed not to disembowel themselves...and continued to enjoy barbecue ribs, Dean Koontz and the sunrises.

We'll manage to do the same...the beat will go on....

I haven't seen Olbermann in months. I come here and see it's the same.
Muslims=Good
Jews/Christians=Evil
Iran=Good
US=Bad
Democrats=Good
Republicans=Bad.
He's not a real thinker.
He's a puppet!

And Joker, don't forget the conspiracy theory du jour: the Bush administration has apparently turned into the Mafia and ordered a hit on Pat Tillman! Seriously, take a visit to the blue blogs and they are wetting their pants over this. The more uhm, "special" ones of them want to see Bush prosecuted for his "murder".

It's a friendly fire/fragging incident people. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. His death is tragic and unfortunate but people do die in wars you know? Oh yes, I forgot, you actually don't want this government to protect it's citizens and ever have another war again--see latest Rosie O'Donnell nonsense.

When Bill talks about Media Matters, Keith makes him "Worst Person in the World" every day of the week. When Bill talks about Daily Kos, Keith makes him "Worst Person in the World" every day of the week. Keith is a puppet and the liberal blogs are pulling his strings.

Krazy Keith is the Daily Kos tool
Like a puppet, the consummate fool
Just pull Olby's string
Herr Moonbat will sing
And from both sides of his mouth he'll drool

BOVINE! WHERE ARE YOU STUPID FLEA BAG?

-----
Posted by: Truth FLASHBACK at July 28, 2007 2:28 AM

Step away from the pipe, patsy, you've had waaaaaaaaaaayyy too much for one day.
Posted by: royalking at July 28, 2007 2:34 AM

====

According to your paranoid list, that makes, what? 100? 200? monikers I use to post.

Keep counting, moron. Every time you accuse someone else of posting as me, you make all of us laugh.

Thanks, Bob!

With Cheney "under," does anyone know who is running the country today?

Don't worry, I only hang around here until my nephew gets home from nursery school. BU$HWIPES!

No name- you have only half of the facts... and are doing nothiong to prove your point. Motive (shakey at best- he was against the war and Bush) does not warrant an executive order from GBush to execute a war hero. But you probably still think Bush stole the 2000 election and was in on 911. I pity the fool.

Ok you creepy, lying, conspiritorial bent nutjobs, read the following by a member of our armed forces with some knowledge of the incident, if you dare.
1) Tillman was not Special Forces. He was a Ranger. I was actually in Tillman's battalion though I did not know him. I am good friends with his Platoon Sergeant and Squad Leader. While Rangers are highly trained light infantry and a part of Special Operations Command, Special Forces is a different unit altogether and made up of much more experienced soldiers. For many in his platoon this was their first time in combat which makes mistakes a very real danger.

2) Nighttime missions are the standard, not the exception. In fact we avoid daylight at all costs. Why? Because our ability to operate in the dark is a distinct advantage on our enemy. Daytime makes operations more dangerous, not less.

3) They were ordered to proceed on foot because their delays were causing problems in the operation. They were a small part of a larger operation and it was causing the whole mission to lag way behind schedule. In my opinion it was a bad call and the officer who made the order was actually punished for it already.

4) You are absolutely correct that Tillman was not a "conservative" nor was he in favor of the Iraq war... but he was not in Iraq. He was in Afghanistan. Tillman's tour in Iraq had been months earlier.

5) The medical examiner did not say he was shot at close range. He said the grouping was tight as if fired from close range. Plus, the story is, and I've heard it relayed personally, that Tillman had everyone firing at him. Chances are he was hit from multiple weapons.

One things seems to be lost on people. Pat's brother Kevin was in the same platoon. It's not hard to imagine that his friends were reluctant to tell him while still on the battlefield that they had killed his brother. My guess is that the story they came up with to avoid this was passed along and that when the truth came out, the Bush admin tried to keep it quiet.

CNN did an excellent documentary on this very topic a few months back and they keep repeating it. The time of the day of the incident, the light made it difficult to see, yes the Humvee's had broken down but staying in the valley made them a sitting duck for enemy forces so they proceeded on foot. Yes, they were fired upon by multiple gunmen because the remainder of the platoon thought that they were the enemy and were all firing on them, no big shock there. Wouldn't it make sense the shots would be "tightly compacted" if the gunmen were beside one another in a firing position? DUH! In short, every single one of your hair-brained conspiracy theories can easily be debunked with verifable (and non-military/government) sources. But you people don't believe in sources or the truth, you prefer to go with hysteria and your own little conspiracy theories, a la Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnel, Keith Olbermann, etc. If Clinton were still president and something like this happened I bet you wouldn't be saying a word about this. Hypocrites.

If Clinton were still president Tillman would still be alive.

Nor do either admit the bold outright lies that have come from this administration from day one of this saga.

Cowards !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 28, 2007 1:25 PM

This coming from someone that couldn't give a rats ass about our troops. It's all about Bush lying or claiming he lied with no evidence. Did you know that living with constant hate and negativity is a big cause of cancer and other diseases? Something to ponder while you are scouring for more "Bush lied" and "Bush is bad" opinion pieces.

Exactly, rk.

Unfortunately for you, Bush is the cancer.

You don't have to have half the contempt as ha and his folks have shown for our troops, congress, the bill of rights, etc. to realize too many people have died already due to this administration's willfully malignant approach to government.

It's interesting to me to realize that most of Bush's fan club assumes everyone else uses the same standards to applaud or denounce present and past presidents, and are so readily willing to fight anyone who considers a different perspective of the same horizon.

Hitler and Mussolini would've killed to have such a loyal following.

Brandon: "you prefer to go with hysteria and your own little conspiracy theories, a la Michael Moore"...

Funny, I hadn't heard that Michael Moore was one of the ones claiming that Tillman was murdered?

Friggen nutjob conspiritorial unhinged creeps. HA! Time will reveal the truth, and this will go down in the books right along side the 9/11 was a Bush-plot lunacy. HA!

Liberals/Democrats would be far more convincing if they didn't fall for every irrational, insipid conspiracy theory that enters their grey matter. That, and being creepy, lying bastards too.

Friggen idiots think Tillman was Special Forces. HA!

You got any new lines to try on us 'Zizwheel', or is your pull string stuck on that one?

Honestly, I don't get it.

What does Tillman's special forces status have to do with whether or not a cover-up was justified for his death?

Set afire any new straw man arguments lately?

*Zizwheel is so far right, he'd think Nixon was a creepy, lying bastard, and not for the same reasons the rest of us do.

In contrast to W., I almost miss Nixon.

I think that Karl Rove personally went to Afghanistan to orchestrate Tillman's murder after he masterminded the Valerie Plame leak and stole the 2004 vote in Ohio to win the election for Pres. Bush, who had advance knowledge that the twin towers would be taken out on 9/11 and allowed it to happen.

heh... amazing what those NSA wiretaps will uncover!

You forgot to include the prisoner abuses, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, outsourcing torture, repealing habeas corpus, shielding his Saudi friends from any accountability for supporting terrorism, stealing Election 2000, cutting VA medical benefits and funding as well as No Child Left Behind, tax breaks during wartime, fabricating EPA and Energy policy studies, shunning the Kyoto Treaty, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the US Attorney debacle, the list goes on and on.

That guy Rove sure has been a busy busy man. He could probably use a few extra hands carrying out all these plans.

You got any new lines to try on us 'Zizwheel', or is your pull string stuck on that one?

Posted by: Mike at July 28, 2007 3:36 PM

So, it's ok for aap/why/anon to make his asinine comments over and over, but, ziz gets ridiculed by you? Not too much of a partisan hack, are you?

OK, if you're gonna spout conspiracy rumors as being truth, the very least you can do is get the facts straight. Tillman was a ranger, not "Special Forces". It's as simple as that.

Yeah, just have one or two facts correct, in your jumble of dreams and wishes..

Yes, I know Tillman was a Ranger.

So, how does that qualify his death, or any Ranger, being covered up?

That was the point I was raising.

Please try again.

Nixon, don't conflate my post with your question. Conflation is at least as despicable as posing 'straw men'.

Great news! Bush is selling weapons to the Saudis. That would be the same Saudis who were the 9/11 hijackers, I suppose. You do not suppose these weapons might ever be used against us, do you. Like when Rumsfeld sold weapons to Saddaam many Rumsfelds ago. What a class act these people are. Always have America's interest at heart. All our jobs are going to the Far East, all our weapons to the Middle East. Well, I guess we'll still have Nachos Bel Grande.

...and a rhetorical question at that.

....>> "All our jobs are going to the Far East, all our weapons to the Middle East. "

Thanks for the refresher on the mechanics of conflation vs. straw man, 20 20 Hindsight.

I bet your grade-school debate team is mighty proud of you.

Sincerely, I suggest the debate over whether or not Tillman was special forces is not the most significant detail of the controversy behind his death. Sure sounds like a "lookover there!" argument to me.

"All our jobs are going to the Far East, all our weapons to the Middle East. "

Yeah, I don't know. Z-wheel might have you there, Clucker.
I think India is technically not part of the Far East.

Dude,

Nixon and Clucker are delusional.

Doemstic job groeth has been great. Hell, I got three of those new jobs Bushies folks claim credit for, just to make ends meet! Back in Clinton's day, I only had the one job. Loser!

Where'd everyone go? I suppose surfing O'Reilly's site for potential rebuttals. Here kitty, kitty...

... or they, along with the rest of us, are still trying to decipher your typos. I assume you've got opposable thumbs, MB. Try using them on the keyboard next time.

Oh, the war in Iraq is frightful
For the White House, it's politically spiteful
When a change of subject
is what what BushCo requests,
Tony Snow, Tony Snow, Tony Snow!

What what?!

Sigh. Busted.

The typo gods got me. My apologies to MB (although I still recommend using your opposable thumbs if you have them).

I suspect they all had to report back to their respective Orbs.

Ah yes, just in time for the weekend news...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/23sppj

Gotta love that president of Saudi Arabia!

Spin all the conspiracy yarn you wish. The truth- tree will not bear fruit for some time to come. Until then, your accusations are nothing more than farts in a wind storm. HA!
Enjoy!

I rememeber a time when some people on the political fringe who hated Clinton back in the 90's came up with stories that Clinton conspired to run cocaine thorugh a small municipal airport in Arkansas, conspired with the Arkansas troopers to bump off political opponents and make it look like accidents. Cinton did some pretty low down stuff, but no sincere person took this garbage seriously. These fringe haters were pretty quickly dismissed by most reasonable people.

Political loonies cut from the same cloth but from the other end of the political spectrum are doing the same thing with Presdient Bush today. The lefty haters are now manufacturing tripe like President "supporting terrorism" and "stealing Election 2000" and ordering Pat Tillman's assassination.

Reasonable people reject your thinly veiled hate.

For the clear thinkers at this board: I highly encourage you to go visit KO's favorite blue blogs/websites and watch the way in which these anti-gun sissies have suddenly morphed themselves into weapons & ballistic experts, you know, the same way that "comedian" Rosie O'Donnell suddenly became a credible expert in the loons eyes engineering, architecture, construction, and physics regarding the 9/11 "conspiracy". No wonder they seem to operate on the continued delusion that Olbermann is a "journalist". Geez.

heh... 7:44p,

You seriously want to compare the political critiques of Clinton v. W? Unfortunately for you analogy, today's fringe is represented by a majority of American voters, including an increasing number of republicans.

I suspect that if Clinton pulled any of the stunts W has (and seems committed to continue doing so), a similar proportion of Americans and a significant number of our lefty friends would be hollering too.

But you're right, stealing the 2000 election, like so many things, was beyond W's abilities, but not above those of Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the RNC, and others (looking at you, Spremes). But launching an illegal war, and subsequently inflaming a region to effectively aid terrorist recruitment, even through sheer incompetence lies squarely on the honorable AWOLer's shoulders.

Dodging your military service during Vietnam is one thing, but to dodge your own war is criminal, at least to rational-thinking people.

Tillmans mother deserves grief. She's a despicable friggen liberal. No mercy for cowards.

Posted by: Falafel at July 28, 2007 1:55 AM

Wow.
Profound, extra-crispy RW hatespeak.

I feel smarter for having read this.

Oh no, the Clinton's would never, ever deal in a cover-up. Unless it involved Whitewater. Or sex, as in Bill, "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton? Oh yeah, no cover-up there in that administration ever. You're hitting the drugs again aren't you there Name? Oh well at least your posts are endlessly amusing to me for the sheer amount of Democratic Kool-Aid you seem to have had pumped into you via IV. I read the Democratic websites (Kos, HuffPost, DU) pretty much every day and I see the fawning posts by the idiots who believe that Rosie is a spokesperson for them just like you seem to think Olbermann is. You people worship every celeb you think hates Bush and you believe every word they say just so long as they are Bush bashing.

"despicable friggen liberal"

... isn't this redundant in neocon-speak? I mean, when was the last time any of us read anything remotely civil about liberals?

I guess by that measure, those "despicable friggen liberal(s)" are gaining more moms and dads of dead troops in their camp every day. it's a shame that something as apolitical as death turns otherwise non-pundit others into liberals while it's merely a tragedy if one of ours gets killed.

Wow.
Profound, extra-crispy RW hatespeak.

I feel smarter for having read this.

Posted by: The Truth at July 28, 2007 11:05 PM

If you were smart you'd consider that Falafel may not be anything more than a troll.

Comparing Clinton's and Bush's legal transgressions require some fuzzy math. Without debating the validity of the Whitewater investigation(s), we can assume Clinton had two key scandals, neither of which could be seriously considered a national security issue, arguably the Lewinsky affair was personal more than anything; and as far as I can tell, no one was tortured or killed in the process, nor any of the Bill of Rights stripped away or left forsaken.

Conversely, Bush passed his Clintonesque "two-fer" quota years ago, with significantly higher consequences for the country at large, the constitution, our foreign affairs... and, I truly think, the moral high ground.

I'm not a Clinton lover by a long shot, but to suggest that the love-hate relationship between Clinton and Bush supporters is based on equal merit is naive at best.

Did you know that living with constant hate and negativity is a big cause of cancer and other diseases?

Posted by: royalking at July 28, 2007 1:54 PM

RK would know.
He is the only poster out here who is hell bent on keeping each of his posts positive and hate-free.

Friggen nutjob conspiritorial unhinged creeps. HA! Time will reveal the truth, and this will go down in the books right along side the 9/11 was a Bush-plot lunacy. HA!

Posted by: 20 20 Hindsight at July 28, 2007 3:05 PM

Any dem who believes these conspiracies must have learned from the ridiculous Vince Foster tales.

Yep, Rosie's got fans... so does Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coultier, Al Franken, Sean Pitt, Jennifer Griffin, Lou Dobbs, George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Howard Stern, etc.

And they're all equally annoying even though they have a right to speak (at least I think so. Haven't checked today to see of The First had been repealed).

Thank goodness none of them work for qualified news organizations.

Two words: data mining

... and a source: http://preview.tinyurl.com/34x4gb

Yep, just like lying about a hummer in the O-office.

Thank you, drive through.

You people worship every celeb you think hates Bush and you believe every word they say just so long as they are Bush bashing.

Posted by: Brandon at July 28, 2007 11:10 PM

No, not really.
We may just agree to hate Bush. There are so many reasons that it isn't necessary to "worship" other Bush-haters.

That's the thing with hating Bush, Cheney et al...
There's enough to go around and something for everyone.

I'd like to pose a question to any of the Bush supporters out here.

Are any of you the least bit upset that 15 of 19 hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA and virtually NOTHING was done about this?

No one seems to ever bring this up.

Did you know that even AFTER 9/11 the text that Saudi school children read claimed that the US citizens were pigs and infidels and must be killed?

The same prince that Bushie himself was holding hands with in those famous pics would only comment by saying, "Well, that's not ALL Saudis who feel this way".

Does anyone have a sensible reason as to why they have been cleansed of any responsibility and remain such a "friend" of this country to this day?

I've asked this question before, and its usually answered with some type of "This is an Olbywatch site" response.

If this doesn't bother you, please say so.
If it does, why is there no attention EVER paid to it?

Again albeit abridged,

It's interesting to me to realize that most of Bush's fan club assumes everyone else uses the same standards to applaud or denounce present and past presidents.

Since I was in the neighborhood, quoting earlier apparently-ignored posts, Monkeyboy said this in the wee hours this morning:

"Naw, Bush didn't fly those planes on 9/11, but his Saudi friends, including those directly related to Bin Laden, were flying that day. Anyone here recall the Saudi family members allowed to leave the country while the air traffic across the country was in lock-down?

I guess that was a national security issue, just not America's."

... I don't subscribe completely to MB's framing of this piece of history, but it does raise some valid concerns.

[apologies if MB reposts his comment as I'm attempting this].

{especially for Pavlov...)

One word: Machiavellian

I agree somewhat Pavlov.
I find it incredible that this MAJOR piece of information goes ignored.

We can start a war with Iraq, with enormous consequences, but balk at going after the real enemy.

Some may say that SA is not the real enemy, that Islam is. To that I say BULLSHIT.

If 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Canada we would've probably invaded.

The fact that this administration did nothing, probably because of the oil situation is embarrassing and IMO bordering on criminal.

The T,

Remember now, "loyalty before country"

That applied to W's version of foreign policy too, with heavy emphasis on the long-term relationship between the House of Saud and the Bush family, which goes back generations, long before Israel was a reality.

Let's not forget old man Prescott's affinity for the Nazis (in his defense, quite a few American industrialists were fans of the Germans' progress in industrial and economic efficiencies, setting aside the domestic political climate leading up to America's inclusion in WWII)

Is it any wonder that we have a nasty condition we can't quite manage called the Military-Industrial Complex?

There's too much money to be made, too many of "other people's kids" to exchange for it, and families like W's have reaped the benefits for it for decades. They are their own country in a way. America's just a stepping stone, so the rules don't apply.

Now, that's family values right there...works out best if you live in the right family or join the mob.

"I'm not a Clinton lover by a long shot, but to suggest that the love-hate relationship between Clinton and Bush supporters is based on equal merit is naive at best."

You completely missed my point. I'm not trying to make any comparison at all between the relative magnitude of the blunders, crimes and cover-ups of the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. Re-read my post at 7:44. I am saying that hard core extremists overplayed their hand on Clinton by putting out stuff like allegations about drug running and murdering political opponents that backfired.

Extremists on the other end of the political spectrum (many of them on this board) are doing the very same thing a decade later w/ these allegations of Bush "stealing" the election (Olbermann was the leading proponent of that nutty theory), advance knowledge of 9/11, ordering the assassination of Tillman, blowing up the levees during Hurrican Katrina. The neo-conspiracy extremists on the left fringe simply do not get it that reasonable people are rolling their eyes in revulsion at their foaming at the mouth antics.

Dick Nixon:

Thank you. I was actually trying to avoid using that term myself.

The Truth:

The House of Saud and Bush family relationship has been a concern of mine for some time, and have to confess some ire when I learned of the evacuation of the Saudi family immediately after 9/11. It was the first indication to me that my suspicions about W. were about to be confirmed.

I also recall a quick meeting between Bush and the Saudis back in DC when the initial 9/11 report was cued to be released, subsequently significant portions of the report which the Saudis objected to were black-lined.

That raised an eyebrow or two and a few suspicions for me.

In light of W's recent commitment to a relatively-small pawn like Gonzales, it makes me suspect even more so what exactly was stricken from one of our government's reports by a foreign country, perhaps even a suspect, at least to most Americans I know.

"The news just keeps getting worse for the republicans"

You could say that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20016388/

The Truth. your question:

"Are any of you the least bit upset that 15 of 19 hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA and virtually NOTHING was done about this?.......
Did you know that even AFTER 9/11 the text that Saudi school children read claimed that the US citizens were pigs and infidels and must be killed?

The same prince that Bushie himself was holding hands with in those famous pics would only comment by saying, "Well, that's not ALL Saudis who feel this way".

Does anyone have a sensible reason as to why they have been cleansed of any responsibility and remain such a "friend" of this country to this day?........"

First, might I suggest that if you want a considered reasoned response to a question you should first try to ask it in a straightforward nonjudgmental way stripped of the ad hominems and foregone conclusions.

No, I am not only not bothered that no military action was taken against Saudi Arabia because 70% of the hijackers were born there but would be opposed to it if we had done so for several reasons. First, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan had merged into essentially one entity. The attacks, dating back to the early 1990s from Somalia to the first WTC attack through the Embassies and the USS Cole through 911 were plotted, planned and executed from Afghanistan. And that represented the only chance we had for a reasonable on target attack, which we acted on.

The ME is essential to the world because it sits on about half the known current reserves of the staff of life to the world's economy and well being, energy in the form of oil. So far Saudi Arabia has been an asset to the world economy in their oil policy. They were instrumental in breaking OPEC and maintaining a steady supply for the entire world. I know, no blood for oil. But oil is the crucial element, the life blood, of billions' well being.

I'm reading between the lines here so I may misinterpret you. You seem to be suggesting that we should have attacked and invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq (if we had we would have gained control of a helluva lot more oil). So, what is your down to the bone position on this. Is that what you think we should have done?

I am paraphrasing and don't remember who said it but I'm sure I have the gist of it:

'He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch.'

As far as the Iraq invasion, if that is what you want to discuss, I'm game.

But, hey, we are not writing theses here. Bring your points up and I'll be glad to engage you.

Grammie

Liberal rags, the lot of them!

But it does make me wonder about the snazzy voting machines we could get for all the $ billions we're shipping to Iraq.. our highways could use some fo that money too, and schools, and...

But then, the train keeps on a-rolling...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ah9xx

OK, so it' an editorial, but the Bush fans might want to say an extra prayer or incant another curse, whatever in hopes Gonzo doesn't get the boot. Image the flood once W's floodgate is removed from the scene.

Hillary and her cleavage disgust America. God Help us all.

Why would God help us?
He put them there! :P

:P

Ranger: Shooters could not have been 10 yards from Tillman

By Mike Fish
ESPN.com

July 28, 2007, 9:56 PM ET

The Army Ranger who was alongside Pat Tillman when he was shot in Afghanistan told ESPN.com Friday that he remains convinced that the former NFL player was accidentally killed by friendly fire, rather than a target of a malicious act.

Sgt. Bryan O'Neal disputed Army doctors who, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press, voiced suspicions shortly after the 2004 incident about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Tillman's forehead and tried, initially without success, to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime.

The doctors, whose names were blacked out, said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the former Arizona Cardinals safety was cut down by a weapon fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

"No, there is no way the guy was 10 yards away. That is just completely unlikely," O'Neal told ESPN.com. "If he was there initially, like the way the conspiracy theorists work that he was there to kill Pat, why wouldn't he have killed me? That doesn't work so well. "

"There is no way that was the case [that the Rangers were that close]," O'Neal said. "You'd be able to make out their face. You'd know exactly who was shooting. Yeah, there is no possible way they were just 10 yards away."

The medical examiners' suspicions were contained in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Included in the documents was a statement from a doctor who examined Tillman's body, telling Army investigators: "The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described." The documents indicate the doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation.

The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

O'Neal, who was recently promoted to sergeant from specialist, told ESPN.com that he agreed with that assessment of the unit's affection for Tillman.

"I've heard some things why people would expect it -- Pat being against the war, against President Bush, something about him [planning to speak] with Noam Chomsky. A lot of that stuff is new to me, so I could see why someone would think it is a conspiracy," O'Neal explained. "But I don't think anyone would intentionally want to hurt him, unless we got a whole bunch of freakin' actors in our platoon who pretended to adore the guy. We all got along really well together."

No, not really.
We may just agree to hate Bush. There are so many reasons that it isn't necessary to "worship" other Bush-haters.

That's the thing with hating Bush, Cheney et al...
There's enough to go around and something for everyone.

Posted by: The Truth at July 29, 2007 12:00 AM

They attribute their paradigm for delegating their constitutional political power - abject fetish-worship - to everyone else in the ocuntry. They can't imagine anything else.

Doemstic job groeth has been great. Hell, I got three of those new jobs Bushies folks claim credit for, just to make ends meet! Back in Clinton's day, I only had the one job. Loser!

Posted by: Monkeyboy at July 28, 2007 5:25 PM

Remember that woman at one of Bush's televised "town meetings" some years back who said the same thing - wondered why she needed three jobs to get by - and Bush applauded this situation as "uniquely American"?

Our American peasants are so admirably industrious!

That woman was a Bush-supporter back then, I'd love to know her thoughts now.

Love to come here and have you idiots frame the debate with lunacy (based on fuzzy facts) about the Tillman conspiracy. And then run away when the facts are individually picked apart, and say well "Oh yeah, Bush sucks."

Been there. Done that. Keep spewing your whacko assertions about Cheney knocking off Tillman. You'll never get Hillary in the White House. People are realizing lefties are loons... there is not a conspiracy behind every bad turn.

PS. Shut the fuck up on your bitching about the Bush administration using the Tillman enlistment as a propaganda tool. Since his death you lefties have used his DEATH as a tool. Whats worse... exploiting his heroism or his death?

Don't worry, Sir Loin. Every society has its underachievers. Keep your nose to the grindstone and maybe one day you will be able to reach a level of independence that most Americans are capable of achieving.

FYI -- if you continue to blame others for your lack of achievement and failutres, you will be doomed to a continued life as a "victim."

Let's not forget old man Prescott's affinity for the Nazis (in his defense, quite a few American industrialists were fans of the Germans' progress in industrial and economic efficiencies, setting aside the domestic political climate leading up to America's inclusion in WWII)

Posted by: Dick Nixon at July 29, 2007 12:43 AM

I just learned that Prescott Bush was a manager of "Hamburg-America Line", a shipping company associated with the German Theissen industrial comglomerate (although the Bush-Theissen association has been well-known for some time).

This shipping line was known to offer free passage to Germany and elsewhere to journalists willing to give positive coverage to Hitler (pre-war, of course), and were accused of transporting Nazi spies into the US. Hamburg-America was deeply embroiled in the 1933 fascist plot to oust FDR that was thwarted by General Smedley Butler.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

Watch this report - I'll bet most people are totally unaware regarding the role played by Wall Street firms and major industrial companies that are strong and well-known today in an explicit attempt to cow or kill FDR and to dissolve the congress of the US in favor of a fascist dictatorship.

These people suffered setbacks (the integrity of General Butler; FDR managing to enter WWII on the right side; the growth of the American middle class via New Deal management of the WWII industrial boom;...) but they and their huge fortunes have been waiting in the wings for a change to destroy the constitutional democratic system that they see as an onstacle to their birthright as America's - if not the world's - rulers.

You make excellent points, Mr. Truth. I have to wonder why Bush and Bushies are always ready to give the Saudis a free pass. I certainly did not want to invade and occupy Saudi Arabia. Nor, did I want to invade and occupy Iraq. However, you can certainly make a strong argument that Saudi Arabia was far more complicit in 9/11 than Iraq. 9/11 could have been better handled had diplomatic mandates been placed on the Saudi royal family, to be followed by action had those mandated not been met. I suspect that the mandates would have been met since the Saudis are, at heart, paper tigers. If this had happened, we would be a much more secure nation that we are today, and we would not have lost several thousand men and women, we would not have thousands and thousands of seriously wounded men and women, and we would not have thrown away billions and billions of borrowed dollars.

The alliances between the Bush's and Saudi are very, very troubling. As you indicate, there is a long tradition in the Bush family of alliances between the family, directly or through groups it controls, like Carlyle, for example, and some of the real stinkers in recent history. The Bush family seems to have a fondness for totalitarian governments and has developed strong beneficial interests with them. The problem is that all of the beneficiaries tend to be the Bush's and not American foreign policy. All of this was done in a semi-covert, gentlemanly sort of way, the way Poppie and Prescott did things. The way Jeb would do things. In George W., we have a rather uncouth, tactless lout that cannot do things in this manner. I suspect that is the real source of ungoing friction between Poppie and George W.

Whatever is at the genesis of all of this, and it would be impossible to know with any certainty, we do know this has all been very bad for our nation, from pre-World War II to the present, our nation has had to work to clean up messes the Bush family has made in its power and money grabs. There never seems to be enough of either for them.

The only reason I continue to read and participate in this rather poorly conceived and maintained website is to learn what the Bushies, the Bush fellow travelers, like Brandon, Cecelia, Ms. Hawkins, Monsieur Royale are saying to help prop up this family that should have long ago been consigned to utter irrelevancy. I would like to try to understand there motivation as well, but I am no Solomon. I expect even Solomon would be perplexed.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think any of these fellow travelers are beneficiaries of Bush largesse. There are precious few such beneficiaries. Nor do I think they are plants. The Bushies, at least until George W., were able to assemble far brighter and more articulate consiglieres than this lot.

What is interesting about George W. is that he has been able to do tremendous harm to the nation while also harming the family business. I suspect that as unpopular and reviled he is by the American people, he is even more unpopular and reviled by the family.

Hillary and her cleavage disgust America. God Help us all.
Posted by: at July 29, 2007 2:34 AM

heh...

Hillary has nothing on Bob Ney's cleavage. At least we don't have to see his for a few months, while he's in Club Fed.

Any of ya'll want to be on TV, even Fox News?
They're looking for folks to defend Gonzo. Good luck!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/29/no-takes-gonzo/

TT, I see a distinction between nationality and official state sponsorship/action. As for the 70% vs 80% I can give you two answers. The honest one, that I don't do my best off the cuff calculations at 1;30 in the morning. Or, in the spirit of your response, well now that I know the % is 80% I would say nuke em. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake and not part of a weaseling answer.

We have one real ally, Israel, and a few close to legitimate allies in the ME, as I see it, Jordan, Kuwait, Baharain and Qutar and Egypt as long as the dollars keep flowing. Saudi Arabia is a quasi ally because it needs us as a barrier to the dangers to the ruling and upper classes as a barrier to the barbaric, and yes I used this word deliberately, hordes from Iraq, Iran, Syria etc. And we, meaning the US and the WORLD, need their oil to have a life above subsistence level. Not a trivial consideration.

You obviously opposed the invasion of Iraq. Below is an excerpt form Senator Clinton's floor speech re the authorization for the Iraq invasion:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

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

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

You may have disagreed with it all but Senator Clinton makes a concise to the major points justification for the action in her explanation for her yes vote. It is at least debatable.

Yet you also seem to support action, and escalating actions against Saudi Arabia if necessary, because they have done nothing to bring their culture into the modern (read Western) age and are not active/proactive allies against Islamofascism.

I have not seen specifically what action you think we should have taken against Saudi Arabia or any follow up action if necessary to achieve the result you desire, which is unclear to me also.

You are AGAINST GWB's policy and action in Iraq. I get that loud and clear.

But what are you FOR? I am not asking for the nitty gritty details. Just generally are you for something such as "to use force ..... as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." or something else. If you don't get the desired result, assuming you are striving for something more than pure punishment and revenge, what is the next step.

Grammie

SLOB, what does this mean in plain English?

"They attribute their paradigm for delegating their constitutional political power - abject fetish-worship - to everyone else in the ocuntry. They can't imagine anything else.
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 29, 2007 8:52 AM"

Also, did you try the audio for the BBC report again as I suggested. Everything else aside it was interesting. It had a MovieTone black and white Newsreel and FDR Fireside Chat feel to it.

Grammie

Chicken Blogger, TT asked @ 12:09 AM:

"I'd like to pose a question to any of the Bush supporters out here.

Are any of you the least bit upset that 15 of 19 hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA and virtually NOTHING was done about this? "

That is what the discussion is about. In addition to what he opposes I've asked what would he have proposed and supported in the wake of 911 besides our action in Afghanistan.

Since this is an ongoing danger and problem his ideas are still possibly viable.

For all the vehemence that I read here AGAINST our actions it is reasonable to question what you are FOR.

Every action has a reaction. Every point has a counterpoint.

My question is not a novel idea. However, actually getting answer may well be a novelity.

Grammie

"They attribute their paradigm for delegating their constitutional political power - abject fetish-worship - to everyone else in the ocuntry. They can't imagine anything else.
--------------------------------------------------
Mr. Loin's point was perfectly clear and on-target. In the immediate post 9/11 period, we, through our shameless Representatives and Senators, surrendered Constituional rights and Congressional responsibilties on the mere request of Bush. A large number of ordinary citizens supported that, perhaps largely out of fear, but also out of a idol worhship of Bush. There was a simplistic formula:

Bush = all wisdom and good in the world.
Therefore, whatever Bush wants is wise and good.

That simplistic formula was so engrained it became pardigmatic (a changed way of thinking and acting).

In the current national and political climate, most Americans look back and ask: How could we have been so naive? How do we get back what we surrendered? So, the new paradigm is something represented by the answer to the question:

Is our national interest, our security, but also our tradition of Constitutional and civil rights, served by this action or inaction?

In answering that question, Bush and the Administration have some voice, but a greatly diminishing one, almost to the point of irrelevance.

To those locked in the old, naive, unproductive and dangerous paradigm, like Brandon, Cecelia, Monsieur Royale and you, Ms. Hawkins, this probing, questioning and analytical approach to the national dialogue is seen as cynical and mere Bush-bashing. It is as naive and simplistic response as it the paradigm in which you remain locked.

We have moved beyond the idol-worshipping practice, in other words. At least most of us ....

But what are you FOR? I am not asking for the nitty gritty details.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 29, 2007 1:26 PM

WARNING! This is a trap. They want answers to questions and sollutions to problems that their own party has created and made worse, and then they say well what would you do? If you ask them to define what they believe, they resort to defendind the undefensible, "Bush", and/or blaming Clinton or saying he did it first. Nothing anyone says will be accepted as a fair answer unless they agree with it.

Americans want a President who is above conspiracy behind every corner. Grow up Democrats, or YOU WILL LOSE.

Democrats are embarrassing as Hell.

WARNING! Lock up the kids, run and hide, says codas. Grammie has set a trap, run, run, run! Save yourself, while you can, don't answer any of Grammies questions, it's a trap! It looks like she has already caught her first rodent, slob! Run while you can!

Also, did you try the audio for the BBC report again as I suggested. Everything else aside it was interesting. It had a MovieTone black and white Newsreel and FDR Fireside Chat feel to it.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 29, 2007 1:35 PM

Yes, I downloaded Realpalyer and it worked just fine. What do you mean by "everything else aside"? You mean all the facts and testimony regarding the serious efforts by hereditary private fortunes - that remain extant today - to seize dictatorial powers in the 1930's? Personally, I found the information to be a far more interesting topic than the production values.

...and as for my comment re: "abject fetish-worship", well Clucker has already answered you pretty well on my behalf. You guys appear to "swear allegience" to a particular person in charge, where as progresives, I hope, tend towards viewing politicians as their representatives and agents.

The corporate media, of course pushes the "allegience" line in all cases, seeing as how they are owned by the same private fortunes that attempted to overthrow or kill FDR in 1933, but if you read or watch progressive media you will find a much greater call to hold our politicians responsible and accountable than you will see on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, etc.

In short; "leadership" is an inherently dangerous and corrosive concept for democracy.

Monsieur Royale:

Why will you not answer the question on the other thread about how "usually" is or is not a negative?

I'm holding up my lunch waiting for a response. You seldom run away from anything, so I assume you are otherwise engaged.

What the hell, I'll tell you what I want, from a conservative who knows the difference between conservatism and autocracy...

I want a president who takes the best interest of the American people first and foremost (including the other 99 percent), over the personal relationships of his own family with the House of Saud.

I want respect for the constitution, the reinstatement of habeas corpus; without it, all those amendments we like to split hairs over are effectively rendered mute by the executive branch. The worthless rubber-stamp congress only hastened it.

I want some empathy for the issues affecting Americans, rather than contempt, from our executive branch.

I want a president to act as if he knows what to do during wartime, that means *gasp* raising taxes instead of cutting them for the top-tier folks, effectively mortgaging our grandkids' future in the process.

I want accountability. Sure, people make mistakes, sometimes big-hairy ones; but a climate of denial and diffusion of responsibility following a seemingly endless stream of misjudgments suggests an organized systemic method of deceit to protect the responsible parties over the interest of the American public.

That applies to any president of any political stripe in America.

Right now though, it seems we've got a devote representative and cabinet of the Bush Dynasty and The House of Saud in the White House --not exactly in the best interest of America at-large.

As a Regan Republican, I voted for Bush, three times (including his run at governor in Texas). It's gonna be a long time before I vote for a Republican again because of what we've allowed him to do do to our country's and party's legacy.

Go ahead, take your pot shots at me, but that's what I believe and I think it's the the least we should expect from our government.

Careful, Name.

I think I'd still be a republican if the party resembled what it was 25 years ago. Just hate what it's evolved into, am hopeful for a reclamation but doubt it will be anytime soon.

At the risk of backsliding, I like Ron Paul, a lot... but doubt he'll have a snowball's chance for the nomination this time.

Boo, Power Elitism!

(Congrats to Monkeyboy on evolving to a Monkeyman)

I've said many times on this board that I didn't support the idea of this war from the beginning. I have family and friends serving there, some who have done 2, 3, even 4 tours over there. But if you think the Democratic party isn't just as bad, then you are deluding yourself. Oh, right, you're an Olbermann fan, of course it goes without saying you're deluded.

Monkeyboy,

Some of the issues around habeas corpus have been decided in the Bush Adm's favor by courts. Other issues haven't.

Monkeyboy, at the end of the day what we have is a body politic that has struggled with the issue of terrorism and national security that's unlike anything before.

It's appropriate and vital to regard the issue from the standpoint of safeguarding freedoms verus any appeal to security and certainly history will make that judgement ultimately.

It is time that brings the surest objective distance and perspective. Now we're in the midst of the crisis, in a sense, yet there has been such an abandonment of any cautious rhetoric and such an astounding rush to judgement.

We've lost any sense that if something happens again, all these issues and scandals are going to be seen in an entirely different light and though the balancing act of freedom vs security will go on, the mistakes and missteps inherent in that process will be weighted differently.

Though you may be exercising the most loyal of well-intended oppositions, the utmost concern for all, the highest regard for freedom, if you have piled up a moutain of grievance that can be leveled in an instant by the smallest of seismic shifts, you need to ask yourself if you need to slow down and if you should be a bit less wildeyed and a lot more measured.

Liberals are as useless as tits on a boar.

In other words MK, Cecelia is saying you're a friggin traitor and pussy for not sticking with the worst administration in our country's history and for not ignoring all of the incompetence, bad policies, abuse of power and thumbing it's nose at law and the Constitution.

Posted by: at July 29, 2007 4:58 PM

Exhibit A...

Thanks for the insight, SLB and, uh... Jerry Brown.

That said, this just in:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvfl9p

Remember when CNN was called the Clinton News Network? Ah, those were the daze.

Eighteen more months of whining, mewling, hand wringing, investigating, commiserating, and being basically useless. HAVE FUN . HA!

SLOB, as for the 'failed military coup against FDR' you believe in it absolutely and based on what I read and heard I don't find any substantial there there. Did the descendants of the robber barons and the newcomers to the group talk wild cockeyed schemes and made tentative efforts to act or was it wild political speech or a little bit of both? Probably a little bit of both.

At the end of the program two men gave their opinions (I wish they provided a transcript). One stated it couldn't rise to a coup or treason because it lacked the elements necessary and was, a la KO, implausible, never moved beyond the talking stage and the American people would never have accepted it.

The second man said that if they had raised an army, he inferred (?) they were working on it, of 500,000 to a million men and moved against FDR they absolutely could have succeeded in at least having a National Czar type installed or even killing FDR. He also stated that in the times, the bottom of the Depression, he was confident Americans would have accepted it because they were desparate for any help and hope.

Have you given any thought to how this well revered and decorated officer was going to raise such an army quietly, assemble and train it under the radar and suddenly attack Washington DC (our government is a lot more that the Presidency), the White House and capture FDR?

And you accuse me of "abject fetish-worship" as defined and immotalized by Clucker while you spout this "all the facts and testimony regarding the serious efforts by hereditary private fortunes - that remain extant today - to seize dictatorial powers in the 1930's?".

I think you believe the paltry evidence that does exist coupled with the total lack of no concrete verifiable evidence becomes, voila, absolute proof.

You obviously believe that a 'failed military coup against FDR' would be unknown except to a select few seventy plus years later during very contentious political times. SLOB, I don't intend to insult you any more than you intended to insult me with your fetish remark but I think you may need a new tin foil hat.

Grammie

Iraqi soccer team WINS Again! Too bad i can't report bombings and death in the wake of the celebration, as I love to do. Maybe if I wish hard enought, Iraqi civilians will be blown to bits during celebrations and I can gleefully blame it on Bush, like I did the other day. Here's hoping.

Death in Iraq, it don't get much better than that.

Cecilia. you're a fucking fool !

My loyalty first and foremost is to the country I love and my family, not W's family and friends alone.

I'm truly sorry the decisions he's made and blindly approved by pre-November 2006 congresses, and now some of the Supremes' decisions have left me little choice than to call "bullshit" on this administration.

History has already started recording the nobility of these actions (or inactions), and it seems as favorable as that of other power-grabbers leading to war in the 20th century.

The GOP has been bankrupted of what they used to represent for me. Your experience may be different. Who exactly does the party represent today, really? Not some otherwise normal guy in Texas trying to make ends meet, who has enjoyed watching his candidates win over the years, and is now asking "winning at what cost?" I ask this as I try to keep up with the subpoenas flying around DC. I realize a subpoena initially does not imply guilt, but something smells more than a little rotten in Denmark to me.

So, I'm open. Please give me a plausible reason to reconsider, but as of right now, I'm walking off the car lot, not gonna purchase another lemon anytime soon, I hope.

Crybabies would have us believe we don't live in a post 9/ll world. HA! Like things will ever be the same as when Clinton was lucky enough to be derelict in office while AL QAEDA plotted.

Liberals, look at your own disgrace. You have plenty.

Clucker, in his latest bit of verbal diarrhea says:

"The alliances between the Bush's and Saudi are very, very troubling. As you indicate, there is a long tradition in the Bush family of alliances between the family, directly or through groups it controls, like Carlyle, for example, and some of the real stinkers in recent history..."

As usual Clucker doesn't have anything useful to say, other than recycled Michael Moore talking points that have been thoroughly discredited years ago. Still Clucker persists in peddling these shopworn bromides in hopes of inducing some novice to his brand of political laziness, where pomposity, long-widedness and posing as an "insider" are prized above research, thinking, and accuracy. Here's the lowdown on the "Bush-Saudi" connection that was waved about so prominently in Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 movie for all you lefty-loonbird conspiracy buffs (notice my source is Newsweek, that noted pillar of the vast right wing conspiracy!) :

In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy?”

But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm’s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. “The figure is inaccurate and misleading,” said Ullman. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.”

The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined “Bush Inc.” concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.
1. As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush “didn’t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn’t profit from it.” (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)
Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration)—a move that had been foreshadowed by Bush’s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—in the face of stiff congressional resistance—canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Moore’s movie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

This is just me, mind you, but given a choice between being put feet first into a wood chipper or having a limb amputated I would definitely opt for the amputation.

Grammie

Hank, thanks for the article. This is the first time I've seen it.

Grammie

The party of chrissy matthews and oralamutt now want us to stay in Iraq. Do you kosmo kiddies ever stay with an original thought? Guess even chrissy is finding that American's are sick of the American hating chavezanista's, oppps I mean, the JackA$$ is our mascot party. Anyone know what Georgie Halliburton $oro$ has made so far this year on his war profitering?

Had a cowardcRAT moment and forgot the link to chrissy mutthews
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/29/shocking-chris-matthews-discussion-maybe-we-shouldn-t-leave-iraq

I just read it, whoever you are. Very interesting.

So, that seems to be one vote from a Chicken Blogger for the old Sadam wood chipper treatment.

Grammie

I can't wait for the Democrats to move in to the White House.With a Democratically controlled congress just think of it.The war will be over,there will be no more terrorism,all of the other countries will just love us,we will break all ties with Saudi Arabia because we all know that they were the ones really behind 9/11,there will be open borders so anyone can come in,free health care,along with that are free abortions anytime or any reason you want one,the global warming issue will be well on its way of being solved,crime will be almost non-exsistant because we can get rid of all those pesky guns,if a San Francisco Demoratic gets in we can disband the military (think of all the money we will save),legalize all drugs,Man I can't wait it will be paradise.

What a rousing defense of the Bush family, A bunker can be a very lonely place, Hank, and I am sure your comfort and support is most welcome.

As for the Michael Moore connection with my argument, I understand the logic you are using: We all get our talking points from Limbaugh, Wiener and Fox & Friends. They must get their's from X, Y and Z. The logic breaks down, however, when you study liberals and liberalism. They tend to be educated well above the norm, and they tend to be independent thinkers. That is the very nature of American liberalism. And, I know it is pointless for me to say this to you, being contrary to the Limbaugh - Wiener Protocol, but Michael Moore did not create the liberal perspective, he drew from it. As for me, I think of Michael Moore as fondly as I do of, say, your Mr. Hume. Do you remember, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? I don't view you, or the unfortunate Ms. Hawkins, or the insufferable Cecelia, or the ignorant and insolent Monsieur Royale as enemies, although I know each of you believe anyone not walking the party line to be enemies. Since that is your thinking, you would be well-advised to make some effort to understand liberals instead of just assuming they are just like you but with the wrong opinions. You might then be able to articulate and forceful and persuasive argument.

(AP) King County prosecutors filed felony charges Thursday against seven people in what a top official described as the worst case of voter-registration fraud in state history, while the organization they worked for agreed to keep a better eye on its employees and pay $25,000 to defray costs of the investigation.

The seven submitted about 1,800 registration cards last fall on behalf of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which had hired them at $8 an hour to sign people up to vote, according to charging documents filed in Superior Court

The BIAW (the Building Industry Association of Washington) has criticized the work of elections officials in King County, where most of the questioned voting took place in the 2004 gubernatorial race. Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire eventually edged out Republican Dino Rossi by 133 votes after two recounts and Rossi's court challenge, which detailed allegations of vote fraud and improper voting by felons.

..... BIAW also is in court to seek documents from Pierce County related to the county's elections office and ACORN registrations. Pierce elections officials and prosecutors did not return phone calls Friday.

McCabe said 300 registrations in the Pierce County case are from "the exact same address. It turns out to be a homeless shelter." Residents are allowed to stay at the shelter for 30 days, and only one person voted from that address in 2004, which makes it unlikely so many would have registered there, McCabe said.

Republicans steel elections? Please. Get over the 2000 election losers. Bush won. Face it.

Waiting to see if the mutthews will post the transcript on his site. Bet the oralamutt will have some bad words for chrissy. I was watching it this morning and had to go outside to see if global warming had just wiped out the earth and hell had froze over.

I am an independent-leaning democrat (mainly because of the war)...I just want all of these "conservatives" to think about the big picture. Iraq, Katrina, Gonzo, Walter Reed...no matter how you would like to put it on the back burner, the main thing is people look at these things and think George Bush. And, then they think Republican Party. As the Democrats push more and more oversight into these ordeals, you might say they are finding nothing criminal in any of these situations. But I must ask, if Democrats aren't winning these battles, then who is? Do you actually think these scandals have no bearing on tearing apart republican morale? Because there is absolutely no way that Republicans look good in any of these cases. So, by default, Democrats end up winning, even if they do not bring any criminal charges forward. I really do wonder when the Republicans will get it, that its the perception of what is going on as much as the reality of what is going on. Such is politics. However, when Republicans deny deny deny, one can just look at the long list of troubles caused since Bush was elected President. Is he guilty on all accounts? Probably not. However, is he innocent on all accounts? Probably not. The longer Republicans fight tooth and nail on everything Democrats try to do, the more petty they look. And the stronger it makes the Dems look. Republicans actually think Gonzo-gate doesn't look bad? Iraq? Walter Reed? Come on guys, you can't be innocent on everything. And, even if you somehow are, the country aready has made up their minds. For those who don't know, Clinton was found to have no wrong doing for Whitewater. But does anyone remember? No...they remember the scandal.

I can't wait for the Democrats to move in to the White House.With a Democratically controlled congress just think of it.The war will be over,there will be no more terrorism,all of the other countries will just love us,we will break all ties with Saudi Arabia because we all know that they were the ones really behind 9/11,there will be open borders so anyone can come in,free health care,along with that are free abortions anytime or any reason you want one,the global warming issue will be well on its way of being solved,crime will be almost non-exsistant because we can get rid of all those pesky guns,if a San Francisco Demoratic gets in we can disband the military (think of all the money we will save),legalize all drugs,Man I can't wait it will be paradise.
Oh I almost forgot then Clucker and Why do you care what my name is can tie the knot legally.
Posted by: yodell at July 29, 2007 6:04 PM

Walter Reed? Are you for universial healthcare? If so, then you apparently have never been in the military as that is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. So push the democRAT$ and you will have your nightmare that is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

That's true T-Factor,

Bush won it fair and square, 5-4.

Republicans steel elections?
___________________________

Indeed, they do. Sometimes, they steal them, too.

The Bush Administration has pushed the Democrats around for 6 and a half years. Bitch slapped at every turn. Now I'm supposed to respect the Dems? HA!

Zizwheel: I would think any self-respecting Democrat would be worried if you did respect him or her. I know I am always pleased when an ignorant lout supports the Republicans.

I can't wait for the Democrats to move in to the White House.
Oh I almost forgot then Clucker and Why do you care what my name is can tie the knot legally.
Posted by: yodell at July 29, 2007 6:04 PM

Case in point. This is the type of mentality that represents the right wing at this site.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 29, 2007 6:34 PM
Sorry I guess I should have said if you guys wanted to tie the knot but,
Put the whole post in.I'm on your side.I am 50 years old I work at the same place for 25 years.If the Democrats get in I can quit my job after all my house is paid for my kids are all grown and out on their own I have a couple of bucks socked away I will have my pension i will have FREE heath care.I am only 15 years away from Social Security which I am sure the Democrats will have fixed by then.If I quit my job then you can give it to one of the 14 million illegals,but wait they probably won't have to work either because everything will be FREE!

Yodell is having a real hard time with the legacy of the Bush Administration.
That is obvious !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 29, 2007 6:57 PM

How many times do I have to tell you I am on your side.Get all of the rich to pay my bills.Dems in 08 will be great!?

Nom du Jour, I understand the point you are making and recognize it as a problem in that this drumbeat will impede what I think is best for the country. I support conservative approaches to governance and the Repubs are most likely to enact, dismantling is no longer a hope, more of the agenda I support.

Corruption, thuggery, evil and venality are not exclusive to any one party or group of people.* That seems to be the belief of many, at least many of those like us who are interested in politics above normal and spend time on blogs like OW, HuffPo, LGF etc.

For all the wild eyed accusations there has so far been precious little proof of corruption as opposed to the normal criminality and incompetence of government handling anything. Which brings me back to why I am a conservative. I want government to govern as little as possible and stick to what our Constitution mandated as a minimalist role as possible consistent with defense, infrastructure, services that can only function well when operated as monopolies. monetary system etc.

The fact that what I believe in is taking a pummeling today does not alter my world view. Nor should it unless something proves to me that there is some inherent flaw in it that guarantees it will bring more harm than good.

Cecelia made a very good post earlier. We are living in very trying times and are too much involved to make the as accurate as possible judgments that history will make. I despise both Fascism and Communism and the regimes that they create. I lived through WW II, though very young at the time, and The Cold War. I can guarantee you that our perception of these events and the regimes that caused them today bears no resemblance to what was current at the time.

I believe that the right to own and control our property and economic futures is the bedrock on which our other freedoms rest. If you're scrabbling in the dirt scrounging enough to eat your right to get on a soapbox and engage in free speech is meaningless.

So, thanks but no thanks. I will keep working for what I believe in and leave the opinion by poll to whoever orders their life that way.

Grammie

*I have until the last six years always thought that people are pretty much the same under the externals enforced on them by their governments. Good and bad, saintly and evil. The bulk of us, though, basically want the same things for ourselves and loved ones. I saw a Palestinian woman interviewed on TV. She was ecstatic because her husband and every one of her sons, she had several, had blown themselves up in the name of some insanity. Her regret was she hadn't had more sons. Her hope was her daughters would follow in their footsteps. It doesn't take a large group of that kind of thinking to wreak havoc.

Yodell, do you think they would let me be the flower girl at the wedding.

It is sure to the event of the year. :)

Grammie

*I have until the last six years always thought that people are pretty much the same under the externals enforced on them by their governments. Good and bad, saintly and evil. The bulk of us, though, basically want the same things for ourselves and loved ones. I saw a Palestinian woman interviewed on TV. She was ecstatic because her husband and every one of her sons, she had several, had blown themselves up in the name of some insanity. Her regret was she hadn't had more sons. Her hope was her daughters would follow in their footsteps. It doesn't take a large group of that kind of thinking to wreak havoc.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 29, 2007 7:17 PM

LOOK Grammie I am sick of you getting on the Keith Olbermann fans.Don't you know that if Obama is the next President he will talk to these people and make them change their ways.As far as your question all you have to do is ask,I hope I am invited.I love weddings and FREE food.

Yodell, if I wriggle my way into the wedding party you will definitely get an invitation.

I can hardly wait. FREE food, FREE booze and dancing.

But I wonder, which one will throw the bouquet? :)

Grammie

Your guess is as good as mine.

I could get a couple of matching "Keith is God" mugs as a wedding gift.

Yodell, you are definitely a welcome addition here.

I think I'll have a double Absolut on the rocks to celebrate your arrival.

Cheers!

Grammie

Thank-you cheers!

Even republicans can't wait until Bush is gone,,,which would make Gleason as much an idiot as RK.

Posted by: at July 29, 2007 5:17 PM

Now that is some "lofty" debate.

*yawn*

So, kicked any old dead horses lately?

Have you given any thought to how this well revered and decorated officer was going to raise such an army quietly, assemble and train it under the radar and suddenly attack Washington DC (our government is a lot more that the Presidency), the White House and capture FDR?

And you accuse me of "abject fetish-worship" as defined and immotalized by Clucker while you spout this "all the facts and testimony regarding the serious efforts by hereditary private fortunes - that remain extant today - to seize dictatorial powers in the 1930's?".

I think you believe the paltry evidence that does exist coupled with the total lack of no concrete verifiable evidence becomes, voila, absolute proof.

You obviously believe that a 'failed military coup against FDR' would be unknown except to a select few seventy plus years later during very contentious political times. SLOB, I don't intend to insult you any more than you intended to insult me with your fetish remark but I think you may need a new tin foil hat.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 29, 2007 5:02 PM

Janet,

Janet, I don't know what to say. I must suppose that I would have an equally hard time convincing you that the "Revolutionary War" or the "Bay of Pigs" were real events that actually occurred.

Do you believe that General SMedley Butler actually existed?

..also , your questions betray the fact that you either: did not view the whole film or do the other research you claim; or your comprehension/retention of such material operates at a pathetically low level. I'm sorry to have bothered you; please carry on with what you were doing.

Iraqi soccer team WINS Again! Too bad i can't report bombings and death in the wake of the celebration, as I love to do. Maybe if I wish hard enought, Iraqi civilians will be blown to bits during celebrations and I can gleefully blame it on Bush, like I did the other day. Here's hoping.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 29, 2007 5:08 PM
(highjacked)

You dipshits must be very proud to have brains like this highjcaker on your side - and making the most interesting posts to boot!.

I see the righties have resorted to impersonating people again.
They don't really have anything else.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 29, 2007 5:12 PM

It's ok when you do it?

You dipshits must be very proud to have brains like this highjcaker on your side - and making the most interesting posts to boot!.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 29, 2007 7:57 PM

No seriously what's a highjcaker? Does that have anything to do with wedding cake?

Touchy touchy.Man you can't even ask a question.

Look this is the last time I am going to say it.I AM ON YOUR SIDE.ONLY 18 MONTHS UNTIL PARADISE THE DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.DEMS IN 08 WILL BE GREAT...DEMS IN 08 WILL BE... GREAT DEMS IN 08 WILL BE GREAT!!! YEA HILLARY

In an earlier dimwitted post, Clucker said,

"The alliances between the Bush's and Saudi are very, very troubling. As you indicate, there is a long tradition in the Bush family of alliances between the family, directly or through groups it controls, like Carlyle, for example, and some of the real stinkers in recent history..."

I replied in a detailed post at 5:31 and demonstrated that the evidence shows this is just another gross exaggeration and a typical left wing smear.

I had anticipated Clucker might atttempt to rebut that evidence I presented, but in the proud Clucker tradition of spewing verbal diarrhea rather than engaging in reasoned argument, he offered up no rebuttal whatsoever except these pearls at 6:05 pm:

> that I "get [my] talking points from Limbaugh, Wiener and Fox & Friends." (in spite of the fact that I cited Newseek, a left of center publication, to rebut Clucker's spurious allegations.)

>claims that liberals "tend to be educated well above the norm, and they tend to be independent thinkers" (well, shucks, I guess a rube like me who just gets his "talking points" from Rush, don't stand a chance of tellin' ole Clucker nothin' 'bout politics since he went to one of them there fancy colleges and knows how to think and all that. GAWL-LEEE!)

> says that I need to make an effort to "understand liberals" so that I "might then be able to articulate and forceful [sic] and persuasive argument." (Yeah, sort of like that "articulate, forceful and persuasive argument" you made to rebut my 5:31 post. What a hoot!)

P.S. Do you think that it is any of concern to Clucker that the Clinton library was built thanks to millions of dollars of donated Saudi money? Nah!

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

I would like to chat longer but I have to get up early for work tomorrow,but only for 18 more months.

Iraqi soccer team WINS Again! Too bad i can't report bombings and death in the wake of the celebration, as I love to do. Maybe if I wish hard enought, Iraqi civilians will be blown to bits during celebrations and I can gleefully blame it on Bush, like I did the other day. Here's hoping.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 29, 2007 5:08 PM
(highjacked)

You dipshits must be very proud to have brains like this highjcaker on your side - and making the most interesting posts to boot!.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 29, 2007 7:57 PM

This is your post not mine.I just wanted an explanation.So you meant to say hijacked my bad sorry.Don't forget I am still on your side no matter how ugly you get.DEMS IN 08 WILL BE GREAT!!!!!

or Dems will be great in 08.Which do you like WDYCWMNI?Either way I got you're back.

Sorry YOUR back

SLOB, you seem awfully touchy, touchy tonight. Yes, I told you I listened and read four or five articles plus at least one embedded article but I didn't study it as if for an important exam.

The BBC reporter went to the National Archives and found, what was it, only two or three boxes of records that he remarked were mostly insignificant or something along those lines.

You seem insulted by the questions I raised about the mechanics and logic involved and my suspicion rising to a very high level because of the lack of evidence. I don't think these extremely wealthy and powerful men got that way by being fools who didn't know how to organize and develop plans. And unsuccessful conspiracies usually become public knowledge.

And this would be one hellacious conspiracy if it existed and a House Committee comprised of both Dems and Repubs had uncovered anything of note. I can see that you might make the argument, although it would take a lot of proof to convince me, that they were so wealthy and powerful that once their scheme was uncovered both the Dems and Repubs sat on it and used it as blackmail for them to go along with FDR's New Deal.

Not only is there not any convincing evidence it doesn't rise to a believable scenario for me.

And yes, I believe that General Butler not only existed but was also highly revered and respected. I believe the Bay of Pigs happened and that Americans have walked on the moon and that the earth is round. Unless I missed something I didn't see or hear any evidence that his testimony was ever colloborated by anyone else.

One article I read had the entire text of a speech he made in 1936 that had not a hint of this. I also got the impression that he was pretty much a maverick after he left the service and would not hold his tongue easily.

I'm sorry for the tin foil hat comment but in my defense I said I meant as much insult as you did in your fetish comment. I also don't quite appreciate being called an ignorant slave to my corporate masters. SLOB, we are obviously diametrically opposed in our world view and opinions. Although it is sometimes difficult to maintain I don't think that makes those who differ with me somehow inferior that seems to permeate so much of debate today.

I think you missed it but I wrote the other day that I hope you, your wife and family are doing well and things are improving for you all.

Grammie

PS Do you have a scenario that would get around this objection I have to the theory "Have you given any thought to how this well revered and decorated officer was going to raise such an army quietly, assemble and train it under the radar and suddenly attack Washington DC (our government is a lot more that the Presidency), the White House and capture FDR?" I think it is a valid point.

Is it any concern to me that the Saudis donated money for the Clinton Library?

Absolutely, it is. I am tremendously concerned that the Saudis have so penetrated US government and politics at all levels. Concerned enough that I am not at all sure I can support Senator Clinton if she wins the nomination.

I am more concerned about the present moment, however, and the fact that our current President tried to sell our ports' operation to Dubai, is trying to sell weapons and weapons' systems to the Saudis. I am also concerned that the current President acted as a snake-oil salesman to get us into an Invasion and Occupation that is killing thousands of Americans, seriously wounding thousands and thousands of Americans and costing us billions of dollars in borrowed money we can't hope to repay in our lifetimes.

I suppose that doesn't compare with what happened in an Administration that has been out of office for over 6 years or to a movie review of a 3 year old, B rate movie.

I suppose we don't want to raise the point that Bush & Company's connection to the Carlyle Group goes well beyond the years Poppie was on the Board, and goes well beyond Poppie himself to include direct and substantial involvement by Poppie's toady James A. Baker III and, heavens, George W. Bush, who were also both directors. And it goes on today. Not only with Carlyle, but with a host of other corporations with heavy Middle Eastern connections, not the least of which being your beloved Halliburton, the Middle East's newest corporate citizen. Inconvenient. Move on. By all means.

No, I agree, it is healthy for a discussion and for our democracy to focus only on the past and not the present dangerous and untenable situation in which we find ourselves under an inept and thoroughly dishonest President. And, I am glad that is healthy because it is certainly all the Bushies' and the RW'ers can focus upon.

One of the night comedians, I think it was John Stewart, said Sean Hannity believes the most dangerous man in America is Bill Clinton 15 years ago. I swear it seems to be everyone of you Bushies. You spend all your time running from the very real problems of the day, much as Monsieur Royale runs from every argument he is loosing. Denial seems to be the Holy Grail for all of you.

Guess what? It isn't working anymore, and it's not going to work anymore. America is on to this trick, belatedly, but thankfully.

Oh SLOB, the hijacking and related obscenities are equal opportunity offenses. I've had my name hijacked to post pro fascist crap. Your name was hijacked for obscene whatever kind of crap that was today.

Your name was hijacked for phony death notices for a child and your wife and there was a four or five day death notice and details and rejoicing about my death by Chicken Bloggers.

I really hate to contemplate this but could it be that we are so opposite that we have met on the other side. :)

Grammie

SLOB, would you please explain to Whatizname why I referenced a 1936 speech by General Smedley Butler and its significance to the discussion we were having.

I am sure he would be interested because of the link, although tenuous, from Prescott Bush through the subsequent three Bush generations.

Grammie

Ok, I've listened to Obama speak. Talented guy with one huge problem. He utters the word 'umm' every 3rd word. Ouch! My mother would have slapped me stupid if I talked that way. Lets hope we can do better than this.

....and let's hope hes toned down on the chain-smoking.

An Iraqi who was a key source of intelligence for MI5 has given the first ever full insider’s account of being seized by the CIA and bundled on to an illegal ‘torture flight’ under the programme known as extraordinary rendition. In a remarkable interview for The Observer, British resident Bisher al-Rawi has told how he was betrayed by the security service despite having helped keep track of Abu Qatada, the Muslim cleric accused of being Osama bin Laden’s ‘ambassador in Europe’. He was abducted and stripped naked by US agents, clad in nappies, a tracksuit and shackles, blindfolded and forced to wear ear mufflers, then strapped to a stretcher on board a plane bound for a CIA ‘black site’ jail near Kabul in Afghanistan.

He was taken on to the jail at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before being released last March and returned to Britain after four years’ detention without charge.

He was thrown into the CIA’s ‘Dark Prison,’ deprived of all light 24 hours a day in temperatures so low that ice formed on his food and water. He was taken to Guantanamo in March 2003 and released after being cleared of any involvement in terrorism by a tribunal.

Poor baby..........by the way, thanks for the "fair and balanced" crooks and liars post. Whatever you do, keep your face immersed as deep as you can in crap like that. It will be sure to take more years off of your hate filled life.

Stanley Cohen, what a tool he is. Hannity is eatin' him up, he deserves that and more. He defends terrorists for free, what a guy he is, huh?

Jeff, have you considered that Stanley Cohen might be "usually never" a tool, therebye making him actually a "double negative" tool, which might mean he's not really a tool at all?

Just a thought!

Perhaps Cohen just believes in the Rule of Law and the right to counsel. I, for one, am glad to have people like that however despicable their clients.
-----
BTW: What about that double negative thing? Running and hiding as "usually," Monsieur Royale? I thought so, as you might say.

I friend of mine knows a guy who has a sister that works at NBC.
He heard that they nabbed Markos Moulitas in one of those kiddie molester shows on NBC but that they squashed it when they found out who it really was. Olberman and Mathews were standing up for Markos and threatened to quit if they ran with it.

Well Joker, since NBC typically involves the police in these stings, how did they get them to drop the charges against Moulitas?

Just a thought!

MOre from Gas Bag Clucker:

"Guess what? It isn't working anymore, and it's not going to work anymore. America is on to this trick, belatedly, but thankfully."

Yeah, Clucker we are on to the trick, which, in your case, is to completely ignore any evidence which discounts your unhinged- from-reality-viewpoints. It is sad that your complete and total loathing of George Bush has led you down this road to irrationality where you are committed to believing every spurious and malcious rumour about the President.

Far from being a cheerleader for those who did the same thing over a decade ago, I deplore those who spun tales of President Clinton being involved in drug running and murdering political opponents. The left wingers (yourself among them) who are now enagaging in this same smarmy practice are no better than the Clinton Chronicles bunch from the mid-ninties.

Now a dose of reality for you , Clucker. In spite of of my detailed account of the alleged "Bush-Saudi" connection at 5:31, you continue to insist in your most recent post:

"I suppose we don't want to raise the point that Bush & Company's connection to the Carlyle Group goes well beyond the years Poppie was on the Board, and goes well beyond Poppie himself to include direct and substantial involvement by Poppie's toady James A. Baker III and, heavens, George W. Bush, who were also both directors."

That you still insist upon this ill-informed leftist propaganda is astounding. Let's try one more time to see if you can follow along:

> The claim is made by left wing loonies that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush.

> Therefore, the theory goes, the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror .

> Of this 1.4 billion that was "given" by the Saudis, nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard.

>BDM was owned at the time by the Carlyle Group

>The president’s father, George H.W. Bush was a member of the advsory board of Carlyle.

> George H.W. Bush did not become a member of the advisory board until April, 1998 FIVE MONTHS AFTER BDM was sold by Carlyle to another defense firm, so George H.W. Bush could not possibly have felt any obligation to enrich the Saudis because of this transaction-- any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus.

> As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded.

> There is no evidence that the Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group.

> In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration).

"A friend of mine knows a guy who has a sister that works at NBC"

I know a guy who has a friend who's cousin's buddy's brother's son knows a guy who's aunt works at NBC.

I'll check with him and see if I can verify your story!

Hank, Hank, Hank.

You'be bought it hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

What is interesting is you assume that the information about the Carlyle Group and the Saudi's came from Moore and, what did you call it, left-wing sources. Fact is the Carlyle Group and its dangerous propensities has been known to informed people before anyone ever knew about Michael Moore. The knowledge of this Group is no more dependent on Michael Moore than the Opus Dei was on the DaVinci Code.

All, of course, we just walk away from Halliburton, don't we?

Deny it all, if you wish. SOP for RW'ers.

Hank, Hank, Hank.

Help me out.

Wasn't Joker Jeff and isn't Jeff Monsieur Royale?

I may be confused. It's hard to keep up with some of these slimey ones.

Touché, Mike, and thanks.

The battle against filth is unending.

Look this is the last time I am going to say it.I AM ON YOUR SIDE.ONLY 18 MONTHS UNTIL PARADISE THE DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.DEMS IN 08 WILL BE GREAT...DEMS IN 08 WILL BE... GREAT DEMS IN 08 WILL BE GREAT!!! YEA HILLARY

Posted by: yodell at July 29, 2007 8:25 PM

Well, welcome to our side but please try to be more circumspect. Sure the Democrats are guaranteed to revive some of the socially responsible policies demolished by right-wing radicals since the Reagan years; but be careful.. In that time they have slipped far to the right, and have become nearly as dependent upon the patronage of Big Industry as have the Replublicans.

We need to get them into the White House and enlarge the Democratic majorities in congress; if only to end the Reign of Croneyism that makes our government the scary joke of the world. But we need to stay on their backs to keep them honest, or else the tyrany built by the Republicans will merely be assumed by Democrat tyrants.

But this should prove easier than it sounds: as I discussed with someone above (Grammie?), progressives tend not to worship and fetishize their elected representatives and executives; we have expetations to which we will hold them to account.

Democrats/Liberals would be far more convincing if they weren't such creepy, hateful, lying bastards.

PS Do you have a scenario that would get around this objection I have to the theory "Have you given any thought to how this well revered and decorated officer was going to raise such an army quietly, assemble and train it under the radar and suddenly attack Washington DC (our government is a lot more that the Presidency), the White House and capture FDR?" I think it is a valid point.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 29, 2007 9:06 PM

Janet,

Butler was not raising this force - the "Liberty League", funded by the implicated Wall Street firms and fronted by various right-wing demagogues, was in the process of attracting disaffected, unemployed WWI vets for the venture. Basically, they were copying the strategies seen in regad to Mussolini's Black SHirts and the Friekorps/SA veteran paramilitaries that formed the basis of Hitler's early support.

Butler was deemed by the plotters as being the essential personality to lead this enterprise, given his very high profile and vast respect among servicemen and vets.

Clearly from his testimony, the idea was to force compliance from FDR prior to any actual violence, but it was also made clear to Butler that FDR's murder was not out of the question. Please don't use incredulity as an argument that this plot was a myth; it was the depression - probably as unstable, volitile and unpredictable a period in American history. As Butler points out: the plotters owned all of the newspapers.

And yes - he was known for shooting his mouth off. In 1931 President Hoover demanded his court-martial when he publically criticized and "slandered" Hoover's buddy Benito Mussolini.

'*Zizwheel' would be more convincing if he wasn't such a sleazy jerk....a hater extrordinaire like this means he fits right in with the extreme right wing nuts.

...Have you read War is a Racket" by Butler?

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Here's my favorite part:

"A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds."

Sir Loin of Beef ,
My biggeest grip with the Dems is their support of the Iranian regime.
Why do the Dems support our enemies but backstab our real allies?
for Example, Pelosi travelled to Syria and met with the Assad Thug.
However when the President of Colombia was here no Dems wanted to meet with him.
Why is that?

Joker, don't hold your breath or expect a straight answer.

SLOB, no you did not DISCUSS this, or anything else, with me today. You made your fetish comment and endorsed Monsieur Capon's ponderous and pedantic screed.

From there you went on to accuse me of either not being truthful when I said I had read and listened to your references or of essentially being senile. You have still not responded to my post @ 9:06 PM.answering your accusations, not any counterpoints you made.

I do have tremendous admiration for Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and FDR. I admit to an affection for Ronaldus Magnificus. He was the only public figure that I ever felt a personal sense of loss about his affliction with Alhseimers (?) and his death. But I knew more about him than I did the other two and I was an adult when I first became aware of him.

But I recognize that they all had faults and made mistakes in their personal political lives and bad judgments as leaders. I still greatly respect and admire them.

If you ignore everything else I would appreciate your basis for the accusation made more than once that I worship and fetishize (sic) my leaders, your term.

Grammie

"...for Example, Pelosi travelled to Syria and met with the Assad Thug."

Simultaneously with Rep Daryl Issa (R-CA) and at least two other republican reps. May be they wanted to do diplomacy or something?

"However when the President of Colombia was here no Dems wanted to meet with him.
Why is that?"

I don't know - should I?

Mike, rushing to the aid of the suddenly mute Clucker, says:

"[Y]ou assume that the information about the Carlyle Group and the Saudi's came from Moore . . .Fact is the Carlyle Group and its dangerous propensities has been known to informed people before anyone ever knew about Michael Moore."

I don't care whether the sordid conspiratorial lunacy that you and Clucker buy into (in the name of Bush Derangment Syndrome) comes from Michael Moore or Michael Bolton-- the point is that Clucker made claims about a "Bush-Saudi" connection thorugh Carlyle and I am now (for the fourth time!) setting the record straight by citing the Newsweek article which debunks these claims. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/ The article on a micro scale finds fault with Moore's Saudi-Bush connection claim, but on a macro level, it is an indictment of the entire hilarious and nutty idea that the Bush administration is advancing the interests of Carlyle because of any alleged tie-in to the Saudis.

Interestingly, neither you nor Clucker has made the faintest attempt to rebut the points made in the Newsweek article or my original post which shoots down the Bush-Saudi nuttery.

I like the fact that you mentioned "The DaVinci Code" in your post. The "Bush-Saudi" connection holds about as much water as this grubby little fictional work.

strategery...

Wasn't Joker Jeff and isn't Jeff Monsieur Royale?

I may be confused. It's hard to keep up with some of these slimey ones.

Posted by: Clucker at July 29, 2007 10:40 PM

Wrong on both, clucker/mrs.philby/rudy ramirez. The irony, you accusing me of using other names.......did you consider yourself "slimey" when you were doing it?

one more thing, clucker/mrsphilby/rudyramirez, do you consider your cohort aap/why/anon "slimey" also? Of course not. He's a loon.

Cecelia doesn't want to "rush to judgement". She's still waiting for the Bush Administration to be exonerated for all of it's failures.

Cecilia. you're a fucking fool !

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 29, 2007 5:10 PM

Oh, well, at least he didn't write "Cecelia doesn't never want to rush to judgement".... right....

You'd think someone who has revealed himself to have been watching politics (and hanging upside down in a cave) since the Johnson era, could do better than endless rounds of quoted material and the level of his discourse here.

However, since the world of politics is really just an excuse for WDYCWMNI to legally mollify his serial killer tendencies, we're very lucky it is all online and that this creep IS just a few obscenities and cut-n-pastes on a screen.

Why do U care,

...and yetthe Republicans are the ones who always resort to ELECTING actors to save them; just like they do in the movies.

Hank, it is incumbent upon us all to extend sympathy, consideration and kindness to Monsieur Capon.

My mind recoils at the horror he endured to become Monsieur Capon.

Please keep this confidential.

Once Monsieur Capon was a young joyous carefree cockerel.

I'm sorry, I can't go on except in the broadest terms.

He was castrated by the leader he idolized to the point of it being a fetish.

Well, now that that is over I think I will retire to my media room with the appropriate cheese and crackers to go with the wine my sommelier has selected. :)

Grammie

That wasn't the least bit funny, but as always long winded and boring till the dinosaurs roam Kansas again.

My loyalty first and foremost is to the country I love and my family, not W's family and friends alone.

I'm truly sorry the decisions he's made and blindly approved by pre-November 2006 congresses, and now some of the Supremes' decisions have left me little choice than to call "bullshit" on this administration.

History has already started recording the nobility of these actions (or inactions), and it seems as favorable as that of other power-grabbers leading to war in the 20th century.

The GOP has been bankrupted of what they used to represent for me. Your experience may be different. Who exactly does the party represent today, really? Not some otherwise normal guy in Texas trying to make ends meet, who has enjoyed watching his candidates win over the years, and is now asking "winning at what cost?" I ask this as I try to keep up with the subpoenas flying around DC. I realize a subpoena initially does not imply guilt, but something smells more than a little rotten in Denmark to me.

So, I'm open. Please give me a plausible reason to reconsider, but as of right now, I'm walking off the car lot, not gonna purchase another lemon anytime soon, I hope.

Posted by: Monkeyboy at July 29, 2007 5:24 PM

When I posted to you, I had no idea you had ever been a Repubican, so my intention wasn't to persuade you to stay that way. I don't have the slightest interest in your doing that.

Hank at 12:18: "Mike, rushing to the aide of the suddenly mute Clucker said"........

Say WHAT Bro?????

Hank, if you have this much trouble figuring out who is even posting to you, how do you figure that you've got any of your other 'facts' straight either?

Patsy, dear, I'm so sorry that you were not only not amused but actually suffered boredom.

Look on the bright side.

It did engage you enough that you forgot to perform your one and only trick.

For that relief, great thanks. :)

Grammie

Something more for Gleason to be gleeful about:

Iraq Faces Healthcare Crisis As Amputation Rate Soars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Iraq is facing a hidden healthcare and social crisis over the soaring number of amputations, largely of lower limbs, necessitated by the daily explosions and violence gripping the country.

Levels of amputations performed by military surgeons on US troops in Iraq are twice as high as those recorded in previous wars: the most recently available figures suggest 6 per cent of wounded US troops require an amputation, compared with 3 per cent in other conflicts.

Just remember, folks, Cecilia has stated that she"still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea."

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 29, 2007 5:31 PM

Nosferatu, of the reasons amputations are higher now than in other wars is because the injured are surviving due to advances in medical care.

Why do the Dems support our enemies but backstab our real allies?
for Example, Pelosi travelled to Syria and met with the Assad Thug.
However when the President of Colombia was here no Dems wanted to meet with him.
Why is that?
--------------
I see someone has been reading Sher Zieve. My advice is not to let too many people know.

Pelosi, et al, in Syria? A dangerous part of the world? A strategic country? A country that might be useful in trying to extracate ourselves from Iraq? The possibility that a diplomatic solution might help difuse conflict? A realization that the strength of our armed forces has been so zapped by imprudent use in Iraq that we are not up to war with every country in the Middle East (except Israel)?

Democrats and Uribe? His support of and involvement with paramilitary factions which have killed scores of Colombians? The atrocious environmental record and policies by an Americas' neighbor? Appearances of support for Uribe might inflame other nations in Latin America at a time we have few friends there?

Just some ideas, you understand. I don't suppose any of us know for certain.

You can breathe now.

I guess you got an answer, even if not a definitive one, sooner than we found out from Monsieur Royale how "seldom" can ever be the partner in a double negative. But, I am just a "go to" kind of guy.

In the previous post, I threw the Monsieur Royale II a bone. I'll let you know if he ever finds it.

Interesting post, Bob.

I can't really find fault with anything you wrote, including the comment regarding the Democrats. I do think I understand why the True Believers so revere him, however. In comparison to their last two by-products ....

Oh yes. Ronald the Magnificus.
Not so magnificent !

Posted by: Bob at July 30, 2007 1:29 AM

Are you responding to something written about Reagan or is this just one more indication of how you and your fellows would be indulging in the same conspiracy theory fest if Iraq was still called Eden...

Surely just one of you guys could figure out that your views about the nefarious deeds of Karl Rove and the neocons seem slightly less than thoughtful when accompanied by nonchalant snipes at the "R.W.", Republican "election stealing", and a general cavalcade of blueblog memes.

I'm sorry, Monsieur Royale II, time has elapsed. I can only offer you a lovely parting gift: A night on the town with the unfortunate Mrs. Hawkins and all the cheap booze the two of you can imbibe in 30 minutes. Good bye, I say to you, good bye.

I'm sorry, Monsieur Royale II, time has elapsed. I can only offer you a lovely parting gift: A night on the town with the unfortunate Mrs. Hawkins and all the cheap booze the two of you can imbibe in 30 minutes. Good bye, I say to you, good bye.

Posted by: Clucker at July 30, 2007 1:47 AM

Consider yourself lucky.

His usual parting gift is himself in only a feather boa and black socks.

Are you responding to something written about Reagan or is this just one more indication of how you and your fellows would be indulging in the same conspiracy theory fest if Iraq was still called Eden...

-----

Thank goodness that was directed to you, Bob, because I can't imagine what it means. I'd try to figure it out, but if I did, I know I'd only be disappointed.

/s/ Cluckus Inteliigentus Maximus

Read much, Ceals ?
I could send you out an old edition of "Hooked on Phonics."
Just give a little whistle, like Jiminy Cricket.

Posted by: Bob at July 30, 2007 1:51 AM

Fine, but please keep your even older edition of Hooked on Histrionics.

And always let your conscience be your guide...

Thank goodness that was directed to you, Bob, because I can't imagine what it means. I'd try to figure it out, but if I did, I know I'd only be disappointed.

/s/ Cluckus Inteliigentus Maximus

Posted by: Clucker at July 30, 2007 2:02 AM

Okay, chickens don't have a big brains, but boy can they crow!

No more witty banter with me, Cecelia. I am making my morning toilette and heading to the airport. I'll try to catch up with your gibberish in the FF Lounge.

TTFN.

No more witty banter with me, Cecelia. I am making my morning toilette and heading to the airport. I'll try to catch up with your gibberish in the FF Lounge.

TTFN.

Posted by: Clucker at July 30, 2007 2:07 AM

You're more banty than banter at best, Capon.

Wasn't Joker Jeff and isn't Jeff Monsieur Royale?

I may be confused. It's hard to keep up with some of these slimey ones.

Posted by: Clucker at July 29, 2007 10:40 PM

Wrong on both, clucker/mrs.philby/rudy ramirez. The irony, you accusing me of using other names.......did you consider yourself "slimey" when you were doing it?

Posted by: royalking at July 30, 2007 12:33 AM

Notice how philby and patsy avoided this like the plague?

Here's a simple question for neocons. Let's see how many answer:

A group of people try to stage a coup against the elected government of the United States. Should they have been shot as traitors?

Blindrat,

I am confused. The coup attempt was carried out already and it failed? I am guessing they were caught and convicted, I suppose of treason, so if that's the case - sure why not.

?,

The coup attempt was in the planning stages (they had contacted military men, including the one that was going to be "in charge"). Those guilty were never even tried...

Are we headed for a discussion on the McCormack-Dickstein Committee?

I'd love to get my hands on that transcript.

?, you can get some info, if you're interested, from SLOB's post:

""What attempted "American Wall Street Fascists (i.e. open admirers of Mussolini who had attempted a miitary coup against Roosevelt in 1936"? I have never heard or read about this and am really curious to know what the basis is."

I'm not surprised you've never heard of this.

Google "General Smedley Butler", "Wall Street Coup", or "The Plot to Sieze the White House"
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 27, 2007 4:18 PM "

Grammie

Oh, he put a link to a BBC investigative show on this thread yesterday.

Grammie

Well, Butler was a marine after all.

(Sarcasm intended)

Oh, he put a link to a BBC investigative show on this thread yesterday.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 30, 2007 10:29 AM

...and the whole point was that the same entities (Corporate firms; hereditary fortunes) that planned to usurp power from FDR are the ones that own the major media nad our politicians today.

SLOB,

And, the name "Prescott Bush" was mentioned. What are the odds that Bush's grandfather was a fascist?...

Are we headed for a discussion on the McCormack-Dickstein Committee?

I'd love to get my hands on that transcript.

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 10:22 AM

Its pretty clear that producinbg a transcript of these hearings was pointedly avoided.

SLOB, I understand your position but I just don't agree with it.

Grammie

What are the odds that Bush's grandfather was a fascist?...

Posted by: blindrat at July 30, 2007 10:37 AM

100% - and such conditions run in wealthy familes.

Well, Butler was a marine after all.

(Sarcasm intended)

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 10:32 AM

Call me slow, but I don't get your sarcasm.

Okay: You're slow.

SLOB, what do you think of this?

The war in Iraq isn't about Iraqi freedom, eliminating weapons of mass destruction or even oil, say some UFO researchers. It's because Saddam possessed alien technology from a crashed UFO, and the U.S. didn't want him to have it.

It's a wild accusation that has its roots, perhaps, in a 1998 article that appeared in Joseph Trainor's UFO Roundup: "On Thursday, December 16, 1998, at 2:31 a.m. local time, 'a triangle-shaped pattern of lights' appeared over downtown Baghdad and was picked up by CNN's night-vision video camera. The lights hovered in position and moved slowly to the right, as Iraqi anti-aircraft tracer fire streaked away into the night." It was described as "a V-shaped formation like the one at Phoenix," Arizona on March 13, 1997.

"Okay: You're slow.

SLOB, what do you think of this? "

?

I think its stupid. Now back to your previous post; what did you mean by tagging General Butler's service with "sarcasm"?

I think its stupid. Now back to your previous post; what did you mean by tagging General Butler's service with "sarcasm"?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 30, 2007 10:52 AM

I ask this because rigt-wingers have long tried to forget about Butler - perhaps America's most illustrious military hero of the early 20th century. They despise him because of his scuttling of the 1933 coup, and because of his outspoken denunciation of what Eisenhower would later label as the "Military Industrial Complex".

Neocon Chickenhawk Max Boot most recently atempted to diminish and discredit him in a stupid little adventure book called something like "Small Wars of Freedom". He briefly outlined his career, and then dismissed im as a trouble-make because of his near-court martial by the Hoover administration. Boot failed to mention that the charges involved Butler's public criticism of Benito Mussolini.

SLOB

I'll type this slow for you: service rivalry. For example, per your earlier conversation about Cpl. Tillman, here's a Ranger joke:

A little boy was standing in front of a mirror in the restroom at John F. Kennedy Airport, when in walked a Marine staff sergeant, dressed in his dress blues. The little boy turned to the Marine and said, "Wow! Are you a Marine?"

The Marine replied, "Why, yes I am, young man. Would you like to wear my hat?"

"Boy, would I!," said the little boy. He took the hat and placed it on his head and turned to admire himself in the mirror.

As he was looking in the mirror, he heard the door open and through a ray of bright light, a man entered the room. But, this was not just a man -- he was more than a man. He was an Airborne Ranger.

The little boy turned and went over to the soldier. As he approached him, he could see the reflection in his boots. His eyes widened as he stared up at the soldier's chest full of medals and combat ribbons. He tried to speak, but he couldn't. Finally, he took a deep breath, and managed to say, "Excuse me, Sir. Are you an Airborne Ranger?"

The Ranger replied with a thunderous voice, "Why yes, I am!! Would you like to shine my boots?"

The little boy smiled, and said, "Oh, no sir!! I'm not a Marine. I'm just wearing his hat!"

....so apparently you are a Ranger; and the Rangers fight space aliens? You're really not making a lot of sense.

Ah yes, Sir Loin of Milquetoast wants to stroll down memory lane to debate who was worse for the human condition.....

communists or fascists......

I choose both, equally.....how about you Loin?

Good ol' General Butler....a communist sympathizer who was spokesperson for the leftist group American League Against War & Facism. He was, like all Americans, entitled to his opinion.

I would not choose to support the over-reaching Marxists of the 20th Century no less than the fascist boogeymenof that time Loin wants to discuss today.

Men and women are greedy and will use any means available to attain wealth, power or privledge....whether they be "right-wingers,' or "left-wingers." It is just how they do it that seems to create the ideological differences between people like Prescott Bush and General Butler.

"mike" defends a man that defends terrorists, shocker. He actually claims he doesn't defend the enemy. How did I know he would put c**k smoker cohen u on a pedestal? Easy, he's an olbyloon.

Speaking of greed,

http://www.hitchensweb.com/
The Galloway Papers Parliament's damning report about Saddam apologist George Galloway.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 23, 2007, at 12:07 PM ET

Even drunks can say a few interesting things.

cee! I thought you might have made an honest neocon out of yourself and enlisted!

Sure; Butler was a commie. He objected to having been used as cannon fodder for the enrichment of war-profiteers, so what else could he be?

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

General Smedley D. Butler: "War is a Racket"

"A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds."

The olbyloons won't like this and the orange one definately won't bring up this. The Prime Minister of the good ol' UK, home of the bbc, the favorite news source for certain loons, praises George Bush and his leadership.

Men and women are greedy and will use any means available to attain wealth, power or privledge....whether they be "right-wingers,' or "left-wingers." It is just how they do it that seems to create the ideological differences between people like Prescott Bush and General Butler.

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 11:24 AM

You should read up on Butler, cee. In his youth he bucked his wealthy/political Quaker family tradition and chose a life of military service over a cushy ride on the corporate/political merry-go-round that was presented to him as his birthright. Fucking Commies!

I wonder the silence from the Left to rumors of Moulitas being nabbed on To Catch a Predator!

A new week, time for the Democratic Congress to name some new Post Offices. HA! That's all they're good for.

Joker- got a link?- salacious!

RK,

Wow. You may want to consider checking your sources regarding PM Gordon Brown's approval of W.'s leadership.

Sure, he was the inside favorite to replace Blair, but he's significantly more Scot-centric than the former PM. I have yet to see a statement from his that suggests praise, unless you are counting his declaration that phrase "war on terror" no longer to be used and that officials were no longer even to employ the word "Muslim" in connection with the terrorism crisis.

Curious praise indeed.

Yesterday some lefty claimed that the new congress did more this past 6 months than the GOP did in 6 years. Care to post your accomplishments? This is gonna be good...

GORDON Brown last night praised George Bush for leading the global war on terror — saying the world owed America a huge debt.

The Prime Minister vowed to take Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr Brown stunned critics by THANKING President Bush for the fight against Islamic extremism, and insisted the UK-US relationship will be his No1 foreign policy priority.

He said on his first visit to the President’s US retreat at Camp David: “Winston Churchill spoke of the ‘joint inheritance’ of our two countries.”

The PM said that meant “a joint inheritance not just of shared history but shared values founded on a shared destiny”.

He added: “America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructable.

“We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism.”

Nothin curious about that!

Benson,
It's a rumour. A friend of mine told me and I saw it on other blogs.

“We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism.”

Posted by: OUCH! they cried at July 30, 2007 11:52 AM

Just another dispatch from Airstrip One.

bummer-

Hurts, eh SLOB? HA!

What a horseshit way to start the week. Prime Minister Gordon praising GW Bush. Goddamit! Life sucks.

* Gordon Brown

That's it! Officially, from this moment forward, the American Left hates Gordon Brown, PM of Britain. I call on Henry Waxman to start an investigation, IMEDIATELY!

IMMEDIATELY!!

"You should read up on Butler, cee."

###
Loin,

I had enough left-wing propaganda when I read Schmidt's "Maverick Marine" a couple of years ago.

Please, once again you try to insulate objective criticism of someone based on their "biography." Ideologically, (even your quote from the general himself shows it), the guy was a Marxist....state control of every aspect of our lives....no thanks Loin....a tried and failed world-view I have seen no improvement on over the millenia.....

Trusting in the state is no better than trusting in profit-driven corporations, Loin. I'll leave it to you and your left-wing buddies to continue the cause for state mediated collectivism (whether they be communists, socialists, fascists, Democrats).

I'll stick with the US Constitution that shackles the state and seems to work well.

Thanks for the feedback (sincerely) re: PM Brown

Keep in mind that diplomatic praise does not translate into co-opting the same stance as W, as Blair so readily did until the end of his tenure.

I expect Brown to push for less divisive issues such as trade and Darfur while focusing on domestic terrorism threats more so than allied efforts in Iraq.

I actually like Brown.
He seems to be conservative on the right issues, another noble Scot!

So, what are the odds W will appoint a new AG during the recess?

Jeff: "'mike' defends a man who defends terrorism, shocker?"

I guess Jeff is referring to my 10:19 post lampooning Jeff.

Actually Jeff, as I'm sure everyone but you was smart enough to see, I wasn't even talking about your so called 'terrorist defender'.

I was simply ridiculing YOU again about your inane definition of a "double negative" along with your conditional definition of the word "usually".

C'mon Jeff.....lets talk about double negatives again?.....That was SO much fun!

I'll stick with the US Constitution that shackles the state and seems to work well.

Posted by: at July 30, 2007 12:09 PM

Shackles the state; but leaves international corporations as free as the breeze.

The constitution we both claim to admire allows for the mandatory conscription of individuals during war-time; individuals that are required to set aside their normal life-trajetories and many of their civil rights for altruistic purposes; individuals that are compelled to risk and lose thier limbs and lives.

Butler thought it only fair and reasonable that industry and hereditary fortunes be faced with the same compulsions - that they be required to set aside the normal potential for profit when the country faces these same emergencies. FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower clearly subscribed to this same ethos, although were unable ot implement it to its full logical perection. Look at the tax rates imposed by Ike's admnistration; and refer to his stirring "farewell address".

How is it "Communism" to demand that risk and sacrifice be shared by the entire nation when faced with the necessity of war?

The best part of Butler's proposal is that it would also remove what is clearly the most potent incentive for starting wars - profit!

I fully subscribe to Butler's proposal: "draft" (i.e. demand universal sacrifice) of all citizens and capital when war appears imminent; war would become very very rare.

On the heels of the Butler thread, I've always thought the term "volunteer military" to be misleading, especially for communities where there are few vocational options.

There's not only money to be maid by the big boys, but for the kids in economically depressed areas, it may be one of few viable options for income.

I guess you could volunteer to be poor or risk gunfire to earn paycheck.

er... maid/made

"I fully subscribe to Butler's proposal: "draft" (ie demand universal sacrifice)"

YOU COMMIE!!!!

Lets see, I can join the military or go on welfare. Yes, it's still an all volunteer force.

We have universal sacrifice, its called taxes.

Besides, the draft is a political tool today.

The thought is you conscript everyone. People are then subjected to a system that demands obedience and loyalty. Said people hate the system, rebel against it and whatever task the military was assigned becomes an impossibility.

In short, you break your military internally in an effort to achieve a goal certain elected officials were unable to achieve in their realm. There is no greater act of cowardice on behalf of an elected official. A political should speak his mind and fight his fights. If they fail, they should be replaced.

There's not only money to be maid by the big boys, but for the kids in economically depressed areas, it may be one of few viable options for income.

I guess you could volunteer to be poor or risk gunfire to earn paycheck.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at July 30, 2007 12:33 PM

Yep. Its Free-Market warfare; Neo-Mercantilism. How many times have you heard a neocon chickenhawk explain the stop-loss pressures being faced by our military personnel as a factor of their own economic choices?:

"Well, they volunteered; they knew what they were getting into".

Its their favorite dodge from the tricky concept of Command Responsibility. Its all part of a continuum: iat one end is WWII, with Roosevelt essentially demanded that the press show graphic depictions of the plight of their Citizen Soldiers, explicitly intending to maximize public awareness of the seriousness of the whole undertaking; at the other end is the situation surrounding the private contractors currently "working" in Iraq - we don't know how many there are, what they're doing, how many die;.... They are categorically "mercenaries", and the public seems to neither know or care about their fates or fortunes - because it is never discussed in the media owned and sponsored by the peole who write their paychecks.

In the middle of this continuum are our troops; whose volunteer status is used to justify overdeployment while healthy, and callous abandonment when damaged. Media depictions of events in Iraq are harshly restricted by this administration specifically to distance the public from the reality.

That's the rub, ?.....Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Mike want to blame the "system" for the reality we see today.....

I suggest we all look in the mirror....We have no one to blame but ourselves if people deem serving as a volunteer in the armed services not a laudable avenue for themselves. Forcing it on "society" will result in what resulted during the 1960's and 1970's.....chaos and near fall of a once great republic. And war and death will continue a stopped by the left's current claim of nirvana.

"I fully subscribe to Butler's proposal: "draft" (i.e. demand universal sacrifice) of all citizens and capital when war appears imminent; war would become very very rare."

###
And this theory about war being a tool of the elite and how to end it was started by Marx himself....and the resultant communist nations, with their need for militarism to keep their people in line shows how this theory is garbage.

General Butler was saying nothing new from the humanism created during the previous 19th century and it is no different now in the 21st century. War and death is a choice made just as frequently by left-wingers as it is by right-wingers....using different words to hide the ideology is also as old. You can believe those tired old theories on why people kill eachother....I know the real reason.

"The thought is you conscript everyone. People are then subjected to a system that demands obedience and loyalty. Said people hate the system, rebel against it and whatever task the military was assigned becomes an impossibility. "

Sure; that's exactly what happened in WWII.

Whines Nixon's Dick:

"Goddamit! Life sucks."

END QUOTE

And we should expect anything else from a liberal?

If life sux in this economy you are in real trouble.

Cee ignors the reality that it is far easier for irresponsible politicians to take us to war for questionable reasons with it would be with an all volunteer force.

He also ignors the reality that it becomes far easier for those responsible for creating such fiascos and their supporters to minimize casualties because, after all...."they volunteered"!

As always Cee, you defend the indefensible!

Posts SLOB:

"Media depictions of events in Iraq are harshly restricted by this administration specifically to distance the public from the reality."

END QUOTE

Holy crap, Neil Gabler. You liberals whine about losing rights over wire tapping. What you should be angry about is a liberal biased media that will never tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq and will do anything to keep the truth from getting out and want nothing more than the US to lose.

That's a damned fact.

That's why I said "today." For someone who reads so much you have trouble grasping key phrases.

Besides, WWII was a different war, even Smeadley wouldn't know what end is up if he walked into a modern TOC.

Posted by Mike Lussy:

"As always Cee, you defend the indefensible!"

END QUOTE

As always Lussy, your indefensible bias makes your opinion Jack Shit.

Holy crap, Neil Gabler. You liberals whine about losing rights over wire tapping. What you should be angry about is a liberal biased media that will never tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq and will do anything to keep the truth from getting out and want nothing more than the US to lose.

That's a damned fact.

Posted by: Laura Bush at July 30, 2007 1:32 PM

That's another aspect of what I was just talking about: the corporatist right-wing tries to classify one's death in a war while serving as a soldier under military discipline is a PRIVATE MATTER! You vote for it; you pay for it; but you have no right to know about it?

I never served in the military, but my impression has been that privacy does not have much of a toe-hold in those institutions.

Can anyone out there who has served clarify this matter for us?

"if life sux in this economy you are in real trouble"...

A revealing look into the thought patterns of someone who believes all things good revolves around economics.

"Can anyone out there who has served clarify this matter for us?"

All I can say emphatically Sir Loin, is that when I served, personal privacy was non - existant.

Whines SLOB:

"Its their favorite dodge from the tricky concept of Command Responsibility."

END QUOTE

Woooooooooo. All these conspiracy theories. You people have watched to much Patriot Games on TV.

Booooo.

Mike....It is a fact of logic that just because two events are observed in sequence or coinicidentally one cannot assume the events are associated or one always leads to the other.

I said you can believe these ideas....Marx did and wrote a wonderful work saying that if you get rid of one the other will disappear.....

What happened, Mike? Was Marx right?

You can retreat to the left's failed pograms in the face of what you see as injustice in the world....that's fine, it's your choice. I do not take to those over-simplifications on why war occurs and why politicans choose to go to war....or for any other explaination offered by the left's elite for why there is evil in the world.

I simply hope that people that have decision making roles look at more substantial reasons other than the tired old canard of "it was easy to go to war because....."

Posts Lussy:

"A revealing look into the thought patterns of someone who believes all things good revolves around economics."

END QUOTE

A revealing remark from somone that would bitch if they hung him with a new rope.

Wines Lussy:

"A revealing look into the thought patterns of someone who believes all things good revolves around economics."

END QUOTE

Also, a revealing remark from someone that whines about events completely out of his control and do not impact his life no more that a fart in a hurricane.

"As always Lussy, your indefensible bias makes you opinion Jack Shit."

As if anyone would value the opinion of a and ignorant and classless low life like yourself who's only relevance is his tendency to degrade others for their views using profanity and insults!

"Lussy": Wasn't he a famous 19th Century Catholic counter-revolutionary?

SLOB,

Every soldier's death in theatre is announced by the DOD.

I've never seen you ask for someone's perspective on something for which you do not have first hand knowledge. Are you suddenly respecting others opinions? Give us a break.

Try this:

Visit a local recruiter or call 1-800-USA-ARMY.

Tell them you want to sign up for an MOS of 11B, or better yet, 31B.

Report back to us in a year.

Or... stop trying to use the emotional plea of implied concern for the troops to make some stupid point on an internet discussion. Its intellectually shallow.

Posts Lussy:

"As if anyone would value the opinion of a and ignorant and classless low life like yourself who's only relevance is his tendency to degrade others for their views using profanity and insults!"

END QUOTE

"Of a and"... a an a anda...aa....aa.a..

Holy shit, it's RFK Jr.

Aaa...Gaaa..Geer...Geeorge..Bu..B..B...Bush i..is...aa...aa...N...NNN...Na....Nazi.

Yeah, old Lussy whining again about name calling or my posting on my lunch hour or whining about me being on this board or whining about offensive posts against lefties of Olby.........Grow up Lussy. You may think it's fine to call people ignorant or low life or stupid or moron but it is no different than me calling you a stupid son of a bitch.

I have yet to see a statement from his that suggests praise,

Posted by: Dick Nixon at July 30, 2007 11:49 AM

Of course you haven't seen or heard it. Keep reading daily krap, media matters and the huffpo. They will never post anything saying as much. The orange one won't touch it, either.

"You may think it's fine to call people ignorant or low life or stupid or moron but it is no different than me calling you a stupid son of a bitch"...

Maybe low life, but someone who does it as a matter of course against everyone who's views don't please his pathetically small mind DOES make a difference when compared with someone who only returns fire because you have PROVEN yourself to be a classless and ignorant moron who feels he has to use these kind of tactics just to get himself noticed.

And trust me low life, you can't possibly insult me...all you can do is make yourself look more like the classless lout you really are.

Now get on back to your CNC milling machines and metal chips that only YOU would be dense enough to think others on this board actually envy you for operating.

Oh, what is the left going to do? Prime Minister Brown must have had some of Bush's Kool-Aid at Camp David this weekend....

"There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself,"

###
It looks like someone other than the losers who support Bush support the mission in Iraq....The new British Prime Minister no less....

And this is my post today, the 1,552nd 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

As always Cee, you defend the indefensible!

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 1:32 PM

"I don't defend Olbermahn!" says mike, 15 or 20 times.

"I was driven to defend him by you guys!" says mike 2 weeks later.........

Maybe low life, but someone who does it as a matter of course against everyone who's views don't please his pathetically small mind DOES make a difference when compared with someone who only returns fire because you have PROVEN yourself to be a classless and ignorant moron who feels he has to use these kind of tactics just to get himself noticed.

And trust me low life, you can't possibly insult me...all you can do is make yourself look more like the classless lout you really are.

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 2:16 PM

This "drivel" of hypocrisy coming from the olbyloon that called Cecelia a "sanctimonious bitch" for no reason. Thanks, "mike."

>>Yeah Mike, I ran machines to pay my way through college. I've worked on my uncles farm since I was big enough to pick cucumbers right up to laoding water melons in 100 degree N. FL heat working jobs Americans today are too good to work. I'm a seniro engineer no matter how bad you won't to not believe it. Why should I worry about your opinion when you question George Bush.

Laura,

I've worked harder than you and got a better education, apparently. It is admirable to work hard, son; however, a horse works hard and is still an idiot...

I don't mind your being an idiot. Just get out of the way of those of us who think, child...

"Yeah Mike, I ran machines to pay my way through college: The point is, nobody gives a shit. I'm convinced we've all had our tough times!

"I've worked on my uncles farm since I've been big enough to pick cucumbers: Once again whiner, nobody on this board gives a shit! You think you're the only one who has worked on their uncle's farm doing hard work? I have an Uncle who raised tobacco and, yes, I've spent my share of time out there in 100 degree heat barning tobacco.

"You don't see me whining about name calling": Duh....could it be because YOU are the biggest offender on this board?

"or calling for people to be banned like you and AAP": When exactly did I call for someone to be banned?

"Why should a worry about your opinion when you question George Bush?": Who the hell asked you to "worry" about my opnion?

"Laura", Maybe you should stick to bragging about your blue collar job and name calling, your arguments are just too easy to pick apart when you get away from your tradmark offense.

Mmmm, more evidence that The British Prime Minister was brought under the evil hypnotic powers of Count Cheney while visiting Camp David this weekend!......

From AP

"'Our aim, like the United States is, step-by-step, to move control to the Iraqi authorities,' Brown said, joining Bush at a news conference at this mountaintop presidential retreat.

"Brown hinted that a decision about British troop levels was coming soon, while assuring that such a determination would be based 'on the military advice of our commanders on the ground,' thus echoing language often heard from Bush.

"Indeed, minutes later, in response to a question, Bush said: 'The decisions on the way forward in Iraq must be made with a military recommendation as an integral part of it.'"

###
It's a right wing conspiracy!!!! Ah! Make decisions about the troops in Iraq based on what the military says?!? What? What such strong mental powers these evil men have!

Stop the criminals!.....Impeach Bush and Cheney!

Stop the war...get the troops home....cut the funds NOW!

And this is my post today, the 1,552nd 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

There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

If you were smart you'd consider that Falafel may not be anything more than a troll.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 28, 2007 11:26 PM

Could be, Cecelia.
Then again, I've read some things out here that are apparently meant to be taken seriously that aren't a whole lot better.
This goes for both sides.

blind freakin bat, I raise and train horses, judging by your "drivel" you couldn't hold a candle to the intelligence of a horse. Trust me. Now, get down on your dirty little piece of carpet with your koran.

Simply thinking highly of your self does indicate higher thought.

The Truth, I responded to you yesterday and asked a question.

I haven't noticed any response.

Grammie

rk,

I would imagine, to you, horses are mental giants. A horse will eat itself to death, fall down a hill and run to death if forced...

I doubt you raise and train anything, son...

Blindrat,

What was this job you worked so hard at that gives you such perspective?

Blindrat,

What was this job you worked so hard at that gives you such perspective?

Posted by: Mike Rowe at July 30, 2007 3:02 PM

Now that is witty. Plus I love that show.

Jeff: "This "drivel" of hypocrisy coming from the olbyloon who called Cecelia "a sanctimoneous bitch" for no reason, Thanks 'mike'".....

Jeff....Why didn't you mentioned some of the things I've called YOU?? Could it be because all of THOSE things are actually true?

Dredging up that 'sound bite' up is obviously your childish way of trying to make sure you keep a wedge driven between me and one of the more articulate cohorts on 'your' side.

Problem is Jeff....you lied once again when you said I did it "for no reason". You may not have agreed with my reason, but there WAS a reason.

You also were being dishonest when you failed to mention that I had expressed regret for making that very comment.

But we all know you're basically a very dishonest person.....as well as a very ignorant one.

But nuff about that.....Lets have some fun!.....Lets talk about "usually never" and "double negatives" some more!

"Lets turn them all loose, they were just rounded up anyways. They were innocent people, they never hurt anyone" say the loons. Oh yea?

Calling him a “senior Taliban commander,” The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Abdullah Mehsud blew himself up at his hide-out in the town of Zhob in southwestern Baluchistan Province in Pakistan, rather than surrend er to government forces.

But what was he doing commanding Taliban troops in the first place?Mehsud had been captured by American forces in northern Afghanistan in December 2001 and sent to the Guantanamo Detention Center. The reason he was able to resume his duties as a Taliban commander is because we released him from Guantanamo in March 2004. The Times reported that “upon his return to the region, he took up arms again and soon became the Taliban commander of South Waziristan, a tribal area near the border with Afghanistan.”

Mehsud is suspected of being the mastermind behind the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in 2004, one of whom was killed.

So the question, not asked by The Times, of course, is why on earth did we free Mehsud in the first place, permitting him to go back to his day job as a guerilla and terrorist leader?

The answer is as obvious as it is depressing: pressure from human rights activists and their journalistic accomplices throughout the world. In the past few years, we have released hundreds of detainees and most face no charges in their native countries when they are repatriated.

But those who lock up in Guantanamo are dangerous people. A recent Pentagon study showed that most are fully conversant with explosives, high-tech rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. The study said that 73 percent of those under detention in 2004 and 2005 were “demonstrated threats” to the United States.

In most wars, prisoners are not released until the conflict has ended for exactly the same reason — to prevent them from returning to enemy lines and resuming the battle. But, as a result of the misplaced sympathy of the global liberal community, Guantanamo Bay Detention Center has become far too much of a revolving door through which terrorists are returned to their country of origin, courtesy of the U.S. government, to take up arms against us again. This is a crazy, short-sighted policy.

But the good news in the death of Mehsud is that it indicates that Pakistan’s President Musharraf has become serious about raiding al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. In this region, where Usama bin Laden is likely hiding out, local warlords, protected by a cease-fire deal with Musharraf, have been safe from Pakistan and American troops. But with the renewal of conflict between the Musharaff regime and the militant Muslims, the cease fire is off and the raid that led to Mehsud’s death proves it.

Now it is time for the United States to take over the hunt for bin Laden and send our troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the elusive terrorist.

?,

I started out on a farm, raising horses, chickens and pigs. When I became of age, my first job (for money) was 77 hours a week in one hundred plus temperatures cleaning cotton bales. After that, I enjoyed a ninety-six hour week working the intake at a cotton gin.

I worked through college, sometimes as much as forty hours with a full engineering load...

blindrat must be a pedophile, he includes his obsession 'child' in all his posts. sick fuck.

son, boy, child, sounds like a sicko.

Blindrat,

You're an engineer right?

Did you ever see the Dirty Jobs episode where they clean out one of the huge pumps San Francisco uses to process raw sewage? They had to replace one of the motor's valve seals but the entire pump, its like the size of a tractor trailer, needs to be hosed off before it can leave the chamber for repair. Unfortunately, that job requires and engineer and a high pressure hose.

No offense to anyone's toil, but without doubt, that was the hardest, nastiest job on the face of the earth.

SLOB,

Every soldier's death in theatre is announced by the DOD.

Yes, ?, that is true. I said that we don't know how many PRIVATE CONTRACTORS are killed over there - and even you seem to be getting the two confused. Its just footage and images and blogs that are withheld from us in regard to the troops.

Or... stop trying to use the emotional plea of implied concern for the troops to make some stupid point on an internet discussion. Its intellectually shallow.

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 1:56 PM

Kiss my ass, you "implied Ranger". Its not "implied concern" - I was being very direct and explicit in my concern. I'm also very very angry that my tax dollars and political franchise - as the member of an ostensible democratic republic - are being used to create bullshit wars for the enrichment of an oligarchy.

Jeff, when you post copied op ed pieces, you really should post an attribution to your source rather than try to pass it off as your own thoughts.

And as for your first sentence in which you actually did use quotes surrounding your OWN thoughts, you had no business using quotes there because no so called 'loon' actually did or would made such a silly statement.

In other words, you did it backwards!

But then again, you've been told all of this before, haven't you?

SLOB,

Run for office, get elected, end the war.

Otherwise, call the number I gave you and show your concern by doing your time in place of someone else.

Anything else is just you trying to justify scoring points in meaningless arguments on the backs of service men and women.

I-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

"The thought is you conscript everyone. People are then subjected to a system that demands obedience and loyalty. Said people hate the system, rebel against it and whatever task the military was assigned becomes an impossibility. "

Sure; that's exactly what happened in WWII.
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 30, 2007 1:26 PM

That's why I said "today." For someone who reads so much you have trouble grasping key phrases.
Besides, WWII was a different war, even Smeadley wouldn't know what end is up if he walked into a modern TOC.
Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 1:39 PM

That’s right; and the same with Napoleon and Daniel Boone. What a vapid but dangerous ascertion.

What you are suggesting is that technological changes fundamentally alter the concepts of citizenship and altruism. You could not be more mistaken.

Now I suspect that you or someone here will cite the breakdown of our conscripted military in Vietnam as evidence of your deterministic position. But that wasn't technology - that was policy. There was then as now no realistic objective or mission in that war, and the enuii and cognitive dissonance simply wore out our forces. But when a citizen soldiery is given a real job to do the whole country pitces in.

SLOB,

Run for office, get elected, end the war.

Otherwise, call the number I gave you and show your concern by doing your time in place of someone else.

Anything else is just you trying to justify scoring points in meaningless arguments on the backs of service men and women.

I-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 3:57 PM

Sucks to lose an argument, I guess.

Give cee that number; he's a doctor who actually believes that this war is not a blatant case of corporate piracy. I think he said something recently about wishing he could lend his medical expertise to his fetish/president's epic enterprise, but that he had no idea how to go about this. Maybe;just maybe; this phone number is the ticket!

"Anything else is just you trying to justify scoring points in meaningless arguments on the backs of service men and women."

...and tell this to your president. I believe Bush's ball is deep, deep in General Petraeus' court right now.

"But when a citizen soldiery is given a real job to do the whole country pitces in."

###
This has not happened since WWII and it will not occur again since the rise of the political left in this country since the 1960's. Our entitlement society does not support such commitment and "sacrifice" is no longer in the lexicon.

Bush dealt with this reality after 9/11 and that is why I suggest we all look in the mirror.

Unless you are a pacifist, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, your position regarding the armed forces and the use of force as a "politcal vs. economic tool" is untenable.

Just like the good retired General....your attempt at controlling the use of war for means deemed just only by your ideological paradigm fails miserably.

You may have disagreed with it all but Senator Clinton makes a concise to the major points justification for the action in her explanation for her yes vote. It is at least debatable.

Yet you also seem to support action, and escalating actions against Saudi Arabia if necessary, because they have done nothing to bring their culture into the modern (read Western) age and are not active/proactive allies against Islamofascism.

I have not seen specifically what action you think we should have taken against Saudi Arabia or any follow up action if necessary to achieve the result you desire, which is unclear to me also.

You are AGAINST GWB's policy and action in Iraq. I get that loud and clear.

But what are you FOR? I am not asking for the nitty gritty details. Just generally are you for something such as "to use force ..... as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." or something else. If you don't get the desired result, assuming you are striving for something more than pure punishment and revenge, what is the next step.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 29, 2007 1:26 PM

Thanks for replying Grammie.
I will try to answer a couple of things concisely.

1. I don't agree with Hillary on everything. In fact, much of what I read about her stance on certain issues (Iraq for one) has always smelled of posturing for the White House to me. The fact that she also seems unwilling to admit that she was ever wrong about anything also sends up a red flag to me. I've had enough of that over the last 6 or so years. Serious decisions are tough. You can't expect to make all of the right choices 100% of the time, especially in unchartered waters. Failure to change course when necessary to me is unacceptable.

2. I don't know that SA has done nothing to bring itself into the modern age. They sure do like our money and what it can do for them. My problem is their condoning of the plight of the terrorists and Islamofascists in general.
I mean really, would it have been hard for them to take an active part in helping us after 9/11?
Sounds pie-in-the-sky I guess; but I would think that any atrocity like we went through can only bring sympathy and assistance from ANY humane ally, country or religious group. Anything less shows me quite a bit about who's "with us or against us".
What steps would I take against SA post 9/11? First off, I'd call them out publicly and make it known that SOMETHING in their society drew these 15 men to strike our INNOCENT people. Then I'd demand their govt's help in rounding up intel in any way our intelligence agencies deem necessary. I would also REMAIN there militarily. If they refused in any way to help us find the true enemies and prevent future attacks then THEY would be the enemy. From there I would use force and treat them like they sponsored the attacks.
Its the same way I'd expect them to react if 15 radical Americans committed the same crimes against their civilian population.
The desired result is an improved system of intelligence sharing with a country that is known to harbor and condone terrorism. Also, the country (SA) would be taking real steps towards earning the title of "ally". Right now we are seen throughout the world as their bitch.

3. What am I FOR in Iraq?
Accountability. Changing policy to reflect changes on the ground. Listening to generals. REALLY listening to generals, even if their opinions counter yours. Sounds like stuff W is claiming to do now (except accountability, he hasn't seen a mistake yet).
The problem to me isn't a simple one to fix obviously. The person to fix the situation isn't going to have an easy job. Immediate and full withdrawl is a joke. Staying on this course is a joke. I am not a general myself, so I am not capable of deciding the x's and o's of policy. I do however know a failure when I see one.
No matter WHAT the solution, one thing is CRYSTAL clear. George W. Bush is not capable of fixing this. Someone else needs to take control. Sorry I couldn't be 100% specific, but again, I am not a general or privy to their info.

This whole ordeal is such an enormous black eye on this country that continuing down this road must stop. Asking someone what to do with W's mess is like asking mommy to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

"Lets see, I can join the military or go on welfare. Yes, it's still an all volunteer force."
Posted by: Suede_Wuede at July 30, 2007 12:58 PM

Exactly my point. Great variety of choices, that.

(~~~~~)
That's the world's smallest violin playing for you.

All I've noticed is that the first time someone suggested a venue for you to earn experience on a matter you have no familiarity with you resorted to name calling and hissy fit of 'you lose because I say so.' You then volunteered someone else.

You don't have to agree with the war to support the troops. Remember Cpl. Tillman, you know the soldier whose corpse you made all those splashy emails about the other day, he was against the war.

1-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

Come on SLOB, Support the troops - Enlist.

"This has not happened since WWII and it will not occur again since the rise of the political left in this country since the 1960's. Our entitlement society does not support such commitment and "sacrifice" is no longer in the lexicon."

Now we're getting close, cee; can you enumerate the specific entitlements that keep you comfortably at home?

"....can you enumerate the specific entitlements that keep you comfortably at home?"

###
No Loin, you are not getting off that easily.....Especially one who uses far left-wing idiocy to interpret events in the world, you can tell us all how political systems that provide security to the masses must function to perpetuate themselves without robbing the very incentive and freedoms that human nature needs and craves!

Afterall...you claim to be able to reason it all out without reliance on dogma or superstition! You are free to let us all know the wisdom.

Come now....don't cop-out and retreat to the ChickenHawk argument....you're much smarter than that!

Laura Bush is a great American.

Laura Bush is a friend of trolls.

"you can tell us how political systems that provide security to the masses mush function to perpetuate themselves without robbing the very incentive and freedoms that human nature needs and craves!"

When the issue is war, elective or otherwise, .... that becomes a very selfish argument!

All I've noticed is that the first time someone suggested a venue for you to earn experience on a matter you have no familiarity with you resorted to name calling and hissy fit of 'you lose because I say so.' You then volunteered someone else.

You don't have to agree with the war to support the troops. Remember Cpl. Tillman, you know the soldier whose corpse you made all those splashy emails about the other day, he was against the war.

1-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

Come on SLOB, Support the troops - Enlist.

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 4:21 PM

Far from the first tme - cee has always said he would enlist only after I - a critic of this war and it ridiculous casus belli since before it began - were to enlist first.

- Tillman was all for protecting America when he signed up to go fight the Taliban. His experiences in Iraq changed his mind in regard to the credibility of our leadership and the phoney mission given the military.

All I've noticed is that the first time someone suggested a venue for you to earn experience on a matter you have no familiarity with you resorted to name calling and hissy fit of 'you lose because I say so.' You then volunteered someone else.

You don't have to agree with the war to support the troops. Remember Cpl. Tillman, you know the soldier whose corpse you made all those splashy emails about the other day, he was against the war.

1-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

Come on SLOB, Support the troops - Enlist.

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 4:21 PM

Far from the first tme - cee has always said he would enlist only after I - a critic of this war and it ridiculous casus belli since before it began - were to enlist first.

- Tillman was all for protecting America when he signed up to go fight the Taliban. His experiences in Iraq changed his mind in regard to the credibility of our leadership and the phoney mission given the military.

"you can tell us how political systems that provide security to the masses mush function to perpetuate themselves without robbing the very incentive and freedoms that human nature needs and craves!"

When the issue is war, elective or otherwise, .... that becomes a very selfish argument!

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 4:38 PM

You could figure out what cee was trying to say here? Is he making an argument that to be safe we need to be predatory? I just can't tell.

"cee has always said he would enlist only after I"

###
No Sir Loin of Milquetoast, I initially wanted us to enlist TOGETHER....even serve together and then you were all "oogy" with that and it was dropped.

Come now.....no pathetic ChickenHawk arguments now, Loin.....give us the whole treatise on war and peace....the answers for the ages....the wisdom only the most intellectual, rational and compassionate leftist could create!

...no wait,Mike - I think I've got it. He was actually paraphrasing Hermann Goering:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

I just temporarilly forgot what a blatant neocon cee represents. He was merely parroting Strauss' "ancient wisdom" that the "natural elite" philosophers are justified in using the "noble lie" to make ruling easier.

....and he clearly sees himself as one of these "natural elite". There's your "entitlements" for you.

yawn,

Come on SLOB, Support the troops - Enlist.

1-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

In lieu of that I wholly expect you to end this thing upon your election to serve this nation as our president.

Otherwise, you are just proving me correct with each and every post. Thanks, but I wasn't looking to cream you like that. Is their a slaughter rule we should install here. Like after 20 posts, where you still haven't stopped the fighting in Iraq and you still haven't enlisted to spare the life and limbs of one of the troops you so deeply care for - we just agree you are the mirror image of every neocon you have demonized.

With all due respect to Blindrat who I think is brillant in this forum: "SLOB, you're an idiot, son..."

"Is he making an argument that to be safe we need to be predatory?"

###
No Loin, I am asking what our resident leftist would do to control the billions of people who make their decisions based on self-preservation, greed and/or fear if he was our leader.

In the past, the benevolence of such leaders who had such attitudes towards their felllows seemed to degenerate into either the totalitarianism they claimed they were fighting against (the communists, the fascists of the 1930's) or they were so pathetically weak they allowed the same megalomaniacs to expand their hold on the people of the earth.

Eitherway, I don't agree with the result.

###
No Sir Loin of Milquetoast, I initially wanted us to enlist TOGETHER....even serve together and then you were all "oogy" with that and it was dropped."

...cee views his civic obligation to make his actions match his rhetoric because I got "oogy"? Is this logical to anyone?

I meant

...cee ESCHEWS his civic obligation to make his actions match his rhetoric because I got "oogy"? Is this logical to anyone?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 30, 2007 5:02 PM

I just blew a whicked nasty fart in an attempt to clear this room of all Olbylooooooons

Mike man get a life, get a girl, get out of the room, Loin, leave, use your loins, do something, geez

SLOB,

Run for office, get elected, end the war.

Otherwise, call the number I gave you and show your concern by doing your time in place of someone else.

Anything else is just you trying to justify scoring points in meaningless arguments on the backs of service men and women.

I-800-USA-ARMY. MOS 11B or 31B. Call now.

Posted by: ? at July 30, 2007 3:57 PM

Several of us have tried to make this point to Sir Loin for the past year.

Particularly, your "meaningless argument" description concerning this favorite "chickenhawk" tactic of his.

I wouldn't be too optimistic here, ?....

###
No Loin, I am asking what our resident leftist would do to control the billions of people who make their decisions based on self-preservation, greed and/or fear if he was our leader.

In the past, the benevolence of such leaders who had such attitudes towards their felllows seemed to degenerate into either the totalitarianism they claimed they were fighting against (the communists, the fascists of the 1930's) or they were so pathetically weak they allowed the same megalomaniacs to expand their hold on the people of the earth.

Eitherway, I don't agree with the result.

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 5:00 PM

This makes no sense at all - and as such is a wonderful snapshot of neocon logic.

Firstly "controlling the billions" is not our concern - in fact I believe cee's fetish/president claims to be "spreading democracy" around the globe, not control.

Do you see that you are arguing against the rule of law on the one hand, and then denounce it along with the whole argument in your last sentence? Very, very Straussian of you.

Leading from your General Butler tact, who you seemed to suggest would end the one and only reason there is war in the world...I simply pointed out that the idea that "the profit motive" was the reason for this and all war is a LIE......

The only times the state controlled such forces in their societies....the 20th century communists, german and japanese fascists, etc....there was more militarism than ever before.....The humanism of the 18th century that lead to most of these social experiments is the same exact template you and the retired General Butler espoused!

So, please, educate this board some more with your ideology and how it will rid the world of violence, Sir Loin of Milquetoast!

So, please, educate this board some more with your ideology and how it will rid the world of violence, Sir Loin of Milquetoast!

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 5:21 PM

1. Draft cee

2. "Draft" industrial capital (easiest through robust taxation)

3. erase the concept of "corporate citzenship" from our system.

That ought to take care of the violence and chaos that WE introduce to the world.

As for everyone else - fight them when they attack us, but try to stave off this extremity through good will and honest diplomacy.

Why in the world would anyone want to fight in this war ? The nice thing to know is that at least the people that die are supporters of the war and the military. The brave soldiers should head to Washington DC and turn their weapons on those who supported this war..

.....And nirvana will be achieved in our time.....

Oh, I mean like Chamberlain said.....

.....we will see "peace in our time."

The only times the state controlled such forces in their societies....the 20th century communists, german and japanese fascists, etc....there was more militarism than ever before.....The humanism of the 18th century that lead to most of these social experiments is the same exact template you and the retired General Butler espoused!

cee,

the US spends more on its military than all other countries in the world combined. Is this the result of "18th century humanism" (referred to as "liberalism" or "modernism" by cee's hero Strauss)? I call it neo-mercantilism - we are being told what to buy from the MIC, and having the prices dictated to us.

Heading for the harbor; time for a tea party.

".....And nirvana will be achieved in our time....."

Valhala is what honest war-mongers seek, cee.

1. Draft cee

2. "Draft" industrial capital (easiest through robust taxation)

3. erase the concept of "corporate citzenship" from our system.

That ought to take care of the violence and chaos that WE introduce to the world.

As for everyone else - fight them when they attack us, but try to stave off this extremity through good will and honest diplomacy.

.....And nirvana will be achieved in our time.....

Oh, I mean like Chamberlain said.....

.....we will see "peace in our time."

My 5:33PM post was supposed to immediately follow Sir Loin of Milquetoast's very detailed manifesto posted at 5:27PM so as to have maximum effect.

That number two needs a bit more specifics, though Loin....oh and how would you enforce such pograms?

That number two needs a bit more specifics, though Loin....oh and how would you enforce such pograms?

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 5:42 PM

Pass laws exponentially increasing the taxes of industries seeling materiel and services to the military in times of war; while insuring through the government the wages of the workers. see "FDR".

"Heading for the harbor; time for a tea party."

###
Make sure you walk, Loin....using a vehicle will be contributing to the MIC through the funding of the oil companies.....And make sure to not watch Keith Olbermann tonight....doing so will be supporting the advertisers funding the MIC which includes the behemoth GENERAL ELECTRIC.

Oh and Loin, make sure your leftist purity and virginity remains by avoiding the use of the internet.....another necessity for the MIC that lends it support to research in our institutions of higher learning.....they also monitor your communications this way!

###
Make sure you walk, Loin....using a vehicle will be contributing to the MIC through the funding of the oil companies.....And make sure to not watch Keith Olbermann tonight....doing so will be supporting the advertisers funding the MIC which includes the behemoth GENERAL ELECTRIC.

Oh and Loin, make sure your leftist purity and virginity remains by avoiding the use of the internet.....another necessity for the MIC that lends it support to research in our institutions of higher learning.....they also monitor your communications this way!

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 5:49 PM

poor cee - run clean out of arguments.

###
Make sure you walk, Loin....using a vehicle will be contributing to the MIC through the funding of the oil companies.....And make sure to not watch Keith Olbermann tonight....doing so will be supporting the advertisers funding the MIC which includes the behemoth GENERAL ELECTRIC.

Oh and Loin, make sure your leftist purity and virginity remains by avoiding the use of the internet.....another necessity for the MIC that lends it support to research in our institutions of higher learning.....they also monitor your communications this way!

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 5:49 PM

- a rehash of the "love it or leave it" broadside that conservatives have used for years to run away from discussions regarding the inevitability of change in our constitutional democracy.

Tme for you to answer a question, cee: what do you think of democracy?

"poor cee - run clean out of arguments."

###
Just imitating you, Loin.

Your solutions would not have changed one thing after 9/11, the intelligence of WMD in Iraq, the ties between Saddam and radical, theocratic islamists or the decision to remove Saddam. And your solutions would not keep war from occurring in the future....All it would do is give the state more power over our lives and likely cause economic hardships like those seen previously.

State control of private capital has always lead to totalitarianism and bigger states....no thanks....

My sarcasm (like your Chickenhawk posts) is only used as a technique to show the absurdity of your left-wing religious fanaticism. The ever evil and present MIC must be destroyed at all costs.....even our own freedom!

What the FUCK ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT, CEE?

---
Your solutions would not have changed one thing after 9/11, the intelligence of WMD in Iraq, the ties between Saddam and radical, theocratic islamists or the decision to remove Saddam. And your solutions would not keep war from occurring in the future....All it would do is give the state more power over our lives and likely cause economic hardships like those seen previously.
===

Do you even remotely remember BOTH Saddam and OBL were propped up by Reagan?

And look how well it turned out.

State control of private capital has always lead to totalitarianism and bigger states....no thanks....

...but State control of lives and limbs? No big deal?

...and you squeeze your eyes shut at the concept of Private Capital controling the state.

Tthe delusions of a spoiled rich boy.

"I just blew a wicked nasty fart in an attempt to rid this room of all olbylooooons."

Every time I read an inane comment like this from a right winger, it is further proof that I am on the correct side.

AAP,

cee has stated today that we need to fight something - even if invented - in order to preserve what he considers to be out nation. He has claimed that the MIC - the grotesque combination of industry, government, and aggressive war that Eisenhower predicted would threaten all of our liberties - is all that preserves our "freedom".

in 1776 cee would have been a Tory bean counter for the East India Company.

I believe since the 1960's we have moved away from the democratic republic of citizen rulers to the tired and bankrupt philosohpy of the 19th century leftists ruling elite....the professional politician that knows better than the masses. The left has established a state that breeds the masses reliance on itself, that has and continues to destroy the freedoms it once protected. By using the corporate and MIC bogeyman, the left continues to use fear in people to establish larger state institutions instead of private endeavors.

I want a vibrant and strong resistance to this tendancy of fear and impotence and is why I identify politicians based on their political ideology in regards to state power over economic issues.....the most powerful force the world has collectively.

The leftist war on poverty started in the 1960's under Johnson and is another example of what the left intends for our country....No thank you, Loin. Just as the left failed in military endeavors (Vietnam) they fail in economic policy.

"cee has stated today that we need to fight something - even if invented -"

###
Yep.....9/11 was invented

Saddam's noncompliance with UN resolutions and the ties with Hezbollah and Al Queda in Iraq is invented.

The British Prime Minister is also a toadie of the MIC....an invention.....he is wrong about the mission in Iraq.

You guys on the left are so deluded and dogmatic that you make the most right winged fundamentalist look sane!

WOW!

Cee keeps pushing his case as a fascist.

-----

I want a vibrant and strong resistance to this tendancy of fear and impotence and is why I identify politicians based on their political ideology in regards to state power over economic issues.....the most powerful force the world has collectively.
====

We hardly knew you, Cee.

Oh, yes... the lefties lost Viet... just like they are losing Iraq.

"The leftist war on poverty started in the 1960's under Johnson and is another example of what the left intends for our country....no thank you,"

What are YOUR intentions for our country....good doctor Cee? They sound somthing like these:

- If they can't afford to have that broken leg set...just let em lay in the ditch ditch and die from resulting gangrene?

- If they can't afford to feed themselves and their kids, just let em all die...they were just worthless vermin anyway.

- Bring back debtor's prison!

- If the old folks can't pay for their food and medicine, the hell with them....let em die!....They shoulda been saving their money like me!

You sound very civilized Cee!

"Oh, yes... the lefties lost Viet... just like they are losing Iraq."

###
AAP...who cut the funds to South Vietnam that ended our alliance with them in 1974?

The Democrats in Congress.

Yes, Vietnam was an ideological war that ended in the left winning....the communists took over a democratically elected and capitalist nation......

So I do see the result of Vietnam as the responsibility of "the left." Any other concluison is a political lie to make oneself feel good.

And who is asking we withdraw from Iraq IMMEDIETELY despite what most respected military and political advisors are recommending?

The left-wing of the democrat party that is pulling the rest of the imps to the left.

Oh, and AAP....do some research before you call me a fascist....I would not choose ANY state control over economic issues whether it be "right-wing" or "left-wing." Read my posts. In point of fact, Sir Loin of Milquetoast is more aligned with fascist ideology of "STATE POWER GOOD!" than I am.

"The left has established a state that breeds the masses reliance on itself, that has and continues to destroy the freedoms it once protected."

Self-reliance destroys freedom? Are you insane, or just putting words together?

The mass's reliance on itself is what the Declaration of Independence and constitution are about.

"Oh, yes... the lefties lost Viet... just like they are losing Iraq."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA..."stabbed in the back "again, Adolf?

Look at the results of the war on poverty, Mike.....More people are below the poverty line today than there were prior to Johnson's declaration that he could end poverty.

The money spent by the government to supply basic needs to people are at a higher level than ever before and no trends show that the number is declining....in fact the costs are increasing.

The only thing that changed any negative trend during the last 40 years was the republican congress' welfare reform bill that "moderate" Bill Clinton agreed to....And it was a reversal of the typical left-wing "given 'em a fish" program that was tried.

So stop the silly demagoguery, Mike. Your pathetic leftist leanings are showing again. Johnson promised TO END POVERTY.....poverty has increased!

The left has failed.

From time-to-time in life, people of integrity have to say: Enough! The last twenty-four (24) hours on the crumbling, ramshackle website have been such a time. Enough!

In a crude and simplistic fashion, good things are accomplished here. There are informed and articulate people eager to share their ideas and to learn of others’ ideas in a largely free and open forum. And, while the intolerance of a Brandon, the pathological denial of a Ms. Hawkins, the incoherence of a Cecelia may get a bit trying at times, each has an obvious right to express themselves and each contribute, sometimes significantly and valuably.

Last night and this morning, two (2) things occurred which I find appalling:

Royal King came fresh off a liaison with Sean Hannity and decided to parrot a personal attack on Stanley Cohen. Why? Because Mr. Cohen, a skilled and dedicated attorney, had the utter temerity to respect the Rule of Law in America by representing a client, an unpopular client. To be sure, Mr. Cohen is not a likable kind of guy, and his clients are particularly loathsome. However, Mr. Cohen has a passionate belief in the Bill of Rights. That tells him he must defend those who would have no representation were it not for him. Our Rule of Law in America depends every bit as much on the Cohens in the legal profession as it does on the Scalias. Which one of us can say, given the last 6 1/2 years, that we might not find ourselves on the unpopular side of public opinion? Our protection is the Courts, a forum in which Law and not public opinion reigns. We ought to respect men and women who act to protect our Constitutional and civil rights, instead of shamelessly, personally, viciously attacking them.

To be sure, most often Royal King is more pathetic than dangerous. Hands down, the most stupid, intolerant and inarticulate person on this site. He is a caricature of himself, enjoyable but a bit sad to watch and read. But he has a right to speak, to post, and if I were to deny him that right, I would be acting singularly unAmerican. An attack on that right is an attack on America itself. And, Royal King unleashed a terrifying attack on America last night.

To be sure, Ms. Hawkins will hoot “hyperbole” and Cecelia will holler “histrionics” while offering some silly, half-baked defense of Royal King’s attack on America. Royal King himself will stand as a primate at some Midwestern zoo, reaching behind himself to collect turds to hurl at those who call him a turd-hurler. But to say what he said, to unleash a personal attack on an attorney for doing what an attorney is under oath to do, what the ethical codes of his profession require him to do, masks a fundamental ignorance of what America is about and exposes a malevolence for those who help America attain its promise of being that shining city on the hill. Shame on you, Royal King, and shame on any of us who do not recoil at his ill-informed and dangerous diatribe.

Even more despicable, Joker. For any of us to tolerate, by agreement or by silence the slimy, salacious slander he emitted concerning Markos Moulitsas is unforgivable. It coarsens us, it cheapens us. I realize Mr. Moulitsas is the favorite target of the fringe RW these days. Certainly, Joker is only emulating Bill O’Reilly. I have little patience for Mr. Moulitsas, and I seldom visit his site. But there is no reason to assume he is anything but a good a decent man. Certainly, we know him to be a loving husband, father and son. To label him as Joker did in some sick, sickening joke, is wrong. It is unacceptable. It is intolerable. Free speech carries with it a high degree of responsibility, and Joker was wholly irresponsible. One who makes such a statement is nothing but trash. I discard trash lest I share its stench. I would hope that the good and decent people who post here would as well.

Lastly, Mr. Cox and, to a lesser extent, Mr. “Dollar” have given us a privilege here. With that privilege is a responsibility. I thank both of them, and I apologize for those who have abused the privilege. Their ignorance and intolerance is no reflection on you.

Read it again, Loin.....

THE STATE breeds the masses reliance on ITSELF (THE STATE)....not the masses on themselves......

You may want to try to read a little more slowly.

"Yes, Vietnam was an ideological war that ended in the left winning....the communists took over a democratically elected and capitalist nation......"

er...The Americna colony coloquially referred to as "South Vietnam" came into being explicitly because of the cancellation BY THE UNITED STATES of national elections demanded by the Genva convention of 1954.

The people there were prompted to hold smaller, more "controlled" (cee's word) elections, and then we killed the leaders they elected. They were supposdly "capitalist", but they existed exclusivley on American taxpayer money (you might want to think this one through particularly hard, cee).

Now the communists of Vietnam count us as their #1 trading partner. SO tell us - when do the dominos start falling from that one?

kyla cole 974.1 /day kyla cole video 27.7 /day kyla cole lesbian 24.1 /day kyla cole free 18.2 /day kyla cole gallery 16.6 /day kyla cole pic 1
photo of kyla cole 12.4 /day kyla cole nude 10.6 /day free kyla cole video 10.2 /day cole kyla pic tied up 8.9 /day cole forum kyla 7.4 /day kyla cole free pic 5.0 /day kyla cole clip 4.7 /day kyla cole wallpaper 4.4 / kyla cole picture 4.0 /day twistys kyla cole 3.9 /day kyla cole pussy 3.
kyla cole freeones 3.6 /day kyla cole sex 3.4 /day kyla cole hardcore
kyla cole at the beach 2.7 /day kyla cole movie 2.6 /day kyla cole tied kyla cole bondage 2.4 /day kyla cole penthouse 2.3 /day kyla cole bl
cole kyla nude union 2.2 /day porn 2.2 /day kyla cole site 2.1 /day
kyla cole dildo 1.9 /day kyla cole fuck 1.8 /day kyla cole image 1.8 /day torrent kyla cole 1.5 /day kyla cole hot 1.4 /day kyla cole fucking 1.3
kyla cole nude pic 1.3 /day kyla cole porn star 1.2 /day kyla cole nude free picture 1.2 /day
kyla cole fucked 1.2 /day
kyla cole naked 1.2 /day
kyla cole wet 1.2 /day
kyla cole new 1.1 /day
kyla cole tied up 1.1 /day
kyla cole video clip 1.0 /day
kyla cole and friends 1.0 /day
cole kyla rapidshare 0.9 /day
kyla cole mpeg 0.9 /day
tera patrick kyla cole 0.9 /day
air clog cole haan kyla 0.8 /day
black cole hose kyla pantie 0.8 /day
cole index jpg kyla 0.8 /day
cole kyla w4b

THE STATE breeds the masses reliance on ITSELF (THE STATE)....not the masses on themselves......

You may want to try to read a little more slowly.

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 6:51 PM

Oh....well then; that's total bullshit cee. Read the fucking constitution. The "masses" ARE the state; and yes we do rely on one another and the system of laws that we've put together to ensure liberty and the public welfare.

I just think its a really bad idea to remove our governance from the constitutional framework and place it in the hands of conglomerates that move to Dubai or Bejing at the tax-man's approach.

Cee's opinion on poverty: "The left has failed".

So your proposal is to do nothing?

Let the strong prevail and the hell with the weak! Let the truly sick die while you treat "Restless legs syndrome"....as long as they can pay?

Cee, My original question to YOU was "What is YOUR solution?", or did I already get it right?

No Cee, my question is anything but "silly demagoguery"! That's nothing but another right wing sound bite designed to deflect the question.

I say there is a huge problem that needs to be solved!

Are YOU saying to not even try?

Now the communists of Vietnam count us as their #1 trading partner. SO tell us - when do the dominos start falling from that one?

###
Ask the relatives (if they are still alive) of the estimated 100,000 people who died in re-education camps the left erected after Saigon fell.....

And despite your leftist propaganda, Loin, South Vietnam was an open, capitalist society until 1974 that was terrorized by leftist terrorists called the Viet-Cong (your ideological comrades, Loin). Funny how the tactics of radical political ideologues have never changed through the last 40 years....whether they be communists or islamic theocrats!

No, Mike, you have it right.

The neocons, as cee has clearly admtted today; are perfectly happy to promote the deaths of millions in admittedly-invented wind-mill tilting so that the "cream" can rise and remain at the top of society.

I wonder how he can so clearly (carelessly?) discuss how big made-up life-and death struggles are necessary to "control the billions" he sees as brainless; and then a short time later swear that Vietnam was an honorable, necessary fight; and Iraq represents an existential fight for our nation.

...and his confusion regarding rule by monopoly-dominated markets being superior in regard to "liberty" than the rule of law and colletive will enshrined in the constitution...its very disturbing that little fucks like this are running around.

"Ask the relatives (if they are still alive) of the estimated 100,000 people who died in re-education camps the left erected after Saigon fell...."

Why not compare that ESTIMATE with the multiples of that number that WOULD have resulted if we had stayed another 5 years...10 years....15 years..........?

And Cee, it is fundmentaly dishonest of you to refer to the Viet-Cong as the 'left', as if they were somehow one and the same as the American left.....Every bit as dishonest as if I were to refer to you as a 'Nazi'.

Well Mike, it would be just as it has been through millenia....private charity and individual kindness....families taking care of their own...small towns and communities providing the care for their members.....repecting life no matter how old or young....taking those who do not have into your own home if needed.

No, Mike....your guilt for living a lifestyle that ignores the poor being esuaged by impersonal federal government handouts and inefficient systems that are more corrupt than any private corporate entity is not a good solution....it has destroyed the family, devalued life and made sacrfice hollow.

So please cut your firery rhetoric in half in defending the failures of the left in this country as the same old tired solutions come once again from the Democrats. Another bite at the apple is not going to be different.

Sir Loin,

I don't see any evidence that govts that have controlled all industry within their nations have been less militaristic or aggressive than democratic govt in capitalist societies.

I'm wondering too if your plan just consists of those industries that directly make war materials such as planes, tanks, etc?

Would it also include greater taxation upon producers of steel, plastics, engines, medical supplies, textile mills and mandated wage controls on those workers too?

Would it also include greater taxation upon producers of steel, plastics, engines, medical supplies, textile mills and mandated wage controls on those workers too?

Posted by: Cecelia at July 30, 2007 7:14 PM

During a war? Absolutley. - but remember, when FDR did this those "wage controls" you talk about were usually raises and benefit packages.

COrporate profits? not so much - and along came the powerful late 20th century American middle class....

"And Cee, it is fundmentaly dishonest of you to refer to the Viet-Cong as the 'left', as if they were somehow one and the same as the American left....."

###
No it is not, Mike....It is a fact of history that the American left supported the NVA and their ally the Viet Cong in rhetoric, fund and ideology. The loss of the war was a direct result of the left's activities both here and in Asia more so than any offical US action taken, even by the inept democrat, LBJ.

And Loin, you cannot simply run away from your leftist, (read Marxist) roots....I am for individual freedom...you are for state control of what you judge as needed controls of capital. Do not try to make me look like an elitist....I am not....You however are 100% invested in the leftist rule that the state's entrenched ruling elites knows better than the citizen.

I trust my fellow citizens to invest and spend their talents, capital and time in the endeavors they feel will make them prosper. I do not fear the freedom afforded my fellow citizen in making economic choices for their own lives.

Just as I suspected Cee. You cite the same tired old private charity sources as your only 'solution', even though this has been far more of a failure than anything the left ever tried. In other words, you choose to do nothing!

Private charities such as churches and other private organisations are indeed needed, and a godsend - BUT - they don't begin to help those who fall through the cracks.

They don't help the person dying of a heart attack who won't call for help simply because they are too proud to accept charity OR scorn from a society that has tended to blame them for eveything that has happened to them!

They can't help the family that just lost every damned thing they have, including their home because they DID call for help for that heart attack, but couldn't pay the mountainous resulting cost....and don't fool yourself Cee, these things don't just happen to the uninsured!

Once again Cee....these is are real problems, not 'demogoguery' or histrionics!

And your solution is to do nothing. Sorry but I will never go along with that kind of selfishness disquised as efficiency!

And when the fifth generation of a welfare family emerges next year on more government assistance than their previous generation and there is no hope that they will break out of the cycle....I will be sure to remember your example.

I want to do nothing? Charity care from individual hospitals was common place before the 1960's Mike.....The Catholic Church did great work with the poor to enable them to receive life saving care....Now, it is the government's job at 6x the price....Oh, and when we go to everyone using single payor healthcare (the government)....watch what happens to medical advances and specialty care......bye bye to the middle class and poor and only those willing to pay privately (the rich) will see the best surgeons and specialists.....just like it is in all countries with government healthcare....the private clinic will come to America and it will be cash, check or credit card only.

Unintended consequences of the compassionate left....less freedom and a lower standard of living for more people.....it should be fun! Mike you have bought the lie hook, line and sinker.

"No it is not Mike....it is a fact of history that the American left supported the NVA in rhetoric, fund and idology"....

And THAT is a damned lie! It is 'History according to Cee' and nothing more. I was there....i lived it....I felt it....I heard it as it was happening. I listened to endless lectures about the thouroughly discredited "Dominoe Theory" about it from my own hopelessly right wing military father, who himself served two tours in Vietnam, 1 in Korea. and WWII.

I just comforted my sister the best I could two months ago during and after her husband died....after lingering in agony for years from Lymphoma cancer that resulted directly from his massive exposure to Dioxen based Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Vietnam was just like Iraq in many ways.... and what does YOUR ilk do? They turn around and point their guilty little fingers at the very ones who showed the better judgement in the first place and yell...it's THEIR fault!

Cee, all you know is what you have read about written by biased sources....and you know nothing!

I am still not going to call you a 'Nazi', Cee, although that is tantamount to you implying people such as myself are allied with communists.

You are simply hopelessly naive, hopelessly biased, and seemingly hopelessly selfish!

Nice recap as always Johnny. Looking forward to the next one.

"Unintended consequences of the compassionate left....less freedom and a lower standard of living for more people....it should be fun! Mike, you have bought the lie hook, line, and sinker.

Sure sure Cee, keep right on spouting out your insurance Company approved talking point program. After all they are the ones who stand to lose the most from an overhaul of the medical system...that is, after they lose their monumental parasitic cut cut from the current highly corrupt system.

No, you got it backwards Cee. You are the one who has bought into the all the lies....hook, line, and sinker!

Well Mike, your opinion and interpretation of history is your right....you're wrong, but you may believe any tripe you want.....

Another anti-war radical has a different opinion now and you can lash out at him if you want to as well.....

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz100101.asp

I have read objective sources and have spoken with Vietnam veterans suffering just as horribly as your brother-in-law did. Many have expressed anger at those you did not support their mission to provide assistance and freedom to the millions in the South. Students who called them murderers, pigs or fascists.

We all make choices on who we support. The democratic and capitalist South wanted to remain free up until the fall of Saigon and the Democrats in The US Congress, with the pressure from loud and hateful leftists, turned their backs on them. The ideology of the North was politically attractive to the left in America so it was only natural.

Many more than you were there too, Mike and have a very different opinion.

Lessons from both Vietnam and Iraq:

If you don't start an unnecessary and highly controversial war, you won't ever have to worry about blaming the opposition for not going along with your insanity.

Over 70% of the American public supported the Vietnam conflict in stopping communism (leftist ideology) at its start......

About the same percentage supported the removal of Saddam Hussein (a totalitartian murderer, practicer of genocide, user and producer of WMD, radical islamic terroroist supporter and violator of UN resolutions)......

Scrape, scrape, scrape, scrape.....ah yes, the erosion of public support by leftist ideologues only invested in their own political power and ideology.....that is the only connection between Vietnam and Iraq, Mike.....

I agree.....A lesson not learned.

Lefties read this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/

fighting words
God-Fearing People
Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 30, 2007, at 12:33 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the greater part of last week, Slate's sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for "moderate" versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most "offensive" part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation?

Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity. Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy. The existence of djinns, or devils, is hard to disavow because it was affirmed by the prophet. An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned, and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.

Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

And about the same percentage supports the US to get out of Iraq now.

Oh wait....the other part of the connection between Iraq and Vietnam is that the enemy relies on the erosion of support in order to win a war by attrition....I forgot that point!

Nice going Mike!

Any Lefties who belive in Free speech want to defend this person's right to burn the Koran!

"And about the same percentage supports the US to get out of Iraq now."

###
They do?....Immediate withdrawl? Well then, why don't the democrats cut the funds and get those troops home now? Seems like a political no-brainer!

Oh that's right.....the democrats are spineless and lack any level of good leadership! They continue to fund a war that 70% of Americans claim to want ended!

Boy, that Kool-Aid is getting around.....The new British Prime Minister drank some this weekend!

Stop the criminals!.....Impeach Bush and Cheney!

Stop the war...get the troops home....cut the funds NOW!

And this is my post today, the 1,552nd 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

"There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

Cee,
Notice the Free speech crowd isn't defending the Koran burner?
Hmmm?

Some MSM including the NYTimes Op-Ed page are seemingly open to the idea that leaving Iraq precipitously is wrong headed, and perhaps we can win in Iraq. Ouch, a crack in the hyperbole.

Every time I read an inane comment like this from a right winger, it is further proof that I am on the correct side.

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 6:13 PM

What the FUCK ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT, CEE?

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 30, 2007 6:07 PM

Why in the world would anyone want to fight in this war ? The nice thing to know is that at least the people that die are supporters of the war and the military. The brave soldiers should head to Washington DC and turn their weapons on those who supported this war..

Posted by: Bill O'lielly at July 30, 2007 5:32 PM

Wasn't Joker Jeff and isn't Jeff Monsieur Royale?

I may be confused. It's hard to keep up with some of these slimey ones.

Posted by: Clucker at July 29, 2007 10:40 PM

Wrong on both, clucker/mrs.philby/rudy ramirez. The irony, you accusing me of using other names.......did you consider yourself "slimey" when you were doing it?

Running with tails between legs........

Cee: "ah yes, the erosion of public support by Leftist idealogues only invested in their own political power and idealogy"...

Sure Cee, keep on believing THIS lie as well. For the opposition, its only about party and politics. I for one, believe that the opposite is true regarding the politics of today.

Yes, Cee...70% of the public DID somewhat tentatively support the invasion of Iraq, but mostly based on incorrect information. I wasn't one of them, but it is wholly understandable that many would have believed the misinformation they were fed at the time.

Your silly argument is that it is the 'left' that has changed the mind of the public. How ridiculous can you get? The FACTS changed their mind Cee! When the purity of our purpose suddenly wasn't so pure any more, the ones who initially went along because they believed the lies felt betrayed. The 'left' had nothing to do with it! ....Unless you want to blame them for not helping to perpetuate the lies that led us into this fiasco.

It's the purity of the idealogy Cee. Write it ten times on the blackboard! In WWII, no one lost sight of what we were ultimately fighting for because we didn't enter that fight based on misinformation....and our purpose was as pure as it ever gets.

This is simple human nature 101 Cee, and it will happen EVERY single time we ignor these simple truths.

"Some MSM including the NYTimes Op-Ed page are seemingly open to the idea that leaving Iraq precipitously is wrong headed, and perhaps we can win in Iraq. Ouch, a crack in the hyperbole."

###
And when General Petraeus says there has been progress in security and training the Iraqis in their struggle against islamic radicalism as pushed by Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents, the left will simply say he's wrong and demand immediate withdrawl.....again.

But they won't pull the good general's funding....the ONLY constitutional way the democrats can fulfill their misguided promises to the radical left-wing.....Why?

POLITICS!

Shame on the left for their anti-troop wishes.....And shame on the democrat leadership for their lack of leadership.....

Bring the troops home now.....cut the funds!

"They do?....Immediate withdrawl? Well then, why don't the democrats cut the funds and get those troops home now? Seems like a political no-brainer!"

Uh, they have been trying to bring a change of course in Iraq, however, the Republicans/Bush have been preventing it. Believe it or not, just one group of people cant push their political views on the American people, there are multiple branches of government involved in the mix. The democrats have tried multiple times to bring an end to this war, they keep getting stopped by the Roadblock Republicans and Baby Bush.

And Joker, Ill take the bait.

Free-Speech is free-speech, no restrictions apply. If the man wants to burn a Qu'ran (you dont even know how to spell the word) he can burn a Qu'ran. If a man wants to burn a bible, he can burn a bible. I do not agree with the mentality behind burning a holy book, or any book for that matter, but in this country who is to stop you from expressing your point of view?

"Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated."
--Same argument can be put forth to Christianity. Whos to say that a baby came from a sex-less couple after God said it was cool is any more believable or logical than God choosing a 7th century merchant to do his bidding. The first story is a little more romantic, true, but even more far fetched.

"Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable?"
--The exact same reason people respect those with christian views...its courteous.

"They do?....Immediate withdrawl? Well then, why don't the democrats cut the funds and get those troops home now? Seems like a political no-brainer!"

Uh, they have been trying to bring a change of course in Iraq, however, the Republicans/Bush have been preventing it. Believe it or not, just one group of people cant push their political views on the American people, there are multiple branches of government involved in the mix. The democrats have tried multiple times to bring an end to this war, they keep getting stopped by the Roadblock Republicans and Baby Bush.

And Joker, Ill take the bait.

Free-Speech is free-speech, no restrictions apply. If the man wants to burn a Qu'ran (you dont even know how to spell the word) he can burn a Qu'ran. If a man wants to burn a bible, he can burn a bible. I do not agree with the mentality behind burning a holy book, or any book for that matter, but in this country who is to stop you from expressing your point of view?

"Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated."
--Same argument can be put forth to Christianity. Whos to say that a baby came from a sex-less couple after God said it was cool is any more believable or logical than God choosing a 7th century merchant to do his bidding. The first story is a little more romantic, true, but even more far fetched.

"Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable?"
--The exact same reason people respect those with christian views...its courteous.

oops :-( sorry i hit post twice.

So, Saddam Hussein did not commit genocide, he did not support radical islamic terrorists and he did not violate UN resolutions, Mike?

You lie. He did all those things AND appeared to be rebuliding his WMD potential based on the majority of respected intelligence at the time. No lies and the world is a safer place because the murderous Saddam and his regime ARE GONE FOREVER!

Now we owe the Iraqi people the chance to reclaim a country destroyed by him and those with his ideology of power, fear and hate....You want the country to return to that state....again you are wrong Mike and the lack of public support to see it all thorugh to A JUST end is a tenuous as it was during the Vietnam era.....70% to 30% happens because of manipulation by a strident and politically powerful minority that only sees power gain as the only motive to any action.

The facts remain the same .....ideology....Saddam was evil, he supported the aims and actions of radical islam and appeared to all to have WMD......I guess you want him back, Mike?

"just one group of people cant push their political views on the American people"

###
You just contradicted yourself in your own post.....You claim GW Bush and the neocons are pushing their policy on the American people.....

Guess what?.....the democrats are allowing them to.

All the democrats have to do IS NOT FUND THE WAR.....George Bush can get money from NO ONE ELSE!

So Steal....stop making excuses for the impotent democrats......they are just as they always have been.....they do not lead, they do not protect our country and they do not care about anything but their own political hides.

"majority of respected intelligence at the time."
Yeah, majority. You know who DIDNT agree? The UN Weapons Inspector that was there shortly before we starting bombing. I think his authority wins.

"You lie"
I lie? Look in the mirror, just because you claim it is a lie doesnt mean that it is. There are these things called Facts and Figures...they dictate what is a lie and truth.

"country destroyed by him"
DESTROYED BY HIM!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Are you dumb? Things were way better, albeit not the best, under Saddam than they are now. Now the country is being torn apart by opposing religious ideologies, before the country was held together by an entirely secular government. Not to mention, we're arming certain Religious groups against others to help us fight Al-Qaeda...since obviously we cant do it on our own...They are more powerful now than they were even before 9/11.

"70% to 30% happens because of manipulation by a strident and politically powerful minority that only sees power gain as the only motive to any action"
Nice try, but 70 to 30 happens when every precedent for going to war was proven false, when we have been "showing progress" for the past 4 years and we've gotten nowhere. It happens when we've lost 2500 more lives in Iraq than we lost in the 9/11 attacks(which happened to be planned and completed by the man that we let get away while turning all of our attention toward the man that had not threatened, nor had been a threat to us in over ten years)

And for the record, the democrats a Politically powerful minority? Try a politically weak majority. They had alot in store for this country, however President Bush, Fox News and the Republicans have ensured that the democrats plans for the U.S. get nowhere near law.

"I guess you want him back, Mike?"
I know Im not Mike however I could not resist responding to what you had to say on the matter. And I do not necessarily want HIM back, however things were much more stable in Iraq while he was there, the multiple millions that have been displaced because of our war had not been displaced and all the Iraqi's that we've killed since we attacked would still be alive(we've killed way more in the past 4 years than Saddam ever had).

Bush and His Neo-Cons already had their political agenda pushed on the American people during the years of the Rubber-Stamp congress...the democrats could not stop them, they did not have the power, the voice, or the votes.

The democrats have TRIED not funding the war...Bush has this weird little thing, its called veto power.

Dont put all this on the Democrats...They have tried, why dont you harp on the Republicans that have been stopping the measures(A total of 8% of Republicans have voted against the wars continuace? Why not harp on them for not following the will of the American people? Or for fillibustering most debate on the subject? Why dont you bitch at Bush for VETOING THE BILL THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A WITHDRAWL DATE ON THE IRAQ WAR? The democrats have tried what they promised they would do. Bush and the Roadblocks have not allowed it to come into law.

Dont make excuses for the republicans, they are the ones that have failed America.

StealThisIdiocy is the funniest poster I've ever read. BWA HA HA HA !

Dur.....hahahaha, So Funny. Why dont you have anything to say against what I've said? Whats so laughable about what I post?

Steal, it's just ( HA!), that ( Guffaw!), that ...( snort), ...that your arguements started with a shot at Christianity. ( SHeeeesh! ) We haven't seen that tact around here since you were last here. I find you hilarious. We get it, you aren't a Christian.

Cee, beginning the circular argumanrt all over again:

"So Saddam did not commit genocide?": Yes, he certainly did....to exactly what degree depends on which statistics you believe. He WAS a despot. Have you ever heard ANYONE deny that? So why keep bringing it up?

The FACTS are that we didn't invade Iraq because Saddam commited genocide, and that is NOT the basis on which the war was sold. Are WE the world's policeman?

"he did not support radical Islamic terrorists"?: Yes, more or less, but mostly less, and he was actually at odds with our most emminate and destructive enemy....an enemy of our enemy!

"he did not violate UN resolutions"?: Yes, he did! Again to what degree depends on which unsubstantiated sources you choose to believe.

The problem with THAT argument is that the UN chose NOT to militarily enforce these resolutions. Who the hell were we to almost unilaterally to decide to enforce UN resolutions that the UN itself decided did not justify military action over?

No Cee, I didn't lie, and as you can see, I didn't deny any of those simplistic arguments at any time. Cee, those three arguments are tired, old...and not one of them will hold water!

We invaded Iraq because of the publicly stated reasons of false WMDs and "mushroom clouds".....You know it, I know it, and now everybody knows it!

"the world is a safer place because the murderous Saddam and his rigime ARE GONE FOREVER":

An absolute lie! There is no proof or even a coherent argument that the world is a safer place because of his absence. A far more coherent argument can be made to the contrary when he was merely an irritant and provided an obstacle to Al Qeada that no longer exists.

Cee says: "I guess you want him back, Mike": What a stupid question Cee! Can we get back the 4000 Americans whose lives were brutally taken....can we retreive the lives of the untold times that number who have been horribly damaged for life? How about the disputed number of Iraqis killed. Can we get them all back too???.....If so, YES, I want him back!

Otherwise stop asking stupid rhetorical questions!

"The democrats have TRIED not funding the war...Bush has this weird little thing, its called veto power."

###
Lie. The democrats simply do not have to pass a requested appropriations from The US President....read The Constitution.....There is no veto for nonexistant appropraitions, Steal. The President is limited by Constitutional law to request funding....The Congress decides how much, if any, a president gets to spend on war.

The democrats gave Bush 100% what he wanted....they did not even try to not fund the war.

Get your facts right before you try to argue that the democrats are doing all they can to stop the war.....They have done NOTHING responsible like a leader should because they choose not to.

Oh, and I am glad you found rape rooms, no habeus corpus, genocide, violation of UN Resolutions and firing on US pilots ok while Saddam was in power....It is so nice you like that totalitarian dictator yet scream at the fairy tale dictatorship of W.

The hypocirsy and cowardice of the left is pathetic....not only do they support genocidal/homicidal and terrorist supporting dictators but when the guy is defeated and rid of they want the country left to the very same people who he was in line with previously....Radical islamists!

Any Lefties who belive in Free speech want to defend this person's right to burn the Koran!

Posted by: The Joker at July 30, 2007 8:26 PM

Call the ACLU - they'll take it on.

And Joker; have you heard Hitchens talking in regard to the Bible lately?

"And when General Petraeus says there has been progress in security and training the Iraqis in their struggle against islamic radicalism as pushed by Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents, the left will simply say he's wrong and demand immediate withdrawl.....again."

So, we'll echo what al Maliki has been saying?

chickenanon 9:38: "Oh, and I am glad you found rape rooms, no habeus corpus, genocide, violation of UN Resolutions and firing on US pilots ok while Saddam was in power..."

WHO said they found any of that OK?

Oh Mike....go back and read George Bush's legal pronouncement for hostilities against Iraq prior to the invasion and it is clear that every reason I cited was laid out and clearly backed-up by The President.....SUPPORTED BY 70% of THE US PUBLIC......It was WMD and a whole lot more....but since you are denying fact, I guess you'll deny this too....And since the fact that we are supporting a democratically elected government that is struggling against Al Qaeda now will also be denied by you I will pass on quoting our good British ally once again......oh what the heck.....

"There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

"Yes, Vietnam was an ideological war that ended in the left winning....the communists took over a democratically elected and capitalist nation......"

er...The American colony coloquially referred to as "South Vietnam" came into being explicitly because of the cancellation BY THE UNITED STATES of national elections demanded by the Genva convention of 1954.

The people there were prompted to hold smaller, more "controlled" (cee's word) elections, and then we killed the leaders they elected. They were supposdly "capitalist", but they existed exclusivley on American taxpayer money (you might want to think this one through particularly hard, cee).

Now the communists of Vietnam count us as their #1 trading partner. SO tell us - when do the dominos start falling from that one?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 30, 2007 6:51 PM

cee,

Care to address a single one of these points that crush your house-of-cards history? I couldn't help but notice that you avoided them all, and merely parrot your own vapid classification of my position as "Statist".

Oh wait....the other part of the connection between Iraq and Vietnam is that the enemy relies on the erosion of support in order to win a war by attrition....I forgot that point!

Nice going Mike!

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 8:26 PM

Hmmm....Where was the "erosion of support" for WWII, with an iconic leftie in charge, no less? Perhaps this serial "erosion" is a factor of serial LIES that have initiated most AMerican militaryenterprises since WWII?

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours

3/17/2003 8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

Cee, first off, I have no clue why you are throwing what Gordon Brown just said in my face. He's welcome to his opinion.

Second off, OF COURSE Al Qeada is operating in Iraq!!!....AFTER we invaded and gave them the opening to come in!!! They weren't there before spring 2003. Whats your point?

Even so, it's not at all that clear what relationship this group currently in Iraq actually has with Bin Ladin's group.

Falafel, That was not an attack on christianity. yes, I've said adverse things about it in the past, not the doctrine per se, more the christians. In the words of Ghandi, "I like your Christ, I dont like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

Thats all thats laughable from my post. Thats all you've got?

"fairy tale dictatorship of W."
You see, theres this thing. We're in a democracy, ruled by the people, remember? They lived in a dictatorship. I never said things were good under Saddam, I only said that things are worse off now than they were. That is a fact.

"not only do they support genocidal/homicidal and terrorist supporting dictators but when the guy is defeated and rid of they want the country left to the very same people who he was in line with previously....Radical islamists!"

What dont you get about that he ran a SECULAR GOVERNMENT??!?!?! Dear Lord, just because Clinton was a christian doesnt mean that he ran a christian regime. Just because Bush is a Christian doesnt mean...oh wait, nevermind. No one is supporting Saddam here. We're only wondering out loud why we attacked Iraq, based on ALL faulty evidence against them, when we were aiming a War on Terror against those that actually attacked us

". The democrats simply do not have to pass a requested appropriations from The US President....read The Constitution.....There is no veto for nonexistant appropraitions, Steal. The President is limited by Constitutional law to request funding....The Congress decides how much, if any, a president gets to spend on war."

That is true. However, the Democrats are not going to use the Troops are a bargaining table if George Bush wants to be a baby about things. They gave Bush all the money he asked for plus more, and the catch was that he begin getting the troops out of Iraq in a couple of months...Vetoed. The Democrats supported the troops and supported the will of the people. Bush denied both. You can not put all the blame on the democrats for not wanting to pull all funding from the war when Bush is running around doing things like this.

Now that the democrats are doing something you would like to cite the Constitution? What about Bush's illegal wire-tapping program? His suspension of Habeus Corpus? His trampling on the Right to Free Speech? The constitution does not come in parts, its a full document that you must either accept or deny.

No Response from you, Cee? Are you just going to let this chickenshitanon speak for you?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

10/2/2002

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Cee, George Bush's legal pronouncement was made, as you said, just before the invasion.....

AFTER......

He had persuaded Congress to authorize hostilities.....

AFTER......

He had convinced 70% of the American public to support him based on lies, or misinformation, whichever you choose to believe.

Again Cee...what's your point.

You're too easy!

Second off, OF COURSE Al Qeada is operating in Iraq!!!....AFTER we invaded and gave them the opening to come in!!! They weren't there before spring 2003. Whats your point?

Even so, it's not at all that clear what relationship this group currently in Iraq actually has with Bin Ladin's group.

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 9:58 PM

Here, from just last week, is a "boots on the ground" appraisal of "Al Qeada's operations" in Iraq today:

"I can count them [foreign fighters] as a total I have engaged, dead or alive, in the 10 months I've been here on one hand," says Col. David Sutherland, the U.S. commander of coalition forces in the hotly contested area of Diyala province, an insurgent stronghold region some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. There, Sutherland says, those involved in al Qaeda are largely dispossessed locals, not jihadists who have come from elsewhere. "The recruiting program is [that] al Qaeda may send five or eight individuals into a village. They recruit from those who have no power base, no place in society," including, he adds, former male prostitutes and the mentally ill.

http://fe38.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20070725/ts_usnews/theunitedstatesfindsfewnoniraqisamonginsurgents

"No response from you Cee":

No, he's just going to keep posting meaningless pronouncements and resolutions that we've all heard and read 100 times before, and depending on how you choose to read them, can either be interpreted to advance your own arguments, or refute your opponent's....in your own mind anyway!

The same poor old leftist points, Loin. The ideology of The North Vietnamese was communist and totalitarian. Period. The South, with all of its flaws, wanted freedom and would have emerged from European colonialism into a great society if properly supported by The United States. The left made that impossible. They destroyed any possibility of democracy in South Vietnam with their hateful and selfish activities that emboldened a far inferior force from the North and in the terrorist Viet-Cong.

You believe your whitewashed history and continue to support the Marxists that re-educated or killed hundreds of thousands and set back the fall of communism. I know you like the ideology, Loin....that is your right.

I do not need to address the mistakes of JFK and LBJ, they are responsible for only a small amount of what occurred in Vietnam....but the blame for defeat and despotism falls to the NVA's ideological brothers and sisters who decided their selfish political position was more improtant to them then the lives and freedom of some strangers of a different race and language.

Wow, just like today....Freedom for me....not for you dark skinned middle eastern religious person! I'm a compassionate leftist!

In my post above Col Sutherland describes cee's "existential threat to America".

Why haven't we beaten these people, if we have an honest leadership actually trying to beat them?

"The South, with all of its flaws, wanted freedom and would have emerged from European colonialism into a great society if properly supported by The United States."

Please define "The South"; because your comments clearly do not encompass a large number of people who lived there at the time, many of whom were killed by us in "free-fire zones" and indiscrminate bombing.

The natonal reunification elections dictated to occur in 1956 by the Geneva Convention, and that were to determine the government of the historically unitary "Vietnam", were scuttled by the Americans and their local elite puppets because it was determined that the Viet Minh were going to win with a margin of 90%. That's your idea of "freedom"?

Anon 10:12: "Wow, just like today...freedom for me....not for you dark skinned middle eastern religious person! I'm a passionate leftist!"

Wow....it does seem to just go on and on, doesn't it. What this anon seems to be implying is that America should imbark on an idealistically driven militaristic mission to spread 'freedom' by force....wherever it isn't.

Who should we invade next????

Anon....we've got a huge job ahead of us!

Have you enlisted yet?????

Oh but Loin, the military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaeda terrorists brought into the country for the sole purpose of blowing themselves up and killing innocent Iraq civilians.

Al Qaeda attacks The Shia in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join al Qaeda’s cause.

You simply do not have fact to fact over the counter argument that the US is engaged against radical islamic theocrats in Iraq that want to make terrorist attacks against the US.

You simply want a speedy withrawl of our troops engaged in a good and noble mission....a mission wanted and needed by the government and people of Iraq.

Poor Mike and Sir Loin of Milquetoast....supporting the enemies of freedom and goodness once again!

Tillmans mother deserves grief. She's a despicable friggen liberal. No mercy for cowards.

Posted by: Falafel at July 28, 2007 1:55 AM

Wow.
Profound, extra-crispy RW hatespeak.

I feel smarter for having read this.

Posted by: The Truth at July 28, 2007 11:05 PM

If you were smart you'd consider that Falafel may not be anything more than a troll.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 28, 2007 11:26 PM

StealThisIdiocy is the funniest poster I've ever read. BWA HA HA HA !

Posted by: Falafel at July 30, 2007 9:17 PM

That's some troll, Cecelia.
Seems pretty clear to me that if you were smart you'd consider many of the RW posters out here are gutless punks who type rude shit just to look tough.
Tough to admit that so many of your constituents are nothing more than low-life pukes who wouldn't have the balls to say something like that to ANYONE in person, isn't it?

Loin, I know you wanted Ho Chi Minh to be supreme and unquestioned ruler over all of Vietnam from the start, but once civil war broke out, why support armed terrorism to achieve the goal?

Oh yes.....he was Marxist.....oh yes, this is what the left wants for all of us.....state controlled capital distribution and totalitarianism.....I forgot!

Now I wonder if The Civil War was a just war simply because all of those people wanted slavery?

Yep....I can rely on Sir Loin of Milquetoast to show me what side not to align myself with ideologically!

Now I wonder if The Civil War was a just war simply because all of those people wanted slavery?

According to your criteria, cee, it was not a just war.

Hmmm....Where was the "erosion of support" for WWII, with an iconic leftie in charge, no less? Perhaps this serial "erosion" is a factor of serial LIES that have initiated most AMerican militaryenterprises since WWII?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 30, 2007 9:57 PM

Well said.

Cee: "poor Mike and Sir loin of Miliquetoast...supporting the enemies of freedom and goodness once again."

My God, we've broken him down to his idealogical reactionary core!...,.he's starting to sound just as irrational as Jeff!

According to my criteria, both The American Civil War and The Vietnam War were just because the side I supported in both cases wanted freedom for all people no matter their economic status, racial, religious or political views.

The side you supported in Vietnam, Loin wanted one party rule, total state control of economic activity and even....yes.....racial purity.....Nice, Loin....you liked Minh, eh?

You too, Mike?

What about the Confederates, guys....you liked their views on race and class?

Truth, you are a wee bit sanctimonious. The Tillmans mother post was simply an experiment after being subjected to months of despicable posts by your boy, O Lielly. I was want to show myself how fast and hard the criticism would come. O Lielly is tolerated here by all the self righteous Bush Haters/ Olby lovers. Needless to say, my experiment showed me that you can dish it but you cannot take it. How about some consistancy?

on 2 September 1945, a day that marked the symbolic passing of the French colonial order in Vietnam, Liberty remained in place at one end of the Avenue Puginier. At the other end, a crowd of almost 400,000 people filled the Place Puginier, now renamed Ba Dinh Square by the new Vietnamese provisional government to honor a failed but tenacious Vietnamese battle against French colonial forces in the 1880s. From a raised wooden podium in front of the gouverneur-général's palace, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed Vietnam independent of French colonial rule. In his speech, which opened with quotations from the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Ho contrasted the revolutionary ideals of liberty with what he termed eighty years of French colonial oppression in Vietnam.

Joining the crowd of Vietnamese revolutionaries gathered in the square were a small group of American officers from the wartime OSS, one of whom had helped Ho Chi Minh ensure the words he borrowed from Thomas Jefferson about the meaning of liberty were accurately rendered. Ho closed his speech with a plea to the United States and Allied powers to recognize the right of the Vietnamese people to self-determination in the spirit of the wartime Tehran and San Francisco conferences where the principals animating the newly formed United Nations had emerged. "Vietnam," he concluded, "has the right to enjoy freedom and independence, and in fact has become a free and independent country."[3]

http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/bradley_imagining.html

Arcimedes Patti, and OSS agent dispatched to SE Asia by Wild Bill Donovan himself from a ship off the coast of Normandy in the days following the D-Day invasion, was there - having fought against the vichy French and the Japanese alongside Ho CHi Minh (designated "OSS Agent 19") and the nationalist Viet Minh. According to Patti, Ho repeatedly approached Truman seeking Americna patronage (even ofering Cam Ran bay as a base for the US military), but Truman was being squeezed by de Gaulle, who petulently demanded France's old colonies back or he would take his country into the Soviet sphere of influence. The dark-skinned people lost out in this contest. Within five years we were for some incomprehensible reason paying 85% of France's war-bill; and within nine years France's failed colonial war became our cold-war nightmare.

Today, as I have stated before, we are communist Vietnam's #1 trading partner. Should have happened in 1945.

Loin asks....

"Where was the "erosion of support" for WWII, with an iconic leftie in charge, no less? Perhaps this serial "erosion" is a factor of serial LIES that have initiated most AMerican militaryenterprises since WWII?"

###
The mutation of the left ocurred after 1964 to such a radical point towards Marxist ideology that FDR would not recognize his own party today, gents. The leftward shift of the democrats is so extreme and now blinded ideologically that no determination of who is America's enemy is capable by most of them......I mean really....to support Saddam Hussein now after all this time! Let alone Ho Chi Minh! Do you really thick FDR would?

That is why we even have neocons now...becuase of the severe radicalization of the left in this country, some of the more normal democrats could no longer stay democrats....hense the neoconservative movement.

WOW....you guys are even to blame for the very neocons you now complain so much about!

Yep....I can rely on Sir Loin of Milquetoast to show me what side not to align myself with ideologically!

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 10:35 PM

Absolutley! for someone with your debased morals and undisclosed irons in the fire, that is.

......I mean really....to support Saddam Hussein now after all this time! Let alone Ho Chi Minh! Do you really thick FDR would?

cee is now the troll. He has nothing. No one has supported Saddam since Reagan fixed him up so nicely.

Yes Loin, mistakes made by a democrat President could have been rectified in a military encounter with a communist....it does not change the behavior of your ideological comrades in the late 1960's.....despicable and wrong....Minh was a despot by the time LBJ engaged and he remained one...And people chose to support him and his communist buddies.

Tried and failed again....no republican right winger to blame this time, Loin....just a guy who was more scared of the communists than doing the right thing in the first place.

...and yes, prior to his death FDR clearly and explicitly supported Uncle Ho against the claims of the French.

"CEE: "The side you supported in Vietnam, Loin wanted one party rule, total state control of economic activity and even....yes....racial purity....Nice, Loin....you like Minh, eh?"

Cee, now that you're losing your rationality, your questions are taking on an equally irrational tone. Have you been drinking Cee?

First off, I was very much on OUR side during Vietnam, in the US Military no less, just as I am on our side in the Iraq conflict, though no longer in the military. Is that clear Cee?

The implication that because I believe we have no business sacrificing young American lives in the process of intervening in the internal affairs of far away countries that did not threaten or attack America....that I therefore must support the goals of their potential oppressors is both absurd and dispicable.

The fact that I believe America has no business trying to export it's goals, culture, and system of government by force in no way implies that I am in cahoots with suppressive idealologies, and your continued implication to the contrary is repugnant for someone with your stated stature and level of education.

Poor Sir Loin of Milquetoast....the leftist history pablum eating troll who desires a repeal of The US Constitution. It's replacement? Government controlled capital at will that was tried in so many wonderful places like....

Nazi Germany
Imperialist Japan
Soviet Russia

Yes....I want this too!

And Mike....The man who said he would have Saddam Hussein back if it was possible! His words not mine.....Boy what a night of lunacy.....

Time for sleep in a free nation that allows such irrational and crazy thought. God Bless America.

Stop the criminals!.....Impeach Bush and Cheney!

Stop the war...get the troops home....cut the funds NOW!

And this is my post today, the 1,552nd 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

There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

Truth, you are a wee bit sanctimonious. The Tillmans mother post was simply an experiment after being subjected to months of despicable posts by your boy, O Lielly. I was want to show myself how fast and hard the criticism would come. O Lielly is tolerated here by all the self righteous Bush Haters/ Olby lovers. Needless to say, my experiment showed me that you can dish it but you cannot take it. How about some consistancy?

Posted by: 20 20 Hindsight aka Falafel at July 30, 2007 10:51 PM

Thanks for at least owning up to the disturbingly noxious post 20/20.

I cannot keep track of who is posting under what names, and don't really care two shits about any social experiments you are making.

I also cannot speak for nor condone anything O'Leilly has posted for months. I am not O'Leilly and didn't read what you are claiming.
Whatever your strange motivations are, simply typing the words to get a charge out of people doesn't seem like anything other than ignorant to me.

Your "experiment" that showed you that I can "dish it out but not take it" did nothing of the kind.

It showed you that someone who posts a remark saying that "Tillman's mother deserves grief" is a moron, no matter what their justification.

"The implication that because I believe we have no business sacrificing young American lives in the process of intervening in the internal affairs of far away countries that did not threaten or attack America....that I therefore must support the goals of their potential oppressors is both absurd and dispicable.

The fact that I believe America has no business trying to export it's goals, culture, and system of government by force in no way implies that I am in cahoots with suppressive idealologies"

From my perspective, Mike, we are not "intervening"; we are creating from whole-cloth chaotic situations by which we can rationalize the very expensive (and therefore very profitable) mobilization of our forces. We are not even attempting to "export" any ideals; we are peripheralizing and bleeding a resource-rich region for the benefit of a corporate core - "Statist" Mercantilism at its most cynical and destructive.

The mutation of the left ocurred after 1964 to such a radical point towards Marxist ideology that FDR would not recognize his own party today, gents. The leftward shift of the democrats is so extreme and now blinded ideologically that no determination of who is America's enemy is capable by most of them......I mean really....to support Saddam Hussein now after all this time! Let alone Ho Chi Minh! Do you really thick FDR would?

That is why we even have neocons now...becuase of the severe radicalization of the left in this country, some of the more normal democrats could no longer stay democrats....hense the neoconservative movement.

WOW....you guys are even to blame for the very neocons you now complain so much about!

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 10:54 PM

Sure....
Most democrats are far-left lunatics that FDR wouldn't recognize.
I guess there's nothing like living in a FoxNews world, digesting every talking point they put out there.

"And Mike....the man who said he would like to have Saddam back if was possible!....his words not mine....boy what a night of lunacy...."

Boy I'll say, oh distorter of my words....but you're the one coming off like a lunatic, not us.

Now lets compare your position to my ACTUAL argument:

ME: I would gladly trade having Saddam back in power IF we could also retrieve the lives of those 4000 + young Americans and make all the horribkly disfigured ones whole again as part of the deal.

YOU: You however believe having this one despot gone who really wasn't much of a threat in hindsight is actually worth the sacrifice of all those OTHER Americans.

You speak of God often Cee....I'd place my bets that God would side with me on that question.

Tell me Cee....would it be worth YOUR sacrifice?.....your son's?.....your daughter's?

I love it when neocons pretend to respect FDR - hell, they can't even stand to read the communistic speeches of Eisenhower!

Sir Loin, you are definitely more cynical than I am but I can't discount much of what you say.

What many on this blog probably won't even believe is that I have two very conservative close relatives who are also fundentalist Christians who are even more cynical of our motives and goals than you are.

What is both sad and funny at the same time is the continual revival of the right wing "you are either for us or against us" mentality that keeps popping it's ugly head up over and over these days, as Cee just demonstrated once again vividly tonight.

Tell me Cee....would it be worth YOUR sacrifice?.....your son's?.....your daughter's?

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 11:20 PM

Ah, but Mike, you forget that cee has already blamed "leftists" for his failure to face the obligations of his citizenship and philosophy:

This has not happened since WWII and it will not occur again since the rise of the political left in this country since the 1960's. Our entitlement society does not support such commitment and "sacrifice" is no longer in the lexicon.

Posted by: cee at July 30, 2007 4:10 PM

So how can we expect cee to make his actions match his votes and rhetoric after WE have destroyed the very concept of sacrifice?

What a tool the little doctor is.

What is both sad and funny at the same time is the continual revival of the right wing "you are either for us or against us" mentality that keeps popping it's ugly head up over and over these days, as Cee just demonstrated once again vividly tonight.

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 11:27 PM

My overwhelming impression of the cocksucker is that he believes nothing he writes - he "automatically gainsays" (per Monty Python's notorious "Arguments" skit) everything merely to stay in the game. His last several posts, in fact seem to consitute his rapid-fire shifting of positions, facts, and premises merely to the end of laughing at us in a pathetic attempt at ego-protection.

...and not that I would wish cynicism on anyone; but I consider the state of our constiutional republic to be very, very dire. Unregulated capitalism, as forwarned by Eisenhower, is clearly to blame, and cee and his ilk for some reason desire our utter slavery to expatriot corporations.

I will continue to try to convince you of our emergency, while I merely wish to pester the shit out of mystery-dick cee, who is my unredeemable ideological enemy.

Every time I read an inane comment like this from a right winger, it is further proof that I am on the correct side.

Posted by: Mike at July 30, 2007 6:13 PM

What the FUCK ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT, CEE?

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 30, 2007 6:07 PM

Why in the world would anyone want to fight in this war ? The nice thing to know is that at least the people that die are supporters of the war and the military. The brave soldiers should head to Washington DC and turn their weapons on those who supported this war..

Posted by: Bill O'lielly at July 30, 2007 5:32 PM

Crickets.........

Another pronouncement on my personal worth by Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Why....Oh dear, what am I to do?

Once again, similar to the conclusions of such brain-trust philosophers like Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Minh, etc about their fellow human travelers ....more humanists deem someone "unredeemable" or "mad." The natural conclusion to a world-view that gives us those entertaining conspiracy theories about economic manipulation and terrorist motives.

No rebuttal to the fact repeated that the ideology of those these fine philosophers are praising are responsible for the death and destruction in the first place.

Oh and of course Mike retreats back to the proud blind pronouncement that he does not support the real ends of terrorists currently shooting at those troops he supports, although he demands the immediate presentation of Iraq and its people to the small radical elements.

The unhinged minority left....It is wonderful such a site allows their bloviating. Keith Olbermann would be proud.

And Why....don't be too sad....when the democrats fail again to cut the war's funding after September, OW will still be here for you to excuse the action and continue to scream about whatever you want to scream about. Same with you, Loin and Mike....And after the anemic anti-war protests come this fall, you can return and still tell me how much support your failed and pathetic world-views have among "real Americans."

Oh, and remember I did say the lessons of Vietnam were not learned....George McGovern is a perfect example of that.....Failed political ideology and one's own political power continue to be more inportant to the left than the lives of your fellow....whether they be Iraqi, American or Asian.....You are making those mentioned above proud!

Keep up the good work!

Cee: "oh and of course Mike retreats back to the proud blind pronouncement that he does not support the real ends of terrorists currently shooting at the troops he supports, although he demands the immediate presentation of Iraq to these small radical elements":

We allowed these "small radical elements" to gain a foothold the moment we invaded an alien land we don't belong.

There is NO compelling evidence that leaving will necessarily be "presenting Iraq" to those elements. Many signs point the opposite way. Your intrinsically wrong statement is simply your embracement of the latest Neocon talking point....You know, those very SAME Neocpns who have been wrong about everything to date, yet they STILL expect us to continue to listen to their prognostications.
---------------------------------------------

Cee: "Oh, and remember I did say the lessons of Vietnam were not learned....":

Yes, you DID say that, but how could we have known before 2002 that there were so many destructive people such as yourself who had learned all the WRONG lessons from Vietnam?

My overwhelming impression of the cocksucker is that he believes nothing he writes - slob

More of the ilk "mike" is proud to be associated with........"I'm on the right side!" says he.

Yes, you DID say that, but how could we have known before 2002 that there were so many destructive people such as yourself who had learned all the WRONG lessons from Vietnam?

Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2007 11:21 AM

The lessons of Vietnam are same lessons to be learned from Orwell's "1984" - that fear can clamp down entire poulations and that there is a lot of money and power to be grabbed through the deaths of decieved and misled citizens.

It seems the ONLY people who have learned these lessons are cee's masters.

Yep...."1984" under the ideological friends of Loin and Mike.....

"After the southern part of Vietnam was liberated, those people who had worked for and cooperated with the former government presented themselves to the new government. Thanks to the policy of humanity, clemency and national reconciliation of the State of Vietnam, these people were not punished.

"Some of them were admitted to re-education facilities in order to enable them to repent their mistakes and reintegrate themselves into the community."

###
Yes....please Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Mike....please continue to support people who choose to re-educate their fellows so that their ideological views match those with the wise left!

"165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.

"Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.

"At least 150 re-education prisons were built after Saigon fell 26 years ago.

"One in three South Vietnamese families had a relative in a re-education camp"

http://www.dartcenter.org/dartaward/2002/hm3/01.html

###
I believe everything I post, Loin, like you do. I choose not to dehumanize my opponent but simply address the idea, right or wrong, that is represented by the poster....You and Mike have shown utter arrogant contempt for your fellow human beings, and that is also your right. Using dehumaning words, judging worth. It is a common attribute from your ideological group and is why it is so important to address the technique on boards such as this. Keep being honest to yourself, gents....you keep proving my point.

Cee: "You and Mike have shown utter arrogant contempt for your fellow human beings"

THIS....from the same deluded individual who implied everyone unsupportive of the occupation are somehow allied with and must therefore must be supportive of the idealogies of the communists, the jihadists, Minh, Marx, Mao, Stalin.....and then you even even the overly used Hitler metaphor.

Cee.....YOU then have the utter gall to come back and claim that all you have done is "address the idea", and WE are the dehumanizers? For God's sake Cee, for once in your life, look in the damned mirror!

If you'll recall, good doctor Cee, I even objected one time to your demeaning characterizations by reminding you that I could have just as easily called you a Nazi by using your simplistic black/white reasoning.....but I chose not to do that....for reasons of civility.

According to you Cee, who has many other dehumanizing words to describe me and others by labeling us as "unhinged", "bloviating", "mad", along many other uncalled for characterizations ....simply because we have the nerve to disaagree with your lunacy based world view that seems to imply that we must first create utter choas in order to create eventual stabiltiy.

Unapologetic hypocrisy also seems to be a part of an imperial worldview that you have bought into hook, line, and sinker.

What an idiot turd you are, get a life and get out of this room. Your blowhard activity in here only proves our points, All Olbyloons are idiots
Go worship your orange leftist bathtub boy leader and I dont know how many times I need to tell you, get a life, get a girl, go do something of note somewhere

Now THAT was a really intelligent post at 12:46 above.

Why, it makes me wanna be just like you!

By the way chickenposter, I've GOT a girl (as well as a life)....a girl who's been with me for 22 years.

I think you were on catch a predator the other night, screename mikeblowsolbermann69style

Just a little peek at mrs. philby/rudyramirez, slobs and mikes hero.

Stanley Cohen: Terrorist Mouthpiece

He is known as the people’s attorney. At least, that is how the Revolutionary Worker refers to Stanley Cohen. For them Cohen is "a long- time people's lawyer beloved by many for his uncompromising willingness to provide legal defense for the unpopular, …and those U.S. imperialism may feel should be "tried" with no defense at all. "

Stanley Cohen is the partner of another "people’s lawyer," Lynne Stewart-who was indicted for assisting Sheik Abdel Rahman, the terrorist convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center incident. Like Stewart, Cohen represents anti-American terrorist organizations. Like Stewart, Cohen’s route to becoming a barrister was circuitous.

The son of a bookkeeper mother and a salesman father, Cohen did not want to become a lawyer. Before going to law school, he operated legal services project on Indian reservations in Nebraska, an anti-poverty program, and he was a VISTA worker. Afterwards he went to Pace University law school.

During the early eighties, Cohen joined Stewart to be part of Kathy Boudin’s legal team. Boudin was a member of the terrorist Weather Underground in the 1970s and then joined the May 19 Communist Organization. She and her husband are presently serving long sentences for their role in the a Brink’s robbery whose purpose was to get money to finance a war against "Amerikka" and set up a "Republic of Black Afrika" in the United States. Two police officers and a security guard were killed in the course of that holdup.

Cohen claims that after his picture appeared in the Voice, and after the JDO recorded the voice-mail message, he began "receiving hundreds of phone threats, including faxed threats from Israel." He said that during his defense of Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, he got about a dozen faxed threats from Israel; this time he received half that amount. The venomous protests call for this "self-hating Jew" to be "blown up" and "thrown out with the rest of the Arab trash you represent." Cohen has hardened in the face of the threats. "If Osama bin Laden arrived in the United States today and asked me to represent him, sure I'd represent him," he vows.

You are an idiot, Monsieur Royale, a tenacious idiot, but a true idiot. What part of "Rule of Law" and "ethical obligation" do you not understand. Mr. Cohen is protecting the Rule of Law against RW lynchmobs, and he is adhering to the oath he take as an attorney. Good heavens, dimwit, how many times have you heard, "You have a right to an attorney."? Do you not understand "right," either?

You are also a liar. I have read three (3), I believe, comments on this O'Hannity hatchet job of yours. No one said that Cohen was his or her hero. I specifically said that I was not all that fond of him, and that I found most of his clients loathsome. Why do you fabricate crap just to support your extreme RW fringe positions? I can only imagine you can't find any support for these radical right positions in mainstream America, or you are simply a pathological liar.

Your shortcomings as a human being are of no particular interest to me, but when you attack the Rule of Law in America and when you attack professional ethics, I am going to call you on it every time. Get use to it.

To be sure, you never say, "I hate the Rule of Law in America." You just attack it tangentially through a person or event, your modus operandi, and when you get called on it, you go whine to Cee or Ms. Hawkins or Cecelia, "Wah! Wah! Wah! Clucker's saying bad things about me." Clucker is going to continuing saying bad things about you until you stop attacking those things that make America - America.

Need proof you attack America. Cut-and-paste your post. Download it. Save it. We all know you know how to cut-and-paste. Look at it from time-to-tim.

Shame on you! Shame!

You are an idiot, Monsieur Royale, a tenacious idiot, but a true idiot. What part of "Rule of Law" and "ethical obligation" do you not understand. Mr. Cohen is protecting the Rule of Law against RW lynchmobs, and he is adhering to the oath he take as an attorney. Good heavens, dimwit, how many times have you heard, "You have a right to an attorney."? Do you not understand "right," either?

You are also a liar. I have read three (3), I believe, comments on this O'Hannity hatchet job of yours. No one said that Cohen was his or her hero. I specifically said that I was not all that fond of him, and that I found most of his clients loathsome. Why do you fabricate crap just to support your extreme RW fringe positions? I can only imagine you can't find any support for these radical right positions in mainstream America, or you are simply a pathological liar.

Your shortcomings as a human being are of no particular interest to me, but when you attack the Rule of Law in America and when you attack professional ethics, I am going to call you on it every time. Get use to it.

To be sure, you never say, "I hate the Rule of Law in America." You just attack it tangentially through a person or event, your modus operandi, and when you get called on it, you go whine to Cee or Ms. Hawkins or Cecelia, "Wah! Wah! Wah! Clucker's saying bad things about me." Clucker is going to continuing saying bad things about you until you stop attacking those things that make America - America.

Need proof you attack America. Cut-and-paste your post. Download it. Save it. We all know you know how to cut-and-paste. Look at it from time-to-time.

Shame on you! Shame!

your modus operandi, and when you get called on it, you go whine to Cee or Ms. Hawkins or Cecelia, "Wah! Wah! Wah!

mrs. philby/rudy ramirez

Who's makin shit up? That would be you. Your cohort, aap/why/anon is the one that whines like a 1 yr old. Still running from this?

Wasn't Joker Jeff and isn't Jeff Monsieur Royale?

I may be confused. It's hard to keep up with some of these slimey ones.

Posted by: mrs. philby/rudyramirez at July 29, 2007 10:40 PM

Wrong on both, clucker/mrs.philby/rudy ramirez. The irony, you accusing me of using other names.......did you consider yourself "slimey" when you were doing it?

Clucker,

Just like with rk, cee will frequently display his archaic neocon worldview in regard to the individual's relationship with his government. He will often refer derisively or condescendingly to "the mob", and how it must be "swayed" or "controlled". Its pristine Straussianism, which in turn is merely the self-serving interpretation of Plato via school-boy vanity. They believe that it is justified for the "leaders" of a society (i.e. the little toads behind the throne) to lie to people in order to motivate them - with fear, superstition, or nationalism, whatever is most effective in a given situation.

Strauss taught Irving Kristol (Billy's dad), whichever one of those Kagans that is the old man, and Bill Bennett. Gingrich studied under some of Strauss's students. Why do you think Newt is alway fucking around with those "alternate histories" - he's practicing how to effectively say things like "Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia".

Everytime cee outs his self-image as a precious member of this cerebral aristocracy I try to elicit his opinions regarding demoracy, but he always demures, and then calls me a Stalinist.

According to the Justice Department, the Arabic-speaking Rahman worked through a handful of trusted comrades. All are Arab men with the exception of his lawyer: a dumpy American woman named Lynne Stewart.

Here, housed in a four-story office building in lower Manhattan, is the nexus between fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and the American far left. The law office Stewart shares with another attorney, Stanley Cohen, is part of the core of legal activism in support of jihadist terrorists who have sworn to kill Americans. Under the law, terrorists are entitled to legal representation and they get it.

Stewart's arrest on April 8, however, may have brought her activist legal career full circle while raising questions about a network of lawyers, militants and terrorists who reportedly have cooperated in the United States since the 1960s.

Monsieur Royale:

A mind like a can of sauerkraut .... Closed for most its life and stinks when it's finally opened.

BTW: You never did say why you hate the Rule of Law in America, but don't worry. I think America does best when your mouth remains shut.

Wah! Clucker! Wah! Mike. Wah! AAP. Wah! SLOB. Wah! Wah! Wah!

BTW,mrs. philby, you're still running from this....

Wrong on both, clucker/mrs.philby/rudy ramirez. The irony, you accusing me of using other names.......did you consider yourself "slimey" when you were doing it?

Posted by: royalking at July 31, 2007 1:51 PM

The ultimate irony:

He who runs and cowers at every question asked him (never has answered why he hates the troops, on the table since Spring), is so impatient when anyone doesn't answer a question EVEN WHEN THE QUESTION IS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM OR HER.

Idiot.

But for what it is worth: You are slimy whether you use multiple names or not. Using a multiple name alone doesn't make anyone slimy. Marion Morrison and Frances Ethel Gumm weren't slimy.

mrs. philby, I see when backed into a corner in the fetal postion, you resort to making shit up. Did I ever say I "hated the troops?" No, liar. I support and appreciate our troops 100%, unlike yourself and a couple of others here. I host and attend welcome home parties to show my support, do you? Hell no. You wouldn't be welcome at at "welcome home party." One of your cohorts claimed multiple times he "supports our troops" but never could tell us how he supported our troops even when I asked the question at least 10 times, you never said shit about him, why? Because he's a socialist, like you? Must be. Get lost, slime.

Jeff to Clucker: "I see when backed into a corner in the fetal position, you resort to making shit up."

Who "backed Clucker into the fetal position" Jeff? Certainly not YOU!

doing that would be totally beyond whatever limited cranial ability God gave you.

That must have occured on a Friday near quitting time!

Dear Lord the Welcome Home Party story, again! More old stories than TMC.

The first time I see you collecting money to get a family to some remote hellhole of an Army or Veterans' Hospital to visit a badly injured family member, or driving a Mother left behind to the store, or buying and sending therapeutic devices and books to soldiers in the hospital, then I might listen to your idiotic blather. Go ahead. Go to another party and yuck it up, you stereotypical Chickenhawk. The troops I have met probably laugh their heads off as soon as you leave them alone and go to the next room.

I am thoroughly sick of your cowardice and your posturing. Don't ask me another question. I won't answer it, and I may not be as controlled in my response next time.

Welcome Home Party, indeed. More like Chickenhawk steps out.

Another one of mikes posts loaded with "substance." Step away from the bong, mikey. It's become quite clear you don't support our troops. Just another lie to add to your ever growing list.

The first time I see you collecting money to get a family to some remote hellhole of an Army or Veterans' Hospital to visit a badly injured family member, or driving a Mother left behind to the store, or buying and sending therapeutic devices and books to soldiers in the hospital, then I might listen to your idiotic blather mrs. philby

Have you done any of the above? I think not.

Jeff, obviously describing me: "Becuse he's a socialist, like you"

LMAO! Wow, stupidity isn't supposed to be this fun!

Sure Jeff...here I am, the so called 'socialist',....making my living as a filthy money grubbing capitalist busnessman.

And Clucker, please don't waste your anger on this dimwit...He can't help being this stupid! God made him the way he is.

mrs. philby, you better do what preacher mike says, he makes the rules here, you know! He has made hundreds of posts with not a shred of evidence to back his spew, but, demands other posters have evidence. Claimed over and over he supports the troops, yet, runs full speed when asked in what way he supports the troops. Quite the hypocrite and coward, indeed. Keep banging "needless deaths" over and over while claiming to support our troops, ok?

Have you done any of the above? I think not.
------
Absolutely. I have. My wife has. My daughter has. My daughter-in-law has. My neighbors have. My parish has. I think we realize that talk, especially from a notorious Chicken Hawk like you, is very cheap. Action and interaction, particularly the interaction is tough, demanding, but so very, very rewarding. A far more tangible way of saying, we honor your committment, we appreciate your sacrifice than tanking up at the tavern and waving the flag longer and with more movement than the other brave stool-setters.

You see, I can't ignore all of this. An hour and a half in one direction, some of the largest military medical complexes in the country; and hour and a half in the other direction, a large VA hospital and the largest Army base in the world. I can't ignore these people as you do. I don't have that luxury. I wouldn't want to ignore them.

Would you like me to send you a list of therapeutic devices that the Army and the VA can't afford to or refuse to buy? I can even give you suppliers. A few clicks, and you have actually helped someone. Or would that interfere with your Welcome Home Party schedule?

Or I can set you up with the nearest Army or VA hospital, and you can go visit some of these very brave young men and women. Who knows? It might just make your vicarious enjoyment of the battle front and the Occupation a little less macabre. It might just be your chance to really do something for these men and women.

making my living as a filthy money grubbing capitalist busnessman

Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2007 7:42 PM

"Money grubbing?" Doubt it. People that constantly complain about the economy aren't grubbing very much money. I'm guessing your "beautiful" and "intelligent" wife is the bread winner in your trailer park. "Capitalist?" Can an envelope stuffer be a capitalist? Not sure. "Busnessman?" Not sure what that is, I'll let you slide on that.......

A "busnessman" is a business man joined by a typographical error. I think we all knew that.

More inane Jeffisms: "People that constantly complain about the economy arn't grubbing very much money."

And does this mean are you accusing ME of "constantly complaining about the economy"? You are LYING again Jeff!....Show me where I have been "constantly complaining about the economy".

Jeff, can't you just stick to being a plain ole moron?....Do you have to be a liar too?
----------------------------------------------
"I'm guessing your "beautiful" and "intelligent" wife is the bread winner in your trailer."

Well she does buy the bread. In fact, she's probably going grocery shopping again tomorrow (when most folks are working). But she doesn't spend a lot of time in the trailer park...thats ten miles down the road because trailers simply arn't allowed anywhere near this neighborhood.

Jeff is a moron, but we can see a lot of the right wing stereotypes dripping in most of his posts. Others might disquise it better, and that is where people like Jeff are often of service.

For instance, when he states that "people that constantly complain about the economy arn't grubbing much money", he is putting into words the selfish stereotypical right wing belief of many that anyone who is themselves benefiting from the economy couldn't possibly criticize it as well.

Well that's where your wrong again dummy. SOME people ARE capable of having empathy for others not as fortunate as themselves, EVEN THOUGH they don't personally share their plight. It's the "there but for the grace of God go I" mindset, which I'm quite certain is an incomprehensible concept to someone as selfish as yourself.

Jeff, You also once again identified yourself as a racist or sorts once again with your equally inane comment about my "wife being the bread winner in our trailer park". That is actually a very prejudgicial, selfish, and yes, possibly even a racist statement....but it fits your self centered demeanor perfectly.

So Jeff, does that mean you think you are somehow better than someone who does live in a trailor? Would that make them less of a human being to you? Would you feel 'superior' to them in some way? Does that make them a 'redneck'?

In addition to being a lying moron Jeff....you really are one disgusting human being....right down to your rotten core!

Fortunately, I DON'T believe every right winger is like Jeff.

"Admiral Mullens:
"There are no amount of troops in no amount of time" (that will make things better in Iraq)"

He did? Where and when?

Grammie

...thats ten miles down the road because trailers simply arn't allowed anywhere near this neighborhood.

Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2007 8:20 PM

So Jeff, does that mean you think you are somehow better than someone who does live in a trailor? Would that make them less of a human being to you? Would you feel 'superior' to them in some way? Does that make them a 'redneck'?

Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2007 8:43 PM

Foot in mouth........P.S. I knew you had it in ya, why/patsy/anon, I thought we were going to get through a day without one of your "defeatocrat" posts. I was wrong. Thanks, Bob!

"Admiral Mullens:
"There are no amount of troops in no amount of time" (that will make things better in Iraq).......
Posted by: Why do U care ? at July 31, 2007 9:34 PM"

Second time around for my question re Admiral Mullens (sic):

"He did? Where and when?

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 31, 2007 10:44 PM"

I care Why don't U care?

"Oh, yes... the lefties lost Viet... just like they are losing Iraq."

###
AAP...who cut the funds to South Vietnam that ended our alliance with them in 1974?

The Democrats in Congress.

Yes, Vietnam was an ideological war that ended in the left winning....the communists took over a democratically elected and capitalist nation......

So I do see the result of Vietnam as the responsibility of "the left." Any other concluison is a political lie to make oneself feel good.

And who is asking we withdraw from Iraq IMMEDIETELY despite what most respected military and political advisors are recommending?

The left-wing of the democrat party that is pulling the rest of the imps to the left.

Oh, and AAP....do some research before you call me a fascist....I would not choose ANY state control over economic issues whether it be "right-wing" or "left-wing." Read my posts. In point of fact, Sir Loin of Milquetoast is more aligned with fascist ideology of "STATE POWER GOOD!" than I am.

umm...the left started it and ended it...dumbass...and who said immediately? you know its 2007 right...

I've been responding to a lunatic all this time. Jeff's 10:45 post proves it.

In the past, when he has copied quotes and then followed them with an inane, seemingly unrelated comment, I thought that even though I couldn't follow his wierd logic, it must have at least mean't something to him?

I was wrong.

Jeff is just babbling!

Citation to a transcript please.

You used quotation marks beginning with Admiral 'Mullens', which was misspelled, and made no citation.

You don't feel that you should provide the source for where your so called quotes come from?

I care Why don't U care?

He may well have said it. Who knows?

I care Why don't U care?

Hey Jeff, exactly which mental hospital did u escape from?

-----

It wasn't as much escaping as being expelled. The staff was afraid the other patients might begin to emulate him, and the administrators were afraid the staff would immolate him.

Well, Chicken Blogger, I notice your citation does not have an Admiral, a Mullens (sic), a Mullins or a Chief of Staff.

So, what's the big problem?

If you provide the quotation why not the citation that it came from? Careless certainly used quotation marks to indicate he was quoting.

I always do. That seems basic to me. What is the problem with answering a request for a citation when one has carelessly, or could it be maliciously, left it out?

I care Why don't U care

Foot in mouth........P.S. I knew you had it in ya, why/patsy/anon, I thought we were going to get through a day without one of your "defeatocrat" posts. I was wrong. Thanks, Bob!

Posted by: royalking at July 31, 2007 10:45 PM

This is called multi-debunking. Something an olbyloon/socialist couldn't dream of accomplishing. Sorry, I confused you loons by throwing too much info at once. Maybe lamo/dicknixon or mrs. philby/rudyramirez/clucker can break down the post for you........

For all the words, excuses and approbation heaped on me it is telling that no one will provide a citation other than to tell me to watch KO.

A simple request for the citation and additional info, hopefully, from the source being cited turns into a referendum on my moral and mental state.

I care, Why don't U care

My son-in-law is in law enforcement. I'll be glad to send him right over with your citation, Ms. Hawkins. Third gingerbread house on the right, as I recall?

Grammie won't believe anything unless you rub her nose in it.

Then she STILL won't.

Now listen very carefully, Jeff. Slowly step away from those knives before you really hurt yourself.
-----
You're going to confuse him. His mother always encouraged him to run with scissors.