Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Countdown with Keith Olbermann

By codas on August 1, 2007 2:33 AM

Hey! What the fucks up man.

By Olberma bin Laden on August 1, 2007 3:10 AM

Whining about nekkid wimmins in Rupert's newspaper and then showing and in-depth investigation of strippers on a golf course. Priceless.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 7:56 AM

Hey E Schits, do the honorable thing and resign. We are tired of your half assed efforts.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 8:41 AM

I was surprised to hear Rachel Maddow complain about the nude women in Murdoch's newspapers.

By Laura Bush on August 1, 2007 8:48 AM

Watching Olbyshitter and the dawg from Air America ridicule Murdoch looked more like a couple of one years their mothers just snatched the bottle out of their mouths.

It's real amusing to watch Olbyshitter, a man who is served up as a sacrifical lamb to fill in a slot MSNBC knows they can not compete and a man that is willing to be a loser and come in second or worse every night because most others are too smart to take on O'Reilly and some bitch liberal on some joke radio program living on a life line criticize a billionaire. It's pathetically comical. He is a man that has won at everything he has done and these two losers criticize him. Bwahahahahahahaha.

There is a reason people get rich. They are smarter than everyone else, they studies and went to school and they work harder. Two days ago Mikey Lussy said that I was an idiot because I bragged about the econmy as if it was the only indicator of what I consider right in America.

Well, um.......... no. I, unlike Mikey Lussy, baldheadedrat, codas, o'lielly, AAP Lussy, SLOB expect my government to protect me and my family and see that my rights are not violated. I'm not looking for a handout like liberals. I don;t expect anything from my government. I realize, visualize, understand, comprehend, see with my own friggin eye balls every single person can make it on his own and make it big. I also realize ye are t4eh capatain of ye own ship. If you are piloting a dinghy like Mikey or AAP and you can't keep afloat and have problems today, you truely are a loser.

By Laura Bush on August 1, 2007 9:04 AM

Got home a little early last night and flipped over to see Mathews whine about George Bush for a few laughs and I see Mike Barnacle. He had a liberal (some some idiots elected to fill the shoes of a congressman) and a Republican US Congressman (Cannon)on discussing what else, AG. I didn't catch what states they were from. The liberal just fired away like a Tommy gun firing his "liar this and liar that accusations and half-truths. Barnacle says nothing and allows the Republican to speak. The Republican says that is just not true. Barnacle says "What part is not true, can you prove it".

What a pack of shit. He lets this lying liberal fire off his big whooping mouth and doesn't question him once on his allegations and then he puts the burden of proof on the Republican.

Well, doing my best Ron Reagan impersonation, this is the United States of America and:

1. We are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

3. Barnacle is just another chump preaching for a third rate liberal bised network sinking like a rock.

4. When I hear a US Senator like Feingold who could not stand up to the questioning of Chris Wallace and say the President should be censured or impeached because he "BELIEVES" he has broken the law, I say it's getting time for a real million man march on the Mall in DC. Wisconisn residents have to be some stupid son of a bitches to vote for this moron and turn him loose ont eh American people. It's stupid fucks like this that will get more Americans killed.

Liberals are fags.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 9:24 AM

Laura,

For a male that uses a woman's name, I wouldn't be throwing the word "fag" around much, son...

As for your "burden of proof" comments. It certainly doesn't go for the prisonors at Guantanamo, does it, child? Apparently, it only goes for crooked Republicans.

The problem is, son: When your philosophy is to earn money is the highest priority, you aren't breeding patriots...

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 9:57 AM

prisonors at Guantanamo?

You mean foreign combatants- not citizens getting their rights. Shaddup you terroist loving apologist!

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 10:09 AM

You see, son. They may be terrorists, child. But how do you know that, son?

Just because they have been caught on the battle field, yelling "praise Islam, Death to America" with a AK-47 in their sweaty hands they should receive the same rights as our natural born citizens, son. There is no war anymore in the middleast and therefore enemy combatants should be released to their home countries, child. Can you comprehend that, boy? And don't say that we have already caught released prisonners back out on the battlefield, son.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 10:10 AM

I mean the prisoners whose population, even our government admits, is at least half innocent people, dimwit...

By Macjoubert on August 1, 2007 10:15 AM

blindrat - No they should not, because they are held in military jurisdiction. Rights guaranteed under the constitution are NOT available to them.
Of course until the left gets their way and closes Guant... whereby they will indeed be tried in civil courts.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 10:19 AM

what crap- our government admits that half are innocent? You eat and spit out lefty dribble way to often!

By Katy Turic on August 1, 2007 10:31 AM

Musto's down on Phil's "loaded gun"
He'll gargle when the shooting is done
Maddow and Musto
Bizarre freak show
Keith's guests are a cesspool of fun

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 10:31 AM

"...The remarks by Army Brig. Gen. Martin Lucenti in yesterday's edition of London's Financial Times appeared to conflict with past comments by U.S. military commanders who have stressed the value of the information obtained from the detainees and the danger many would pose if released.

"Of the 550 [detainees] that we have, I would say most of them, the majority of them, will either be released or transferred to their own countries," Lucenti was quoted as saying in the British newspaper. "Most of these guys weren't fighting. They were running. Even if somebody has been found to be an enemy combatant, many of them will be released because they will be of low intelligence value and low threat status..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9626-2004Oct5.html

"...Of the roughly 385 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. But the judicial process has likewise moved at a glacial pace, largely because of constitutional legal challenges..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_2.html?nav=rss_print/asection

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 10:38 AM

TYPICAL RAT! Three year old articles from 2004-
show that they had 550 detainees in 2004 and then they released almost 200 they did not think were a risk. To which more than 10% have been caught again in Afghanistan or Iraq. So why give them rights?

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 10:41 AM

The second article was from April of this year, genius...

By *Zizwheel on August 1, 2007 10:55 AM

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

By ? on August 1, 2007 10:57 AM

If you want a solution to Gitmo and POW/Illegal detainee inprove the HUMINT collection in the middle east by employing the shadier side of their society.

The US intelligence monolith can't get out of its own way and refuses to reform itself due to career managers fighting their DC turf wars. On top of that we have restriction upon restriction on who we'll even hire for needed positions in these agencies.

The result, field troops in the Sandbox are forced fed Target of Interest missions and play snatch and grab with any dark skin male who avoids a roadblock or keeps a rifle under his bed.

Somehow we figured out how to do this for 50 years when the opponent was white and european. Suddenly the people look different, the religion is strange and the US intelligence program goes dumb. Is it me or maybe ivy league WASPs aren't the right choice to be leading this country.

And yet the dream of every parent is to send their kid to Harvard, Yale of Princeton. How fucked is that?

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 11:01 AM

If you want a solution to Gitmo, here's an idea: Put the occupants on trial. Unless they were arrested for no reason, there should exist evidence against them, eh?...

By Mike is actually Michael Musto on August 1, 2007 11:06 AM

Olbermann and Mike / Michael Musto what a combo...

The Mike that posts here is Michael Musto, that explains alot

By ? on August 1, 2007 11:16 AM

This whole thing is just f'ed.

Of course you could try them in a military venue, where the outcome would be assured.

You could also release them with tracking devices and have a local assinate them them as soon as they arrive at the first dirt ridden town.

Or could also just let them go free. We don't know who we're fighting now so what's the difference? What, are we holding the Muslim Macgyver who'll build a nuke out of camel dung and a rock? Suitcases are available on the market now.

I don't know what left and right are fighting about on this issue. The legal system is easily rigged but somehow we still all swear by it. Just do it and end this discussion.

By Sharon on August 1, 2007 11:20 AM

Guantanamo cell is better than freedom, says inmate fighting against release
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2169795.ece

-"Mr Belbacha claims that in July 2001 he was persuaded by friends to go to Pakistan to undertake religious study. While there he crossed the border into Afghanistan."

Now, what do you suppose his mindset was? He claims he went back to Pakistan after the war commenced but was turned in for bounty money. The guy was allowed to stay in Britain pending the outcome of his asylum application but was persuaded to "undertake religious study." He associated with the Taliban, got caught, was deemed pretty insignificant, and now he doesn't want to go back to Algiers. The Brits won't intervene.

He would rather be at Gitmo.

By Sharon on August 1, 2007 11:21 AM

If you want the full story, read it.

By Janet Hawkins on August 1, 2007 11:24 AM

Sharon, good to see you again.

I went to your link from the other for the article by C Hitchens. Thanks, I enjoyed it and especially the news in it.

I watched one of the Galloway/Hitchens debates on C-SPAN, I think.

I can well understand Galloway's refusal to debate him anymore.

Grammie

By royalking on August 1, 2007 11:44 AM

Just another day at OW, blindbat is defending our enemy tooth and nail. No surprises, here.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 11:52 AM

rk,

I just recommended that they be tried, son. Are you stupid or a performance artist?...

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 11:58 AM

"Three year old articles from 2004-show that they had 550 detainees in 2004 and then they released almost 200 they did not think were a risk. To which more than 10% have been caught again in Afghanistan or Iraq. So why give them rights?"
Posted by: at August 1, 2007 10:38 AM

Because we're supposed to be spreading thing called democracy, remember; and we're supposed be one too.

Of course, right now that's academic. Without habeas corpus, no one in Gitmo or any of us (even Paris Hilton) for that matter, has the right to petition the court for a trial.

Neat trick! Thanks, GOP!

By benson on August 1, 2007 12:03 PM

The majority of Gitmo detainees came from Afghanistan. Ask the 23 Korean hostages that our Taliban enemies have about Habeas Corpus. Does "Habeas Corpus" mean "headless corpses"?

I rest my case. These assholes don't deserve these sacred rights. Oops. I mean 21 hostages not 23 - that is how many hostages remain.

By Macjoubert on August 1, 2007 12:08 PM

benson - well said, cant say it enough, Blindrat will probably see better if his son or daughter is caught by the peace and loving Taliban.

By iseenooothing on August 1, 2007 12:15 PM

Hey girlie boy blindasabat. At least yo moma got your name right there, girlie-boy.

By benson on August 1, 2007 12:16 PM

Unfortunately- I do see blindrat's side, but heavily disagree with it in these times. I just would like to error on the side of protecting our troops in the field. Just last week a Gitmo released prisonner blew himself up after being cornbered by our troops. Who knows how many soldiers he had maimed or killed before we got him a second time.

At the same time- I am sure there is a Gitmo released prisonner who is a peacefully growing poppy in the north. But lets not go crazy and give these guys caught in the field the basic assumptions that they are peace loving. The majority are in Gitmo because they were bearing arms.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 12:23 PM

ok, I got it now, benson.

So, we're not spreading democracy in the ME afterall.
Color me shocked.

So, what motivates your party to continuously lie about it?

By ? on August 1, 2007 12:27 PM

Considering there are two political parties running the country, GITMO is everyone's shit sandwich.

While I have no problem with torture or limited secret detention this thing is just sitting on the edge of Cuba like a turd. We need the facility long term but we have to move forward in justifying keeping people there. Trials would make it legit. Even, God forbid, if they were just show trials. Release a few, imprison the rest and move on.

Look, if you love everything the president and congress are doing, there is no issue in pressing for improvements and change.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 12:38 PM

You can't trade constitutional rights for security. Some people from Afghanistan cut some people's heads off is no basis for denying the vast majority of them the right to a trial.

Tough times force people to show whether or not they are sheep giving up freedom for security (and winding up in a pie later) or men...

By ? on August 1, 2007 12:38 PM

Are you stupid or a performance artist?...

I'm stealing that one.

By benson on August 1, 2007 12:39 PM

In response to speading democracy... What does not giving trials to enemy combatants have to do with spreading democracy? There are plenty of democracies THAT DO NOT RESEMBLE ours. And during war, (Bush's War- remember?) the prisonners do not deserve these rights. Prisonners - not citizens. So where do you get lost?

You bitter democrats want your cake and eat it too. Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq is something you wince at everytime you see it. Having the Taliban pushed into the mountains and Saddam six feet under is a step in the right direction- but you continue to bitch about failure.

Yet- you think Gitmo as symbolism for what is wrong with this war? Pick your fights freaks. The people wallowing away in those camps chose to join arms against the US and I hope they rot away because it. Good ridance! When the war is over, set em free to rot in prisons in their home countries. Even without a trial.

By benson on August 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Ah blindrat- its denying constitutional rights to enemies not US civilians? You are losing focus on the debate. Thats right- blindness has no focus.

By Mike on August 1, 2007 12:45 PM

? at 12:27: "While I have no problem with torture"....

This little statement says so much to me:

If you "have no problem with torture", then you reject everything America and it's Constitution has proudly stood for for over 200 years.

That means you reject ideals which used to make people like me so proud because it made America a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

That means you reject decency and everything else good that we were supposed to stand for. It is really astonishing to see another American put a statement like that into words.....with no apparent shame!

IN your opinion '?', if we aren't fighting for America's cherished values, exactly WHAT are we fighting for?

By ? on August 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Benson,

Why pay for them still then? There actionable intelligence is gone and the only justification now is they pose a violent threat. Hell, I have that in the city I live in but we aren't about to have the courts shut down.

Should we not just execute them? Not here, release and eliminate on foreign soil?

I just don't understand why keeping them untried is so important, especially when you can give them a military tribunal where the outcome is assured.

By benson on August 1, 2007 12:48 PM

I agree Mike. Full torture is brutal... sometimes the debate gets a little odd and someone steps way out of line.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 12:49 PM

benson,

Where does it state in the constitution that only citizens have rights, son?...

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 12:56 PM

"Ask the 23 Korean hostages that our Taliban enemies have about Habeas Corpus. Does "Habeas Corpus" mean "headless corpses"?"

Sorry, Benson. Got to side with anon on this one (I know, color you shocked this time.), although I applaud your Latin skills.

Habeaus corpus gives our democracy an advantage, especially over the methods used by folks like the Taliban; without it, that advantage is diminished significantly, especially if we're attempting to sell our way of government over the abuses of autocratic thuggery.

S you should know by now, HC doesn't translate to a get-out-of-jail-free card to suspects, but it does provide a means of getting the suspects to trial more efficiently.

If they're guilty, they're guilty. If they're not, the accused (and our government for that matter) are spared the corruption and abuses of unfavorable gangs like the Taliban.

Without HC, we're one big step closer to being on equal footing with our enemies (not to mention allegations of torture, outsourced and otherwise, inflates this). And with the political solution in the region progressing even slower then the military solution, I'd much prefer to have HC on the table for winning as much support we can from the innocents left in the region.

Having quick, efficient trials and convicting the guilty (and rightfully publicizing the crap out of those verdicts) would've helped our efforts supporting the war, to the folks in the ME and here in the USA (who knows, maybe even a few Oblyloons). But we didn't have those. Why not?

By Dick Nixon on August 1, 2007 12:58 PM

Oops... anon 12:56 was me.

By benson on August 1, 2007 12:58 PM

Blindrat- It is my understanding that they are prisoners of war and are protected under the rules of the geneva convention... they do not deserve a trial until the was is over, although they could be tried early by a military court which you havce to agree would convict 99% of the detainees. So how do these prisonners qualify for the rights outlined in OUR U.S. Constitution?

By ? on August 1, 2007 1:00 PM

Mike,

Americans have always tortured. It happens. We did it in King Philips War when we were still a colony and its never stopped. And I've seen enough to believe its works. But I guess my comment was based on the tactical and not a daily SOP. i.e., sentenced to 15 years and also a daily hot poker.

American prisons are torture chambers. Volunteer at one for a couple of months, (I taught reading, and you would not believe the educational failures) you'll hear the stories.

As for what we are fighting for? Well, its not really a fight as battle plans go. Aside from the Green Zone we lack pacification, forbid air power and don't clear and hold.

We are there for American interests, 1.oil, 2.a foothold in a turbulent area. That's why were there. The instrument at this time is the Army. It should be the State Department and other development agencies but trying to find a GS-15 with balls unconcerned for their personal safety or a blemish on their resume is hard. That's too harsh, we have a few but they are the exception.

Before you spout off again, I didn't say what I agree or disagree with. I am just telling you what the situation is as I see it.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 1:01 PM

benson,

What war, son? The Iraqis and Afghanis surrendered. You need a nation to fight a war against...

By Dick Nixon on August 1, 2007 1:03 PM

"(and winding up in a pie later)"

Sweeney Todd in '08!

ah... yes, love me some dark, dark humor.

By benson on August 1, 2007 1:05 PM

What war? I am done- blindrat thinks the gunfire and roadside bombs that are killing our boys are unrelated to war.

By ? on August 1, 2007 1:08 PM

If you need nations for war, must they exist for peace as well?

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 1:13 PM

You are "done", benson. Roadside bombs are criminal acts. If you suspended rights for criminal acts we'd all be in prison right now, son...

?,

I refered to war as in the legal definition of a war. You cannot ambiguously define any conflict as a war. Should we have suspended habeous corpus for the "War on Poverty" in the sixties?

In answer to your question, it depends on whether you believe that man is inherently good or bad...

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 1:24 PM

"that man"

Which man? ;)

By Mike on August 1, 2007 1:25 PM

? said: "Before you spout off again, I didn't say what I agree or disagree with. I am just telling you what the situation is as I see it."

Your exact statement was "I have no problem with torture" and that very much IS expressing agreement.

You said: "Americans have always tortured".....Unfortunately, you are right, but it was never done and defended as official policy by the very leaders we elected to uphold American ideals, the Constitution, and the Geneva Convention.

The fact that is was practiced underground at times was a DIRTY little secret and nothing to take pride in.

You also said: "American prisons are torture chambers".....I agree, but not as officially sanctioned physical torture chambers. I've been through many prisons as a manufacturer's representative in my previous career and I've seen it first hand. However, in most prison's, the inmates have created their own living hell themselves by bringing in with them their underworld code of conduct and hate.

If we lose the high ground, something I fear we might have already done, we are left with little to take pride in as Americans.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 1:27 PM

anon (1:24),

The man with the power...

By Mike on August 1, 2007 1:33 PM

Laura, why don't you just shut the hell up. You do nothing but help make your own side look like the morally and ethically bankrupt louts that many believe they already are.

In addition, You actually are dumb enough to come on this board and literally bragg about your job as if you think ANYBODY on this board gives a damn or is envious in any way.....while calling other people "fucking stupid" because they don't accept your warped realities.

YOU are a poster boy for everything that is wrong with America and I hope for the sake of the future or our great nation, that there arn't TOO many more out there like you.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 1:39 PM

Laura,

My impersonation of a neocon: "Oh my God! Terror threat! Protect me daddy Bush. Take the rights that our forefathers died for. I'm terrified. Make me safe!"

By ? on August 1, 2007 1:41 PM

Mike,

I'm old, dumb and drink too much so be kind. Yes I agree with torture - tactially. The spout off comment was about the Middle East.

And I don't wish to be seen as provoking you but while the "Official Policy" of the US government may well be No Torture, every generation of leader has managed to turn a blind eye to the practice. You can even go to school for it on the US's dime, though it will be overseas and your assignment will be tasked as studies and observation or liason or an ally exchange program.

So how official is it? I like to be direct (despite lacking any sense of clarity when I type) and you do what you say. Not pretend white is black.

As for prisons. Nearly every community NIMBY's up when a new prison is on the boards for construction. So we elect people who resist them and then install policies that create overcrowding and subpar conditions. That's torture, government sactioned you voted for it torture. All our hands are dirty.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 1:47 PM

July 31, 2007
Washington — Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified about U.S. progress in Iraq.

But Republicans on Monday accused Boyda of refusing to listen to the positive aspects of the Bush administration’s new Iraq strategy.

Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane.

“There was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while,” Boyda said after she returned, according to a transcript of the hearing. “So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.”

Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces “are on the offensive and we have the momentum.” He also said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that “cafés, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people.”

When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane’s description of Iraq “as in some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation — things are going so well — those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, ‘Here’s the reality of the problem.’”

The National Republican Congressional Committee issued a statement Monday criticizing Boyda for trying to ignore positive news about Iraq.

“Clearly Representative Boyda believes that only the ‘bad’ news about Iraq should be reported,” NRCC spokesman Ken Spain said.

Boyda’s chief of staff, Shanan Guinn, said Monday that Boyda left the hearing “to kind of compose herself because she’s understandably frustrated with the way the war’s going.”

“She was frustrated with how the administration is handling the war, that no one wants to have a real conversation about ways to move forward and our brave men and women oversees are being played like a political ping pong ball,” Guinn said.

The NRCC has made Boyda a top target for defeat in next year’s election. She narrowly unseated Republican Rep. Jim Ryun in 2006.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 1:50 PM

My impersonation of a neocon: "Oh my God! Terror threat! Protect me daddy Bush. Take the rights that our forefathers died for. I'm terrified. Make me safe!"

Posted by: blindbat at August 1, 2007 1:39 PM

Liberals on terrorists and terrorism: put thumb up ass and cover ears and eyes.

By Mike on August 1, 2007 1:52 PM

Laura whines: "It's liberals that worry about what others think."

Really 'laura'! You REALLY think I care what you think about me? Damn you're dumb! Move over Jeff.

You don't know a damned thing about "what liberals think", and your constantly spouting out your inane stereotypes does nothing prove it.

No, by all means, keep right on spewing out your illogical hatred and twisted realities on this board because people like you spouting off will do far more to drive people over to the liberal side than anything I could ever do.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 1:53 PM

blindrat is a condescending little bitch, isn't he?

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 1:54 PM

rk left his testicles in his other pants. You'll have to forgive the boy. He saw a recruiter and wet himself...

By ? on August 1, 2007 1:55 PM

Man is inherently good.

Sadly sometimes goodness only goes as far as taking take of one's needs but yes, we are good.

From a stranger letting you change lanes to a stranger hiding you in their basement. In every land we're good.

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 1:58 PM

?,

I agree in the inherent goodness of man; however, there are evil men. I think that this evil is rooted in irrational greed...

By blindrat on August 1, 2007 2:00 PM

Screeches Laura: "When I was in Chicago last year on 9/11 they showed some footage. There was one I haven't seen before. It was a woman in a blue dress falling after she jumped from the top floors falling on her back with her arms and legs struggling as if she was trying to grasp for something to catch onto. Yeah, you dumb shit, I don;t need anyone to tell me what those chicken shit murderers want to do to us, will do to us, and your side aint making thinks any b etter, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem..."

Yeah, you aren't terrified, son...

By Mike on August 1, 2007 2:01 PM

"geez you liberals kill me."

From someone who thinks he knows everything but really knows nothing.

By child, son, boy on August 1, 2007 2:02 PM

blindrat is a condescending little prick, isn't he? probably with a little prick.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 2:04 PM

agree in the inherent goodness of man; however, there are evil men. I think that this evil is rooted in irrational greed...

Posted by: blindrat at August 1, 2007 1:58 PM

...and greed is a factor of fundamental emptiness. When material and power are promoted as the only things worth pursuing, and things like love and unity are relegated to a mystical Bureaucracy in the sky, then you get people who can only fill the voids in their souls through exploiting, stealing from, demenaning, or controling their fellow man.

By ? on August 1, 2007 2:08 PM

There's an old joke about military recruiters, not all of them are bad, just the ones that speak.

Unfortunately, they are the only way to get in.

They're actually not that bad if you want join the essence of the force - infantry. After that the edges seem to get a little soft.

By ? on August 1, 2007 2:11 PM

Ugh, SLOB's here:

"...and greed is a factor of fundamental emptiness." WTF?

Bye everyone, nice chating with you today!

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 2:19 PM

Bye, ?,

Watch that screen door.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 2:19 PM

Maybe we should turn them all loose....

An inmate of Guantanamo Bay who spends 22 hours each day in an isolation cell is fighting for the right to stay in the notorious internment camp.

Ahmed Belbacha fears that he will be tortured or killed if the United States goes ahead with plans to return him to his native Algeria.

The Times has learned that Mr Belbacha, who lived in Britain for three years, has filed an emergency motion at the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC asking for his transfer out of Guantanamo to be halted. He was cleared for release from Camp Delta in February and his lawyers believe that his return to Algerian custody is imminent.

Mr Belbacha says that if he returns to Algeria, he faces the threat of torture by security services and murder by Islamist terrorists.

By Mike is Michael Musto on August 1, 2007 2:35 PM

What a shock, Mike is back, at least your not trolling for little boys

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 2:41 PM

"I'm old, dumb and drink too much so be kind. Yes I agree with torture - tactially"

I know you've removed yourself from my presence, ?, but I can't let this one go by.

Perhaps when you are on an island and there's an enemy army somewhere on this same Island and you catch one of their scouts - then you might get some valid tactical info through the horrible practice of torture.

...and PLEASE don't ring up Jack Bauer. That is pure fantasy.

But in regard to the global law enforcement problem that is the "war on terror", torture is the stupidest and most counter-productive thing you can spend your time and energy on.

You get answers that the "detainee" thinks you want; things that he thinks might be the right answer; any damn thing he thinks will stop the pain. And then you start chasing all these leads that are most likely the figments of a tortured person's mind.

Worse than that however, is that you make torture a mundane component of work-a-day life for our prison guards and intelligence agents. Its a horrible step for a human psyche to take, and the resulting cognitve dissonance prompts the torturer to torture more and more just to avoid the realization that he may have become a bad person (refer to Stanley Milgram's crucial studies described in the 1962 film "obedience"; and Christopher R. Browning's discussion of how the Nazis turned German policemen, barbers, and grocers into cold-blooded operatives in the murderous Einsatzgrupen in Eastern Europe: "Ordinary Men".

These facors of human psychology are probably the most important lessons to be learned from WWII - please learn them.

By benson on August 1, 2007 2:44 PM

Well- another witchhunt looking for maliciousness by the administration, and another big donut hole. Rumsfeld versus freaks like Kucinich... Rumsfeld wins by a knockout! Next hearing please. The poor conspiracy theorists at the huffington post are trying to hide their idiotic posting regarding the assasination theory now. What loons! Pathetic loons.

What is the next hearing kids. Gonzalez?

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 2:45 PM

I suppose the Administration's PR blitz about the miraculous recuperative powers of the Surge took a pretty significant hit today, with the massive bombing and the Parliament's exit and the Sunni exit/expulsion or whatever we call it. This simply drives home a point that most of us know. The military success of the Invasion and the Occupation is complete. It was complete long ago. There is no military objective left, other than, perhaps, to serve as police to accomodate a political success in Iraq. Every time we call upon our military to serve as policement, we have difficulty. That is simply not the military's mission, and it is largely beyond the military's abilities. We all know that. Where we seem to have gotten into trouble is with the Administration's ad campaign that basically said withdrawal is a loss. We let the Administration control the vocabulary, and that influenced our thought. Our military won. You can't cut and run, as the Administration would say, from a victory. It's time to redeploy. If we want to argue that a military presence is necessary, to police, so be it. Such an argument can be made. But for the sake our integrity, for intellectual honesty, we ought to cut the crap about not letting the military win. If we use the proper vocabulary, out thought patterns will likely change. That could be very productive.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 3:19 PM

The Founding Fathers guaranteed us "freedom of religion" (except muslims)not "freedom from religion." This purposeful deception, fostered by the ACLU, is perhaps the paramount achievement of the radical left in this God-fearing nation.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 3:30 PM

"Well- another witchhunt looking for maliciousness by the administration, and another big donut hole. "

...between a neocon's ears, that is. "I don't recall....I don't remember....." How do these assholes find their own pants in the morning?

By Sharon on August 1, 2007 3:32 PM

The military success of the Invasion and the Occupation is complete. It was complete long ago. (Clucker)

So Mission Accomplished was accurate? Isn't that what Bush said he meant at the time, major combat operations?

By royalking on August 1, 2007 3:38 PM

slob, have you forgotten that Billary said "I don't know" and "I don't recall" 200 some odd times at ONE deposition? Wiped it out of your memory?

Mrs. Philby, see how nice the aclu is? Such nice folks. Always giving, giving, and giving to the terrorists, that is...

The ACLU needs a new summer camp for its young folks, preferably in San Diego's Balboa Park. The PC Scouts, as we'll call them, will head off to Balboa to obtain Rights Badges (as opposed to merit badges) and learn the meaning of the PC scout Oath: "On my self-esteem, I will do whatever feels good for myself; And to question authority, To help myself at all times, To keep myself physically gratified, Mentally interested, And morally tolerant."

But the ACLU has a bit of a problem: the coveted camp in Balboa Park is currently being used by the Boy Scouts of America, the arch-enemy of the ACLU. In order to train up a vast new generation of PC scouts, the ACLU must figure out a way to move the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park (and out of the rest of America too).

On Thursday, the ACLU came much closer to its goal. The landlord of the Boy Scout camp in Balboa Park, the City of San Diego, switched sides from supporting the Boy Scouts to supporting the ACLU in its quest to destroy the Scouts. As settlement of an ACLU lawsuit against the City of San Diego and the Scouts, the City of San Diego decided to abandon the Scouts in their appeal to remain in Balboa Park.

Last July, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization. Their presence in Balboa Park was considered a violation of the separation of church and state. Because the Scouts believe in God, said Judge Jones, there is "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence" that the Scouts have received preferential treatment in being able to lease Balboa Park.

Under terms of the new settlement, San Diego must request Judge Jones to cancel the Boy Scouts' lease on Balboa Park. The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees, which will, of course, help finance further attacks against the Boy Scouts.

Now that the City of San Diego has given up on the Boy Scouts of America, a nearly 90-year relationship has come to an end.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 3:45 PM

"Sorry folks, DVR malfunctioned..."

LMAO...

Don't you NeoCons take responsibility for anything?

Yeah, I'm sure it was a 'DVR Malfunction'

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 3:45 PM

Here is our leader; anyone impressed?:

NEW YORK At a recent press conference at Camp David, President George Bush insulted BBC political editor Nick Robinson, the Daily Mirror reports.

Robinson, who has asked Bush pointed questions in the past such as whetherthe president was “in denial” over the Iraq war, posed a question to Bush about whether he could trust visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown not to “cut and run” from Iraq.

Bush replied with a dismissal: “Are you still hanging around?”

Later on, Bush poked fun at the bare-pate of Robinson, joking, “You’d better cover up your bald head, it’s getting hot out.”

The respected British reporter shot back, “I didn’t know you cared.”

Bush responded with a cool, “I don’t.” The Mirror reports that Bush then “snorted disdainfully” and “walked away to laughter.”

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003619296

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 3:52 PM

that happens on this board every 3 minutes big deal :)

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 3:53 PM

>The Founding Fathers guaranteed us "freedom of religion" (except muslims)not "freedom from religion."

I'd like to hear Jeff's definition of both terms and the key differences (this ought to be good for a laugh).

Also, I've posted this several times, but like someone who can't pass the 9th grade, Jeff has trouble with reading and retention...

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Read 'em and weap Royal Douche...

The ACLU isn't the boogyman you think they are.

But, then again, what would pull you out of your sorry-ass bed each morning if you didn't have made-up villains to hate?

Oh yeah, the milking of the bulls....

Nature calls Royal Douche...

Moooooooooooo!

By Sharon on August 1, 2007 3:55 PM

Oh, that's it, he must be impeached!

If you had yourself a time machine, SLOB, where would you have it take you?

By royalking on August 1, 2007 3:55 PM

In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”

The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747

The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.”

The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.”Quotes from Twilight Of Liberty

I don’t think that any other ACLU stance evokes more anger from me, than this one. I mean, how sick can you get? Do these people not have a conscience at all, or are they just plain EVIL? How can one argue this sick, twisted view in the name of “protecting civil liberties?” Please, some liberal out there that loves defending this evil organization…explain this to us.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 4:05 PM

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

By royalking on August 1, 2007 4:09 PM

This is pure gold. Thanks for posting this slob. I love it! Bush was WAY too nice to this prick.

NEW YORK At a recent press conference at Camp David, President George Bush insulted BBC political editor Nick Robinson, the Daily Mirror reports.

Robinson, who has asked Bush pointed questions in the past such as whetherthe president was “in denial” over the Iraq war, posed a question to Bush about whether he could trust visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown not to “cut and run” from Iraq.

Bush replied with a dismissal: “Are you still hanging around?”

Later on, Bush poked fun at the bare-pate of Robinson, joking, “You’d better cover up your bald head, it’s getting hot out.”

The respected British reporter shot back, “I didn’t know you cared.”

Bush responded with a cool, “I don’t.” The Mirror reports that Bush then “snorted disdainfully” and “walked away to laughter.”

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 4:23 PM

I missed last night's show. Anyone see it? Who were the WPITWs? What was the nightly attack on O'Reilly about last night? (I don't know that there was one, but I'm pretty sure I can assume there was one.)

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 4:30 PM

royalking with a zinger!

as they say sir loin - snap!

By Ratings on August 1, 2007 4:33 PM

Last Wednesdays numbers are hysterical. O'reilly had more viewers in the demo, than Olberdouche had in total viewers.

8PM - P2+ (25-54)
O’Reilly Factor – 2,334,000 viewers (568,000)
Paula Zahn- 444,000 viewers (113,000)
Countdown w/ Olbermann – 561,000 viewers (128,000)
Fast Money – 179,000 viewers (52,000)
Nancy Grace – 593,000 viewers (236,000)

But this is how liberals define success

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 4:41 PM

I just went to the MSLSD site (then had to shower) and found the WPITWs for last night. Rudy, Homeland Security and Julianne Cho. Still wonder what the Olbessional attack on O'Reilly was...

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 4:46 PM

He barely beats out lame duck Paula Zahn in the demo! This is weak.

By Keith Olbermann on August 1, 2007 4:50 PM

I object to the use of Olberdouche. It sounds very Nixonian. Great thanks for not using it in the future.

By giveslobmannabarofsoap on August 1, 2007 4:55 PM

Hey SLOBmann! No comment on Obama wanting to attack a country that pocesses a NUKE or two dozen. You war mongering oralocRATS should be tried for treason. Those damn radical left-winger's always wanting to attack countries with other American's sons and daughter's.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0132206420070801?&src=080107_1540_DOUBLEFEATURE_daunting_darfur_task

By giveslobmannabarofsoap on August 1, 2007 5:13 PM

Okay demomutts. Let's see you debunk this PROGRESSIVE view of that cigar guy. You know, Mr. BJmann aka Cigaromutt. Proof that you war monger's are so corrupt that even mr. carter doesn't have enough peanuts to try to make President Bush look this bad.
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 5:18 PM

Hey SLOBmann! No comment on Obama wanting to attack a country that pocesses a NUKE or two dozen. You war mongering oralocRATS should be tried for treason. Those damn radical left-winger's always wanting to attack countries with other American's sons and daughter's.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0132206420070801?&src=080107_1540_DOUBLEFEATURE_daunting_darfur_task

Posted by: giveslobmannabarofsoap at August 1, 2007 4:55 PM

Well, seeing as how Pakistan is an ally, I would assume that such a military exercise would operate in conjunction with the people who control the nukes there - we would not be atacking Pakistan, but the ALQeada strongholds in the FATA. Of course, the occupation of Iraq has created such ahrsh sentiment against us in the Islamic world that Musharaf could be ousted by his own people if we or he moved against Osama's bucolic villa in the FATA, but that's the world Bush has built.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 5:26 PM

Okay demomutts. Let's see you debunk this PROGRESSIVE view of that cigar guy. You know, Mr. BJmann aka Cigaromutt. Proof that you war monger's are so corrupt that even mr. carter doesn't have enough peanuts to try to make President Bush look this bad.
http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Posted by: giveslobmannabarofsoap at August 1, 2007 5:13 PM

I, like you, despise Democratic war-mongers. I will not vote for Hillary or Biden, while Obama is at least on record as opposing the ridiculous invasion of Iraq. Personnally, I financially contribute to Kucinich and Gravel.

Your CLinton website, however, is preposterous. Citing counts of unnamed and unlisted "indictments or convictions of members of the Clinton Machine" can mean anything.

Lets look at convictions of Administration officials while an administration is in office - that's meaningful stuff. If memory serves, Bush curently has two - Safavian and Libby.

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 6:01 PM

Yes yes, that's all very interesting, but check this out:

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=1205357

Ouch. Looks like bad news for Vitter.

Ho!
Ho!
Ho!

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 6:12 PM

If you had yourself a time machine, SLOB, where would you have it take you?

Posted by: Sharon at August 1, 2007 3:55 PM

That's a toss-up: either twenty-years in the future to see if America survives the brainless fascism that has been developing; or to 4000 BC so I can ride dinosaurs with Adam and Eve.

By Emilia on August 1, 2007 6:23 PM

Hey Sharon, I read that link you provided. I'm glad someone is doing some real research on this site. I'd like to hear how the liberals respond to the point that if Gitmo is so bad then why does this guy just about desperately want to get back in there? The answer is that it is a freaking country club compared to what these sewer rats can expect back home.

I think if we ever let these terrorists have their day in court, they would probably sue to ensure that their "detention" was made permanent so they didn't have to work or do anything back home and can live off the taxpayer's dime. This is the liberal world we live n people.

By The Joker on August 1, 2007 6:24 PM

Does anyone have an update on the Markos Moulitas To Catch a Predator rumor.
It's really spreading and I'm waiting on confirmation or denial.

By Janet Hawkins on August 1, 2007 6:29 PM

SLOB, Obama said that he would attack parts of Pakistan with or without the aid and/approval of Musharaf. Of course that would be before or after he had nice sit downs with Kim Jung Ill, Assad, Iran's civil libertarian president etc.

Sally Quinn was very supportive. She thinks they just want to be recognized, noticed and respected and that could be a good idea. Do you think she might be in the running for Secretary of State. A knock em dead party can work wonders to smooth over those awkward moments in life.

This url is especially for you:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2874/

Some weeks ago during a discussion I asked you did you think that Bush was going to refuse to step down, refuse to hold elections or some such in 2007 and you said no. Well, my question wasn't that far off base.

The conclusion to the piece:

"But we can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lock-step support to whatever the regime says and does. It’s also a given that those likely to lead the resistance will immediately land in those new prisons being built by Halliburton et. al.

So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup?

We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail.

For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing."

Grammie

By Laura Bush on August 1, 2007 6:32 PM

I think Jesus himself would have squeezed the nuts of those fuckers in a vice. If you are terrorist scum, you deserve to rot in a place far worse than Club Gitmo.

Personally I like the head drilling techniqueso popular in Iraq by the Al Qaeda "nooo honest we're not THAT Al Qaeda" in Iraq, but let's start with the nuts and work our way up. An electric drill in the nuts and liver would go a long way towards making this country safe.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 6:32 PM

I don't know about Markos Moulitas.

Markos Moulitsas, however, is a fine family man with a beautiful and healthy new born son. Unhinged and vile people have also been spreading vicious slander about him. Absolutely, no truth to any of it. I suppose there must be more prejudice against the Greeks than I ever assumed. Who would have ever thought a slanderous bigot would find a home on this site.

Many thanks for your query, by the way.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 6:36 PM

So Mission Accomplished was accurate?
-----
I guess it depends what the "mission" was, Sharon. Apparently, Bush's mission is akin to double secret probation on "Animal House". Somehow, appropriate, isn't it? Maybe, someday, our great grandchildren will know. He's not sharing that information with anyone now.

By Emilia on August 1, 2007 6:37 PM

Janet, I saw that from Obama and I almost lost my lunch. On the one hand, he wants to talk to all our enemies to try and smooth over our differences with tea cakes and crumpets. On the other hand, we are going to screw over our allies and invade a sovereign nation just to prove how tough we are and take out terrorist training camps. And on the third hand, we are going to pull out of Iraq and let the terrorists win.

If he wasn't black, I'd say he was stupid, but since he is you know I'm not alloud.

By Emilia on August 1, 2007 6:40 PM

"Does anyone have an update on the Markos Moulitas To Catch a Predator rumor.
It's really spreading and I'm waiting on confirmation or denial."

Greeks will be greeks. They like little boys.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 6:51 PM

If he wasn't black, I'd say he was stupid, but since he is you know I'm not alloud.

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

Nor are you allowed.

Are you related to Monsieur Royale? His schtick is getting a bit old, as I indicated in an earlier post, and we were all hoping a new illiterate racist would come along.

By The Joker on August 1, 2007 7:01 PM

Clucker,
What's your opinion of the Iranian Regime?

By royalking on August 1, 2007 7:05 PM

a new illiterate racist would come along.

Posted by: Clucker at August 1, 2007 6:51 PM

You're the only racist here, clucker. Your literacy is questionable, also.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 7:23 PM

... the Iranian Regime?
---------------------------
I didn't vote for it.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 7:24 PM

These are the words of the "fine family man" as Mrs. Philby calls him in regards to the contractors that were hung from the bridge in Iraq. Such a nice fellow, isn't he?

Every death should be on the front page (2.70 / 40)
Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

by kos on Thu Apr 01, 2004 at 12:08:56 PM PDT

By Mitt Romney is in Bed With Purveyors of Porn on August 1, 2007 7:26 PM

Would You Buy a Used Playgirl From Mitt Romney?

Mitt "Cesspool" Romney announced his National Finance Chairs yesterday, and they included Meg Whitman, the President and CEO of eBay. Now, if you're like most people, you used to buy things on eBay, but now you find it cheaper and easier to produce your own fake sports memorabilia at home. Still, someone must be shopping there, because Meg Whitman is worth $1.3 billion dollars, even though she speaks PowerPoint nonsense like:

"As a non-Washington guy, Mitt would bring a fresh approach as well as the right tool kit and attitude needed to change Washington... (He) can tackle through the toughest problems, devise a get well plan, and deliver results."

Mitt Romney plays football with a toolbox? The toolbox is full of remedies and mail? Please, lady, I came to this seminar to learn to flip real estate, not have my intelligence insulted.

What does your brain feel like, when you ask it to build thoughts out of phrases like "devise a get well plan?" Does it hurt?

What's Mitt going to do? Right-size America by selling off the poor?

But that's neither here nor there. For all I know, Meg Whitman is a delightful dancer, a good cook, and if I were stuck next to her on an airplane, I'd take out my noise-canceling headset and hang myself with the cord.

The thing I'm having trouble with is her business versus Mitt's vision. Mitt Romney is running against obscenity on the Internet, and he says, "pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games," but eBay sells pornographic music and movies and violent video games on the Internet.

It's almost incongruous.

Right now, eBay is offering 1339 different items for Grand Theft Auto, 942 items for "death metal" and 583 items for "bitch." And I haven't even entered their "mature audiences" categories. Why not? Because I don't care how people I don't know get off. I was raised better than that. Mitt Romney's the one who keeps bringing it up.

And he can take eBay's money if he wants it. Sure, two weeks ago a German Federal Court ruled that, "eBay has created a serious risk of the company being used by sellers to distribute items harmful to children." But how could Mitt know that? According to the Washington Post, he didn't know how much money Marriott made from in-room porn, even though he was chairman of their audit committee.

For nine years.

I try to tackle through to a place where this makes sense, but the only solution I can devise is that Mitt Romney is full of shit.

--

To be fair -- to Mitt Romney and the responsible distributors of pornography he counts among his closest friends -- Mitt does admit that America is a free cesspool... er... country. As he explains it:

"I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity."
And Meg Whitman's eBay has a policy on smut that's so clear it could be a model for troubled parents everywhere:

"Pre-1980 Playboy, Playgirl and Penthouse magazines. These magazines may only be listed in the Magazine Back Issues: Other category..."

"Post-1980 Playboy, Playgirl, Penthouse and other adult magazines... must be listed in the Everything Else: Mature Audiences"

Got it? The first category -- Playgirls from the '70s -- can be seen by any preschooler who's bored of Webkinz. To access the second, newer Playgirls, you have to register.

There's a piercing moral vision. Team Romney dreams of a place where only adults will buy post-1979 pornography. (Through them.) Leaving children to the simple pleasures of classic erotica, and nursery friends like Marilyn Chambers, Seka, and Johnny Wadd.

I really like the idea that there was a precise date when everything went seriously to hell. Justice Stewart only recognized obscenity when he saw it. Meg Whitman, Mitt Romney's National Finance Chair, knows the whole country turned into a filthy toilet it 1980.

When Reagan was elected.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 7:26 PM

Dear Monsieur Royale:

Thank you for your valuable input.

Faithfully,
Clucker

By Janet Hawkins on August 1, 2007 7:33 PM

Emilia, did you hear or read about Sally Quinn's remarks? That was the icing on the cake.

I remember some months after 911 reading (I don't remember where) an open letter/editorial to Tom Ridge (?) bemoaning her helplessness and confusion (I'm paraphrasing I hope at least in the same league if not the same ballpark) about what to do in case of a terrorist attack and that there were not enough specifics to guide her.

The Grande Dame of Washington society, an author, journalist a mover and shaker was helpless in the aftermath of 911 without the government holding her hand and leading her through 'the valley of death'.

Hey, I've heard she gives great parties.

Grammie

By Jeff's Psychiatrist on August 1, 2007 7:33 PM

RoyalQueen's Daily (Mon-Sat) Schedule:

8 Hours: Sleep

8 Hours: Show Off Intellectual Prowess on OW

8 Hours: Milk the Bulls

Not necessarily in that order (depends on his (and the bulls) mood)

He takes Sunday off to clean his guns and get his weekly test for Mad Cow Disease (which he thinks is a sexually transmitted disease) at his local welfare clinic.

It's good to be Queen, isn't it Jeff?

PS-Call me right away, your last check bounced again.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 7:56 PM

Thank you for your valuable input.

Faithfully,
Mrs. R Philby

Posted by: Mrs. R Philby at August 1, 2007 7:26 PM

In other words, Mrs. Philby is saying what the kos queen said is ok with her, since she didn't condemn it. "Screw them" in regards to the contractors hung from the bridge in Iraq.

By The Joker on August 1, 2007 8:16 PM

Royal King,
I thought Mrs. Philby is a fake poster?

By PAUL on August 1, 2007 8:22 PM

XMAS IS GETTING CLOSER!

By royalking on August 1, 2007 8:25 PM

Joker, unfortunately, she's real. How real is hard to say. Remember back when rudy ramirez suddenly appeared? That was Philby making a feeble attempt at ridiculing conservatives, sick, indeed. She disappeared for a while after Johnny or Brandon exposed her ip as being one and the same only to reappear as "clucker." It didn't take me long to expose her as the previously infamous philby/rudy. She has been furious at me ever since, as her posts to me clearly show. "I report you decide" to quote a certain olbyloon who claims not be such.

By Mitt Ram-Thee on August 1, 2007 8:34 PM

I prefer XXXmas

By Anonymous on August 1, 2007 9:05 PM

The comments thread for tonight's show is not posted yet. Olby's non-stop blabbering during the Minneapolis bridge collapse tragedy is unbearable. I had to turn the channel to CNN/Fox. Has MSNBC found any eyewitnesses or experts for Olby to interview so we don't have to listen to his incessant rambling?

By mlong on August 1, 2007 9:11 PM

"Olby's non-stop blabbering during the Minneapolis bridge collapse tragedy is unbearable."

Has he blamed Bush for it yet?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 9:16 PM

Greeks will be greeks. They like little boys.

Posted by: Emilia at August 1, 2007 6:40 PM

As do ....Catholic clergy and Republican congressmen.

By Janet Hawkins on August 1, 2007 9:25 PM

SLOB, the historical record re classical Greek history does seem to give some weight to Emilia's post.

Grammie

By Mike on August 1, 2007 9:43 PM

It's really telling when an Olbermann hater like mlong can't even hold his criticism back at a time like this. Objective mlong isn't.

Olbermann is doing an excellent unscripted job handling a major breaking news tragedy.

Get over it.

By royalking on August 1, 2007 10:00 PM

It's really telling when an Olbermann hater like mlong can't even hold his criticism back at a time like this.

Posted by: Mike at August 1, 2007 9:43 PM

"mike", take note of the 9:50 post of Mrs. Philby if you can remove your blinders even if temporarily. Were you referring to holding back criticism of the orange one, only, or criticism in general? Open season on Bush and closed on orangy? Since you make the rules here, I eagerly await.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 10:29 PM

Not a good day at 1600, at all.

Posted by: Clucker at August 1, 2007 9:50 PM

Thanks, Clucker. While the collapsed bridge is a riveting tragedy unfolding as I write, we need to remember the other disasters that have been going for some time now, and that we can do something about.

...and you forgot one:

"General Kensinger refused to appear today," Chairman Waxman said in his opening statement. "His attorney informed the committee that General Kensinger would not testify voluntarily, and if issued a subpoena would seek to evade service. The committee did issue a subpoena to General Kensinger earlier this week, but US Marshals have been unable to locate or serve him."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Censured_general_evades_subpoena_to_appear_0801.html

Sure there's no Tillman story - generals are always skipping out on congressional subpoenas. I wonder what the odds are that Kensinger is never seen alive again?

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 10:29 PM

Breaking news is difficult to cover, and there are few Walter Cronkites around these days. Olbermann seemed to be doing an adequate, if not stellar job. Blitzer is struggling as well. But, our primary focus really ought to be on the victims. We should all be praying for them. Plenty of time for post-incident reviews later.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 10:33 PM

Thanks for the addition, Mr. Loin. I did overlook that, and it seems to be pretty damning. A "virtual taking of the 5th".

I want to try to be completely fair about this. Bush and Cheney did not cause Tillman's death, they were just pleased to exploit it, and, I am sure, content to allow the facts to be covered up.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 10:34 PM

I don't watch Blitzer much - he always seems a little dazed to me. Michael Ware - who the drowning rats here will instantly brand a terrorist collaborator - is providing amazing information.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 10:49 PM

I understand Mark Furman is on FOX intimating that this is likely terrorism. The fact that construction workers were present and that this occurred so near rush hour seems to have caused him to be alarmed. Yet, local MSP stations are interviewing the state highway department which is calling this a clear structural failure. Apparently, there were reports of fractures as early as 2004.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 10:50 PM

Bush and Cheney did not cause Tillman's death, they were just pleased to exploit it, and, I am sure, content to allow the facts to be covered up.

Posted by: Clucker at August 1, 2007 10:33 PM

I will agree that they MAY not have had him killed - but that is as far as I believe the evidence and the logic will allow. You must admit that it seems very likely that he was deliberately killed by someone:

- evidence and admission that it was American fire that killed him;

- Tillman recorded yelling "I'm Pat Fucking Tillman"

- one bullet to the chest, followed by;
three bullet holes in "close proximity" in his forehead;

- Tillman's body armor and clothing burnt at the scene (WTF?)

...then an intentional cover-up, and now a missing General.

You have to admit, you cannot rule out cold-blooded murder. Questions must be asked regarding motives and opportunity.

....and hey! We both forgot the 190,000 automatic weapons, 150,000 pieces of body armor, and 110,000 helmets that the GAO just said are missing in Iraq without a trace! Combined with the Al QaQaa fiasco (unguarded ammo dumps looted of tons of explosives etc.), it sounds like the Iranians can't hold a candle to us in regard to arming our enemies.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 10:59 PM

- and I forgot on crucial variable:

- no one else in Tillman's unit - or any vehicle or equipment - was hit by fire. Only Tillman, from what the doctors said had to have been roughly a 10 m distance

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 11:06 PM

The evidence does point, it seems, to a fragging. I think it is prudent to investigate the motive. Anti-war statements? A personal grudge? The cover-up, of course, made the investigation stale. We may never know the answer.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 11:06 PM

Clucker,

Have you watched Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now"? That's good new program with little editorializing - but they interview actual people involved in events rather than the professional experts that homogenize the MSM narrative.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 11:07 PM

...I meant "good NEWS program" - the show has been around a while.

By Clucker on August 1, 2007 11:07 PM

Re: Amy Goodman

I have not, but I shall.

Thanks.

By mlong on August 1, 2007 11:10 PM

"It's really telling when an Olbermann hater like mlong can't even hold his criticism back at a time like this. Objective mlong isn't."

I can do that because of the track record of KO and his kind at Daily Kos,Dem Underground,Huffington Post and elsewhere..who have blamed Bush for everything from being behind 9/11,causing tidal waves and hurricanes,blowing up levees in New Orleans and murdering Pat Tillman so it's not a stretch for them to blame Bush for this..and I bet you the plans are already in motion to do just that and don't be surprise if tomorrow if KO doesn't have some kind of Bush is somehow responsible for this story.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 1, 2007 11:19 PM

so it's not a stretch for them to blame Bush for this..and I bet you the plans are already in motion to do just that and don't be surprise if tomorrow if KO doesn't have some kind of Bush is somehow responsible for this story.

Posted by: mlong at August 1, 2007 11:10 PM

You're right - this probably will be someone's angle on the story. After all, funding of interstate highway maintainance has gone down drastically under Bush. But in fairness, this is a trend that precedes W by decades.

At the moment I wouldn't think this a very valid angle, but then I haven't read the case for it yet - you are the only one I've noticed bringing it up thus far.

By johnny dollar on August 1, 2007 11:25 PM

> I understand Mark Furman is on FOX intimating that this is likely terrorism.

Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you repeating someone else's?

By Janet Hawkins on August 1, 2007 11:31 PM

Oh, excuse me gentlemen!

I assure you I averted my eyes and did intrude upon the love fest. :)

Grammie

By Janet Hawkins on August 1, 2007 11:35 PM

Oh dear! I was so flustered I left the 'not' out of "I did not (sic} intrude".

Grammie

By mlong on August 1, 2007 11:43 PM

"You're right - this probably will be someone's angle on the story. After all, funding of interstate highway maintainance has gone down drastically under Bush. But in fairness, this is a trend that precedes W by decades."

Yes that is the angle KO and others will take to blame Bush...that he hasn't spent enough money..even though like the levees in New Orleans it wasn't that there isn't enough money but that the state and local governments haven't spent it for the right things or diverted the funds for other projects..like what happen with the levees when the Dem senator diverted the funds for them.

By Mike on August 1, 2007 11:49 PM

mlong, I haven't heard ANYONE responsible (and yes, that does includes KO) blaming Bush for Hurricanes, tidal waves, and other such nonsense. This is nothing but your side's continuing attempt to discredit Bush critics by accusing them of irrationally blaming him for everything imaginable.

Yes, mlong, he IS sometimes rightfully implicated for his lackluster RESPONSE to such events. He has also been rightfully criticized regarding these same events because his war in Iraq may well have diverted too many resources to that theater that could helped in the responses....But never has the man been blamed for the events themselves.

We blame Bush for what Bush IS actually responsible for! Primarily his unneccessary Iraq war, and the out of control national deficit. Trust me mlong...that is PLENTY...There is NO need whatsoever to try to pin anything else on him!

Sorry to dissapoint you, but don't look for KO or any other high profile 'leftie' to blame this bridge collapse on President Bush.

mlong, all this kind of continuing rhetoric from your side does is keep the debate on an irrational level, which is exactly where I suspect you want it to be.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 12:12 AM

>Oh, excuse me gentlemen! I assure you I averted my eyes and did intrude upon the love fest. :)

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at August 1, 2007 11:31 PM

I find it a tad ironic that Grammie would get so flustered whenever two lefties actually address eachother directly on this site, but here she is helping Sharon spread her, huh, wings:

Sharon, I think you may be the only one of us approximating a real angel. :)

We'll all catch up one day.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at August 1, 2007 11:14 PM

Oh yeah, that's a love fest no one wants to witness.

By Clucker on August 2, 2007 12:19 AM

I understand Mark Furman is on FOX intimating that this is likely terrorism.

Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you repeating someone else's?

---------

I have since seen it. He really did, and I think "intimate" is the best word. He didn't say, "They're after us.," but said the presence of construction workers and the time of day makes us raise the question of suspicious activit which ought to be investigated by DHS. Not a direct quote, but very close. I guess I'm not too bright, but I am accustomed to seeing construction workers on highways, and it seems to me that if a bridge were to collapse due to stress fractures (not determined for certain, yet, to be sure), heavy traffic and construction equipment might be a contributing factor.

Thanks to my wife and to the magic of digital recording.

And, my apologies for your boys' fringe mentality. O'Hannity has always been a bit unhinged and has gotten much more so of late as things haven't been going all that well in the right side of things, and Furman, well, the only court room personality less credible than OJ who had the good sense not to testify .... It was all terribly, terribly amusing in a paranoid sort of way.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 12:20 AM

> I understand Mark Furman is on FOX intimating that this is likely terrorism. Mrs. Philby

Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you repeating someone else's?

Posted by: johnny dollar at August 1, 2007 11:25 PM

We'll add it to her ever growing list.....

By johnny dollar on August 2, 2007 12:23 AM

> He really did

He really did imply that it is "likely" terrorism? Please don't compound one lie with another. I have it and I know exactly what he said, and at no point did he claim, imply, or suggest that terrorism was the likely cause. Period.

By Clucker on August 2, 2007 12:25 AM

Dear Monsieur Royale:

Thank you for your valuable input at 12:20 a.m.

Faithfully,
Clucker

By Clucker on August 2, 2007 12:33 AM

He really did imply that it is "likely" terrorism? Please don't compound one lie with another. I have it and I know exactly what he said, and at no point did he claim, imply, or suggest that terrorism was the likely cause. Period.

-----

How wonderfully easy it must be to be so closed-minded and dogmatic at the same time. Perhaps, if I had my life to start over I would want to be just like you. Not a care in the world, just issue a Papal-like Bull now and again.

I beg to differ with you, if that is permitted. I did watch it several times, and I believe the implication to be rather clear. Indeed, why else would Furman be there other than to discuss a security issue? It's not as if he is a civill engineer or a traffic flow speclialist.

Is there even the slightest possibility that you inferred a different meaning, perhaps because you cannot countenance that there might be RW loonies? I would think that Dr. Wierner's assertion that the Democrats caused Chief Justice Roberts' seizure might indicate that the RW can be a bit dislodged these days and prone to paranoid pronouncements.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 12:38 AM

>He really did imply that it is "likely" terrorism? Please don't compound one lie with another. I have it and I know exactly what he said, and at no point did he claim, imply, or suggest that terrorism was the likely cause. Period.

Posted by: johnny dollar at August 2, 2007 12:23 AM

For how much johnny fraud likes to criticize things Olbermann says on Countdown, He sure likes to dance around words and their likely meaning when they are uttered by his favorite Fox personalities.

Oh, and don't ever criticize Fox, then he'll throw a hissy fit.

How's that glass house you live in johnny? Must get real warm during these hot summer months.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 12:42 AM

Anon of 12:12,

The reason for your disrespect to me is?

SLOB,

I read several responses and with so many threads, I'll just make a few brief comments here and now. First, concerning The Big Leagues, it was not meant to be taken that seriously. The intended meaning was that this is a public forum and the kind of behavior (such as anon from above) is to be expected, an idea known to RK, Grammie, Cecelia.

Next, my Korean Brothers and Sisters are Catholic, two of them having already suffered Christian martyrdom. (Different than suicide bombers who want to obtain martyrdom by killing others). I fail to understand your callous treatment of their situation, merely using it as a talking point.

Finally, the Adam and Eve on the dinosaur retort. Maybe you don't understand that Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura. There is no teaching about dinosaurs and cavemen because they are not relevant to salvation history. Evolution has not been ruled out; primates could well have existed with the dinos. (2 Peter 3:8 - . . . that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.) But the first two people with a soul were Adam and Eve. Did they disobey by eating an apple? It doesn't matter. The fact is they disobeyed. So, if you want to go back in time to ride dinos, that is your pleasure, Fred. (I always liked the Flinstones).

By johnny dollar on August 2, 2007 12:48 AM

> why else would Furman be there other than to discuss a security issue?

THAT'S your basis for it was "likely" terrorism? The reason he was there is because he was already booked and in the studio. Duh.

I find it interesting that you insist you are correct about what he said, you claim you have it on the DVR, and yet you don't quote his words. How strange. How odd. Quoting his words would prove your case, yet you don't do it.

All you have to do is type in what he said. You'll prove yourself right, you'll prove me wrong and make me look stupid, and it will be a great day on OlbyPlanet. So take your best shot. If you have one.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 12:58 AM

"...you'll prove me wrong and make me look stupid..."

Just another day at OlbermannWatch.

By mlong on August 2, 2007 1:02 AM

"mlong, I haven't heard ANYONE responsible (and yes, that does includes KO) blaming Bush for Hurricanes, tidal waves, and other such nonsense. This is nothing but your side's continuing attempt to discredit Bush critics by accusing them of irrationally blaming him for everything imaginable"

Daily Kos,Dem underground and Huffington Post have pushed those theories and since the mainstream members of the DNC and MSM including KO give them credibility by either positing on their sites,pandering to them or bringing them on their shows as respected commentators then it's fair to link them together.

By Clucker on August 2, 2007 1:05 AM

Dear Mr. Dollar:

Thank you for your request.

I will consider it. Should I ever deem a response warranted, I will provide one.

Until such time, infer whatever helps your self-esteem, as you always do.

I remain,

Your faithful servant,
Clucker

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 1:11 AM

"Please don't compound one lie with another."

johnny fraud is an expert at compounding one lie with another, since he's a shill for Fox News.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 1:15 AM

"Next, my Korean Brothers and Sisters are Catholic, two of them having already suffered Christian martyrdom. (Different than suicide bombers who want to obtain martyrdom by killing others). I fail to understand your callous treatment of their situation, merely using it as a talking point."

I was using it as a talking point?!?

I was trying to point out that if people like you didn't give you political franchise to venal war mongers and pretentious neocon "philosophers" who mislead our country to attack countries we have no cause or right to attack, then your Korean siblings would in all likelihood be walking free today, and nearly 4000 American soldiers and possibly a million iraqis would also be alive. Don't preach to me about "talking points" - you were waving your "martyrs" bloody shirt as cynically as anything I've ever seen - in the interests of killing more muslims and further destabilizing the region.

Had bush stuck to Afghanistan - given the command to get bin Laden in Tora Bora and NOT deflected our activities to Iraq - The Taliban, Al Qeada, and their pakistani support would be non-issues. But then Afghanistan might actually have experienced a successful rehabilitation and served as that "democratic beacon" for the region the neocons are always sputtering about.

But that might have meant regional stability and legitimacy, and all that oil would not be up for grabs.

As for your religious beliefs that I misrepresented: sure, whatever.

By Clucker on August 2, 2007 1:25 AM

Mr. Loin:

I am going to take you to task. Although I whole-heartedly agree with you that Bush has done tremendous harm in further destabilizing an already unstable Middle East, the Koreans do deserve our compassion and our prayers. They are caught up in a conflict not their making, and they are good and faithful people.

I am certain you don't dispute that.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 1:34 AM

Don't preach to me about "talking points" - you were waving your "martyrs" bloody shirt as cynically as anything I've ever seen - in the interests of killing more muslims and further destabilizing the region.

What?

As for your religious beliefs that I misrepresented: sure, whatever.

Great response.

You are completely ignorant of the persecution faced by Christians worldwide. Why should you care? (Not to be confused with What do you care what my name is). They are only Christians after all. Expendable. I am not a neocon BTW. I don't follow any of the shows you would consider wingnut material.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 1:39 AM

johnny fraud is an expert at compounding one lie with another, since he's a shill for Fox News.

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 1:11 AM

Thanks, patsy.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 1:45 AM

I beg to differ with you, if that is permitted. I did watch it several times

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at August 2, 2007 12:33 AM

This coming from someone who "claims" to watch the orange faced prick only "once a month, if that."

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 1:47 AM

SLOB,

If this is one of your sources for the oil argument, check out the date.

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
By Amiram Cohen

Published on Monday, August 25, 2003 by Ha'aretz (Israel)

The Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky was forced to resign in 2004.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 9:21 AM

I am going to take you to task. Although I whole-heartedly agree with you that Bush has done tremendous harm in further destabilizing an already unstable Middle East, the Koreans do deserve our compassion and our prayers. They are caught up in a conflict not their making, and they are good and faithful people.

I am certain you don't dispute that.

Posted by: Clucker at August 2, 2007 1:25 AM

Clucker, please look at the entire discussion between Sharon and myself. She cited the Korean hostages first as a point from which the left could be chastised for not loving this war enough; I merely pointed out that the situation, along with so many other tragedies, clearly stem from policies she herself supports.

I'm a little surprised at your chiding me for percieved slights to the hostages themselves, as I have nothing but sympathy for their plight. Contrary to Sharon, however, my sympathy has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular brand of superstition they subscribe to.

Any disdain that might have come through in my message was directed toward Sharon, who assumes saintly piety and coopts the suffering of her "brothers and sisters" to make a very un-Christy point, and certainly not to the captives.

By Sir Loin of BEEF on August 2, 2007 9:25 AM

SLOB,

If this is one of your sources for the oil argument, check out the date.

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
By Amiram Cohen

Published on Monday, August 25, 2003 by Ha'aretz (Israel)

The Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky was forced to resign in 2004.

Posted by: Sharon at August 2, 2007 1:47 AM

I don't understand; which particular "oil argument"? I'd need to read the article, so you could post a link if you want.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 9:51 AM

SLOB, (and Clucker)

Here is where I made the comment about the Koreans: (a week or so ago, Why felt it relevant to tell me that he left the Catholic Church years ago and now his wife has done it as well; I was catching up to responses)

And WDYCWMNI (I am actually not sure at this point if it was you or Bob I should address because I can't remember), the personal story you felt you had to relate about you and your wife leaving the Catholic Church doubtfully had its desired effect. I don't understand why a number of people don't just leave, until they are willing to bear the cross associated with being Catholic. That means humble obedience to teachings that society rejects. It is far easier (in this life) to be you and your wife than it is to be me. (2 Timothy 4:2- preach the word in season and out of season). One of the ways to identify the true church is that it will be persecuted. My Brother and Sister Koreans are in the hands of the Taliban with two dead already; Christians being used as pawns.
Posted by: Sharon at August 1, 2007 1:17 AM

The comment I made was made to Why in a completely non-political context. You took it beyond that. I have never called myself a saint; first of all, I am not dead yet and secondly, I freely admit my faults. I have written not only about Catholic hostages but others as well.
***
Didn't you say there was a connection between the war and oil as well as Israel? If not, I apologize.

I usually provide links to articles but it was late,, and I forgot. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-03.htm

JUan Cole made a correction already and has this part x'd out.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/08/deadliest-july-yet-for-us-troops-23.html
Oops. Occasionally a software glitch throws up an old article in my searches. Sorry about that, and glad that the crackpot idea seems safely dead.

Some in the Pentagon and in Israel have not given up on the hope of a Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline to bring Iraqi petroleum to Israel. Oh, yeah, like that is going to happen. First of all, the Iraqi government's position is that it is bound by Arab League strictures on trade with Israel. Second, Sunni Arab guerrillas would fill such a pipeline full of holes every hour of every day. Third, it almost certainly would not make economic sense even if it were possible politically. Talk about a pipe dream :-). You just worry that this crackpot idea was one of the motives for the Iraq War. What a waste.

Labels: Iraq

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 10:04 AM

You just worry that this crackpot idea was one of the motives for the Iraq War. What a waste.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by: Sharon at August 2, 2007 9:51 AM

I was totally unaware of this proposed pipeline, so it was no worry of mine. I focus more on the secretive nature of CHeney's "energy task force", and the oil legislation the US is working to forceon Iraq that cedes the right to exploit Iraq's oil to a small number of US/British companies. These companies may or may ot have party to this pre-invasion "energy task force" - but we may never know; its "SECRET".

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:12 AM

SLOB,

And thanks for your recognition that you were completely out of line with your accusations. I showed you exactly where I made the comment about the Koreans, and it was clear that the comment had to do with faith. It was directed at someone else trying to malign me.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 10:20 AM

SLOB,

And thanks for your recognition that you were completely out of line with your accusations. I showed you exactly where I made the comment about the Koreans, and it was clear that the comment had to do with faith. It was directed at someone else trying to malign me.

Posted by: Sharon at August 2, 2007 10:12 AM

Actually, Sharon, I had issued no such recognition...yet.

I just now looked back a couple days and noticed that it was royalking that turned your comment - that I now see as apolitical - into a smear at the antiwar left, and it was this angle to which I was responding. I do appologize for attributing such crass exploitation of people's suffering to you.

But you really should take this opportunity to think about the bloody, venal wars you support, and their repurcussions.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:47 AM

SLOB,

I have pondered the war. It is too difficult to remember what others have said so I'll repeat again here. I wasn't a staunch supporter or opponent of the war during the build-up. But something that always concerned me that the Pope (at the time John Paul II) spoke against it without outright condemning it. (You do remember that he met with Pres. Bush?). He didn't condemn it because there is a doctrine known as just war. The Pope obviously does not have access to intelligence to make that call. I posted an interview between Chris Wallace and Senator Jay Rockefeller that I find key:

(I couldn't find it but found this with the link):

People like Jay Rockefeller would have to account for himself under oath in an impeachment investigation. I copied an interview with Chris Wallace recently where he admitted that he saw a discrepancy between the CIA's view of Saddam's nuclear capability and the State Department. He still voted yes because he said he just got the report but after further reflection, he went to the floor and expressed concern. Too late buddy!
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:QTLdpRZqFSoJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175433,00.html+rockefeller+wallace+interview&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Posted by: Sharon at July 18, 2007 2:35 AM

By Tom on August 2, 2007 10:58 AM

Does Mark Furman seriously show up on Fox as some kind of commentator? I find that hard to believe.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 11:04 AM

"The Pope obviously does not have access to intelligence to make that call."

So there are some limits to infallibility?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 11:15 AM

...perhaps God was party to Cheney's Energy Task Force, and is bound by Executive Privilege to keep such matters from the pontif.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 11:27 AM

Infallibility has nothing to do with the kind of information to which you refer. There were several popes of bad character who did not teach infallibly. There are certain truths that must be believed. Truth is not based upon events or character. The more authority you hold the more accountable you are.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 11:29 AM

The more authority you hold the more accountable you are.

Posted by: Sharon at August 2, 2007 11:27 AM

Unless you are a Republican.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 11:31 AM

I have things and people to take care of now.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 11:34 AM

Republicans are accountable to God. That is one of the reasons why I don't understand atheism. Accountability. A person could commit horrible acts throughout a lifetime and never get caught. Bye...

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 11:51 AM

Republicans are accountable to God. That is one of the reasons why I don't understand atheism. Accountability. A person could commit horrible acts throughout a lifetime and never get caught. Bye...

Posted by: Sharon at August 2, 2007 11:34 AM

That's why I don't understand bureauratic monotheism; A person could commit horrible acts throughout a lifetime and you folks think its no big deal he never gets caught - particularly if he overtly "makes long prayer in pretense" as he "devours widows' houses".

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 12:05 PM

"Republicans are accountable to God. That is one of the reasons why I don't understand atheism. Accountability. A person could commit horrible acts throughout a lifetime and never get caught. "

I think this well-meaning post shows just about everything that is wrong with RW politics these days. If you can't understand a morality not grounded in a particular regligion, then you can't understand America.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 12:10 PM

"Infallibility has nothing to do with the kind of information to which you refer."

So the pope simply doesn't know whether the Iraq war is just or not. But you apparently do?

By iamnot on August 2, 2007 12:15 PM

Have you seen this yet?

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/08/total_domination.html?xid=rss-rcp

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 12:21 PM

I am really in the middle of something. No, I think it is a ver big deal when people do things wrong. My point was (cut short), if someone is not caught, there is accountability. The Pope spoke out against the war and spoke in his personal opinion, not infallibly. If information appeared that our country was at grave risk, then was is just. I don't have access to that information either. Actually, anon at 12;05, Bush doesn't hold my religious views either. Buchanan does and he spoke out against the war but tried to remain supportive of the president at the time the decision was made. I didn't pay enough attention at the build up. The kind of evidence I see about the war decision is the kind I gave above (Rockefeller). Actually, Byrd was the one who wanted to authorize war but limit the time frame. Then it becomes difficult for those on the ground. I am speking quickly here because I have to leave and will do a better job at a later point.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 12:30 PM

"I don't have access to that information either."

Sharon,

I don't know how things work in the Vatican, but in America We the People are responsible for our own governance; and have the responsibility to DEMAND this sort of information from our governmental officials.

To meekly accept that ignorance is for our own good is to accept tyranny. Perhaps you see it as prolonging our stay in Eden - but I support public access to the Tree of Knowledge.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 12:49 PM

The real problem here is that Sharon is misrepresenting the Vatican's views on the Iraq war. Both JPII and Ratzinger cum Benedict openly stated that the Iraq war occurring when and how it did was not justified, the former calling it a "defeat for humanity."

The statement is basically that there is such a thing as just war, but that this one is not just. I think especially in light of the human rights violations we have committed and the use of indiscriminate weapons like white phosphorus, cluster bombs, etc., there is no doub-- and noth pontiffs' statements leave no room for doubt-- that this war is considered anathema to the Vatican.

Again, only in America, the country conducting the war, where adhering to Catholic doctrine and values would mean open opposition to the governmental authority, is this an open question. Sharon is wrong.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 12:51 PM

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable, under the current circumstances.
According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."

"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power," the cardinal said, after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published Saturday in the Italian newspaper Avvenire.

"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save," the cardinal said.

He said that "the U.N. can be criticized" from several points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination -- including moral -- of politics."

The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.

"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 12:57 PM

"The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

Ratzinger

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 1:12 PM

Thanks, Jennifer - that guy makes a lot of sense! Does Sharon know about him?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 1:13 PM

The biggest disappointment to me, as a person who is agnostic but constantly defending the power for good of religion to my friends, is the almost total lack of a principaled relgious response to this war in the U.S. No doubt much of it is because our "enemies" are of a different religion, and we care less about Muslim babies being destroyed by bombs than Christian ones. Even in clear cases of human rights abuse, like Abu Gahrib, there is a deafening silence. Even an attempt by some to say it's "not that bad," or to turn a blind eye to obvious evidence.

Religion is supposed to be a bastion of moral clarity. Certainly not these days.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 1:17 PM

"Thanks, Jennifer - that guy makes a lot of sense! Does Sharon know about him?"

Well I dunno. I do seem to see that she talks a lot about some guy named Bush who disagrees. He must be some kind of higher power.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 1:28 PM

Religion is supposed to be a bastion of moral clarity. Certainly not these days.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 1:13 PM

I believe that religion represents a static set of arbitrary beliefs and positions that serve as handles by which blocs of people can be manipulated by demagogues.

The only reliable avenue to meaningful morality, from my perspective, is the combination of knowledge, empathy, and imagination. A lot of this can be facilitated and informed by books like the Bible, "To Kill a Mockingbird", etc.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 1:39 PM

Wait until I say I can't comment and then trash me. Way to go Jen! Show me all the places I talk about Bush. Just look at today and yesterday for instance. Show me one time where I appear as a warmonger. Show me where I condoned killing babies. (Abortion rights activists do it all the time- how many minorities are encouraged?) I am so glad you are looking to Pope Benedict now. That is a good sign!

I guess SLOB, since you appeared like a total ASS for accusing me of something I didn't do, you have to redeem yourself. Your apology was not all that sincere now, was it? Especially since my eaxct words were quoted. All this talk from a guy who carries around a hunk of rebar to bash heads of people.

You both don't understand infallibility. Certainly what a pope says should hold great reverence.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 2:52 PM

Sharon my intentions are not to "trash" you, and I don't know what your schedule is. Sorry.

My response was toungue in cheek and shouldn't be taken literally. I doubt you think Bush is literally a god or demigod. Whether or not you have used the word "Bush" in the last two days is irrelevant to whether or not your views on the war are more in line with his than with Catholic or Christian doctrine.

Simply and literally put, your views on the war and U.S. conduct in the war are more in line with Bush than with your religion. That makes you akin to the vast majority of other people in the US who profess to be religious, and it's why I feel somewhat betrayed by you folk. Religion in Amrerica has a very proud positive history, as opposed to Europe and other places, which I have argued vociferously and to great disdain with my liberal friends. But it is quickly sinking into the same mistakes.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 3:00 PM

"Your apology was not all that sincere now, was it?"

No, not really.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 3:30 PM

Jennifer,

Do you actually know my views?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 4:09 PM

Actually, in light of your impassioned defense of your bush-free worldview, I went back and checked a few archives. Here's what we can say pretty definitively about your views as expressed in your posts:

The single name you invoke the most is "Bush." More than Christ, God, Pope, mercy, justice, humanity, salvation, hope, and care put together. Maybe you are unaware of this, but it's true. You most frequently invoke this name in the context of defending him against the charge that he "lied." This is your overriding concern here, to respond to this charge. Your defense is to post statements from moderate democrats who bought his line (whether he believed it or not,) and repeated it.

Your discussion of religion as far as I can find it centers on the very thing you are now claiming, that the Iraq war and it's conduct is not necessarily condemned by your religion. In other words, that Bush is OK by this measure too.

That I can find, you have never questioned whether U.S. tactics may be too harsh or indiscriminate, but you have done the converse. Not Christian. Not Catholic. Bushy.

You have never that I see questioned whether treatment of detainees has been excessively inhumane or systematically denied them their human rights. You have entered this debate again, on the side of this concern being overblown. Not Christian. Not Catholic. Bushy.

I don't doubt that you are a pretty typical Catholic. And again, that's why I feel betrayed by you folks. You aren't standing up for your values...you are spending your time figuring out how it's technically maybe kindof ok for you to side with Caesar. Where is your moral voice? Is this your religion, post after post apologizing for a man of the moral stature of Bush? Religion is supposed to be, and has been, a large part of the moral conscience of this nation. Where have you gone?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 4:10 PM

Actually, in light of your impassioned defense of your bush-free worldview, I went back and checked a few archives. Here's what we can say pretty definitively about your views as expressed in your posts:

The single name you invoke the most is "Bush." More than Christ, God, Pope, mercy, justice, humanity, salvation, hope, and care put together. Maybe you are unaware of this, but it's true. You most frequently invoke this name in the context of defending him against the charge that he "lied." This is your overriding concern here, to respond to this charge. Your defense is to post statements from moderate democrats who bought his line (whether he believed it or not,) and repeated it.

Your discussion of religion as far as I can find it centers on the very thing you are now claiming, that the Iraq war and it's conduct is not necessarily condemned by your religion. In other words, that Bush is OK by this measure too.

That I can find, you have never questioned whether U.S. tactics may be too harsh or indiscriminate, but you have done the converse. Not Christian. Not Catholic. Bushy.

You have never that I see questioned whether treatment of detainees has been excessively inhumane or systematically denied them their human rights. You have entered this debate again, on the side of this concern being overblown. Not Christian. Not Catholic. Bushy.

I don't doubt that you are a pretty typical Catholic. And again, that's why I feel betrayed by you folks. You aren't standing up for your values...you are spending your time figuring out how it's technically maybe kindof ok for you to side with Caesar. Where is your moral voice? Is this your religion, post after post apologizing for a man of the moral stature of Bush? Religion is supposed to be, and has been, a large part of the moral conscience of this nation. Where have you gone?

By cee on August 2, 2007 4:14 PM

Jennifer, are you a pacifist?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 4:18 PM

Absolutely. Aren't you?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 4:20 PM

Look out! Its pious war-monger tag-team time!

Jennifer, you are awesome.

By cee on August 2, 2007 4:21 PM

No, I am not.

If an armed man came into my home and tried to rape my wife or take my son, I would physically try to stop him.....Using violence is necessary at times.

How about you, you say you are a pacifist....You would never use violence for any reason, then?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 4:23 PM

Jennifer,

I'm not sure if you're new here; but I wonder if you've met cee before. cee is a pacifist, when it comes to his own personal activities. Other people?...not so much.

By cee on August 2, 2007 4:24 PM

Try not to get your underware in a snit, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, and try to have a decent exchange for once.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 4:27 PM

"If an armed man came into my home and tried to rape my wife or take my son, I would physically try to stop him.....Using violence is necessary at times."

What about providing much needed manpower and (reportedly) medical expertise to a strained military enterprise ostensibly countering an existential threat to our society?

The "war on terror" is in response to an existential threat to our society, isn't it?

By cee on August 2, 2007 4:28 PM

I could say the same about you Loin....with one change.....

Look out, it's Sir Loin of Milquetoast, the malingering pious peace activist (as a hobby only).

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 4:30 PM

C'mon, cee, let's have that decent exchange you mentioned.

I asked a reasonable question: does the "war on terror " represent our response to an existential threat to our society?

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 4:36 PM

Look out, it's Sir Loin of Milquetoast, the malingering pious peace activist (as a hobby only).

Posted by: cee at August 2, 2007 4:28 PM

Sir Loin's chickenhawk gig is so yesterday....

I'm enjoying the anti-war "moral imperative" du jour via Jennifer.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 4:38 PM

"If an armed man came into my home and tried to rape my wife or take my son, I would physically try to stop him.....Using violence is necessary at times."

Surely I would too, if someone tried to rape my husband. I don't think this is the definition of pacifism though, or at least it's such a narrow view that it lampoons what it means. My pacifism opposes organized war, not spontaneous self defense. It is an extreme skepticism about the need for and value of war. The Iraq war is a poster child for the kind of war I abhor. It is so speculative, such a far out threat, with such vague theoretical goals and such tangible and certain destruction of life, limb, and peace.

I supposed I should have answered your original question with "are you a warmonger?"

By cee on August 2, 2007 4:39 PM

I thought Bush and Cheney were criminals AND their war was illegal AND immoral.....What are you doing at home at you computer wasting time blogging, Loin, when these grave injustices continue UNSTOPPED AND UNCHALLENGED?....

I thought you were a man of action.....

"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

###
How's that crowd coming along.....got a few thousand yet?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 4:43 PM

Glad I could entertain you Celia. Here's some more for you to laugh at, to take a break from your very serious minded analysis of the issues etc etc...

Sunday 29 July: 59 dead
Baghdad: roadside bomb, mortars and shootings kill 6; 17 bodies.
Bihbisa: gunmen kill 5 residents.
Baquba: roadside bomb kills 3 policemen; body found.
Balad: mortars kill 6; suicide car bomb at police checkpoint kills 4 policemen; body found.
Kut: 5 dead.
Falluja: policeman and ambulance driver shot dead.

Saturday 28 July: 44 dead
Baghdad: car bomb, Karrada; sniper attacks, Adhamiya; 20 bodies.
Muqdadiya: US troops kill motorist.
Hilla: 2 women killed in bomb attack.
Tuz Khurmato: 8 executed by gunmen.
Garma: head found inside cooler.

Friday 27 July: 44 dead
Baghdad: freed hostage blown up in booby-trapped car, also gunmen kill engineer and his wife at home, Saidiya; 7 bodies.
Karbala: up to 9 civilians reported killed in clashes with US forces, 2 children among them.
Mosul: 4 killed in shootings, 5 women's bodies found.
Mussayab: roadside bomb kills 2 women.

Thursday 26 July: 139-153 dead
Baghdad: 61-75 killed by truck bomb, in this year's 19th major attack (50 or more victims), Karrada; roadside bomb, Bayaa; 20 bodies. Among the dead in Karrada, Abdul Khaliq al-Habir al-Anbaki, a caricaturist in al-Mutamar newspaper, killed with 11 members of his family. The Association of Muslim Scholars reports the killing of 15 people during a US airstrike in Madaen, 14 of whom were members of the same family.
Hilla: roadside bomb kills 5 policemen.
Kirkuk: bomb in market kills 7.
Falluja: roadside bomb kills 3, among them 5-year-old Ahmad Uthman Abid.
Tal Abta: attack at police station kills 6.

Wednesday 25 July: 93 dead
Baghdad: 45 civilians killed in suicide bombings during celebrations, Mansour, Ghadeer; car bomb, Shaab; 8 killed in US/Iraqi raid, Sadr City; 2 people from the same family shot dead at home, Madaen; 18 bodies.
Kirkuk: gunmen kill two farmers.
Himreen: 4 heads found.
Iskandariya: 5 bodies.

Tuesday 24 July: 59 dead
Baghdad: mortars, Husseiniya; 18 bodies.
Baquba: 8 bodies.
Hilla: suicide truck bomb close to children's hospital kills 27.
Basra: mortars on Al-Sadr hospital kills 3.

Monday 23 July: 86 dead

Baghdad: bus explosion, Bab al-Muathan; car bombs, Karrada; gunmen attacks, Waziriya; bomb in football field, Wahda; 24 bodies.
Mosul: KDP members assassinated; 5 killed in gunmen attacks; body found.
Tuz: 3 bodies.
Khanaqeen: gunmen shoot dead 5 people after setting up fake checkpoint.
Khalis: gunmen shoot dead 2 people at fake checkpoint.
Ramadi: attack on police checkpoint kills 2 policemen.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 4:44 PM

I supposed I should have answered your original question with "are you a warmonger?"

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 4:38 PM

No, that would have ignored that Cee's question was asked within the context of your allusions to the tenets of Christianity.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 4:50 PM

Baghdad: bus explosion, Bab al-Muathan; car bombs, Karrada; gunmen attacks, Waziriya; bomb in football field, Wahda; 24 bodies.
Mosul: KDP members assassinated; 5 killed in gunmen attacks; body found.
Tuz: 3 bodies.
Khanaqeen: gunmen shoot dead 5 people after setting up fake checkpoint.
Khalis: gunmen shoot dead 2 people at fake checkpoint.
Ramadi: attack on police checkpoint kills 2 policemen.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 4:43 PM

Well, see now you've reverted to an emotionalism that is quite outside of the argument that you initiated here.

I appreciate the default mode of falling back upon the death and destruction inherent in war to justify the fact that yeah..... war sucks.... but that's something that really incidential to the notion Christian supporters of a particular war or nonpacifists in general, are hypocritical.

By cee on August 2, 2007 4:51 PM

Well Jennifer (I am assuming you posted at 4:38PM), it was a simple question....Pacifists abhor violence and choose not to use it as a solution to problems. I would suggest that the violence I would attempt against a would-be rapist is no different than the violence attempted against a would-be terrorist....both are assuming intent and trying to avoid a potential result that IS PERCEIVED.

If you were a true pacifist, violence would never be a solution, individually or collectively.

Both you and Loin benefit from others willing to commit acts of violence against people so you may sit in your residences, right now, safely and comfortably, piously demeaning the religious convictions of Sharon, based on her agreement that a threat was justifiably met in the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Yet, you so easily dismiss these people doing those horrible acts as so much as immoral, maybe even illegal.

Yet, you materially benefit from the violence that allows your very existence? Is that moral?

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 4:59 PM

"If you were a true pacifist, violence would never be a solution, individually or collectively."

Oh right. Whatever you lunatic. Next time you ask a question you have to preface it with "Now mind you, I get to determine the meaning of all the words that will be used here..."

Suffice to say, in your ridicuous terms, I am NOT a pacifist. Suffice to say in your ridiculous terms, discussion is impossible.

"Yet, you materially benefit from the violence that allows your very existence? Is that moral?"

Says you I benefit. If you make up the terms and make up the conditions and define the outcomes, then yes, you will be right. Suffice to say I am not safe in my home right now because the United States attacked Iraq. According to you I would not exist if we had not attacked Iraq.

You guys really are nuts. Does someone want to step in and pinch hit for this guy?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:00 PM

###
How's that crowd coming along.....got a few thousand yet?

Posted by: cee at August 2, 2007 4:39 PM

....So you didn't mean what you said about a "decent exchange". Don't get me wrong - I don't give a fuck about the decency part - you can call me what ever you want and I will not complain.

But answer my question; Is this occuaption necessary to the survival of our society?

By cee on August 2, 2007 5:02 PM

Oh, and like I have brought to Sir Loin of Milquetoast's attention so many times before......

The benefits of violence are just the tip of the iceburg....the practical support of this violence helps you all in so many ways....That Military Industrial Complex is HUGE and I am sure your economic well-being is greatly enhanced by its existance.....

as is Olbermann's (the object of this board), as his employer is a large player in the MIC.....oh the irony!

Moral purity, even for atheists and agnostics, is so hard to accomplish!

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 5:03 PM

>>Well, see now you've reverted to an emotionalism that is quite outside of the argument that you initiated here.>>>>

It was solely for your entertainment Celia. I had not intention of making a point with it. You are entertained by the small mindedness of morality, so I thought I'd let you laugh at me some more by how emotional I am.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:03 PM

Yet, you materially benefit from the violence that allows your very existence? Is that moral?

Posted by: cee at August 2, 2007 4:51 PM

Ok, I will concede that you may be correct - but as anon asked above; How is it you think I'm benefitting. I'll bet its not in the mode of what I would be willing to concede as the case.

By cee on August 2, 2007 5:06 PM

"Is this occuaption necessary to the survival of our society?"

"According to you I would not exist if we had not attacked Iraq."

I get to answer a question and address an accusation at the same time.....

Yes, possibly....you knows what Saddam Hussein may have been doing at this moment if he was allowed to continue to operate, unchallenged and unmonitored with his sympathies towards Hezbollah and Al Qaeda....It is academic because he is dead, but yes, a reasonable person can say that The United States could have been attacked by a terrorist plot involving Saddam Hussein and his resources regarding WMD.

So, Jennifer and Loin, please try again with your "moral" arguments.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 5:08 PM

>>>>No, that would have ignored that Cee's question was asked within the context of your allusions to the tenets of Christianity.>>>>>

I don't understand your point. The war is un-Christian, and I am a pacifist. That's pretty much where I left it. Then cee claimed you can't be a pacifist unless you let your wife be raped, which is pretty hard for me to do since I haven't got a wife. But I still want to be a pacifist.

My point there being, if he can define pacifist, I can define warmonger.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:09 PM

."...That Military Industrial Complex is HUGE and I am sure your economic well-being is greatly enhanced by its existance....."

OK; you answered my last question before I asked it and I was wrong - I do admit that I - along with everyone else in our society does, to highly variable degrees.

But I'm aware of it; I don't like it; and I'm willing to do without it. Its something called "moral responsibility".

Your argument suggests that if the mob is burying bodies on my property, I need to shut up because they might leave a couple hundred bucks in paper bags in my mailbox now and then.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 5:11 PM

Says you I benefit. If you make up the terms and make up the conditions and define the outcomes, then yes, you will be right. Suffice to say I am not safe in my home right now because the United States attacked Iraq. According to you I would not exist if we had not attacked Iraq.

You guys really are nuts. Does someone want to step in and pinch hit for this guy?

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 4:59 PM

Sure.

Let me help you out here.

If you are arguing that wars are bad and ugly things that should be avoided at all costs and that this belief is part and parcel with the moral imperatives of Christianity, then guestions pertaining to the reality of violence in general and freedom and security as impacts the daily lives of Christians Are pertinient questions.

If you are arguing that wars are bad and ugly and should be avoided, but NOT at all costs, and that national pacificism is not a moral imperative of Christianity, then you have allowed Sharon (and the Pope) their opinion.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 5:11 PM

"but yes, a reasonable person can say that The United States could have been attacked by a terrorist plot involving Saddam Hussein and his resources regarding WMD."

And you jump from that to a declarative that I would not exist if not for the invasion of Iraq.

Again, you guys really are nuts.

By cee on August 2, 2007 5:12 PM

Loin, Loin, Loin....

I would just like the same moral purity to be applied to those who ask of it from "religion,"....You know, the glass houses/rocks stuff.

If you and Jennifer are going to start moral purity arguments you better be prepared to be pure with regard to your religious beliefs as well....and, Jennifer, since you need to know definitions, religion is defined as something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience...this is my "broad" definition and I hope it is clear.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:15 PM

ceee...and the flaw in your argument is that the quaity of life robbed from us by the MIC is an unplumbed depth - who knows how full and pleasant life might be in a free and open society that does not squander over half of its wealth on things soley intended to be blown up or otherwise violently disposed of.

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 5:17 PM

You guy's are insane. I can take that you thought this thing would go much better. I can take that you thought you were doing a good thing. I can't take that you are unable to drop or in any way qualify your belief in the allmighty power of the bomb and gun in light of this failure. All you can do is say you'll try harder. This war is a poster child for how little military intervention can accomplish. But it only seems to harden your resolve. That's what's scary. That someone believes I owe my existance to this is truly scary.

Recent Events
Sunday 8 July: 94 dead
Baghdad: car bomb in Karrada; gunmen attacks on officials, Waziriya; gunmen shoot dead 4 family members, Ghazaliya; car bomb outside restaurant, Jadriya; roadside bomb, Shorja market; attack on home, Jami'aa; 29 bodies found.
Haswa: 23 army recruits killed by suicide truck bomber crashing into their vehicle, on their way to enlist.
Mosul: 7 killed in separate incidents.
Samarra: woman and 2 children killed by mortars.
Buhruz: 5 bodies.
Kirkuk: 3 bodies.

Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians call on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves.

Saturday 7 July: 186 dead
Baghdad: 19 bodies found.
Amirli: in the 17th major attack this year (with 50+ killed) a truck bomb explodes in a market, killing 156 people, at least 3 of them children. (There were 12 major attacks in 2006.)
Yathrib: US forces bomb police checkpoint, killing 2 Iraqi policemen. US forces have informed the authorities that this was an 'accident', as they had not been informed of the existence of this checkpoint.

Friday 6 July: 84 dead
Baghdad: mortars kill 7 members of the same family (mother, father, 4 children and another relative) sleeping on the roof of their house, Fadhil;
woman crossing the road shot dead by US troops, Adhamiya; 5 bodies found.
Zargosh: suicide bomber blows up funeral tent killing 22 mourners.
Gluelaa: suicide bomber kills 26.
Mosul: gunmen shoot dead husband and wife.
Salaheddin: gunmen kill 7 relatives of Sheikh Shalakh Al-Rufaiye.
Umm Hilayil: roadside bomb kills a child.
Mahmudiya: 2 bodies found.

Thursday 5 July: 75 dead
Baghdad: car bomb kills 18 members of wedding party, including 3 children; roadside bomb, Dora; 11 killed in clashes; 24 bodies found.
Samarra: 3 killed in US Army-Mehdi Army clashes.
Ishaqi: gunmen attack police convoy, kill 3.
Baquba: 1 head found.
Muqdadiya: 2 bodies found.
Falluja: 5 bodies found.

Wednesday 4 July: 84 dead
Baghdad: clashes in Mansour; gunmen attack shops, Meshtal; car bomb, Saidiya; gunmen kill woman and 4-year-old son, Saidiya; 16 bodies found.
Baiji: suicide car bomber attacks police patrol, kills 7.
Samarra: roadside bomb kills 4 policemen.
Ramadi: suicide car bomber kills 15.
Muqdadiya: 17 civilians reported killed in US air strike.
Nasiriya: doctor and 3 family members shot dead at home.
Falluja: 2 bodies found.
Mosul: 2 bodies found.
Basra: body of interpreter found.

Iraq's Red Crescent reports 217 corpses have been recovered under the wreckage of bombed houses in Baquba, since the start of operation 'Arrowhead Ripper.'

Tuesday 3 July: 78 dead
Baghdad: 18 killed when car bomb explodes at Shalal market; mortars in Amil; gunmen kill 2 gardeners in Dora, 3 men maintaining sewers in Adhamiya; 5 -Sheikh Ibrahim Khalil al-Zawba'i and four of his sons- killed by US forces as they slept; 18 bodies are found.
Samarra: 2 killed in clashes.
Kirkuk: 4 killed by car bombs.
Balad Ruz: 4 shot dead.
Mosul: gunmen, car bomb, roadside bomb kill 4.

Monday 2 July: 60 dead
Baghdad: man killed by US troops in Rasheed; car bomb in Al-Binook; sniper attacks in Karrada, Hay Saddam; mortars, Hay Saddam; roadside bomb, Adhamiya; 17 bodies found.
Khalis: high school student shot dead by Iraqi troops.
Falluja: suicide car bomber blows up outside the house of tribal leader, kills 4, 1 child included.
Diwaniya: US forces shell eight houses, killing 14 people, 6 of them children under age 12; Iraqi police shoot dead 17-year-old youth during
demonstration over US shelling of civilian homes.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 5:18 PM

>>>>No, that would have ignored that Cee's question was asked within the context of your allusions to the tenets of Christianity.>>>>>

I don't understand your point. The war is un-Christian, and I am a pacifist. That's pretty much where I left it. Then cee claimed you can't be a pacifist unless you let your wife be raped, which is pretty hard for me to do since I haven't got a wife. But I still want to be a pacifist.

My point there being, if he can define pacifist, I can define warmonger.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 5:08 PM

No, your implication in asking Cee "are you a warmonger" is that Cee's question-- "are you a pacifist" is absurd/"silly question" because pacificism is not only a traditional teaching of Christianity but a natural conclusion of its combined teaching and to your agnostic views-- a natural conclusion to any sort of moral ethos in general.

That's not true. It's a pertinent question in that many moral people are not pacifists.

By cee on August 2, 2007 5:18 PM

Morally, Jennifer, defending a loved one WITH VIOLENCE would be wrong to a pacifist.....they could try to talk to the potential rapist/robber/whatever, try to flee with their loved one or even call 911 and pass off the vioelnce to another poor soul that would have to intervene....but a pacifist would never use violence themselves.

I know these terms may seem fluid to you, but they actually have real definitions....you know, printed black and white on a page.....oh that's right.....I am wrong to think that way.....there's only shades of gray....

By cee on August 2, 2007 5:24 PM

"who knows how full and pleasant life might be in a free and open society that does not squander over half of its wealth on things soley intended to be blown up or otherwise violently disposed of. "

###
Oh my, Sir Loin of Milquetoast just posted the most profound thing ever on OW! Yes, Loin, and when a human-made society achieves this for every man/woman and child, I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

If it is accomplished. Our divergent worldviews come to two polar opposites regarding that possibility, however.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:25 PM

I'm pure as the snow, cee - all washed in the blood of the lamb etc.

your particular "point or matter of ethics or conscience" would be what. then?

That you can support your nation's invasion of a country because "a reasonable person can say that The United States could have been attacked by a terrorist plot involving" that country's leader and ambiguous arsenal? ...and that you're just fine sitting out the sacrifice part because (please fill in the blank).

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

You guy's are insane. I can take that you thought this thing would go much better. I can take that you thought you were doing a good thing. I can't take that you are unable to drop or in any way qualify your belief in the allmighty power of the bomb and gun in light of this failure. All you can do is say you'll try harder. This war is a poster child for how little military intervention can accomplish. But it only seems to harden your resolve. That's what's scary. That someone believes I owe my existance to this is truly scary.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 5:17 PM

So are you arguing that it's hypocritical for Sharon to be for the war because "war is harmful to flowers and other living things" or because you feel this war was unnecessary.

THAT argument is stiill quite different from your original appeal to Sharon's faith.

If it's merely about wrong wars or opinions rather than religious absolutes, Sharon may rermember those other poster children of war -- you know-- the ones that ended slavery, fascism, the Nazis, etc...

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

No, your implication in asking Cee "are you a warmonger" is that Cee's question-- "are you a pacifist" is absurd/"silly question"

Why is that? Is it absurd or silly to call him a warmonger? He is a warmonger. He mongs a freaking war. He believes I owe my existence to this war, because it's "possible to conceive" that Saddam would have killed me. He's a ding dong nut.

What made it absurd and silly is how he defined pacifist. I'm sorry, but you can be a pacifist without refusing to interfere in your wife's rape.

That's when I asked if he was a warmonger. Which actually is not silly. He obviously believes we can solve the terrorist problem this way, and so yeah, he's a warmonger.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:28 PM

That's not true. It's a pertinent question in that many moral people are not pacifists.

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 5:18 PM

Possibly true - but no war-monger is a moral person.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:33 PM

If it's merely about wrong wars or opinions rather than religious absolutes, Sharon may rermember those other poster children of war -- you know-- the ones that ended slavery, fascism, the Nazis, etc...

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

Here your argument is that if one war is just and productive, all wars must be just and productive. And that would have be the case for any and all sides in all wars - because, after all, some of our allies in one war have been our enemies in others.

So Cecelia would have supported Hitler's assaults on Poland, France, and Russia.

By Mike on August 2, 2007 5:37 PM

Go Jennifer!!!

Glad you're here. Cee has a way of wearing you down even as he loses argument after argument.

By Sweet Jesus on August 2, 2007 5:39 PM

The most salient issue, however, is not that O’Reilly fancies himself a “traditionalist,” rejects the secularization of America, extols the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation, and bemoans the perfidious culture war being propagated by the liberal Hollywood elite while simultaneously threatening to massage an employee’s tits. No, what’s most disturbing is that that he completely sucks at phone sex.

In fact, he thinks he’s awesome at it. He thinks he’s the frickin’ MacGyver of phone sex, making women who’ve never orgasmed gush with just a phone call. But as the court documents will show, Bill’s technique is really quite dreadful. The man has absolutely no game.

So, as we’ve written this book primarily to help Bill navigate his way past life’s many obstacles, we figured we’d give him some pointers for future producer-harassing endeavors.

Here goes:

1) Don’t use unnecessarily complicated words. OK, Bill, at times during phone sex you use complicated, almost clinical terms such as “intravenously” and “modus operandi.”

Dude! The ladies like French and Italian. But Latin? Not so much. Use action words. Paint a picture in her mind. Talk about how you’re strong enough to pick her up and just bounce her up and down on your cock while standing up in the shower.

Use construction words. (e.g. nail, pound, hammer, drive, etc.). You gotta keep it hot. Don’t tell her that you want to feed wine into her veins intravenously. That’s just creepy, man. It sounds like something a
guy would do to a girl he has trapped in his basement.

2) Avoid immature descriptions. This is key, Bill. You sound like a 13-year-old when you use phrases like “rubbing your big boobs.”

OK, first and foremost, don’t use the word “boobs.” However, if you do, don’t say “big boobs.” You sound like Beavis and/or Butthead. If you continue, she’s not going to breathlessly anticipate your next
salvo; she’s just going to expect an awkward “heh-heh, heh, boooooobs.”

Say breasts if you must, but the internationally accepted phone-sex term is “tits.” Got it? It’s not up for debate.

3) Avoid misspoken or mispronounced words. Now a lot has been made about your falafel comment, and it was obviously a blunder, but come on. It’s a big blunder. No one is cummin’ after that one. No one!

Now Bill, everyone has that uncle who says he loves to watch STEINfeld, or tries to engage your niece in a conversation about Justin Timberwolf, and you simply laugh it off and don’t bother correcting him.
But no one wants to have phone sex with him. Bill, when it comes to phone sex, you are that guy. You just need to stop.

OK? End of lesson.

O’Reilly actually makes a very astute comment about sex in The O’Reilly Factor book: “Control it, don’t let it control you,” he warns his readers.

Oh, Bill.

By cee on August 2, 2007 5:43 PM

No, Jennifer, I believe Saddam Hussein posed a real and direct threat to The United States of America and it was justified that he was removed by force. The war was as moral as America entering WWII, The Korean War, The Vietnam War and Desert Storm. You may disagree and call me names, and even Loin can call me an immoral ChickenHawk, but your initial argument with Sharon was going down a completely different road with the idea of "just war," and I simply demanded moral clarity....

black and white definitions.....

I called your arrogant bluff, I called you out on your judgement of Sharon's faith.

You are not a pacifist if you think violence is ever justified. If you want to try to make excuses with semantics, go right ahead....Loin does it all the time.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:45 PM

"who knows how full and pleasant life might be in a free and open society that does not squander over half of its wealth on things soley intended to be blown up or otherwise violently disposed of. "

###
Oh my, Sir Loin of Milquetoast just posted the most profound thing ever on OW! Yes, Loin, and when a human-made society achieves this for every man/woman and child, I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

If it is accomplished. Our divergent worldviews come to two polar opposites regarding that possibility, however.

Posted by: cee at August 2, 2007 5:24 PM

Well Happy Day! cee, you do realize that the democracies of Scandanavia, for instance, are among many nations on earth that match the criteria I laid out, don't you? Give me one other developed democracy that spends over half its wealth on "defense".

So; will you now admit you were wrong, as you just promised?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 5:45 PM

Celia, if you want to have a discussion with me, just have it. Don't freaking go picking through my conversations with two other posters, mash them up, put in some new quotes about "flowers and other living things" and then attack me on another front. This is a basic kind of dishonesty.

What do YOU think Celia? Do you think this war is a good idea, that it's working for peace, that war in generall is a good idea? Does it accomplish it's goals? Or are you just here to try and find flaws with other people's hilariously naive moral stands that are so entertainingly bourgeosie?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 5:50 PM

Jennifer is sharp. She's got Cecelia's act pegged to a tee within a half-dozen posts.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 5:55 PM

Here your argument is that if one war is just and productive, all wars must be just and productive. And that would have be the case for any and all sides in all wars - because, after all, some of our allies in one war have been our enemies in others.

So Cecelia would have supported Hitler's assaults on Poland, France, and Russia.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 5:33 PM

I'm aguing juust what you suggest. That war CAN be justified. That Christianity does not dispute this.

If Jennifer admits that some wars are just and some wars are not and that it isn't war in general that is essentially against the tenets of Christian dogma, then the entire pretext for going at Sharon via her religious beliefs is moot.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 5:56 PM

Why is that? Is it absurd or silly to call him a warmonger? He is a warmonger. He mongs a freaking war. He believes I owe my existence to this war, because it's "possible to conceive" that Saddam would have killed me. He's a ding dong nut.

What made it absurd and silly is how he defined pacifist. I'm sorry, but you can be a pacifist without refusing to interfere in your wife's rape.

That's when I asked if he was a warmonger. Which actually is not silly. He obviously believes we can solve the terrorist problem this way, and so yeah, he's a warmonger.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 5:26 PM

You certainly owe your existence, as in the life that you lead, because someone was/is willing to violently intercede in some way on your behalf.

That's a pretty classic argument to make when debating pacifism.

That problems have been solved by wars when other means failed is certainly one as well.

I've no quarrel with your anti-war stance, just what seemed to be your appeal to Christianity or natural law as an absolutist foundation for it.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:04 PM

Celia, if you want to have a discussion with me, just have it. Don't freaking go picking through my conversations with two other posters, mash them up, put in some new quotes about "flowers and other living things" and then attack me on another front. This is a basic kind of dishonesty.

What do YOU think Celia? Do you think this war is a good idea, that it's working for peace, that war in generall is a good idea? Does it accomplish it's goals? Or are you just here to try and find flaws with other people's hilariously naive moral stands that are so entertainingly bourgeosie?

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 5:45 PM

Well, of course I'll go through all your conversations in a single thread when I discuss an issue with you. Particularly when you started the discussion with a religious appeal.

Are you arguing that the relative success of a war at achieving its goal is tantamount to making one war more moral than another war-- and therefore a justifiably war in your book?

Had Iraq been an unqualified success would have put Sharon's support of it on a firm foundation Christianity-wise?

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 6:05 PM

"I called your arrogant bluff, I called you out on your judgement of Sharon's faith."

What's the bluff? Both Popes stated that the Iraq invasion was anathema to her religion. She correctly stated that they left open the theoretical possibility of just war, but extended that to suggest they did not codemn this war, which was wrong. They did.

HAve you noticed, cee and celia, that you guys mostly argue about other people's arguments? You are like proxy. I frankly think Sharon can do a better job defending her more moderate position, and maybe she would think about her faith in the process. You guys don't share her faith, and yet you want to defend her...and the reason is obvious. You support war, and you want as much moral cover as you can get for this freaking fiasco.

But seriously, haven't events in Iraq caused you to doubt just a little bit how much we can remake the worlld by force?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:06 PM

cecelia

don't get hung up omn definitions - I don't consider myself a pacifist, although many in my exteded family and circle of freinds do.

But you are wrong regarding your own position - by adroitly avoiding the countless strikes against Bush predatory adventures and cmparing them in general to WWII, you are arguing that because some wars are just, you might as well give any and all wars a chance - just be areful and don;t get a real good look at them.

You know, two years ago I concluded that only the mentally disavantaged and those with murder residing in their stone-cold hearts could still defend Bush's war. By now the retards have wised up.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:10 PM

>I know these terms may seem fluid to you, but they actually have real definitions....you know, printed black and white on a page.....oh that's right.....I am wrong to think that way.....there's only shades of gray....

Posted by: cee at August 2, 2007 5:18 PM

cee believes there can only be one definition per word (not to mention numerous connotations and variables regarding context)

Sorry, cee, even in black and white you are wrong.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:10 PM

Or are you just here to try and find flaws with other people's hilariously naive moral stands that are so entertainingly bourgeosie?

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 5:45 PM

Just to set things straight, YOU challenged Sharon on her support for the war based upon her religious precepts and your implication that she was ready to jettison thosse based upon the edict of King Bush.

It was that moral imperative that you issued via religious teachings that I found amusing. Particularly in light of your arguments about the American Chruch as contrasted, I suppose, with those older european Christian Crusaders... :D

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:10 PM

Had Iraq been an unqualified success would have put Sharon's support of it on a firm foundation Christianity-wise?

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:04 PM

Perhaps if you asked : "had any aspect of the Iraq occupation exhibited one iota of success, and not been tarnished with layers of lies, ulterior motives, conflicts of interest, and hundreds of thousands of dead innocents." then we could talk.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 6:12 PM

Go Jennifer!!!

Glad you're here. Cee has a way of wearing you down even as he loses argument after argument.

Posted by: Mike at August 2, 2007 5:37 PM

Settle down, "mike," "jennifer" is new in name, only.
Can you show us where cee "lost" an argument? Just curious, oh self righteous one.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:16 PM

Can you show us where cee "lost" an argument? Just curious, oh self righteous one.

Posted by: royalking at August 2, 2007 6:12 PM

see my 5:45 post. cee laid out the conditions, and was beat beore they hit my screen. he's been a little quiet since then.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:19 PM

I called your arrogant bluff, I called you out on your judgement of Sharon's faith."

What's the bluff? Both Popes stated that the Iraq invasion was anathema to her religion. She correctly stated that they left open the theoretical possibility of just war, but extended that to suggest they did not codemn this war, which was wrong. They did.

HAve you noticed, cee and celia, that you guys mostly argue about other people's arguments? You are like proxy. I frankly think Sharon can do a better job defending her more moderate position, and maybe she would think about her faith in the process. You guys don't share her faith, and yet you want to defend her...and the reason is obvious. You support war, and you want as much moral cover as you can get for this freaking fiasco.

But seriously, haven't events in Iraq caused you to doubt just a little bit how much we can remake the worlld by force?

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 6:05 PM

Actually, Cee and both jumped immediately in to asking YOU to define yourself and your arguments. And to taking on the notion that national pacifism is a traditional teaching within the Christian Church or a natural expectation from its teaching (or any moral ethos based on natural law).

Instead of debating or defining yourself, you immediately launched into war stats, and ad hominyms about our being crazy, and complaints that you were being mischaracterized.

On the otherhand Sharon made a contrast between papal infalliability as it regards processes within the Church and the Pope, as a man issuing his opinion. You continue to mischaracterize that though YOU have now jettisoned the notion that Sharon's antiwar stance is innately hypocritical to her faith.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:19 PM

The only way cee, cecelia, and sharon can even trick themselves into thinking they've 'won' a debate is to get abstract, theoretical, and ignore the specific harsh realities of what is going on right this minute.

It's not ANY religion or ANY pope...It's catholicism and Ratzinger.

It's not any war....It's THIS war.

It's not perceived damage, it's actual loss of blood and treasure.

And yeah, Saddam MAY have attacked us. That's ignoring reality if I have ever seen it. Iraq attacking us was about as likely as cee winning a nobel peace prize.

Sure it's POSSIBLE.....

But let's talk about the reality folks...

Let's debate ACTUAL gains and losses due to the blundered war in Iraq, not imagined or theoretical ones.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:21 PM

Shut the fuck up, Cecelia :D

By Jennifer on August 2, 2007 6:22 PM

"Are you arguing that the relative success of a war at achieving its goal is tantamount to making one war more moral than another war-- and therefore a justifiably war in your book?

Had Iraq been an unqualified success would have put Sharon's support of it on a firm foundation Christianity-wise?"

Not really. It was the decision to invade that was the initial moral problem from the point of both Christianity and my form of pacifism, which I think is allied with Christianity. The problem is that there were other options, and that our invasion was primarily self interested and discounted the lives and moral volition of Iraqi's in favor of our own. We had no right from a pacifist perspective to force them to change their government, however bad we felt it was for them or might be for us someday. We had no right to drop bombs among them for their own good and ours.

And then, after the fact, when it turns out maybe they had some sagacity in not rebelling against Saddam since the current situation may be called much worse from both their point of view and ours, then I can make the practical argument too.

So maybe just maybe it was both immoral and stupid, and those things are not mutually exclusive (imagine!), and both a Christians and a pacifist and machiavellian/Willsonian dreamers like yourselves should have all been in agreement.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:30 PM

cecelia

don't get hung up omn definitions - I don't consider myself a pacifist, although many in my exteded family and circle of freinds do.

But you are wrong regarding your own position - by adroitly avoiding the countless strikes against Bush predatory adventures and cmparing them in general to WWII, you are arguing that because some wars are just, you might as well give any and all wars a chance - just be areful and don;t get a real good look at them.

You know, two years ago I concluded that only the mentally disavantaged and those with murder residing in their stone-cold hearts could still defend Bush's war. By now the retards have wised up.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:06 PM

Sir Loin,

I've cut-n-pasted below my post where I mentioned other wars

It's clear I was making a point that war -- in general-- is able to solve problems... as opposed to a pacifistic notion that it does not and that one is on hypocritical moral grounds in making such a appeal to war.

Sir Loin, I don't mind and have no interest in your using the Iraq War as pretext to advance all your leftist stances on everything from tax policy to nationalized healthcare, but do try to not put words in my mouth.

"So are you arguing that it's hypocritical for Sharon to be for the war because "war is harmful to flowers and other living things" or because you feel this war was unnecessary.

THAT argument is stiill quite different from your original appeal to Sharon's faith.

If it's merely about wrong wars or opinions rather than religious absolutes, Sharon may rermember those other poster children of war -- you know-- the ones that ended slavery, fascism, the Nazis, etc...

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 5:26 PM "

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:31 PM

Jennifer is sharp. She's got Cecelia's act pegged to a tee within a half-dozen posts.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 5:50 PM

Buckle in kids, Cecelia will be back...she loves the abuse.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:32 PM

Water Taps Run Dry in Baghdad
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press

BAGHDAD - Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water Thursday and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the urban misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer.

Residents and city officials said large sections in the west of the capital had been virtually dry for six days because the already strained electricity grid cannot provide sufficient power to run water purification and pumping stations.

Baghdad routinely suffers from periodic water outages, but this one is described by residents as one of the most extended and widespread in recent memory. The problem highlights the larger difficulties in a capital beset by violence, crumbling infrastructure, rampant crime and too little electricity to keep cool in the sweltering weather more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion.
--------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess Iraqi's need to ask themselves, are they better off now than they were pre-invasion and occupation...

Oh wait, let's not ask them, they are, they just don't know it...

Let's ask cee, cecelia, and jeff...

They know better about such things than the iraqi's themselves anyway.

In fact, they know exactly how the whole world SHOULD be. Just ask them...

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:33 PM

The only way cee, cecelia, and sharon can even trick themselves into thinking they've 'won' a debate is to get abstract, theoretical, and ignore the specific harsh realities of what is going on right this minute.

It's not ANY religion or ANY pope...It's catholicism and Ratzinger.

It's not any war....It's THIS war.

It's not perceived damage, it's actual loss of blood and treasure.

And yeah, Saddam MAY have attacked us. That's ignoring reality if I have ever seen it. Iraq attacking us was about as likely as cee winning a nobel peace prize.

Sure it's POSSIBLE.....

But let's talk about the reality folks...

Let's debate ACTUAL gains and losses due to the blundered war in Iraq, not imagined or theoretical ones.

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:19 PM

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:33 PM

Had Iraq been an unqualified success would have put Sharon's support of it on a firm foundation Christianity-wise?

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:04 PM

Perhaps if you asked : "had any aspect of the Iraq occupation exhibited one iota of success, and not been tarnished with layers of lies, ulterior motives, conflicts of interest, and hundreds of thousands of dead innocents." then we could talk.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:10 PM

Too bad Jennifer didn't orginally frameup her remarks to Sharon in that light, huh?...

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:34 PM

"It was the decision to invade that was the initial moral problem from the point of both Christianity and my form of pacifism, which I think is allied with Christianity"

Thanks for your opinion. I resent your cramming your morality down my thrioat.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:35 PM

The only way cee, cecelia, and sharon can even trick themselves into thinking they've 'won' a debate is to get abstract, theoretical, and ignore the specific harsh realities of what is going on right this minute.

It's not ANY religion or ANY pope...It's catholicism and Ratzinger.

It's not any war....It's THIS war.

It's not perceived damage, it's actual loss of blood and treasure.

And yeah, Saddam MAY have attacked us. That's ignoring reality if I have ever seen it. Iraq attacking us was about as likely as cee winning a nobel peace prize.

Sure it's POSSIBLE.....

But let's talk about the reality folks...

Let's debate ACTUAL gains and losses due to the blundered war in Iraq, not imagined or theoretical ones.

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:19 PM

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:33 PM

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:38 PM

You know, two years ago I concluded that only the mentally disavantaged and those with murder residing in their stone-cold hearts could still defend Bush's war. By now the retards have wised up.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:06 PM

Classic!

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:38 PM

Too bad Jennifer didn't orginally frameup her remarks to Sharon in that light, huh?...

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:33 PM

Yeah whatever. Do you avoid the REAL issues in your own mind as well, or just here on OW?

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:40 PM

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:19 PM

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:33 PM

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:35 PM

I'm really flattered you like my post, but there's really no reason to keep re-posting it every few minutes.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:46 PM

Classic!

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:38 PM

Thanks, anon. But its not just a joke - I mean it. The drowning rats of various strains share one thing in common - vicarious bloodlust. cee and Sharon crave a redemeptive holy war; Cecelia loves her status as an imperial dowager; some of these clowns are racists; some crazed nationalists;...

- but they all fill their voids with blood spilled by somebody else or somebody else's kid. Its the dark, dark psychology of a bored and useless bourgeoisie

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:47 PM

Not really. It was the decision to invade that was the initial moral problem from the point of both Christianity and my form of pacifism, which I think is allied with Christianity. The problem is that there were other options, and that our invasion was primarily self interested and discounted the lives and moral volition of Iraqi's in favor of our own. We had no right from a pacifist perspective to force them to change their government, however bad we felt it was for them or might be for us someday. We had no right to drop bombs among them for their own good and ours.

And then, after the fact, when it turns out maybe they had some sagacity in not rebelling against Saddam since the current situation may be called much worse from both their point of view and ours, then I can make the practical argument too.

So maybe just maybe it was both immoral and stupid, and those things are not mutually exclusive (imagine!), and both a Christians and a pacifist and machiavellian/Willsonian dreamers like yourselves should have all been in agreement.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 2, 2007 6:22 PM

So let's take it from your statement that you would have found attacking Iraq immoral even if things in Iraq had gone well after that fact.

It it inherently more pacfistic to argue that one must be attacked in order to justly overthrow another country's regime? Doesn't that put war would deem as being "just" on the same footing as those you do not?

From a strictly Christian perspective, there are no Christian teachings that conflict with the notion of free nations intervening upon the plight of people in other nations, via military action.

We successfully intervened in and toppled a regime in the Balkans for just reason.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:52 PM

Thanks, anon. But its not just a joke - I mean it. The drowning rats of various strains share one thing in common - vicarious bloodlust. cee and Sharon crave a redemeptive holy war; Cecelia loves her status as an imperial dowager; some of these clowns are racists; some crazed nationalists;...

- but they all fill their voids with blood spilled by somebody else or somebody else's kid. Its the dark, dark psychology of a bored and useless bourgeoisie

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:46 PM

I take it you'd have no quarrel with our opposing the war on holy and religious grounds.... as Jennifer suggested...

BTW, Sir Loin, as I have mentioned before, my daughter and son-in-law are are Air Men.

She has done four tours in the region and was in Uzebekistan when the base there was attacked.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:52 PM

I'm really flattered you like my post, but there's really no reason to keep re-posting it every few minutes.

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:40 PM

sorry, techincal problems...

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 6:55 PM

Too bad Jennifer didn't orginally frameup her remarks to Sharon in that light, huh?...

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:33 PM

Yeah whatever. Do you avoid the REAL issues in your own mind as well, or just here on OW?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:38 PM

First you say my act is to NOT respond to the arguments that people make, now you're saying that I should have responded to the arguement you wish Jennifer had made, rather than the one she did.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 6:56 PM

>but they all fill their voids with blood spilled by somebody else or somebody else's kid. Its the dark, dark psychology of a bored and useless bourgeoisie

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:46 PM

Boy, and all this time I thought it was (to quote George Carlin) because they're brown.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 6:58 PM

BTW, Sir Loin, as I have mentioned before, my daughter and son-in-law are are Air Men.

She has done four tours in the region and was in Uzebekistan when the base there was attacked.

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:52 PM

No shit? Well good one on them. You are off my "chickenhawk" roll via their efforts.

But....

You can see your ofspring off to war, but you never seem to be able to craft a direct defense or explanation for that war - instead you employ your trademarked straw-man hopscotch that Jenifer described so well. Why is that?

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 7:00 PM

First you say my act is to NOT respond to the arguments that people make, now you're saying that I should have responded to the arguement you wish Jennifer had made, rather than the one she did.

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:55 PM

see, you're being cute again (see my 6:58 post)

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 7:03 PM

BTW, Sir Loin, as I have mentioned before, my daughter and son-in-law are are Air Men.
She has done four tours in the region and was in Uzebekistan when the base there was attacked.
Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:52 PM

nice, when all your arguments fail, pull out the sympathy card...goodness what a creep.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 7:07 PM

No shit? Well good one on them. You are off my "chickenhawk" roll via their efforts.

But....

You can see your ofspring off to war, but you never seem to be able to craft a direct defense or explanation for that war - instead you employ your trademarked straw-man hopscotch that Jenifer described so well. Why is that?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:58 PM

Well, Sir Loin, I have always taken your chickenhawk list with as much seriousness as I do your tolerance for Christianity when used as an appeal for YOUR positions.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 7:11 PM

BTW, Sir Loin, as I have mentioned before, my daughter and son-in-law are are Air Men.
She has done four tours in the region and was in Uzebekistan when the base there was attacked.
Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 6:52 PM

nice, when all your arguments fail, pull out the sympathy card...goodness what a creep.

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 7:03 PM

Interesting. Though I have mentioned my kids' service in the past, as long as Sir Loin has been here, he wasn't aware of it.

That I mentioned it in reply to an accusation that I have no personal stake in the war certainly belies the sympathy play accusation too, moron.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 2, 2007 7:15 PM

"Interesting. Though I have mentioned my kids' service in the past, as long as Sir Loin has been here, he wasn't aware of it. "

Weird huh? Hey, here's a question; what in the world has made this war worthwhile or just?

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 7:26 PM

"Interesting. Though I have mentioned my kids' service in the past, as long as Sir Loin has been here, he wasn't aware of it. "

Weird huh? Hey, here's a question; what in the world has made this war worthwhile or just?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 7:15 PM

Oh please! The suggestion is that I've never answered this question when I have and it's mererly resutled in your calling me a nationalistic oil greedy blood-thristy Chrstian interventionist.

Since that's been established, I'm going to insist that I also be allowed to respond to and engage in discussion that I find interesting, such as pacifism and Christian teachings on pacifism.

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 7:32 PM

It's easy to tell when Cecelia is angry:

Her typo to :D ratio tips in favor of typos.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 7:37 PM

It's easy to tell when Cecelia is angry:

Her typo to :D ratio tips in favor of typos.

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 7:32 PM

I've never taken typing and my skills are terrible and get worse when responding to a flurry of posts to me...but don't you feel badly that this sort of thing is the best YOU can do?... :D

By Anonymous on August 2, 2007 7:58 PM

I've never taken typing and my skills are terrible and get worse when responding to a flurry of posts to me...but don't you feel badly that this sort of thing is the best YOU can do?... :D

Posted by: Cecelia at August 2, 2007 7:37 PM

If you think that's the BEST I can do, you are sadly mistaken. It was just an amusing observation.

I'd think with all the typing practice you get while posting here, you'd get better at it.

I'm not sure why I thought that, you sure haven't gotten any better at debating...:D

By royalking on August 2, 2007 8:16 PM

In fact, they know exactly how the whole world SHOULD be. Just ask them...

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 6:32 PM

Thanks, patsy!

By Mike on August 2, 2007 9:13 PM

Look, Jeff is playing clairvoyant again.

LOL again!

By royalking on August 2, 2007 9:28 PM

Miller on dodd (d). "He could give a speech at his own dining room table and only 50% of the people would listen." Now, that's comedy gold.

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 9:32 PM

If you think that's the BEST I can do, you are sadly mistaken. It was just an amusing observation.

I'd think with all the typing practice you get while posting here, you'd get better at it.

I'm not sure why I thought that, you sure haven't gotten any better at debating...:D

Posted by: at August 2, 2007 7:58 PM

Like you'd recognize a debate if you saw one..let alone engage in one, Anonyloon...

And yes, that really is the best you can do... :D

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:03 PM

Both Popes stated that the Iraq invasion was anathema to her religion. She correctly stated that they left open the theoretical possibility of just war, but extended that to suggest they did not codemn this war, which was wrong. They did.
(Jennifer)

I stated that Pope John Paul II (I said nothing of Benedict in my original statement) did not OUTRIGHT condemn the war. The distinction that I should have made (and I should have made an entirely different word choice) is that one does not commit an objective mortal sin by supporting the war. If that were the case, every soldier, airman, marine, seaman who is Catholic and has not invoked conscientious objector status would be in mortal sin. As would their families if they support the war. I haven't heard that declaration yet.

I have been commenting here since last fall and yes, I would agree that I have made numerous arguments defending that Bush did not lie, with this caveat: there is no proof that he lied and if he did and there is the requisite amount of evidence, he should be impeached. I also am in agreement for instituting impeachment proceedings to get it all on the table. Did you get that from your search, Jennifer? Where is the detachment from Catholicism to expect the Constitution to be applied to the President? You would convict him without the same consideration that you want for detainees?

Speaking of detainees, I stated somewhere that I had a hard time drumming up sympathy for Kaleid Shek Mohammad being water boarded when he decapitates people who did not receive any due process before their murders. I said that I struggled with that fact, that if I were in the room with him, I would feel sympathy, unlike the Pope, who is so holy that he feels sympathy without being in the room. I am paraphrasing but that is the gist of what turned into a 2-3 day discussion with someone named VOK. I struggle with feeling sorry for horrible people. I didn't say that I was right about it either.

Also, you won't find anybody on this board who has mentioned the Pope and Catholicism more than I. Unless you count the sick comments made by one person here about child molesting, but I don't think even that number comes close. I would love to spend time discussing faith and values if anyone were interested. So, the fact that I defended the Bush lied theory numerous times shows the content of the board.

Your research also failed to show that I admitted fault in not following the lead up to the war. I didn't think about sectarian violence. I didn't delve into the issue at all and heard very little controversy. Had the war not been authorized, I would not have been disappointed. When it was, I wanted success. I believed there was a threat and believe now (without official proof otherwise) that most of the world believed it also. The countries who did not support it? Now, there are some clean hands! I won't demoralize the members of the military by telling them their mission is useless, that they are dying for nothing. I worry about the soldiers and anyone who is regular here knows that. When the three men from the 10th Mountain Division were captured, I just wanted everyone to come home at that moment. I saw the resolve of the men looking for him and I quieted down. I think the enemy saw that because unlike my worst fears, there was not a rash of kidnapping soldiers. That capture cost the enemy more than expected.

I still want them to come home to their families. Believe it or don't. It is just a matter of when the best chance for stability arises.

Thank you to my friends here for speaking well of me in my absence.

By Mike on August 2, 2007 10:09 PM

Sharon, you are clearly a very good, frank, and honest person.....In short, the very best this blog has to offer.....even if we do differ on the war.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:10 PM

I think the enemy saw the resolve of the men searching for the missing soldiers I meant

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:12 PM

I am hardly the best here but your comment is appreciated.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:27 PM

What do you expect, why, for me to leave the church like you did, because of the sins of others? They broke God's law so I should leave? It is not necessary to keep providing images of abuse. That is the sick part.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:35 PM

The sectarian violence became an issue after the bombing of the Shiite Mosque after the successful elections. That is something that would not have occurred to me because I was not familiar with holy shrines for Muslims and that they could be targets to ignite sectarian violence. It was hard for the Coalition to protect the sites when the Iraqis didn't want the soldiers near them. (Of course, using them for weapons storage was a factor). I saw a segment on CNN when the war first began. A small group of soldiers were getting rocks hurled at them the closer they got to a shrine. The Colonel realized it, told the men to start bowing and smiling, and retreat.

SLOB thinks that the U.S. and/or Britain cause the sectarian violence. How does that square with your argument that Bush was too stupid to have foreseen the possibility of targeting holy sites of each other?

By Cecelia on August 2, 2007 10:46 PM

Don't ever forget it wasn't just some bad priests. It was the institution of the CC that should be held accountable.

Posted by: Why do U care ? at August 2, 2007 10:38 PM

Well, in the midst of your writing some lurid details on the matter, supposedly in order to convey the above... I take it you have forgotten that the Catholic Church as an institution hasn't walked off scot-free.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 10:52 PM

What do you mean by institution? Ask any "traditional" Catholic his/her opinion of Cardinal Mahoney (even before the lawsuits) and the answer would likely be "No comment" to avoid sin. The same is true of many others. I thought a lot about Bernard Cardinal Law and Pope John Paul's decision to summon him to Rome and give him a position there. Here is my theory. Laugh if you want. Your opinion of me is already quite clear. I think Pope John Paul may have been concerned for Cardinal Law's safety. Law was knee deep in that scandal. I also believe that either he or someone whom he suggested as a spiritual advisor, had him (Law) undergo severe penances, as in fasting, sleep deprivation (getting up various times at night for prayer), maybe even old fashioned wearing of horse hair undershirts, . . . It used to be referred to as taking the discipline. Some people voluntarily subject themselves to penance (which should be done under spiritual direction) to feel Christ's suffering and to atone for the sins of others. When you are hungry and tired, hurting, you peel away the layers of the world. Jesus fasted and prayed all night. He willingly underwent torture. I feel after coming to this site for close to a year, I probably need a good fast.

All sins are forgivable, but there is atonement. A rosary isn't going to do it for destroying lives and causing scandal.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 10:53 PM

It was for Catholics like yourself to remember it wasn't just the priests that raped those thousands of young boys. It was also the pastors, bishops, cardinals and the whole hierarchy of the Catholic church that looked the other way and permitted this abuse to go on for decades.

Don't ever forget it wasn't just some bad priests. It was the institution of the CC that should be held accountable.

Posted by: patsy at August 2, 2007 10:38 PM

You should look into getting some help for your obsession with priests and little boys.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 10:55 PM

Unless you count the sick comments made by one person here about child molesting,

Posted by: Sharon at August 2, 2007 10:03 PM

Those sickening detailed spews were from why/patsy/anon. He must have first hand experience.

By Sharon on August 2, 2007 11:06 PM

I really do pray that the victims find their peace and good, holy priests to help them find their faith again. Our family has known some very decent, kind priests. One year around Easter, our heat pump broke. The parochial vicar, who was a fairly young man with no resources other than his salary, gave us an Easter card with a note inside and $150.00. He told us that the money would not pay for a new heat pump but it could buy us a nice Easter dinner. My husband and I were both hospitalized within a span of 6 months with serious conditions. We just had our second baby. This priest was there at the hospital for us. The terrible part about the abuse cases is that the priests who molested gained the trust of the family members as well. But one way for me to tell how much I truly trust a priest is how reverently he celebrates the liturgy. Does he follow the rubrics? I saw a story on A/Cooper of an abuse case. As soon as he said he went up to the altar to "self-communicate" I knew that I would find a different parish, if possible. Self-communication is not allowed. The priest already showed himself suspect.

By royalking on August 2, 2007 11:24 PM

Talk to us about a better news wire than the AP, or what a double negative is, or why you are the troll of this site.

Posted by: Why do U care ? at August 2, 2007 10:59 PM

This coming from someone who's claim to "fame" is posting "bushwipe" first on every thread.

By cee on August 3, 2007 8:31 AM

"Well Happy Day! cee, you do realize that the democracies of Scandanavia, for instance, are among many nations on earth that match the criteria I laid out, don't you? Give me one other developed democracy that spends over half its wealth on 'defense'."

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 5:45 PM

"see my 5:45 post. cee laid out the conditions, and was beat beore they hit my screen. he's been a little quiet since then."

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 2, 2007 6:16 PM

###
Oh Sir Loin of Milquetoast...I did not post after 5:40PM because I left work for home and have not checked back since then....Your criteria misses one item I laid out....

"and when a human-made society achieves this for every man/woman and child, I will be the first to admit I was wrong."

Scandinavia still has homeless people, Loin....They still have lower classes of people not fulfilled with their lot....striving in all those human ways to make themselves "happy." Suicide rates in these countries are higher than the USA and mental illness is high as well. Where is that "fulfillment" for everyone, Loin?

I am Swedish and have relatives still living there....my great Uncle has 3 jobs, 1 full-time and 2 part-time, just to meet his bills.....despite nationalized healthcare and many more government run programs that do not give him any more "happiness" or "fulfillment" than my lot here in the bad ol' USA. His cousin died at age 62 under the care of the system so quickly touted by American leftists....they have lived in Sweden all of their lives and work during their holidays just to make ends meet. The tax burden this their biggest bill.....greater than 70% in the end.

This does not even cover the fact that Scandinavia reaps the benefits of a militarized world run by the bad ol' USA and I suggest, especially during the later 20th Century, our MIC benefitted these "peaceful nations" as we stood between them and worldwide militant Marxism....a la your ideological comrdes in the USSR....So Loin, do not even try to present Scandinavia as an objective example of success under your utopian dream....it is an illusion that your pathetic worldview has created out of thin cloth.

The blind devotion to your worldview (and I suspect Jennifer suffers the same affliction), causes you to overlook a reality that is more obvious to much less "intellectual" individuals.....People kill eachother for reasons no more rational than what the suicide bombers did in Iraq yesterday or what some guy down-neck Newark, NJ did to a 75 year old lady this morning. Your argument that what the "government" spends its money on/chooses to do to defend its citizens/etc changes the base human condition is as old as society itself and the results of the experiments your kind of arrogant thinking has inflicted on people through a centralized power (government) litters history.

Jennifer was so quick to condemn Sharon yet I find it amuizing that you and Jennifer have no feet to stand on to judge the inadequacies of someone's "worldview." I like the old advise given to us by my Godman (I know you don't even think he existed)...Christ....Do not worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye whilst there is a log in your own!

By cee on August 3, 2007 8:51 AM

BTW, no one countered my argument regarding the listed reasons we removed Saddam Hussein by force. They are all moral and ethical under the authority of The UN and endorsed by bipartisan legislation from The US Congress. The subsequent difficulties arising from radical islamic fanaticism, whether it be from Shia/Sunni hatred or anti-Ameircan Al Qaeda tactics should be met and stopped as well...and The US has a moral obligation to the majority of Iraqis who want these extremists stopped, by force if requested and needed. The American left does not consider this moral obligation to stabalize the country and wants to walk away from it. I disagree.

As do many learned, moral and ethical people other than President Bush.

So Jennifer and Loin....try another avenue to try to "win" the debate....You lost your latest.

By cee on August 3, 2007 9:08 AM

Oh Sir Loin of Milquetoast, I found an article about the great society of Sweden my Uncle sent me 2 years ago....do you read Swedish?.....

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=490150

In a nutshell, it is about higher class Swedes hiring private security firms to protect them and their property from the lower classes who have decided to pursue other avenues of "fulfillment." The industry is still booming because the government is unable to meet the needs of these "happy" people who do not spend so much of their hard earned money on an MIC.

Also, rape statistics showed a 30 year high in 2006.

I believe these Scandinavian countries also still need prisons if I am not mistaken....Why is that Loin?

Yep, you may want to try another socialist dream state....perhaps Canada?

How about the ChiComs or perhaps North Korea? I know they have huge expendatures on their military but they have pursued those wonderful humanist/secular theories from the 19th century you are so keen on. Have they worked yet?

By cee on August 3, 2007 9:44 AM

And while I continue to digest the hypocrisy of Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Jennifer (not to mention Why and Mike) I come across another example of leftist morality.....

"John Edwards blasts foes for taking News Corp. cash but took $800,000 for his book, whose real title is 'Home.'"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm

###
Just like the apparatchiks of the last century who instructed the dim masses on their moral obligations, the left in America continue the proud heritage of "do as I say, not as I do." He, he, he.

Hey guys, I can't wait to see who your leftist ruling class will recommend to lead our great nation in 2008.....The guy who took 800K from the right-winger or the lady who took 20K.

And this is my post today, the 1,556th 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

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 3, 2007 9:45 AM

Well, I disagree that you have slipped through your promise to declare yourself "wrong". For every man, woman, and child in Sweden or every other industrialized democratic country in the world, their governments do not spend over 50% of their wealth on weaponry. You merely added variables in the post-game to wriggle out of your loss.

And lets look at your wriggle...

So with 2 - maybe 3 - ancdotes and blanket statements cee damns the sensible socialization of Sweden. Yes they need prison, dipshit - but they don't have 701 people incarcerated per 100,000 population like we do; they have 73 people incarcerated per 100,000. But that is inconsequential to your binary "good" v "evil" ("in men's souls") worldview.

Homelessness? 17000 people (.002% of the population) are reported homeless in Sweden. That is a rising trend in that country, but then the whole world is getting more and more corporatist every year, and a large number of Sweden's new homeless are foreign immigrants fleeing neocolonial poverty at home. The amazing thing is that Swedish politicians are actually considering how to lower this number through humanitarian policies!

We in the US reportedly have 3,000,000 homeless (roughly 1% of the population!) each year.

Once again - presence/absence seems to be your sole criterion for thinking about anything. I will follow suit - Your PRESENCE at home and your ABSENCE on the front lines in Iraq makes you an ABJECT COWARD and MORAL LIAR.

...and yes, our militarism possibly effects standards in such nations - arguably lowering the standard of living and unsettling the national psyche.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 3, 2007 10:01 AM

"Hey guys, I can't wait to see who your leftist ruling class will recommend to lead our great nation in 2008.....The guy who took 800K from the right-winger or the lady who took 20K."

I don't know, but I'm supporting the guy who still lives in the same house he bought for $17,000 in the '70's, Kucinich. I know you find it funny that there is so much dishonesty and hypocrisy in our system, but all I can do is work against it to the degree availbale an American system. Your world of heartlessness and greed does have the advantage of having no aversion to law-breaking and destroying other peolple's lives, but, once again, I do what I can.

By cee on August 3, 2007 10:05 AM

Talk about wiggling! Sir Loin of Milquetoast can excuse the failures to keep the promises made by secular humanist theory until the cows come home yet demand perfection from the other fallable human institutions of the church, etc....again the hypocrisy is fun to see....

Remember Loin, that was where Jennifer and you came from late yesterday in your attacks on the wonderful Sharon. I am glad to take the arrows of your intellectual hubris....I wear it them as badges of honor! I just continue to wonder why someone would choose to defend a utopia yet not decide to live there....unless it is nothing more than another failed attempt to win a debate here at OW!

By Anonymous on August 3, 2007 10:55 AM

That's nice, Loin....What if he doesn't get the nomination? Perhaps you should consider another party.....How about you, Jennifer? Ideological purity demands are great!

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 11:02 AM

"If that were the case, every soldier, airman, marine, seaman who is Catholic and has not invoked conscientious objector status would be in mortal sin. As would their families if they support the war. I haven't heard that declaration yet."

Nor will you ever hear that about any war. Not even the Nazi's. That simply isn't the standard. JPII called it a defeat for humanity, said the invasion was not justified, and that the decision was conducted outside of the channels within which it should have been conducted.

No pope has said that anyone who betrays Christian or Catholic values has "committed mortal sin." They didn't say that about Nazi sympathizers or soldiers or even the gas chamber guards. I am not accusing you of mortal sin. I'm accusing you of betraying Christian values with your one sided focus on war.

By cee on August 3, 2007 11:12 AM

"I'm accusing you of betraying Christian values with your one sided focus on war."

###
Look at that log in your eye, Sharon...
Jennifer has made her umpire's call!

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 12:09 PM

Sharon I apologize if you think my survey of your posts distorts your views by missing some key ones. I didn't look at every one obviously. I took a sample because I don't really know you from Eve. You certainly have taken great pains now to reorient me on a kinder, gentler Sharon.

That said, your basic defense of the point that perhaps you involve yourself in pro-Bush positions much more than pro-Christianity positions like non-violence or mercy for detainees, even when these conflict, seems to be that this is simply the site contents, and you are along for the ride. I don't really get that. That's my problem with many American Christians. They are just along for the ride. And they are lending far more support to the positions of Caesar than the positions of Christ.

I don't doubt your good intentions. But look at your own basic reactions and see if they look Christian to you. During the invasion and occupation, tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children have been maimed and killed and violated by force. You know that. Even if you don't want to, even if the 99% of the images don't make the news, you know it. All the while you have expressed some reservation but a general acceptance, I would say giving "the benefit of the doubt" to war and the president.

Then three U.S. soldiers get kidnapped, and your immediate response is that this isn't worth it and it's horrible and must be stopped. Then it seems that it made the other soldiers so angry and determined, conducting a violent search that itself yielded more "enemy" bodies including children, that it made it O.K. again and once agian the benefit of the doubt was given to force.

Is this a Christian reflex? It seems to me, the Christian reflex is to be suspect of and even deny what is "one's own" as readily as for "the other" or "the enemy." The reflex of unreeemed human nature is to favor your own and count it for more. Thus 3 U.S. soldiers are valued more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians, maybe not in "reason" but in your basic reactions and how you actually act. I would also say that the Christian reflex must be to give the benefit of the doubt to suasion, non-violence, and leading by example rather than force and war. At least that. If not "pacifism" as practiced by Christ or lampooned by Cee as a joke, then at least this: the benefit of the doubt for non-violence.

Do you really feel that you are giving non-violence the benefit of the doubt? Are you a spokesperson for peace, or a spokesperson for various rightwing positions that you feel comfortable with because they are not neccessarily and by definition "mortal sin?"

I don't want to attack you personally, and I don't really want to engage in the logical jujitsu game that Cee and Celia want's to "win" by stalemate, and Cee wins with the assumption that violence is the basis of existence. They quite clearly think this is a competitive game, and I think you do not.

But I do want to understand where you think Christian values fit into this conflict, and how you think they prompt you speak for GWB and "A Soldier's perspective" more than directly for non-violence. Why, as a Christian, you sound here more like Tony Snow than Benedict or JPII.

By royalking on August 3, 2007 12:49 PM

"Then three U.S. soldiers get kidnapped, and your immediate response is that this isn't worth it and it's horrible and must be stopped. Then it seems that it made the other soldiers so angry and determined, conducting a violent search that itself yielded more "enemy" bodies including children, that it made it O.K. again and once agian the benefit of the doubt was given to force."

Posted by: Jennifer at August 3, 2007 12:09 PM

What did I tell ya. She's not new, been here all along. New in "name" only. So much more "mikes" "glad you are here" comment. What is it with the sp's and their multiple personalties disorder?

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 1:04 PM

RoyalKing, my real name is Goldstein. You see, there is really only one liberal in the world. That's the reason we all sound the same-- not because you can only hear certain things and filter out 90% of what we say, but because we are all the same person. But "we" command vast hoardes of non-violent robots that want to take away all your money by persuasion.

We're the ones who convinced your ex-wife to leave you and become a lesbian, Royal King! Commence your moment of hate.

By blindrat on August 3, 2007 1:09 PM

Jennifer,

rk is Winston Smith...not because he is the last man fighting a totalitarian regime; but, because he still has trouble adding two and two...

By royalking on August 3, 2007 1:23 PM

"jenifer," I'll consider your last post a surrender, since you can't deny I'm right.

blindbat, thanks for proving, again, your ignorance. You lost what credability you had here a long time ago. I still can't figure out why you would be too ashamed to admit your religion of preference. Now, get back to work.....

By blindrat on August 3, 2007 1:33 PM

Poor rk...

Sees Muslims everywhere now. HEY LOOK OUT, SON--A MUSLIM, UNDER THE COUCH!

Just kidding, child; don't wet yourself...

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 1:37 PM

"I like the old advise given to us by my Godman (I know you don't even think he existed)...Christ...."

Cee, you may believe he existed, but that is about as far as your "Christianity" goes if you think my existence is founded upon violence.

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 1:46 PM

RK, feel free to read anything you want into any of my posts, revel in how they prove you right, glory in your own greatness, laugh at the silly liberals who think a few thousand dismembered children should stand in the way of "interests," joy in the sufferings of men being tortured, venerate your "decider," bolster yourself with notions that Christ thinks this is all in order, in short....

continue as you are, until you can figure out how to do something else.

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 1:49 PM

Welcome to America

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/3/102234/3343

and RK doesnt learn, thats part of the beauty of debating him, you always know what he's going to say next.

By royalking on August 3, 2007 1:57 PM

"jennifer," can you explain the multiple personalties you sp's feel the need to pose as? Just curious, that's all. What made you decide to go with "jennifer," this time around?

By cee on August 3, 2007 2:05 PM

No Jennifer....you misunderstood my post.....

You exist in a free and secular society because other people chose to protect it with violence. Just today, in fact, in my home town, an alleged rapist was captured by the police rather violently in his home. The peace officers use violence to stop violence and as a nonpacifist I continue to practice my faith without seeing the contradiction.

You, on the other hand, feel free to judge Sharon who agrees with the logic and evidence of removing Saddam Hussein by force of arms. Your arguments are weak and demogogic.

I simply like to give people the same medicine they force on others....Sir Loin of Milquetoast is another arrogant leftist with the same attitude as you.

So, unless you are a REAL pacifist, I suggest you try another avenue of argument regarding the war...it is justifiable on moral and ethical grounds. If it was not, I would expect George Bush and Cheney would not have made it to re-election in 2004.....they would have been impeached....and rightly so. I give the American people a lot more credit than to believe the radical swill coming from the left. Most reasonable people do not agree with you and Loin and won't because it is silliness.

By blindrat on August 3, 2007 2:32 PM

cee,

What a wonderful crock of something you've created, son...

No one has tried to take away our democracy (except for our government) since the War of 1812. There is no moral basis for the war in Iraq.

If you are going to trot out that laughable stuff as fact, I would suggest you get a shiny object and twirl it, first...

By royalking on August 3, 2007 2:33 PM

Most reasonable people do not agree with you and Loin and won't because it is silliness.

Posted by: cee at August 3, 2007 2:05 PM

What's funny about this is the very posters you are referring to have claimed in the past(one under a different name or names) that they speak for the majority of Americans. Sadly, mistaken, misinformed or dreaming.

By royalking on August 3, 2007 2:38 PM

Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

by StrayCat on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:25:51 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Is this what you were referring me to, kos kiddie?

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 2:57 PM

Cee, as of 2005, over 60% of Americans thought that Saddam was directly invovled or had something to do with 9/11...a horrible lie. "Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm

Just thought you should know how brainwashed Cheney has the American people, morailty has nothing to do with his remaining in office...and your backing him definately says something about your morality.

By cee on August 3, 2007 3:00 PM

blindrat,

Do I have to point out again that IF what you say is true then we have a criminal that is getting away with one of the biggest crimes in history. If what you say is true, George Bush should not have been allowed to continue as President of The United States and those around him would have the moral duty to stop him from continuing in his offical duties. He should not have been re-elected in 2004 and he most certainly should be the subject of an impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives.

Your breathless pronouncement that the war is immoral has NO reasonable evidence. Jennifer tried and failed by citing quotes from political figures from The Holy See, but that did not hold water. You can claim all that the left has tried to claim since 2002 and it is all accusation and unproven speculation.

Once again, the moral basis for the removal of Saddam Hussein by force involves the following.....

The violation of UN resolutions.

The evidence he had and was planning on producing WMD despite sanctions prohibiting him from doing so.

The previous genocide he had committed on his own people.

His previous history of ignoring international rule-of-law by invading Kuwait and violating the no-fly zones set-up in post-Desert Shield Iraq....he ordered hostle engagement of US pilots time and again during the 1990's.

Plus, a large majority of The United States Congress, including most members of the left's ruling elite, agreed with George Bush that there was a moral basis to use force to remove Saddam Hussein. They gave his the legal authorization to use the armed forces to accomplish same.

Try again, blindrat....you're wrong.

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 3:13 PM

"You, on the other hand, feel free to judge Sharon who agrees with the logic and evidence of removing Saddam Hussein by force of arms. Your arguments are weak and demogogic."

Of course my arguments are weak to someone who sees violence as the foundation of society, rather than as abberant mental illness and a curse of man. Of course they are weak to someone who not only gives the benefit of doubt to war, but is incapable of admitting it's limitations even in the very light of it's spectacular failure. Of course they are weak to someone who actually blames the ineffectiveness of this violence on the very people who opposed it. It wasn't that it was a bad idea, it's that we weren't violent enough, that we didn't torture enough people, that these darned peaceniks and our consciences got in the way of really getting down to business. That's why our violence failed. It wan't violent enough.

My only point, which YOU have tried to turn into a parody by insisting that their can be no kind of "pacifism" unless it is the kind that refuses to walk on grass, is that giving war the benefit of the doubt over peace is not Christian. Not in my book. You can roll it around all day until "your Jesus" is picking up an M-16 to defend the rights of the oppressed, but mine isn't going to. You can say we can't afford to be Christian, because then we would be dead. Fine. If that's you're belief. But have the guts to say it.

You have a basic belief in violence. You don't know with anything like certainty that without the civil war or WWI or WWII or Korea or Vietnam or Iraq that I would be in slavery. But you are certain of it. Just 100% certain. I happen to believe, as I think Jesus showed, that nonviolent revolution and leading by example accomplishes much more in the long run. You are 100% certain that we are 100% free only because of violence. That is an unfounded proposition.

How abobut this? I can say I am 100% sure there never would have been a Hitler if the U.S. hadn't tipped the ballance in WWI and caused Germany to become a broken, subject state.

Am I really sure about that? Nope. Do I give the benefit of the doubt to non-violence in a case that is very muddled? Yes I do. Why? Because I believe in it. Just like you believe in pro-active, even highly speculatively preventative violence.

You can make a case for violence in lots of situations. I don't deny it can accomplish many things, and that there are instances in which it may be called for in the right spirit, even a Christian spirit. This would always emphasize the damage the offender is doing to himself as well as others, and respect his human dignity even in the face of his most egregious human error. But you also have to understand that there is ALWAYS a downside to violence and to dehumanizing the "enemy." For you, the problem is that the enemy is not dehumanized enough, that we give them too much respect, that we "coddle" them if we don't boil their eyes out of their skulls with phosphorus just because of some damend babies in the way.

You can make a case for Iraq. At least you could, before it became such a mess. But there is a big difference between making a case for it, and that case being strong enough to override the predjudice we must have in favor of non-violence. This is what JPII and Benedict alluded to and the reason it is both an illiberal and un-Christian war.

>>>it is justifiable on moral and ethical grounds. If it was not, I would expect George Bush and Cheney would not have made it to re-election in 2004.>>>

Wow...right. So there you go. If people vote for it, it's moral and ethical. I'll let the Reichstag know.

By Sharon on August 3, 2007 3:29 PM

Jennifer,

You are mixing a variety of issues to ultimately say that Sharon is a bad Christian. Let me say here and now, Sharon is a sinner. Sharon is working out her salvation with fear and trembling, as exemplified by St. Paul. Sharon is not St. Sharon.. Sharon does not represent anyone's views but her own. Sharon makes mistakes.

First, I already stated on more than one occasion that I did not follow the lead up to the war. Everything I have been saying since is from a hindsight perspective.

Bush lied to get us into war is an entirely different issue from the actual issue of a just war. I ask that he be given the same presumption as criminals. Against Christian values? I don't think so. War is not against Christian values, but it should be a last resort. The Pope disagreed with the immediacy of war, finding a pre-emptive strike immoral. I disagreed with the Pope's holy opinion for this reason: If Saddam was going to unleash WMD, then the effects would have been disastrous. Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger at the time believed that more diplomacy would be the best course of action. They did not have intelligence reports before them. Bush did not. If evidence was falsified, I want to know just as well as you. Again, I am speaking from hindsight about what was believed by many in power at the time.

Saddam was torturing and killing his own people all the time, including children. I talked about my reaction to 3 soldiers being captured and the resolve of the soldiers looking for them. Your response is to imply that the lives of 3 men pale in comparison to murdered children in the the violent aftermath and I must have some kind of callous disregard for innocent life. My reaction at the time was that men were losing ten pounds or more and were not even resting in their search. There were 24 hour search efforts underway. That is the kind of resolve I was talking about. And there were several important captures. BTW, do you support abortion at any stage? Do you look to the teachings of the Pope there as well? The murder of millions of innocents? I hope so. I hope you stand by the Pope's teachings in all life issues, including euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.

Yes, the Vatican pushed for other efforts, opposed the war, etc. The U.S. Bishops also opposed the war. Now, here is a more current statement:

"The bishops' most recent statement -- dated Jan. 12 and issued by Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, the current president -- said every U.S. action or policy in Iraq "ought to be evaluated in light of our nation's moral responsibility to help Iraqis to live with security and dignity in the aftermath of U.S. military action."

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703028.htm

That is how I view the situation currently. The Iraqi people should not be abandoned. The soldiers do have an honorable mission at hand and it is not to harm innocents.

No pope has said that anyone who betrays Christian or Catholic values has "committed mortal sin." (Jennifer)

In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

* Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
* Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
* Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

I am doing my best to answer your charges with various distractions at home. I am sure I'll be back with further comments, clarifications.

By cee on August 3, 2007 3:34 PM

Reality belies your point, Jennifer. You live in The United States of America. Our wealth, our comforts, our existence only has occurred because of actions taken by the nation state, the same US of A. These acts have been violent. From our founding to our current status as sole super-power. In the secular world, this is the state of man's existence. Period. Your own leftist ideologues discuss it all the time, Jennifer....From the raping of the lands of the native Americans, to the violent putting down of a Civil War to the tens of millions killed in two World Wars, one ending with two atomic bombs, you, as a citizen of this country, live because of violence brought against many fellow human beings.

Please note I did not put an adjective in front of the word "violence." You may decide to add adjectives all you want, but the pecking order you have been given (born into) is just as it is because people have been violent towards others.

Please note that I have not mentioned Christ in this post. You choose to pigeon hole The Creator of the universe as another Ghandi or MLK...He is much more than that, and has much more to offer in response to this great mystery of human existance than I can do justice on a blog entry. Sir Loin of Milquetoast chooses not to even believe in such a Person as Jehovah, so the discussion with him in this regard approaches the futile. Let me just say that "my Jesus" mould not pick of an AK-47 or M-16 for that matter but He has much more to His message than the use of nonviolence in the limited terms you want for your next peace rally.....much, much more.

Finally, you say I am a war-monger. Perhaps in the end I am. But let me just remind you that the powers and circumstance that are beyond our indivdual power are those that are always the ones that inspire the most fear, reaction and yes, mistakes. I disagree with your judgement regarding the practical threat posed by radical islam and the goal of theocracy. I disagree with your ideology of appeasement of dictators that pose direct threats to our nation's security. You may take the step to call me immoral but I will continue to show, easily, that you really do not have any basis for your accusation.

By Sharon on August 3, 2007 3:35 PM

Oops, Bush did have the intelligence reports, not did not

By Sharon on August 3, 2007 3:40 PM

49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Luke 12:49-53

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 3:44 PM

Wow. A hate site quoting the bible...How appropriate.

And Cee, yes, this country was founded on conflict and violence...but only when it was unavoidable. The Revolutionary War? Necessary. The Civil War? Not necessary but it was wanted by the people. WWI and II? No Choice. Operation Iraqi Freedom? Dont make me laugh.

By cee on August 3, 2007 4:09 PM

"The Revolutionary War? Necessary."

###
It was? So you are saying it was moral then, STO?

"The Civil War? Not necessary but it was wanted by the people."

###
Mmm, if I recall my history the draft riots in NYC seem to show that you are wrong on that point, STO....there was great controversy on making the South stay in the Union. And anyway, the current war in Iraq was supported by over 65% in polls at its start and now you claim since the numbers are reversed the war must end. I have difficulty seeing how this involves the morality of war.

"WWI and II? No Choice."

###
Really? Did the US forces have to bomb civilians in Germany and mainland Japan AND use two nuclear bombs on civilian targets in the Pacific to achieve total annihilation of the axis? Could we not have been satisfied to contain Japan and Germany proper? Why the tens of millions of deaths on both sides, dear STO?

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 4:19 PM

>>>>>Please note I did not put an adjective in front of the word "violence." You may decide to add adjectives all you want, but the pecking order you have been given (born into) is just as it is because people have been violent towards others.

This is so weird and one-sided, almost Nietzchian. Exactly as I am trying to say. How about this..."the pecking order you have been given (born into) is just as it is because people have been NON-violent towards others."

That would be to suppose that Christianity, the preeminant non-violent revolution, serves as the basis for our liberal American values.

"I disagree with your judgement regarding the practical threat posed by radical islam and the goal of theocracy"

Interesting, since I never gave such a judgement. Care to quote?

"I disagree with your ideology of appeasement of dictators that pose direct threats to our nation's security. "

Interesting, since I never suggested trying to buy off or otherwise appease Saddam or any other dictator

"You may take the step to call me immoral but I will continue to show, easily, that you really do not have any basis for your accusation."

I think you've adequately shown that you are not amoral, but that your morality is based on an appeal to violence and the established order of things. Therefore, from a Christian and liberal point of view, you are immoral.

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 4:19 PM

Revolutionary...We would not be a country without it.

Civil...Maybe not the whole of the U.S. but a good deal of people supported it, if only to remain one union and achieve manifest destiny.

WWI and I...The japanese attacked us first...hard. Do you not remember that? They started the war, we ended it.

Iraq...completely falsified and wrong on every ground, moral, logical, emotional, personal...you get the point.

No war is moral...ESPECIALLY one that uses Nuclear power. I was not arguing the morality of these wars...only the necessity. If war can be avoided, I understand that in some cases (Pearl Harbor, Freedom at stake, Union at stake) it can seem necessary, but killing another person is never morally justified.

By Anonymous on August 3, 2007 4:20 PM

Let me help you guys out....

When it comes to war and the necessity thereof, it isn't merely a case of necessary or not.

Obviously there can be degrees of necessity.

You can debate the level of necessity of past conflicts all you want, but the invasion and occupation of Iraq will ALWAYS rank at the bottom of that scale, and nothing cee can dream up will change that.

Period!

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 4:24 PM

Wow Cee has pissed off alot of people today...How will she ever get out of this pickle and still be okay with blindly following Resident Bush and his Iraq occupation...Will she still be an ignorant conservative...Stay tuned for the next few posts...

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 4:30 PM

Sharon, the bible quote you gave is exactly the one I was thinking of when I wrote this:

"Is this a Christian reflex? It seems to me, the Christian reflex is to be suspect of and even deny what is "one's own" as readily as for "the other" or "the enemy." "

The meaning of that passage, as your priest will tell you, is not that the goal of Christ is to engender "war" or "fire" among members of a family or set them at each other's throats. Literally, that's what it sounds like. What it means is that the very notion of family is to be reinterpreted as a brotherhood of man. This is a destruction, a ripping apart of the family. This is the sense in which the traditional "brothers" are set at odds. We are not to prefer "our own," but to see all of humanity as "our own," as Christ did.

Talk to your priest about that passage. Your use of it here, if you mean it as backing for the notion of destroying enemies, is off.

By cee on August 3, 2007 4:32 PM

"Christianity, the preeminant non-violent revolution"

###
That is incorrect. Christianity is not about revolution or any earthly conflict for that matter. It is about redemption, recovery of a relationship, a Lover long abandoned.

That is your mistake, Jennifer. You assume your assumptions of what is "Christianity" is correct. It is no more than a benign moment in hitory, sterile, isolated. Based on that fundemental flaw, your judgement of Sharon and of me is flawed. Morality, in your scheme, has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. It only has to do with what you determine as just or unjust, in a secular world that has a huge menu to choose from.

There is a huge difference in those two ideas (just and unjust/right and wrong) and I would hope you would be wise enough to tell the difference.

By Sharon on August 3, 2007 4:41 PM

The fact that we are all brothers is seen more in this quote:

MARK 3:19-21.

And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." And he answered, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

You can't force people to accept a religious view by force (which is what radical Islam does). I used the quote to show that Jesus is not about appeasement either.

By Sharon on August 3, 2007 4:44 PM

Jennifer,

I am still waiting for you to confirm your pro-life position in all areas to show your consistency for love of humanity, particularly innocent children.

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 4:52 PM

"Sharon makes mistakes."

I only mean to suggest that one of those mistakes is giving the benefit of the doubt to war and men of violence rather than to peace and non-violence. I think that is a mistake.

As to your other questions for me, do understand, I'm not a Catholic, and don't believe in the infallibility of all the Pope's judgements. I believe in the infallibility of judgements that give every reasonable benefit of the doubt to life and peace. That is why I think he is right, not because he is the pope.

I would never have an abortion. I don't believe a fertilized egg is a human being unless it has the possibility to develop, so a blastocyst or whatever they call it in a dish with no way to grow that is going in the garbage if it isn't used to save lives, I think should be used as best it can for life. I'll admit it's a tough call, and I can see where the church right now is siding that way. But it shouldn't be a tough call for anyone who suggests that maybe real live breathing speaking human beings can be treated as objects through torture. It shouldn't be a tough call for anyone who thinks maybe the problem in Iraq is that not enough people support the violence.

By cee on August 3, 2007 4:56 PM

STO....

"killing another person is never morally justified"

###
Wow, let me know when you want to have a serious discussion about this topic, STO. And your claim about "a pickle" strikes me as someone who is not in touch with reality. My assessment is correct....We are engaged in Iraq trying to help an ally maintain control of a country torn apart by radical religios elements who use terrorism as a tactic....this engagement has remained unhampered by the left of this country so far in its continuation. The war has remained fully funded. The President remains in office, unchalleneged in his authority to wage this battle against totalitarianism....no impeachment, no charges of criminality. Events have shown that your assessment this war was illegal or immoral has no basis in reality.

Yes, I support the mission against totalitarianism taking place in Iraq, fought by the men and women of the armed forces. I will because it is right to fight against totalitarianism even with the use of force, until it is defeated. An idea no longer held by some since the surrender in South Vietnam.

By Sharon on August 3, 2007 5:18 PM

As to your other questions for me, do understand, I'm not a Catholic, and don't believe in the infallibility of all the Pope's judgements.
(Jennifer)

The Pope's judgments are not infallable. It may certainly be that a pope is entirely correct in his judgment in matters that are not infallible, such as whether a war is just or not. What is infallible is that life begins at conception and ends at natural death. There is scriptural support for capital punishment (St Paul, not Old Test.) so that is not an infallible teaching; however, the reasons for its use are ones that do not usually apply in the U.S.

You are not Catholic yet you appear to inject yourself in the discussion as an expert on Catholicism, even suggesting what a priest will tell me about your interpretation of the Bible. It seems to me that upon reading your first comment, and your exchange with SLOB, you were getting off on attacking me until others who know me here came to my defense when it was obvious I wasn't online. So, your credibility is immediately suspect.

I only mean to suggest that one of those mistakes is giving the benefit of the doubt to war and men of violence rather than to peace and non-violence. (Jennifer)

I view it in terms of the evidence in the hands of some but not others. I have to go now.

By Jennifer on August 3, 2007 5:23 PM

"That is incorrect. Christianity is not about revolution or any earthly conflict for that matter."

Saying something is a revolution does not mean it is a political revolution. Nor did I say that is all that Christianity is. I was offering as an example of how non-violence can have a greater effect than violence, both worldly and otherworldly. And it has.

"Morality, in your scheme, has nothing to do with what is right and wrong."

Says you. You are so poisoned against "liberals" that you simply can't hear me. You are the one arguing that I should be grateful for violence because it has made me rich and free, and that all that self-benefit at other's expense somehow comports with Christianity. Is that right or wrong, Cee? Which of your strong moral categories does that fit in?

Here you go Cee. It's wrong to blow the arms and legs off of kids. Period. PERIOD. If you do it with good intentions, with the goal to save other people, then great, maybe it was necessary...if you turn out to be right. But in itself, it was wrong. You should cry about it for the rest of your freaking life. You should pull your hair out. You should do anything but glibly label them "colatteral damage," and accuse others of subverting your great and moral just aims, of "stabbing us in the back," when we want these people considered as something more than inconvenient objects.

Above all, when you see that the prime accomplishment of your great and godly moral just aims was really just to splatter tens of thousands of these people all over the landscape, you should have some ?#@!ing remorse about it and learn a lesson about the limits of your power. Learn to say, gee, maybe we shoudl think twice before we try and force happiness on people with a gun for our own good. Learn to say, gee, maybe we're not the ones to distribute god's gifts as we see fit. Maybe god can do that himself.

The Iraq action has unleashed a whirlwind of violence. Violence will beget violence. Ultimately, you will use it as more self-referential proof of why we need more violence, just as you now use it to say that we need to treat detainees even more harshly and inhumanely, and that I need to be less free for my own good.

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 5:25 PM

Would you rather totalitarianism take place here at home, cee? Just the other day in Indianapolis the TSA set up checkpoints at bus stops just for shits and giggles. Searched hundreds of people for firearms, pointlessly at that, in Indiana carry consealed weapons is very legal. About a week and a half ago, Cheney had a man arrested for telling him, calmly, "I find your policy in Iraq reprehensible". We need to stop totalitarian ideals here at home before we stop them elsewhere.

And who is our ally in Iraq? From what I've seen, everyone is blowing us up.

You sit there saying no charges of criminality, no call for impeachment, this war isnt illegal, or immoral? Lets look at that, okay?

Criminiality and impeachment...
--------------------------------------------------
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

source: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88?ad=d1

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

Illegal..
-Violation of the UN Charter for launching an unprovoked war against Iraq.
-Authorizing torture and rendition
-Using illegal weapons

Immoral...
-Using false information to rack up public support for the illegal war in question
---Ex. Saddam had WMD's, We would be greeted as liberators, Saddam is a threat to us, Saddam had something to do with 9/11, was invovled with Al-Qaeda...and the list goes on
-Not taking Generals recommendations about the original entrance into the war, instead using thousands less troops and because of this was not able to efficiently take control of the country and we've been fighting the war because of this ever since.
-Not giving the soldiers enough armor or armored vehicles
-Not giving soldiers enough time off between tours of duty
-Sending injured soldiers back into battle

If you would like to have a real conversation, instead of catagorically denying everything that goes against your narrow world view, please let me know, or just respond to what I've said here.

And about the pickle thing. I was referring to the mountain of evidence and common sense against the Iraq war but you still support the war mindlessly...Looks like your ignorance has prevailed again.

Have a nice day.

By Anonymous on August 3, 2007 5:29 PM

"I view it in terms of the evidence in the hands of some but not others. "

What evidence was that? How do you know it exists or existed if you don't have it. Do you think the pope was disagreeing with the war, but would have agreed if he saw this secret evidence you are talking about? Why should this evidence be secret if it is the diference between launching a just or unjust war?

By Anonymous on August 3, 2007 5:33 PM

"You are not Catholic yet you appear to inject yourself in the discussion as an expert on Catholicism, even suggesting what a priest will tell me about your interpretation of the Bible. "

It doesn't take an expert to tell you that the passage you quoted is not about literal violence and inciting hatred among family members. To that extent, I am an expert on Catholocism. Tell you what, just go ask your priest about that passage and let's see what he says.

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 5:36 PM

Oh Yeah, and dont let this little bit of Reality get in the way of your worldview but...

54% of Americans favor the impeachment of Dick Cheney
46% of Americans favor the impeachment of George Bush
Only 23% Approve of the Bush economy while 25% approve of Bush's overall job.

Despite these Numbers the MSM that you claim is on Olbys side claim that impeachment isnt a reality...Most people dont support it. These are the same people that were cheerleading Clinton's impeachment despite having numbers along the lines of 26% of Americans agreed with impeachment for him and his approval rating never dropped below 50% and he actually left office with an approval rating of 66%...Right now, 63% of Americans DISAPPROVE of this president.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 3, 2007 5:42 PM

I am amazed that cee (far above)characterized my citations of hard statistics revealing our prison population at more than 10 times the rate for encarceration as that of Sweden (among other facts) as "wriggling".

cee, you argue in false absolutes; claiming against all common sense and reason that any gradations between presence and absence are irrelevant. You are ridiculous; a single sheet of thin paper cut into the shape of a chicken.

Also - contrary to one of your statements, I definitely believe that Christ existed; but that he had flesh and blood parents and had to eat, drink, shit, and wipe his ass like the rest of us. He apparently preached a humanistic philosophy that appeals to many (including me) to this day, but he has been conflated by religous bureacrats in the intervening centuries with a couple of different mythological archetypes in order to swamp his philosophy with a dogma that war mongers and opressors can make use of.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 3, 2007 6:17 PM

Have a nice day.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at August 3, 2007 5:25 PM

An excellent and ery thorough run-down of the crimes and moral abominations brought into being y this administration.

I would only make acouple of slight changes to your post: adding overt violations of the FISA statutes and the Hach act (which you correctly listed among your reasons to impeach) to your "illegal" column at the end.

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 6:22 PM

Yeah, there are tons more, wiretapping, habeus corpus...ect, I just decided to try and keep the debate focused on the war as much as possible...aside from the Impeachment list, i copied that verbatim and decided against changing it.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 3, 2007 6:40 PM

And Cee, yes, this country was founded on conflict and violence...but only when it was unavoidable. The Revolutionary War? Necessary.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at August 3, 2007 3:44 PM
...and what amazes me is that the very oppression that revolted against by the revolutionary founders was mercantilism - the control of markets through the complicity of the state their chosen corporate cronies. This is exactly what we have today, with Cheney's energy task force and the medicaid farce.

Our choices are limited and prices set by powers that keep themselves outside of our control. We are sold what we are told we need, and currently that includes a false "security" purchased at huge price in cold hard cash; in oportunity costs; and at great moral costs due to the mechanized murder we have brought to the middle east.

None of this is necessary or sensible; nor is any of it a "mistake" - it is the well thought out marketing plan of an amoral and predatory Military Industrial Complex.

By StealThisOpinion on August 3, 2007 6:43 PM

I think cee ran away...hasnt posted in a while

By royalking on August 3, 2007 11:30 PM

Wow..an intelligent woman (Jennifer) that doesn't have their head stuck up her own ass... posting at this site.
What a refreshing change !

Welcome !

Posted by: at August 3, 2007 10:14 PM

We must be reading differet posts or you can't read. Secondly, she isn't new, she has "transformed," if you know what I mean. Since you're a spolbyloon, I'm sure you do.

By Anonymous on August 4, 2007 7:37 AM

The apparent cover-up of the death of Pat Tillman is the ultimate White House indiscretion. So evil, so febrile and macabre it even trumps the brazenly unjust war itself.

Posted by: Dark Star at August 4, 2007 12:16 AM

....only outdone by their calculated assassination of Pat Tillman.

By Sharon on August 4, 2007 10:42 PM

What evidence was that? How do you know it exists or existed if you don't have it. Do you think the pope was disagreeing with the war, but would have agreed if he saw this secret evidence you are talking about? Why should this evidence be secret if it is the diference between launching a just or unjust war?
Posted by: at August 3, 2007 5:29 PM

Good question. I am not always as clear as I want to be because unlike the accusations that some are commenting in Mom's basement, I am "Mom" commenting in my own basement in between mom duties.

There had to have been information to convince enough people that Saddam was an imminent threat (democrats as well as republicans). It is rare for republicans and democrats to ever see eye to eye, let alone after an election like 2000. Yet, there was an overwhelming vote to give Bush authorization to go to war. Why would any democrat vote yes (I think the standard is true for republicans as well, given the seriousness of war, but you may just say, they are only sheep) if they didn't see something? This information I assume was classified, i.e., secret. The pope would only have Bush's word that Saddam was an imminent threat and that diplomacy was exhausted. I don't believe the pope ever said that there was no threat but that there was not an exhaustion of all avenues to remove that threat. Pope John Paul II lived through the horrors of war and wanted to avoid the aftermath at all costs.

Please keep in mind that I am speaking from hindsight. It is my view that once the war was authorized, it was clear that our country was going to war, unless Saddam acquiesced to the demands. He had never listened in the past and he didn't then either, didn't even come close.

War commenced; I don't see how withdrawal can occur without giving the Iraqis a chance at survival. They can be strong enough to stand on their own two feet. To be trite, they have to crawl before they can walk. Does that mean that I couldn't care less about lives lost (both Iraqi and Coalition)? I can't see the fairness of that statement.

By Sharon on August 4, 2007 10:58 PM

SLOB,

I definitely believe that Christ existed; but that he had flesh and blood parents and had to eat, drink, shit, and wipe his ass like the rest of us. He apparently preached a humanistic philosophy that appeals to many (including me) to this day, but he has been conflated by religous bureacrats in the intervening centuries with a couple of different mythological archetypes in order to swamp his philosophy with a dogma that war mongers and opressors can make use of.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 3, 2007 5:42 PM
***
Although crudely put, your first sentence accurately reflects that Christ was indeed, human in all respects. He is also divine. A mystery, human yet simultaneously divine. Wouldn't you say that radical Islam fits much more in the mold of your second sentence? Did you know that the first several popes were martyred? It was an appointment that meant certain death. A Christian martyr doesn't kill others but submits to torture and death rather than deny his faith.

The people who truly exemplify Christianity are the canonized saints. I think you would appreciate Saint Francis of Assisi very much if you read a credible biography of his life. Also, the early Christians pooled their resources and lived communally, looking out for the needs of all, not trying to benefit personally. Here is a story from the Acts of the Apostles you may not be familiar with, that of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). This married couple withheld proceeds from the sale of some property that would have gone to the common fund. Peter confronts them and denounces their selfishness. Upon Peter’s interrogation about their evil deception, they both drop dead.

I think a portion of what you believe borders on paranoia, but you do hit upon a big point that is part of Catholic teaching: the effects of original sin. You won't see a change in all that you believe is wrong with the world in your lifetime. I asked you about a time machine not long ago and you gave a flippant answer in part. You did say that you would be curious to see our condition in 20 years. Do you really think all will be as it should be then? Another crazy thought from Sharon: You have astounding intellect to be a great Catholic, but you don't have the faith.

By Clucker on August 5, 2007 1:00 AM

You no doubt noticed, Dark Star, that the Administration has removed power supply as a factor in the matrix of success in Iraq. You don't suppose Bush knew there were power problems (and now, apparently, critical water problems, as well)? At least the Surge is going to plan.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 5, 2007 8:39 AM

"Although crudely put, your first sentence accurately reflects that Christ was indeed, human in all respects. He is also divine. A mystery, human yet simultaneously divine. Wouldn't you say that radical Islam fits much more in the mold of your second sentence?"

It fits it, but certainly not more. The first couple of popes were a long, long time ago. Does the 30 Years War ring any bells? American Christians in large part today are not being moved to direct violence (anti-abortion murders and the evangelical movement in our airforce notwithstanding), but somebody is twisting minds like your's and cee's with this holy-war crap.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 5, 2007 8:42 AM

"He is also divine. A mystery, human yet simultaneously divine."

His own recorded discussions on this matter clearly show he was talking about everybody.

By Sharon on August 5, 2007 9:01 AM

His own recorded discussions on this matter clearly show he was talking about everybody.
***

I am not sure what you mean by that. I was talking about Christ's dual nature.

I don't believe that this is a holy war. I quoted a passage that Jennifer took to mean that. She was painting Jesus as a pansy. It was not a good idea for me to use that quote without a better explanation but here is what i said.

You can't force people to accept a religious view by force (which is what radical Islam does). I used the quote to show that Jesus is not about appeasement either.
Posted by: Sharon at August 3, 2007 4:41

I don't know how to make myself any more clear about the war. I didn't push for war or against it in Sept 2002-March 2003 but examined the situation in hindsight.

By Sharon on August 5, 2007 9:12 AM

SLOB,

Catholic Christians suffer persecution worldwide. Not just missionaries but people who convert in any Muslim country. They are slaughtered in the Sudan. There is an underground Church in China. Members who are discovered suffer extreme punishment. In the Sudan, they are slaughtered. The pope is better protected now. You can point to numerous scandals throughout Church history but the true followers were always persecuted and lived exemplary lives. It didn't end after the first several popes. One of the saints from more recent times in Maximillan Kolbe. He gave his life for a Jew who was about to be executed (10 prisoners were put in a starvation camp because it was believed a prisoner escaped). One man begged for his life because of his family and St Max volunteered to take his place. This is all documented in the canonization process. I have to run.

By Sharon on August 5, 2007 9:14 AM

Oops, my comment was completely disorganized at the beginning, got ahead of and behind myself (I know China is not a Muslim country)

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 5, 2007 9:15 AM

You can't force people to accept a religious view by force (which is what radical Islam does).

Does the name "Torqemada" ring a bell with you?

"I used the quote to show that Jesus is not about appeasement either.

Posted by: Sharon at August 3, 2007 4:41 "

Please explain. If you are saying that Jesus' reaction to 9/11 would have been to launch an occupation of Iraq, then I'm gong to have to say something offensive again. Perhaps you agree with OW poster "Laura Bush", who said the other day that Jesus would happilly crush the Guantanamo detainee's testicles in a vice.

Now the Torqemada fellow I mentioned above subscribed to this interpretation, how about you?

"I am not sure what you mean by that. I was talking about Christ's dual nature."

...and he was talking about "God" being in everyone, not just himself. Is it this "dual nature" that allows you people to read his words about forgiveness, universal love, and self-sacrifice; but then place his stamp on a campaign of mechanized slaughter of Muslims?

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 5, 2007 9:20 AM

SLOB,

Catholic Christians suffer persecution worldwide. Not just missionaries but people who convert in any Muslim country. They are slaughtered in the Sudan. There is an underground Church in China. Members who are discovered suffer extreme punishment. In the Sudan, they are slaughtered. The pope is better protected now. You can point to numerous scandals throughout Church history but the true followers were always persecuted and lived exemplary lives. It didn't end after the first several popes. One of the saints from more recent times in Maximillan Kolbe. He gave his life for a Jew who was about to be executed (10 prisoners were put in a starvation camp because it was believed a prisoner escaped). One man begged for his life because of his family and St Max volunteered to take his place. This is all documented in the canonization process. I have to run.

Posted by: Sharon at August 5, 2007 9:12 AM

What does this have to do with our discussion? Is it a rationale for invading and occupying other countries?

Apparently, being a "Catholic Christian" makes one more precious than an Iraqi kid burned-up in a white-phosphorous strike. I think Jesus would sternly reprimand you for your pride and chauvanism.

By Sir Loin of Beef on August 5, 2007 9:26 AM

You know, if you people were more concerned with the oppression of Christians in Sudan and China you'd stop creating them. Put your efforts toward reforming the shitty overnments they live under rather than luring these needy people into becoming targets for known and confirmed oppressors.

....but without new martyrs being created you'd have little to talk about, or to rationalize your vicarious religious bloodlust.

By Sharon on August 5, 2007 4:54 PM

If the war never occurred, I would hold my religious beliefs. You want to find evil in me. There is nothing I can do about that. I don't want war. But I don't hold your views. I never stated anywhere that a Christian country should attack a non-Christian country because the people are not Christians. I saw the act of war as stopping a dangerous madman. That discussion has been held numerous times and I have heard your message loud and clear.

I discussed martydom because if you recall, I first commented to WHY DO U CARE about his direct comments to me about Catholicism. My comment referred to the Korean hostages. Then you attacked. Next you seemed to recognize that someone else brought it to a different level (RK) not me. The "altruistic" Jennifer came on the scene and that is how we got here. Martydom is not all of Christianity. I could spend just as much time defending the Tridentine Mass. Somewhere I made a comparison to a radical Islamist who martyrs himself in order to kill others and the Christian martyr, who submits to death, to show the nature of an explemary Christian (which I am not).

***
rather than luring these needy people into becoming targets for known and confirmed oppressors. (SLOB)

It sounds like you you saying that it is the fault of Christians (like me) that Muslims kill converts because it is well known what Muslims do to Christian converts.

***
Did you care about the same Iraqis when Saddam was torturing and killing them?

I will check back later if you have any further response. If not, I'll assume the discussion is over.

By Mike on August 5, 2007 11:03 PM

"I saw the act of war as stopping a dangerous madman,"

A dangerous madman who had already been stopped!

By Anonymous on August 6, 2007 1:38 AM

A dangerous madman who had already been stopped!

Posted by: Mike at August 5, 2007 11:03 PM

Any proof?

By Anonymous on August 6, 2007 2:14 AM

No wmds means he was "stopped?" I think your crystal ball or your palm reader is lying to you. Tell her you want your money back.

By royalking on August 6, 2007 2:18 AM

Bush Admin On The Hunt: FBI Raided Fmr DOJ Lawyer's Home In Search For Wiretapping Leaker.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121795/site/newsweek/

Posted by: at August 6, 2007 1:38 AM

Hopefully it was the fool that let Burgler walk.

By Clucker on August 6, 2007 6:37 AM

Posted by: royalking at August 6, 2007 2:18 AM
---------

Hey, Pea-Brain:

plea bargain
Plea Bargain
PLEA BARGAIN
P L E A B A R G A I N!

Get over it. You don't like the results, blame your inept President and AG. It is no one else's fault.

By the way, Pea-Brain:

plea bargain
Plea Bargain
PLEA BARGAIN
P L E A B A R G A I N!

By Jennifer on August 6, 2007 12:20 PM

Just checking back to see where this conversation went. Interesting to see that Sharon thinks I called Jesus a pansy, and I guess disdainfully thinks I am "alltruistic."

On the matter of the secret evidence, suffice to say that your argument takes all the admin talking points as it's base, exactly as intended. Bush played a masterful political game in using the Democrats and the UN to gain all the tacit support he could for the war, to make as many people as complicit as possible. The authorization to use force was not constitutionally required, in fact, it was a dead letter. The president always retains the command of the military and can committ troops, so it meant nothing.

If it was refused, on the other hand, the Bush could say the congress was trying to tie his hands and undermining his credibility in negotiations. If it is approved, suddenly it morphs from granting the ability the president already has, to declaring war and serving as evidence that "secret evidence" must exist if those sissy, peacenik democrats even believe it. Bogus.

Nearly the same thing was done with the UN, but of course they didn't quite play ball. And you can see how much actual consideration Bush was giving to these people he was trying to make complicit.

"....because it is well known what Muslims do to Christian converts."

Groupthink. I can't think of anything less Christian than slurring a whole religion based on the actions of a small minority. I take pride in not doing that to Christians, in fact, for speaking up for them, despite my feeling that a much larger minority are serving as backers for war rather than peace.

Christian is as Christian does. You say you have limited time, unlike the supposed "people in Mom's basement?" What do you use your limited time for? The answer is here in black and white. Your primary concern at this site is to defend Caesar and his war. Face up to it. If you want to argue that sometimes that's what a good Christian does, then fine. Just not my idea of Christianity, and we have no example of Jesus or any saint doing anything like that. Let's leave it at that.

By Sharon on August 6, 2007 1:50 PM

Jennifer,

"....because it is well known what Muslims do to Christian converts." (partial comment of Sharon)

Jennifer's response:

Groupthink. I can't think of anything less Christian than slurring a whole religion based on the actions of a small minority. I take pride in not doing that to Christians, in fact, for speaking up for them, despite my feeling that a much larger minority are serving as backers for war rather than peace.

You got it wrong again.

This is the whole statement:
It sounds like you you saying that it is the fault of Christians (like me) that Muslims kill converts because it is well known what Muslims do to Christian converts.

I was asking if that was SLOB's opinion, based on HIS statement below:

Put your efforts toward reforming the shitty governments they live under rather than luring these needy people into becoming targets for known and confirmed oppressors.

That is an example of "altruistic" Jennifer. Taking a partial statement and placing it out of context. Throw your statement back to SLOB: he is the one who made the suggestion. You see what you want to see. I also stated above there somewhere to bring on the impeachment proceedings. Impeach him if the evidence is sufficient. I am all for it.
***
You say you have limited time, unlike the supposed "people in Mom's basement?" What do you use your limited time for? The answer is here in black and white. Your primary concern at this site is to defend Caesar and his war. Face up to it.

Another example of altruistic Jennifer. I made a joke about being a mom in the basement. I guess if you don't have a sense of humor, then you won't see it. You are completely judgmental and spout your own talking points. You are a fraud, altruistic Jennifer.
***
The president always retains the command of the military and can commit troops, so it meant nothing.

He can commit all he wants but without money what would that mean? Congress controls the purse strings.

By royalking on August 6, 2007 2:03 PM

Well put, Sharon, a fraud she is.

"....because it is well known what Muslims do to Christian converts."

[Groupthink]sic. I can't think of anything less Christian than slurring a whole religion based on the actions of a small minority. "jennifer"

You should have hammered "her" on that comment, too. I wanted to, but, chose to stay out. A non-Christian "jennifer" preaching to a Christian, you, about what Christianity is about. Classic.

By StealThisOpinion on August 6, 2007 2:08 PM

HAHAHAHA, Rk cant come up with intelligible comebacks on his own so he has to leech onto other peoples to make himself look more credible...

By royalking on August 6, 2007 2:27 PM

You mean like this, stooge? Think before you post.

Mike, we both know that RK will never own up to being wrong. I cornered him with a full debate (not), post by post(not), proving him wrong(not), and he never even aknowledged it...then he tried to spin the conversation toward another way(not), and still lost. What a loser! But seriously though, he's not going to own up to being wrong, his frail ego cant handle that...it feeds off denial

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at August 6, 2007 1:25 PM

By StealThisOpinion on August 6, 2007 2:42 PM

You're a fucking idiot. Ill repost the debate that you never responded to and apparently dont think even happened.

=============================

Slander and Perjury. It's a lie. You were proven wrong on this dumbass quote. And you've been proven wrong again.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at August 3, 2007 2:20 PM

Proof? When did this happen?

Posted by: royalking at August 3, 2007 2:25 PM

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

This is the wall that the debate is on...LINK(im over the link limit)

and this is the post that lays out the debate as it happened.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 4:22 AM
------------------------------------------------

The only thing I saw was me exposing your hypocrisy in the bj matter, kos kiddie. Don't have time to chase your links to nowhere.

Posted by: royalking at August 3, 2007 2:51 PM

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

Wow. You are infuriatingly stupid. Let me post the conversation in a way thats easy for you to read. Ill even post my 'hypocrisy in the bj matter'...

countdown_with_312.php

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

"the left wing hate sites like huffpo, du and media matters"
Posted by: royalking at July 23, 2007 1:15 AM

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

""I guess the libby's haven't heard of this because it isn't plastered all over the left wing hate sites like huffpo, du and media matters. They would rather consintrate..."
-RK

1) Watch BillO much? What exactly qualifies the HuffPo and Media Matters to be "hate sites" aside from that they prove everything to know and believe wrong?

2) its spelled CONCENTRATE. Pass 4th grade spelling?"
Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 23, 2007 5:19 AM

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

Before you actually responded you posted over 20 more times, and tried to hide behind a post of Cecelia's that touched our debate at a tangent and didnt really respond to anything...now onto the next board.

I saw that you had posted so I posted this..

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

RK, i have comments I would like you to respond to LINK(i had to delete a few links to get this to post, its a link to the previous board if you didnt know) there. Please respond, then Ill respond. thank you

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 12:12 PM

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

you posted 3 more times then I posted this...

RK, i have comments I would like you to respond to LINK(same place) there. Please respond, then Ill respond. thank you

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 12:12 PM

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

Ok, Ill get right on it. Right after "mike" tells us how he supports our troops as he has claimed countless times, yet, hasn't told us how. Except for banging "needless deaths" over and over on his keyboard.....

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 2:24 PM

you then responded with

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

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/daily-kos-outed-as-hate-website.html

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 3:17 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/huffpo_erases_all_comments_at.php

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 3:24 PM

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

I posted a few times calling you out on the debate because I had not seen the websites you posted...Im sorry about that, btw. Then I posted

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

Hey, Buddy. Already debunked the dailykos hate site thing. So Drop It.

And RoyalKing, the fact that they delete hateful comments off their site goes a very long way to prove they are, in fact, NOT a hate site.

Do you think before you post?

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 9:08 PM

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

stooge, you didn't debunk anything, ok? Lets get that straight. One more indoctrinator bites the dust, read it and weep.

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 9:18 PM

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

RoyalKing, You're so dumb. Lets lay this out.

- You claim that HuffPo and MediaMatters are hate sites.
-- I challenge you to prove that they are hate sites on more than just the word of some Senile Fox News Anchor.
- You respond with a blog that just links to the O'Reilly claims that have been debunked*
--I call you out on it
- You respond with a link that says that the HuffPo ERASES hateful comments as proof that the Huffington Post is a hate site.
-- I laugh at you
- You ignore the HuffPo issue completely then claim: "stooge, you didn't debunk anything, ok? Lets get that straight. One more indoctrinator bites the dust, read it and weep."

Just because you say you win doesnt mean that you do. Lets get that straight. Go read a book.

* The comments that O'Reilly mentions in his slanderous hackjob against DailyKos are not representative of the majority of the DailyKos users. The comments in question were troll-rated, meaning that the majority of the DailyKos community does not agree with the remarks, thus these few rogue comments can not be chosen as a representative sample of the views of the DailyKos community.

If you dont know what troll-rated means, just ask.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 4:22 AM

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

stooge, just because you post the words of some senile dailykos contributor doesn't prove anything.

Posted by: royalking at July 25, 2007 11:25 AM

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

Wow. Is that really all you've got to say? You're going to say I took the word of one senile contributor?? You really do like making slanderous, baseless claims. I'm taking the words of hundreds of thousands of fellow Kossaks and making use of their troll-rating system to denote what the general public agrees with.

Believe it or not, the DailyKos community is the foremost expert on what the DailyKos community thinks, feels, and believes. Not some right-wing pundit who is trying to put a slanderous name to a website he does not agree with. O'Reilly's only claim against DailyKos now is "Why do they let people post this stuff?" Its simple, free speech.

So, I'm right then? Was that you making your best attempt at a comeback? If thats the case then I'm right, You're wrong, thank you for playing.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 12:00 PM

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

And you didnt respond. You took the conversation on a whole other road in which you also lost the debate.

RoyalKing.
...
On the blog thing. I thought I asked you to recant your statement about those blogs being hate sites, ya know, since you dont have ANY evidence to back it up. On second thought, I would like an apology issued to the members of the DailyKos, HuffPo, and MediaMatters communities...if thats not too much to ask?
Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 11:28 PM

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

Now, for the "hypocrisy" about the bj thing

who stepped down for marital infidelities, was right to step down because those who hold values to cheat on their wives do not deserve a spot in congress. Oh hypocrisy.

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 24, 2007 11:55 AM

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

Were you calling for BJ Clinton to step down for cheating on his wife, or was that "different?"

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 2:33 PM

Posted by: royalking at July 24, 2007 9:39 PM

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

And I wasnt calling for BJ Clinton to step down. I think that was nothing but politics by the Right-Wing and I think its incredibly hypocritical for anyone who cheered for clinton's impeachment to say that impeaching Dubya is pointless and a waste of time. Where did you get that I supported the Clinton impeachment? I support bad people getting what they deserve, not a good president getting tarnished for getting a BJ.

Do you think Vitter should step down for paying a hooker so he could put on a diaper and shit in his pants? Or is that less of a removable offense than getting a BJ?

Olbyloon hypocrisy, exposed.

Posted by: royalking at July 25, 2007 12:56 PM

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

RoyalKing.

You're missing a small little point about the Vitter thing. The man got office running on a restoring family values platform. Its not only that he cheated on his wife with a woman that he paid to put him in a diaper so he could shit himself, its that he completely went against a major campaign issue that got him elected. Olby-Hypocrisy...negated.
Posted by: StealThisOpinion at July 25, 2007 11:28 PM

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

and you never responded

Now, ""...slander...Evidence? That's what I though, none, again""

Theres evidence of slander of the DailyKos and of me. Perjury in the sense that you lied about the dailykos and tried to misrepresent a post talking about how the HuffPo deletes hateful comments as proof of it being a hate site.

Kos kiddie? Is that supposed to be an insult? compliment? Are you stupid?

Posted by: StealThisOpinion at August 3, 2007 3:29 PM

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

Now, Please tell me If I am wrong...but from what I see on that debate is you looking like a half-witted retard who cant debate and you tried to deflect the entire debate toward the Vitter segment...which you also lost and never responded to.

"The only thing I saw was me exposing your hypocrisy in the bj matter, kos kiddie. Don't have time to chase your links to nowhere."

By Mike on August 6, 2007 3:13 PM

STO: In my opinion, You're wasting your valuable time attempting to 'debate' Jeff in anything. He's just a troll and is incapable of honest debate and the main points generally fly right over his head anyway.

However, I think he loves to make you post lengthy arguments that he never intends to respond to anyway. For Jeff, it's never about truth....it's simply about his pre-chosen 'side' winning or losing.

Thats why he'' never be anything but a troll.

By Sharon on August 6, 2007 3:27 PM

Thanks, RK, but I am going to take the high road now. Jennifer, I apologize for calling you "altruistic" in a sarcastic sense and a fraud. You did, however, attribute an opinion about Muslims to me that was unfounded and made accusations about how I spend my time. I don't speak for all of Christianity. Until there is evidence presented in an impeachment process, I believe that Bush had evidence at the time that appeared to make Saddam an imminent threat. (Not just WMD, but certainly that was a poignant issue). It may have been faulty but it was believed by many. Someone here made, what I think, is a logical argument that why would Bush construct a false theory of WMD, not really believing there were any, if it was clear none were going to be found? The U.N. is fraught with corruption that has been proven and IMO, not a very credible source of right judgment. (You'll probably say the same as the Bush Administration. That doesn't erase the corruption of Oil for Food, though, does it?)

The pope is a credible person to look to for right judgment. He didn't have access to intelligence to make a decision as to whether it was strong enough to overcome the terrible weight of war and the consequences that any war will have. There are many Christians who don't believe that our country should have ever engaged in war from the very beginning, not just changing minds after a prolonged war which wears everyone down. I respect that opinion. I didn't really have one until after the war started. I have been through this all before. Once the war started, there was not a turning back. I hope it all ends as soon as possible. I am not a warmonger. I have young children that will be affected in the future by conduct now. I even envision a future draft if the military is not built up again.

When I say that Jesus is not a pansy, I don't mean that He is a warmonger either, and that a holy war should be engaged against non-Muslim countries. Jesus is often portrayed as all-accepting. I'm okay your okay. But I am not going to argue that here and now, particularly in the context of the war argument.

I don't have anything further to say without opening up more avenues of dissension.

A few people who regularly comment here have talked about reasons for coming to this site. I have given mine before. There is lots of war talk, more than usual lately from me, but that is not my purpose here. I don't believe that commenting on Olbermann Watch has any affect on the war issue. Why would I use a site with the name OW to promote a war agenda when only the people who regularly come here would even know that war is discussed so often? If you look at FAQ about the site, you would not get that impression at all.

So, let's just leave it at that to quote you.

By mvndrkqfp aekmjivc on September 15, 2007 1:52 AM

xdpyrals louariz vtxziqmhj gibunqep mypr uohmtd cbtfe

OlbyWatchTweets

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

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

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

If It's Sunday, It's Meet the Obsessed

Keith Olbermann: An Infantile, Dysfunctional, Empty Vessel

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

378 Comments

Leave a new comment