O'Lielly, everyone ever charge with a crime is innocent and have compelling stories to tell, aint ye heeeeeerd. There have been crimes committed ever sense there was war but what would you know. The closest thing you came to combat is the day a bully came by and kicked sand in your face while you were playing with your Barbie Dolls in your sandbox.

Have you written any negative comments about what Sadam has done? What about Darfur ro Sierre Leone? What about the Bataan death march and other crimes committed by the NIPS or the NAZIS? Hum? Do us all a favor, either move to Venuzuela or since you are a liberal and therefore a follower, you, Mike the Lussy Lou, BR, AAP, codas & SLOB can come over to my house and I'll serve you some Kool Aide and the gene pool on this planet will greatly improve. I sure hate to stink up God's great earth though.

You are the Billy Bad Ass that professes he plans on pissing on a dead man's grave. Hell, you aint even a pussy. Life grinding you into a little shit ball ace? Haven't had any pussy in the past 5 years let alone go on a date. Credit card deby got ya down? Bought all that stuff and now the reality of having to pay for it sat in? Feeling that pinch everytime you fill up your tank? Are you hiding under your bed because Reid and Pelosi told you.

You can't even manage your own miniscule, meanlingless, Simple SImon, Godless life and you want to shoot your mouth off over an isolated event.

It's a good thing people with common sense are still in charge.

AKA LAura Bush for are the stupid assed barnaby Jones' out there. O'Lielly, why don;t you see if you can get with Larry Craig and have some man-love.

Jimmy Breslin reminds us of the tail end of Vietnam:

"One is by Air Force Lt. Richard Van de Geer, a helicopter pilot assigned to assist in the evacuation of Saigon in 1975. This letter is on 15 May 1975, the day he was killed.

"The aircraft that landed on the Midway - landed about 50 feet away from mine - and the man who got out of the aircraft had been quoted approximately a week earlier as saying that any South Vietnamese who had left the country was a coward and that everybody should stay in South Vietnam and fight to the bitter end. This very same man was the first man to arrive on the USS Midway and to my knowledge the first to be recovered by the 7th Fleet. The man was Gen. Nguyen Cao Ky, vice president of the Republic of South Vietnam. Now I really don't have any personal feelings about the war here. I really don't care one way or the other in regard to who is right and who is wrong because that is a waste of time, a waste of thinking. But I did find myself feeling that I wish he had been shot down."

Officially, Lt. Van de Geer was the last man to die in the Vietnam War. His name is listed as last on the memorial in Washington. If Bush wonders from his dentist's chair about the end of Vietnam, Van de Geer gives you a fair idea.

STill waiting for the "review" of the Thursday show. Oh well, why bother. I'll have Johnny's review of Fridays hour of spin way before this comes in!

Laura- you wake up each day with such anger... thats the characteristic of a liberal. Buddy you gotta CHIIIIILLLLL

O'Lilley hates the military. Thinks they are woman and baby killers.

Par for the course there.

Jimmy Breslin writes for Newsday. Use to write for a lot of other papers but got fired.

Gee likes to use dead guys to make his point.

Par for the course with a lib.

Drinking Problem.

Maybe he knows Mike?

Here watch, I can play spineless lib watch this everybody.

26 year old Army Sargeant Jan Argonish was killed Monday in an ambush while serving in Afghanistan.

If George Bush wonders from his Dentist's chair about the middle of the Afghanistan War Jan Argonish gives you a fair idea.

Gee, I didn't know it took so little effort to be such a big creep!

O'Lilley hates the military. Thinks they are woman and baby killers.

Par for the course there.

Jimmy Breslin writes for Newsday. Use to write for a lot of other papers but got fired.

Gee likes to use dead guys to make his point.

Par for the course with a lib.

Drinking Problem.

Maybe he knows Mike?

Here watch, I can play spineless lib watch this everybody.

26 year old Army Sargeant Jan Argonish was killed Monday in an ambush while serving in Afghanistan.

If George Bush wonders from his Dentist's chair about the middle of the Afghanistan War Jan Argonish gives you a fair idea.

Gee, I didn't know it took so little effort to be such a big creep!

Gee, I didn't know it took so little effort to be such a big creep!

Posted by: puck at August 31, 2007 9:18 AM

Well, we all know that "effort" isn't Bush's long suit - he just beat Reagan's record for vacation days taken while in office. Being a "creep" is something at which the self-righteouslylazy often excell.

"26 year old Army Sargeant Jan Argonish was killed Monday in an ambush while serving in Afghanistan."

Puck,

For your spineless, partisan, and cynical use of the death of Sargeant Argonish to be relevant to Breslin's citation of Lt Van de Geer you should be able to include a letter or quote illustrating the Sgt's opinions of his mission, and the war in general.

SLOB,

You hate everything that Bush does but now you are complaining that he is on vacation too much. Don't be such a dingbat!

Sir Loin of Milquetoast using DNC talking points again....

Bush..."The Vacation President" check

Well, it is arguable, especially when one looks at Bill Clinton's behavior as the chief executive....."vacation" when only defined as when The President is out of Washington and not on a "foreign policy" trip, is very misleading.....

"President Bush's "vacations" are really just changes in scenery. He's still doing the same job, whether he's in Crawford, Camp David or Kennebunkport. The Clintons' excursions to the Caribbean, to Martha's Vineyard and to Jackson Hole, Wyoming were hedonistic by comparison. Furthermore, Clinton took an extraordinary number of trips overseas, given that he was so neglectful of foreign policy that he studiously avoided his own CIA director.

"According to a 2001 report by the National Taxpayers' Union, Clinton set all-time records for presidential travel in terms of countries visited (133) and days spent abroad (229). His predecessors, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, combined for 109 visits and 220 days abroad in 12 years. Unlike those presidents' trips, many of Clinton's served no discernible foreign policy benefit.

"Take, for instance, his 11-day ego trip through Africa, where he was treated like a king, and didn't exactly bother to correct anyone on that point. Later that same year, he spent 10 days in Red China, almost long enough to individually thank everyone who had contributed to his reelection campaign. Those reporters who keep track of presidential vacation days do not include these whimsical romps in their final tallies."

http://www.americandaily.com/article/19982

###
Oh, and don't forget that during working hours, The adulterous sodomite, Bill Clinton, made the Oval office his personal pleasure dome.....I wonder how many hours were wasted on his casual sexual activity?

Well Loin, keep posting the latest try at eroding Bush's credibility.....It won't make a difference....Your ruling elite are sabotoging you with talk of funding Iraq and Afghanistan as W is requesting....... again.

Bush might as well work from Crawford.....The Congress doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything when they are in town anyway.

Bravo cee- well put!

cee presents callow trust-fund brat Bush - with his history of destroying all of the "pet" business's given him by his dad and his dad's friends - as his standard for an on-point self-made man. This is analogous to poster laura/Nugent presenting self-soiling, draft-dodging Terrible Ted as a paragon of patriotism. Your movement's values are shit, and you ecstatically wallow in it.

"First of all, Bush spends most of his time clearing brush on his vacations"

Actually, its clear from the video of these activities that to Bush "clearing brush" means directing a cluster of Crawford peasants around a cluster of trees. The douche obviously doesn't have the slightest idea how to run a chainsaw, and appears to only pick up an undersized machine when the cameras are on.

Ah yes, more leftist wallowing (thanks for the word Loin), regarding the "caretaker" chief executive, the adulterous sodomite, Bill Clinton.

A man who will always be associated first and foremost with, IMPEACHMENT and MONICA.

"Bill's work ethic was legendary."

###
Oh yeah....a legend I have heard many times! (sarcasm)

"The adulterous sodomite, Bill Clinton, made the Oval office his personal pleasure dome"

But I've never heard that Clinton ever jacked-off in a coffin while surrounded by a couple-dozen of his fraternity brothers, as both Bush and John Kerry must have done as an essential componenet of their membership in "Skull and Bones" at Yale.

...and just who was being serviced by Jeff Gannon/John Guckert on his 100-plus nocturnal visits to the White House, as registered by the Secret Service?

"A man who will always be associated first and foremost with, IMPEACHMENT and MONICA."

...words which will, in turn, always be associated with the concepts of "irrelevancy" and "Witchhunt".

The historical perspective already has the benefit of the examples offered by Senator Vitter, congressman Foley, Senator Craig and other's of Clinton's direct detractors by which to weigh the seriousness of Clinton's infraction.

How many more cases of such hypocrisy will pop up in the next few years, before all of the holier-than-thou/gayer-than-thou Republican moralists/philanderers who had attacked Clinton die off?

Clinton's presidency was a success
His attitude and action in the office, was disgraceful

I tend to lean right, but I wash with Clinton, personally i prospered under his admistration but one can't deny his actions were boarderline basically sick

All in all some I would call him a push, if I ranked the last 30 presidents, he may come in 15th....

And Olbyloons, he never comes in ahead of the gipper on any list

And Olbyloons, he never comes in ahead of the gipper on any list

Posted by: Professor Phooey at August 31, 2007 11:07 AM

You haven't seen my list.

Plus Bush retires between 8- 9:00 each night of his life, on top of an afternoon nap.
He is not only the most vacationed president in history, he is the laziest.( and by far the dumbest)

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 10:45 AM

Exactly how would you know Bush's nap times or what he does on "vacation"? You don't. As for the dumbest president,
how many Harvard MBA's do you have? 0
My guess is you are in your 6th year at NJ community college. Keep trying zombie, you might get that associates degree some day.

Perhaps the braindead poster of 10:45 should read the just released report on 9/11 from the CIA.

Typical liberal keeps throwing out lies when the facts bear different fruit. Read it slug. Says the majority of the blame lies with Clinton's appointee Tenet. Additionally points out that although Clark and Clinton scream that they took Bin Laden seriously, they did not. Its in the report slug.

Read more than huffington post, you might see a bit of reality.

SLOB, step away from the "loose change" videos. Try getting your news from people that are out of high school, for our sake.

The "ratings" you enjoy discussing are about as objective as Olbermann. Reagan is considred a middle ranking "success" by similar "media generated" rankings, yet I am sure Loin and the rest of the radical left still see Reagan as just left to the mythical satan.

I take no solace or worry from these recent historical reviews....they are the usually the opinions of the leftist elite....spoon fed to the masses....enjoy your pablum.

History, decades from now, will show the short span of 16 years of Clinton/Bush as a period focused on the rise of radical islamic terrorism. I am sorry to report to you fans of the adulterous sodomite that his 8 years of inept foregin policy in the middle east (especially in Iraq and towards Israel) will be what we doctors call....

nonbenign neglect.

Whoever takes over from Bush will have the opportunity to take over a policy that the country should have been with since 1993.....standing against the ideology of death and radicalism....Clinton ignored it and allowed the cancer to spread to where a 9/11 could occur on US soil.

It has not happened since, under Bush's watch, and it won't as long as terrorists are on the defense against the best military in the world.

We will see if we get a Clinton (2) and then Bill's legacy will REALLY be in doubt.

For our military and our people, I hope not. We saw what Carter and Clinton did to military readiness and freedom in the world....

nonbenign neglect

I bet you think Carter was a success too... blind (d)s!

Olbermann's pulling down some pretty big numbers since his network debut. NBC, dumb like a FOX....

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_wednesday_august_29_66152.asp#more

Countdown 974, 299 (in the demo)

Oh yeah Loin, while Clinton was ignoring the rise of Bin Laden's power and influence, Saddam's true behavior (all that wrong intelligence Bush used to "lie" us into war), and showing the US could be a paper tiger with regards to defending democracy and freedom (Somalia, Israel)....he was having an underling perform oral sex on him in the oval office.....

And your ruling elite applauded him just outside after his impeachment vote......

No, Loin, that will be overlooked because other perverts were caught and either resigned or were marginalized properly.

Do you see the difference between the left and what normal, moral people do....They accept true responsibility for their bad behavior and pay consequences....They are not given standing ovations.

Nor do they change the easily understood definition of "sex." We even saw one of you leftist show your ignorance regarding sodomy yesterday....."oh no, oral sex is not sodomy!" Mmmmm....many young people do not even consider such casual, wonderful, disease spreading activity as "sex." Thank you President Clinton!

news you can use....

Check you link again....the 900K was total....his demo was only 299....

And his substitute got similar numbers the weak before.

Oh, and he has been up against subs at FOX....not change in his ranking.....still trail's FACTOR.

I would say, a very modest impact, if any.

"Bill Clinton understood and took the threat of al-Qaeda seriously."

Way too hysterical. Bill says he did. The reports say otherwise.

Can anyone name what Clinton did to stop 9-11?
You said he didn't do enough... he didn't do ANYTHING!
8 years of nothing and you blame Bush for 8 months of nothing. CLUELESS and no one is buying it!

Read the report- it say clinton did nothing.
It says he did NOT take them seriously.

Here is a long list of Bill Clintons sucesses as provided by him.

In 1996, President Clinton pointed to 13 separate reforms that were contained within the Contract with America at the Democratic National Convention.

That would be Newt Gingrich's Contract with America for those of you in zombie land.

So don't throw that shit around me about Reagan. Not in an open forum where the facts are easily accessable by people willing to review them.
But as I said, I lived throught the Reagan years and they weren't pretty.

Mike is this you? have you taken to posting blindly now? come out come out wherever you areeeeeeeeeeeeee

I could give a shit what you think btw, wrapo yourself in the cum stained dress of monica lewinsky if it turns you on, Your an idiot

READ THE REPORT IDIOT!

WhiteHouse people like Richard Clark say he did?
He's in the CIA report too dunce...

Can you name what clinton did to Al Queda in his 8 years?

....."oh no, oral sex is not sodomy!" Mmmmm....many young people do not even consider such casual, wonderful, disease spreading activity as "sex." Thank you President Clinton!

Posted by: cee at August 31, 2007 11:32 AM

So you and the Mrs. never engage orally? All because of bronze-age mythology? You poor bastard.

More pablum from the left's run 9/11 commission....The Clinton croneys made sure the truth was not put out and anyone can see the behavior of Clinton in Somalia and with regards to Israel as the main motivation for the increasing violence of radical islamists, like Bin Laden. Clinton left Bush a mess to deal with and 3000 people perished on one day in September because of it.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein continued to defy the world for 12 years and Clinton's administration "created" most of the poor intelligence everyone believed in 2003.....Oh yes, it was still right to remove the totalitarian Saddam from power, but the intelligence failures, a system wide failure, rests squarly on the inept leftist democrat, just like always one cannot trust the left with protecting the nation.

"Oh yeah Loin, while Clinton was ignoring the rise of Bin Laden's power and influence, Saddam's true behavior (all that wrong intelligence Bush used to "lie" us into war), "

Yes, cee, all that wrong intelligence used to lie us into war. What is your point?

news you can use....

Check you link again....the 900K was total....his demo was only 299....

And his substitute got similar numbers the weak before.
Oh, and he has been up against subs at FOX....not change in his ranking.....still trail's FACTOR.
I would say, a very modest impact, if any.
Posted by: cee at August 31, 2007 11:38 AM

Sorry cee, I thought 299 (in the demo) was clear. Yes I realize he's still second to the Malkin Factor, but wednesday was a pretty good day. Olbermann never has sniffed a million viewers (unless you count the bridge or VT). If they keep putting him on NBC (even if he only got 4 million viewers) it will only increase his MSNBC ratings, its just logic. Even with all the bitching from the football audience, bad publicity still = buzz. Smart move by NBC really.

Like I said, NBC is dumb like a FOX.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein continued to defy the world for 12 years and Clinton's administration "created" most of the poor intelligence everyone believed in 2003.....Oh yes, it was still right to remove the totalitarian Saddam from power, but the intelligence failures, a system wide failure, rests squarly on the inept leftist democrat, just like always one cannot trust the left with protecting the nation.

Posted by: cee at August 31, 2007 11:50 AM

cee, you are just making shit up to keep talking. What a piece of disingenuous, cowardly crap - just as much afraid of a blowjob as he is of serving in his fetish/president's imperial wars. Make a man of yourself - either enlist now or go eat some pussy.

A missile- missed and thats his legacy?
Here is how serious Clinton was-

In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan.

To this day there has been no evidence that the Sudanese target had any involvement with terrorism.

More of Clinton's legacy

"So you and the Mrs. never engage orally? All because of bronze-age mythology? You poor bastard."

###
Oh poor Loin, I guess you don't have any lines regarding perverted sexual activity.....

anal?
dead bodies?
children?
animals?

Where is that elusive line, Loin? Where does sodomy start?

Oh yeah....sex with love and commitment is another myth us fundy flat-earthers like to talk about too....No, the left says that is not necessary....casual and where-ever you want! Even your work place, even the public bathroom!

Make sure you have your partners tested for that nasty HPV virus....You won't show the disease on your genitalia but it makes for some nasty stuff in other "unnatural places"

Oh, and that is why we see the increase in oral herpes...a pleasant one too....nice.

And I have seen some nasty cases or oral clap...nasty.

Enjoy....also remember what else is involved in these wonder cloacae.

I'll tell you. When Bush lost Bin Laden in the mountains of Pakistan b/c ..again of his obsession with Iraq, he said," Bin Laden 's not important"

You fools just lie and lie and lie.

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 11:55 AM

Bin Laden is being protected by the Bush/Saudi relationship. Bin Laden is in partnership with the Military Industrial Complex in the same way that little animated toenail "dematophyte" works for the pharmacuetical companies.

Gotta love a wikipedia entry... write it yourself cellar dweller?

No, the left says that is not necessary....casual and where-ever you want! Even your work place, even the public bathroom!

Check the headlines of the past few months, Squeamish. Republicans appear to have cornered the market on toilet-stall blowjobs.

Read the CIA report monkey....
Its SAYS he did nothing
It say clarke did almost nothing

Yet they all say they did

Clintons war on terror

October 1997: Ali Mohamed Tells FBI He Helped Al-Qaeda Kill US Soldiers, But FBI Takes No Action
October 1997: Ali Mohamed Tells FBI He Helped Al-Qaeda Kill US Soldiers, But FBI Takes No Action Ali Mohamed is interviewed by the FBI for at least the third time. He gives agents a detailed account of how he trained bin Laden’s bodyguards (see 1994) and how al-Qaeda operatives assisted the attack that killed 18 US soldiers in Somalia in 1993 (see 1993). He says he trained people in “war zones, and… war zones can be anywhere.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/26/2001] Two months earlier, in a raid on Walih el-Hage’s house in Nairobi, Kenya, the FBI found evidence proving the existence of an al-Qaeda cell based in Kenya, and an admission that the cell had assisted in the 1993 Somalia attack. It appears the FBI had already been monitoring communications between Mohamed and these cell members for some time (see Late 1994). [Wall Street Journal, 11/26/2001] Other glimmers of what he tells the FBI will later be revealed in court documents. For instance, a 1997 FBI report on him possibly based on this interview will state, “He knows, for example, that there are hundreds of ‘sleepers’ or ‘submarines’ in place who don’t fit neatly into the terrorist profile. These individuals don’t wear the traditional beards and don’t pray at the mosques.” [Raleigh News and Observer, 10/21/2001] According to an 1998 affidavit, he also tells the FBI in this interview that he loves bin Laden and believes in him. He further says that it is “obvious” the US is an enemy of Muslim people. [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/4/2001] But apparently, despite openly admitting that he’s working with al-Qaeda and has participated in the killing of US soldiers, the FBI still takes no action against him.

Oh, and that is why we see the increase in oral herpes...a pleasant one too....nice.

And I have seen some nasty cases or oral clap...nasty.

Enjoy....also remember what else is involved in these wonder cloacae.

Posted by: cee at August 31, 2007 12:03 PM

Er...my question WAS specifically about the relationship between you and Mrs. cee....nevermind. Sorry I asked.

Cee's comment yesterday about "oral sex" being perverted will live in infamy.

###
It should. Sexual activity has been a part if not a major issue in most falls of leaders and societies. If people cannot control their bobily functions and act like animals in heat, preying on inappropriate partners, or better yet, settling for anaonymous of unrespect recipients, very little is left. Clinton's behavior showed this and he is a great symbol of the high unwanted pregnancies, high abortion rates and high single mother rates in the US....As well as the increasing rates of STDs.....escpeciall herpes.

Got a cold sore, guys?

Ew, nice one.

“ Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu."

Boy those terrorist were sure affraid of Clinton.

"###
Oh poor Loin, I guess you don't have any lines regarding perverted sexual activity.....

anal?
dead bodies?
children?
animals?

Where is that elusive line, Loin? Where does sodomy start?"

Wow. So if a Republican turns on the light during sex, or fucks without a sheet between them, or if a fingertip brushes a forbidden anatomical feature, then its all over - a slippery slope to necrophilia and beastiality. No wonder they crack so frequently, and end up throwing everything away to kneel in week-old piss blowing strangers.

YET the loons still think Clinton did a lot to curb terrorism.
Clinton SAYS he did a lot.
But in 8 years there is a lot he DID NOT do.

You losers started this thread and always lose.
Clinton did nothing, and claiming he did won't change his legacy.

Nameless-
Are you even aware that the CIA released a thorough report LAST MONTH? Now I know you didn't read it.

Getting tired looking for actual examples of Clinton's battle with Al Queda? Tent missile.... Aspirin factory....
Wow- you really are laying out quite a case. NOTHING!
PPPPhht!

Oh anon at 12:09PM, stop projecting your insecurities on me. My wife and I did and do follow the "bronze-age" myth.....

And next you be impugning the religious convictions of those Jews who are kosher.

The scriptures are clear, even Christ said what the way was regarding family and sex. He quoted that myth in Genesis....you know Adam and Eve....

But again, Christ being God in my faith is also a fairy tale ready for your ridicule as well.

Like I said gents, be careful....Your partners would appreciate some respect, kindness and gentleness in your testosterone driven spasms to pleasure yourselves.....

Just a little.

The zombies always claim Bush invade Iraq for no reason. Lets look at the reasons for the wonderful "MISTER" Clinton's military operations.

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of cruise missile attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occasions generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks were launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of Reason remarked,

“ Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…"

Figures you would change the subject...
Always a loon-

Come on big talker (just like Clinton)
Put together a list of all of Clinton's strong actions on terrorism. You started this claiming he did a lot... but the FACTS (details of substance) prove he did nothing.

Maybe Clinton had a secret war on terror, and all his actions were covert. 9-11 was just as much Clinton's fault as Bush's. Yet you try to pass the blame, as it tarnishes your boys legacy.

"Wow. So if a Republican turns on the light during sex, or fucks without a sheet between them, or if a fingertip brushes a forbidden anatomical feature, then its all over - a slippery slope to necrophilia and beastiality. No wonder they crack so frequently, and end up throwing everything away to kneel in week-old piss blowing strangers."

###
Yeah, frequently....and what was Clinton's excuse?

Got objective numbers about your claim, Loin or are you just pulling it out of one of your errogenous zones like you always do?

You see Loin, I could care less what you do in your bedroom....luckily modern medicine has developed tools to save fools like you who make poor choices....

The same with anon poster....casual, noncommitment sex along with a carefree attitude to what is actually done, despite bacterial and viral transmission has consequences....

a la Craig
a la Clinton

a la the pedophile just arrested yesterday....
a la a huge and rapid spread of deadly STD's throughout the years....just recently here in the 1980's and even worse now in Africa.

But no, personal hygeine and care/respect has no part in the equation according to the elite and brilliant left.

No Loin, show me empirical data regarding your assertions and I'll show you mine. (yes, I was trying to sound sexual!)

wink, wink.

Like I said gents, be careful....Your partners would appreciate some respect, kindness and gentleness in your testosterone driven spasms to pleasure yourselves.....

Just a little.

Posted by: cee at August 31, 2007 12:21 PM

You would be amazed at what a little of such attention can do for a lady's state of mind cee - it doesn't all have to be about the patriarch.

...but you said something very interesting above, cee:

"Oh yeah....sex with love and commitment is another myth us fundy flat-earthers like to talk about too"

Love, commitment and trust are what monogamous, heterosexual oral sex is all about - that and a fucking fantastic time! You make this pious statement, yet all of your admonitions against "sodomy" are based on distrust and the assumption of a wide network of sexual partners. I've never had an STD in my life, or used a condom during my marriage, and I have faith that I have nothing to worry about in this regard.

Interesting (but long) essay. I have copied one section where the author talks about Keith Olbermann. (The author states that the Vick special comment was taken off the youtube---since I pretty much boycott youtube, perhaps someone else can verify).

Michael Vick's Apologists - Not Quite Ready For Pedophiles
By Gary Krasner (08/31/07)

http://www.americandaily.com/article/20117

Excerpt:

Worst Person in the World

Leaving the most fatuous example for last, we have Keith Olbermann---a sportscaster who is the host of the nightly political commentary show (but with a news format), Countdown on MS-NBC, and was recently given anchor assignments for NBC outside of his regular show.

Given that Countdown garners the lowest ratings of any primetime cable news show, many people probably don't know who he is. The best analog to Mr. Olbermann is the character Oliver Crangle, played by the great actor Theordore Bikel, from the old Twilight Episode, "Four O'Clock".

Scifilm.org provides a synopsis of this episode, which first aired on April 6, 1962:

Mr. Oliver Crangle is on a great crusade: nothing less than the complete eradication of evil from the world! Crangle is utterly dedicated to this great goal. Every day he scans newspapers, listens to radio broadcasts, and otherwise keeps detailed records on vast numbers of people. Those whom he considers weak, evil and unfit are to be destroyed, usually through innuendo, rumor and hearsay. With only his parrot Pete as his friend, he tirelessly pursues his project.

Yet now Crangle is on the verge of his ultimate breakthrough. He believes has achieved the power to turn all the evil people of the world into two-foot tall midgets, thus eliminating their threat! At precisely the hour of four o'clock, Crangle will unleash this awesome power on the world.

Is Crangle a deranged madman...or does he really have this power? The answers lie in, The Twilight Zone.

That just about sums up Countdown. It's a show which primarily serves the ego of Olbermann---who imagines himself as the current day version of Edward R. Murrow---and whose mission it is to identify political villains for the angry left, to get angry at. I suppose if someone made a remake of this episode, then NBC News Correspondent David Schuster would be best cast as Crangle's parrot, Pete. He and Olbermann would identify Republicans as the evil people, in the nightly Countdown segment, "Worst Person in the World." But as politically correct liberals, they would have to turn them into something other than "midgets".

What has become a popular feature for Mr. Olbermann's dwindling left-leaning audience is his angry tirades, reminiscent of the fictional news anchor Howard Beale, from the movie, Network. The notable variance that parts from Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar-winning script is that Mr. Olbermann's angry commentaries (billed as "Special Comments") has not catapulted Countdown to the top of the ratings.

Anyway, on his August 27th Countdown show, Mr. Olbermann filed an update of a Special Comment on the Vick affair. It was an abridged version of the commentary he delivered about Vick during the half-time segment of NBC's Sunday-night football game that weekend. It was an uninhibited---and of course, angry---reprimand to those who do not want to see Vick return to professional sports.

Following that commentary, I understand NBC was deluged with angry calls from viewers, probably because most sports fans just want to have fun watching the game---without the vitriol that accompanies Mr. Olbermann's brand of politics. Fortunately for NBC, both Bob Costas and Cris Collingsworth were on hand to soften the blow and offer explanations. But NBC still pulled Mr. Olbermann's commentary off of youtube.com.

I will hit you in the back of the head with a can of Bud while I'm driving by in my SUV. I can afford $20/gallon. You can't.

Posted by: Ted Nugent at August 31, 2007 12:20 PM

But you can't afford anything better than Budweisser piss-water? That crap was cooked up for people who can't stomach real beer. Your fantastic wealth is wasted on someone with your pedestrian tastes.

Sounds like Oliver Crangle is Olbermann to the tee. Johnny $ should put clips of Crangle up with clips of Olbermann. Pretty telling that NBC doesn't want that commentary on U-Tube.

It's true. Our post of the Olbermann commentary was removed at the request of NBC. Meanwhile, thousands of other Olbermann clips remain standing. Odd.

It's true. Our post of the Olbermann commentary was removed at the request of NBC. Meanwhile, thousands of other Olbermann clips remain standing. Odd.

Posted by: johnny dollar at August 31, 2007 1:27 PM

Imagine a similar scenario with O'Reilly and FOX News.

THAT would result in a week of Countdown #1 Story/stories and at least one re-enactment...

It's true. Our post of the Olbermann commentary was removed at the request of NBC. Meanwhile, thousands of other Olbermann clips remain standing. Odd.
Posted by: johnny dollar at August 31, 2007 1:27 PM

Do think the NFL wanted it removed? This is very odd. I agree with Cecelia, that if this a "Bill-O" thing, we'd never hear the end of it. Funny how the MSM is ignoring this little factoid. Maybe you guys should have a separate thread about it, to remind people of the bullsh*t hypocrisy of NBC & the MSM.

Ahh the two Americas. Help us John Edwards.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.\

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Another Clinton cronie off to the big house, the list keeps getting longer.

8/31/2007 12:41:05 PM
drug treatment abuse centers

Factor quotes and article where the author states that he got his data from "a variety of sources".

Translation: It is bullshit...

Looks like 2:27 is off to Iowa for the weekend......Have a nice trip!

No Larry, I ended an absurd debate with some humor stemming from some poster's ignorance about clinical and legal definitions.....

And the benefits of good judgement....

And the pitfalls of calling one man a pervert when the same activity is overlooked as "normal" when someone else does it....

And the left's pleasant fantasy world where when a young, impresionable woman sodomizes the married leader of the free world there are no negative consequences....

Like 9/11.....

I can say I do not harbor that sexual preference or suffer from the paraphilia Sir Loin of Milquetoast unscientifically and superstitiously believes arises because some religious conservative is "sexually repressed."

Either provide your empirical evidence or join us in the 21st century, Loin.

who cares about the Iraqi women and children. Do you think if American women and their babies were being killed, the Iraqis would gave a rat's ass???

... as sandy berger tries to change the documents incriminating almighty clinton

wonder if Olbermutt will mention anything tonight about the Democratic fundraising scandal, doubt it.

"Bin Laden to Strike in America"

###
Get it right, DNC drone....

August 6, 2001 PDB was titled.....

"Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

Not what you tried to pass off.....lie.....

Stop parroting the Clinton shills on the 9/11 commission who tried (and failed) to imply the briefing contained any new information or actionable intelligence. In fact, the briefing DID NOT mention small groups of 2-3 terrorists using planes as missles or any other actionable and specific intelligence....

Another fabricated talking point Clinton INC. has ready to spew during their try to show the impossible....that leftists could actually protect the American public.

Here is the PDB you incorrectly titled....it is basically a history lesson with some updates regarding what the FBI knew at the time.....and it wasn't much...

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

"After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

"The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

"Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

"Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

"Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

"Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

"A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."

Pastor Cee, another mental midget in your flock is calling for your "moral clarity".

###
That is why you are here, mental midget wanna be (AAP).....the religious left is much more skilled at judging and stopping immoral speech compared to a fundy flat-earther like me.....

still, I'm glad it was a Democrat, not a Republican that did this.

Cee's comment yesterday about "oral sex" being perverted will live in infamy.
Posted by: at August 31, 2007 12:00 PM

I love oral sex, giving it and getting it!

Like Tom Kean?

###
What are you smoking? If my very good memory servers me correctly, it was Richard Ben-Veniste (the adulterous sodomist's lawyer) who badgered Condi and tried to shout her down and not allow her to say ANYTHING except the title of the report. (and what was it again buddy?....speak slowly now..."Bin Laden determined to strike in US") as a response to his brilliant and probative question....

"What was the title of the August 6, 2001 PDB?"

But Condi spanked the Clinton INC. loser and calmly stated the facts....as they are above....the PDB shed NO light on the coming terrorist attacks and the dear smoking gun turned out to be NADA.....

Try again, leftist.....you are working hard for Clinton INC. (or should I call it Pervert INC?)

Read the post where I I provided the text of the infamous PDB, anon....nothing you can say will change the fact that no one would have taken the report as a new revelation regarding already known facts of Al Qaeda's work.

Oh, and MM wanna be (AAP)...you proved my point....your speech is becoming more profane IN RESPONSE to me, so I obviously have the opposite effect you asked for....keep up the good work.

Oh and to the democrat sodomite....don't try to use a condom....they don't protect against herpes virus and HPV.....very unsightly on the lips you know.

Oh and Loin, were you and your dear wife both virgins when you got married? If not, I would recommend you get tested.

Oh and Loin, your virtue index is climbing with every personal post you place, by the way!

It makes me happy!

Muslims taking flying lessons but NOT landing lessons raised no alarms in the Bush White House.

Hurray, Hurray Hurray. Step right up and send in the clowns.

Here comes Cee>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 3:26 PM

And when did this fact make it to the White house? Try never. It was kicked around by some Clinton crony in the FBI. Try again. Zombie.

Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden back in 98 when we knew his exact location but decided to do NOTHING about it.

Like I said, when did this memo reach the white house? Try never. Thanks again.

----Bill Clinton refused to order a strike on Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the American destroyer Cole even though the al-Qa'eda leader's whereabouts were known, according to a book to be published this week.

In early leaks from Losing bin Laden, Richard Miniter, an investigative journalist, claims that Mr Clinton allowed the September 11 attacks to happen by squandering more than a dozen opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In two cases the terrorist leader's exact location was known, the book says.

------Though Clinton supporters would doubtless reject the implication of responsibility for September 11, senior members of the Clinton White House did confirm, in interviews for the book, that they shied away from an attack immediately after the Cole bombing for reasons of diplomacy and military caution.

IS THIS A LIE, PUNK?

In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

Clinton's last chance to do something and he didn't.
No lies, just facts about Clinton DOING NOTHING!

AGAIN Loser!
CLINTON did not take Bin Laden seriously.
The documents prove it.
Go back to HuffyPost where the idiots like to bounce crap like that off each other, echo, echo!

Maybe he could have started a war, or he could have sat on his ass for eight years setting the precedent for 9-11.

Its pussies like you and Clinton that put the US in this position! Do nothing until we get punked.

Educate?
How'd those missiles do?
I heard the tents and aspirin factory were really messed up...

And what did he do after the cole again?
Remember? October 2000?
Nothing?
Is that right? Nothing?
You and him are pussies!

Khobar Towers
“In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House,” wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D’Amato issued his committee’s Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators’ job more difficult.

From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders.

Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn’t really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton’s knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran.

In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. “Who else knows this?” Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. “That’s just hearsay,” Berger said. “No, Sandy,” Freeh responded. “It’s testimony of a co-conspirator . . .” According to Walsh’s account, Freeh thought that “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.”

Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that “by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration.” Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the “masterminds” of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment.

Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little.

No MM wanna be (AAP), I contnue to overlook the crude and profane....

and the lies....The islamic terrorists are responsible for the deaths you lay at President Bush's feet.

and the stupidity.....Using clowns as well as cows now....well at least you are not dehumanizing me like you do RK......

The Embassies
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice.”

Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.

Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton’s motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called “wag the dog” strategy. Some of Clinton’s allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton’s decision.

The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. “Everyone knew the ‘wag the dog’ charge was going to be made,” recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. “I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem,” says Benjamin. “Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing.”

In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration’s evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. “The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat,” Benjamin writes. “That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action.”

After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. “I see no reason to doubt their word on that,” says James Woolsey. “They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes.” But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton’s “PR-driven” approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: “Do something to show you’re concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field.”

No lies, just facts about Clinton DOING NOTHING!
Posted by: at August 31, 2007 3:53 PM

He was doing something, alright, he was bangin' the pillsbury dough girl with cigars that he got from castro! Oh, and watchin' basketball, almost forgot.

Why try factor? Too long a post for brainless.

The idiot doesn't read anything anyways.
Said idiot believes Clinton was a true american hero the way he dealt with Al Queda.

Did the memo misspell Al Qaeda like you quoted it?

“[W]e urgently need…a Principals level review of the al Qaida network.”

Man- that Clarke really understood Al Qaeda- he couldn't even spell it.

Why try factor? Too long a post for brainless.

The idiot doesn't read anything anyways.
Said idiot believes Clinton was a true american hero the way he dealt with Al Queda.

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 4:11 PM

I know. The zombies can only read things that have Huffington Post at the top or Daily Kos.

more lies from the left, as usual:

August 23, 2007
Did Clinton Lie About Targeting Bin Laden?
It appears that Bill Clinton may have exaggerated his record when it came to strategizing against Osama bin Laden. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball take a look at the Inspector General's report of the pre-9/11 intelligence failures at the CIA and find an interesting nugget. Despite Clinton's angry assertion to Chris Wallace in last year's controversial Fox interview, he never gave the CIA an assassination order regarding bin Laden (h/t: CQ reader Mark):

The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”
Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

Hey Mr. Bush, be karefull of Al Kaiduh

Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting” and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.”

Does that sound familiar? Its exactly what Richard Geer said after 9/11. HAHAHA!!!

I just exposed the lefties case of Bill Clinton allegedly being involved in trying to kill Bin Laden. Fact is, he was more interested in a BJ from Monica than he was about capturing Osama.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Forward this to a friend who supports our troops and their mission

Consider donating to support our effort to ship 100 water purifiers to the 1/3 Marines.
"The purifiers, deeply discounted by Katadyn.com are necessary because the water in the Euphrates River is unsafe.

They cost $150 each including shipping. The goal is to deliver one for each of the 100 families in the 1/3 Marine sector.

They are half-way to their goal and have already begun shipping, so please join them, and watch for future updates."

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/

I just exposed the lefties case of Bill Clinton allegedly being involved in trying to kill Bin Laden. Fact is, he was more interested in a BJ from Monica than he was about capturing Osama.

Posted by: Tim at August 31, 2007 4:31 PM

So what's your boy's (Bush's) pathetic excuse? The questionable proposition that 9/11 was Clinton's fault? Even if this were true, it was six years ago.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Forward this to a friend who supports our troops and their mission

Consider donating to support our effort to ship 100 water purifiers to the 1/3 Marines.
"The purifiers, deeply discounted by Katadyn.com are necessary because the water in the Euphrates River is unsafe.

They cost $150 each including shipping. The goal is to deliver one for each of the 100 families in the 1/3 Marine sector.

They are half-way to their goal and have already begun shipping, so please join them, and watch for future updates."

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/

Posted by: Sharon at August 31, 2007 4:36 PM

...or you can enlist your chickenhawk asses and releive some soldier from having to drink all that shitty desert-water!

Imagine - over half a trillion spent and nobody thought of water purifiers for the troops stuck over there! All the money is going to corruption and corporate over-billing, or being funeled into black-ops through phony front-businesses who bill a million dollars for the shipping of individual nuts and bolts.

This short-coming does fulfill one need; good christians like Sharon and cee can now donate water-purifiers - which would have been already supplied to our military by a responsible leadership - thereby allowing them to claim that they have sacrificed for the causes espoused by their fetish/president.

And for those who are lusting after Ann Coulter out there in OW land, an excellent portion of her weekly column.....

"There is reason to believe Reno is precisely the sort of attorney general that Hillary would nominate, since Reno was widely assumed to be Hillary's pick at the time. As ABC News' Chris Bury reported the day Reno was confirmed: 'The search for an attorney general exemplifies Hillary Clinton's circle of influence and its clout. ... The attorney general-designate, Janet Reno, came to the president's attention through Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham.'

Let's compare attorneys general:

-- Civilians killed by Ashcroft: 0
-- Civilians killed by Gonzales: 0
-- Civilians killed by Reno: 80

Reno's military attack on a religious sect in Waco, Texas, led to the greatest number of citizens ever killed by the government in the history of the United States. More Americans were killed at Waco than were killed at any of the various markers on the left's via dolorosa -- more than Kent State (4 killed), more than the Haymarket Square rebellion (4 killed), more than Three Mile Island (0 killed)."

[...]

"Reno is the sort of wild-eyed zealot trampling on real civil rights that Hillary views as an ideal attorney general, unlike that brute Alberto Gonzales. At least Reno didn't fire any U.S. attorneys!

"Oh wait --

"Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Ashcroft: 0
"Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Gonzales: 8
"Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Reno: 93"

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

###
Oh yes, it would be nice to have the adulterous sodomist's wife be the next president!

Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting” and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.”

Does that sound familiar? Its exactly what Richard Geer said after 9/11. HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: The Factor at August 31, 2007 4:27 PM

...and the perps were rapidly aprehended, tried, and convicted. Osama is kicking back in his personal fiefdom in Pakistan's FATA, watching Bush dance to his tune.

Hey, anon, other than what the DNC says, give me one example of Gonzales' incompetence....

a lost case....
an escaped criminal....
firey carnage that killed children in Waco....

Come on now, what did he do that made you and your family less safe?

"How come the Splincter..I mean Factor doesn't get on Bush when he called the terrorists, "These folks"?"

My favorite was at his press conference a couple of weeks back when he called the 9/11 highjackers "19 kids lured onto airplanes". You could almost hear his heart bleeding for them.

Ann Coulter: The most venomous, hateful commentator going.

Another good Christian that has clownCEE's respect.

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 4:55 PM

...not to mention remains unmarried at an advanced age; dresses like a slut at all public appearances; and has an adam's apple bigger than John Kerry's.

No anon at 4:55PM, I just know you leftist perverts just lust after her believing she is really a guy....like your leader Keith Olbermann implies....

So I just wanted to throw you a bone.

She is a very witty and gifted writer. Shrill at times, but factually spot on when looking at the hypocrisy of the left.

Try her column this week....I bet you there is not ONE fact she uses for her excellent argument that you can refute....

GO ahead try!

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Stop thinking about her adam's apple and go read her column, anon! You can lust later!

Oh boy, see Sir Loin of Milquetoast just showed us EXACTLY what I was talking about!

Oh it is fun to be right!

In September 1995, German investigators -- and agents from Austria's anti-terrorist task force -- raided the headquarters of Third World Relief Agency seizing enough documents to fill three minivans" according to the Post article. The records showed that over the years it had moved hundreds of millions of dollars through its account at First Austrian Bank. Bank officials noted that $80 million flowed into the agency's account in 1992; $231 million in 1993; and $39 million in 1994 and 1995. The chief of a Western intelligence agency estimated that more than half of the $350 million was used to buy weapons for the Bosnian Muslims, and to bribe Croatian officials to allow the weapons to cross their country. "Money was also smuggled into Sarajevo on flights of the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees; Bosnian government officials used the money to buy weapons from both Serb and Croat middlemen who operated inside Bosnia" one official said.

Apparently in 1995 the Relief Agency was able to "wind down" its work, because of the "direct weapons pipeline between Iran and Bosnia that passed through Croatia starting in May 1995. With the approval of the Clinton administration in April 1995, that pipeline opened directly through the UN Arms Embargo when the Croatian government asked the United States if it opposed such a link. The Clinton Administration declined to respond, later defending the action by saying that "the US Congress wanted to lift the Arms Embargo." However, none of this was known to Congressional leaders.

Evidently, it appears, the supplier of weapons to the Bosnia Muslims was none other than Osama Bin Laden. The result of arming the Muslims of Bosnia was the introduction into Europe of his brand of fundamentalism.

Anon loves those DNC talking points....

With no evidence other than the opinion of the people who were fired and their sympathetic polticial adversaries....

Keep it up, anon and wait.....If this is how the system will always work in Washington, there won't be a polticial appointee able to last more than 2 years in any administration.

The executive has the power to appoint with adivice and consent from the congress. I will side with constitutional executive activity everytime because it is the law....

You leftists can continue using extra-constitutional political hits to get your goals accomplished for only so long until it comes back to haunt you.

And like history teaches us....it will.

I still do not see the constitutional tool of impeachment for any of these awful criminals.....when I do then I will respect the left.....I doubt they have the guts though.

"0 fired by Ashcrost"?

This part of Coulter's screed is utter bullshit. Bush fired most of Clinton's US attorney's, just as CLinton fired most of GHWB's (the "93" written of by Coulter). The "0" attributed to Ashcroft was a total lie by a wholly amoral surgical hermaphrodite.

The clown , Cee , totally ignores that Alberto Gonzales has been the worst and most incompetent attorney general ...ever.

His chief qualification was a friend of Bush from Texas.
He made a total fool of himself by his continuous lies about the attorney scandal.

He resigned in disgrace.

Just a few "little" things the clownCee FORGOT TO MENTION.

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 4:52 PM

>>>No, this is what you totally ignored.....

-- Civilians killed by Ashcroft: 0
-- Civilians killed by Gonzales: 0
-- Civilians killed by Reno: 80

"Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Ashcroft: 0
"Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Gonzales: 8
"Number of U.S. attorneys fired by Reno: 93"

...All the splobyloons get their panties all wadded up as soo as they see Ann Coulter's name appear. Good little liberals, they are not. Partisan, brainwashed hacks, they are.

Clinton was one of the worst things that ever happened to this Country. The left wing nuts are blind.

Poor anon....you reguritated the DNC fax sheet....

I only asked of one real example....and you give me a Chuck Schumer speech....

Please, stop trying to replace facts with your opinion!

Funny how after THREE months into his presidency President Clinton is to blame for the 1993 attack on the WTC.
Posted by: at August 31, 2007 5:38 PM

No one said he was at fault for the 1993 attack. Afterwards he did nothing. He treated it like a domestic crime investigation and cut the CIA out of the investigation.

"The adulterous sodomite, Bill Clinton"

Just for clarity Cee, what is it that makes Bill Clinton a "Sodomite" in your book? I thought that was someone who was into same-sex coupling.

Always looking for insight into the minds of your kind.

"The adulterous sodomite, Bill Clinton"

Just for clarity Cee, what is it that makes Bill Clinton a "Sodomite" in your book? I thought that was someone who was into same-sex coupling.

Always looking for insight into the minds of your kind.

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 6:07 PM

cee explained his sad position in this regard above. Apparently, Jesus outlawed all oral sex because of its potential to spread disease, and Republicans continue to pay lip service to this outmoded rule - despite the fact that we now have soap and clean water supplies for adequate hygene - because they cannot trust their spouses to keep it in the family. He thinks that Clinton introduced the idea of oral sex to our youth, bringing them eternal damnation and a dose of cooties.

Clinton did spread destructive disease during his administration - by repeatedly bombing Iraq's water purification infrastructure in his misguided and arrogant efforts to pressure the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam - but not through fellatio or cunnilingus.

No one said he was at fault for the 1993 attack. Afterwards he did nothing. He treated it like a domestic crime investigation and cut the CIA out of the investigation.

Posted by: The Factor at August 31, 2007 5:52 PM

...and, dildo, the perpetrators are rotting in jail. Perhaps he was on to something.

Nice Friday before a long weekend post from our friends at TVnewser. Perhaps they have to make up for pointing out that Olbermann was third for the month of August.

Close Call in the Demo for Olbermann

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

"An MSNBC insider tells TVNewser "Countdown has been gaining steam for months, it gets better and better creatively and viewers recognize that."

(Gee I wonder who the "insider" is...)

They cost $150 each including shipping. The goal is to deliver one for each of the 100 families in the 1/3 Marine sector. (from Sharon above)

The water is for Iraqi families. It is unfathomable to have to ask for donations that should be deducted from the budget for humanitarian efforts. But whose request is this anyways, mine or the marines?

How did "your employees" do when you "turned them loose" on the aids thing a couple weeks ago? I don't remember hearing of any cures found.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/30/gay-groups-call-on-tucker_n_62498.html#comments

This should cheer you MSNBC-haters; Tucker Carlson has pissed of gay groups. He claimed on air to have been propositioned in a men's room when in high school, and recieved immediate ribald derision from Scarborough and Abrams. Tucker began to bluster, saying he went and "got somebody" and returned to the scene and "grabbed him by the...grabbed him and hit him against the stall with his head", and then "the cops came and arrested him".

Personally, I think Carlson's story is an attempt to establish a modicum of machismo in the face of his chum's implications that his manhood was tainted. The implied celebration of violence, however, has ruffled some feathers.

I am interested to see how long it takes some blogger to check out the police reports in this case - to see if the Tucker's redemptive sortie ever really occurred.

It was high school and he was likely a juvenile.

The water is for Iraqi families. It is unfathomable to have to ask for donations that should be deducted from the budget for humanitarian efforts. But whose request is this anyways, mine or the marines?

Posted by: Sharon at August 31, 2007 8:10 PM

Well, I feel like a shit-heel. I appologize, Sharon for being so knee-jerky and offensive to your previous post, I had not read it carefully enough.

Although I think that the water requirements of the Iraqis is also a detail to which our scurrilous administration should give some thought and resources; I cannot but applaud this group of marine's attempts to fill the awful humanitarian gaps left by the American leadership in their sloppy little chaos garden. I've just made a donation on the "Soldier's Perspective" website, and I thank you for the opportunity.

It was high school and he was likely a juvenile.

Posted by: Sharon at August 31, 2007 9:04 PM

I think its clear that he still is.

I am very proud of my employees, and frankly, if you were [withinn]sic striking distance, I would beat the living crap out of you for [besmeerching]sic this fine group of men and women who are far, far better than their boss.

Hideous you are. I suspect well beyond redemption.

Posted by: Clucker at August 31, 2007 8:57 PM

Congrats, you have equated yourself with slob who threatens people with rebar if they dare to disagree with him. Like I said the other day, you are one kestroke away from wishing death upon anyone who disagrees with your far left ideals.

Although I think that the water requirements of the Iraqis is also a detail to which our scurrilous administration should give some thought and resources; I cannot but applaud this group of marine's attempts to fill the awful humanitarian gaps left by the American leadership in their sloppy little chaos garden. (Sir LOB)

I agree with the substance, although not the tenor of your response. Is this really Sir LOB or have I been hoodwinked?

Not that I am the Dr. Laura of Catholicism but the oral sex issue can be explained this way. Ejaculation has to occur in the vagina for the procreative purpose of sex (there is a unitive and procreative purpose.) What happens before then regarding oral sex can be left to the creativity of the couple (excluding anal sex). If there is grave reason to avoid pregnancy, abstain during infertile periods as determined by the sympto-thermal method (taken from the Aboriginees), the Creighton Model of fertility or some other form. It requires cooperation of the couple, working together, the husband being aware of his wife's fertility and appreciating her entire person. Sex is not a bad thing in the Catholic Church. In Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II suggested that the man should be more patient to achieve orgasm simultaneously with the woman. Now, how about those Steelers?

Countdown was NUMBER ONE, OVER THE KASICH FACTOR!!!

MIKE MALLOY IS NUMBER ONE IN HIS TIME SLOT!!!

HAHA!!!

ahh, abstain during FERTILE periods- my bad

our troops are every bit as good and decent (although Pea Brain would differ).

Come on, Clucker, your rare form of tourette's syndrome is kicking in again : )

Sharon, I don't think that even some Teddy Pendergrass music in the background could make any of that sound appealing.... yikes!... :D

Olbermann just attacked "Marxist-Leninist" Mark Levin!!!

Mark Levin is a LOSER!!!

Michael Savage is BETTER than Mark Levin!!!

The problem I see, Clucker, is that you have expended all of your insults, diatribes. etc., calling RK the lowest of low about one hundred times regarding useless points or exaggerations or purposeful misinterpretations of every comment. A possible interpretation of RK's comment giving rise to your latest fit of rage could be that he doesn't believe you have employees and that you are not who you say you are. (Hmm, sounds familiar) If he believes that you do have employees and he disparaged their kindness by his gratuitous remark, I would agree that he stooped to the level that many people here have done on a daily basis. And I would chastise him for that. I thought I remember reading that you asked for proof of Michelle Malkin being in Iraq. Are you willing to provide proof of having employees? I don't really expect you to answer that ridiculous question.

My one and only sex talk on the internet, Cecelia, I promise. : ) I don't get bogged down in the details, believe me. But the philosophy is there.

"Ejaculation has to occur in the vagina for the procreative purpose of sex (there is a unitive and procreative purpose.) What happens before then regarding oral sex can be left to the creativity of the couple "

...how about if ejaculation occurs in the mouth, but then the ejaculate is rapidly transferred to a turkey baster and deposited vaginally?

Wait; wait! I'm actually not trying to be gratuitously obscene here, I'm just curious as to the bureauratic character of your belief system, and just what is considered in and what out. If you are not too repelled and offended, I would be interested in an actual determiniation in this regard.

Last night during a long drive that took me past Louisville, KY I heard a Catholic radio station that purported to answer every question respective of Catholicism.

Q: If a pregnant woman takes communion, does the baby likewise recieve the blessing?

A: No.

Q: Can angelic beings read my thoughts.

A: No; not the deamonic ones, at least.

etc., etc.

I was fascinated by the certainty and specificity of those providing the answers - who were not even billed as clergy. Your declaration regarding oral sex - while far more nuanced and definitey more fun than those issued by cee - elicited this same fascination for me.

RK, you are hereby chastised for your outrageous comments about Clucker's friends/employees. Please refrain from making such comments about such friends/employees in the future.

And I would like to apologize for any perceived complicity to the duplicity of RK.

Excuse me, I need a kleenex... I also need an ace bandage. I took a bad fall.

I hereby apologize for any offense to Clucker by my insensitivity to his defense of well-meaning people helping their fellow human beings.

I have some sleepy kids to put to bed, but a few quick comments. First, just because people proclaim to be Catholic doesn't mean they are speaking the truths of the Church. Feel free to question my responses as well. I wasn't intending to be fun or offensive or anything else. Communion is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in sacramental form. Holy Communion, which to the human senses looks like a wafer and wine and has the "accidents" of a wafer and wine (there won't be any difference in taste, look, touch after the consecration from before the consecration), is Christ present in a sacramental form (He promised to be with us until the end of time; Catholics believe He is present in the Eucharist). Whatever the mother receives physically, the baby receives. The baby is not able to receive the graces associated with the Eucharist. More on that later.

Angels are spirits with preternatural gifts. I don't know if they can read thoughts but I will check a reliable source when I can. Demons can physically force the body to do things, even abhorrent things, but cannot make the soul acquiesce. I understand your question about the turkey baster and don't have time to address it now (not a copout I promise, I literally have a whining kid on my lap) but I will get back to you with every question you have asked (I am a convert and am constantly learning about my faith, now that I know which sources are reliable and which are not)...

SLOB,

I have to answer in part and respond more
later, if you are interested. I'll just warn that your question cannot be answered in a sound bite. Spirituality can't be put into a Q & A form.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:u7ZC6C8q_w4J:www.nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm+ejaculation+outside+vagina+catholic+teaching&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

NOTRE DAME SEMINARY
THE MORALITY OF ORAL SEX WITHIN SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE

. . .
It can happen that one of the two persons exists only as the subject of the satisfaction of the sexual need, and the other becomes exclusively the object of this satisfaction. This does not correspond to the union or personal communion to which man and woman were mutually called from the beginning. On the contrary, it conflicts with it. Moreover, the case in which both the man and woman exist reciprocally as the object of satisfaction of the sexual need, and each on his or her part is only the subject of that satisfaction, does not correspond to this unity of communion. On the contrary, it clashes with it. This reduction of such a rich content of the reciprocal and perennial attraction of human persons in their masculinity or femininity does not at all correspond to the ‘nature’ of the attraction in question. This reduction extinguishes the personal meaning of communion, characteristic of man and woman.

. . .

There is nothing dirty about the goal of mutual climax when we speak out of respect for both spouses and manifest their equality. Christopher West describes it as follows: “The climax of the sexual act shouts loudly and clearly, ‘Take me. I’m totally yours. I’m holding nothing back.’ That ecstatic moment reflects the unreserved surrender of our persons and unreserved receptivity of the other. To the degree that we knowingly and intentionally reserve any part of ourselves from our spouse in the sexual act, we cannot speak of a total self-giving.”

Sorry, Cecelia. I broke my promise.

You view Catholicism as bureaucratic. The problem within the Church has much to do with lack of obedience. I can't believe that a priest could lay prostrate during his ordination and be so disobedient to the Church and God's commands.

I am reading The Confessions of Saint Augustine now. Maybe his philosophic approach could shed some light on what Catholicism is supposed to mean. I highly recommend it. It is not very lengthy but filled with insight.

I thought I remember reading that you asked for proof of Michelle Malkin being in Iraq. Are you willing to provide proof of having employees? I don't really expect you to answer that ridiculous question.

Posted by: Sharon at August 31, 2007 9:50 PM

Good point, Sharon. Philby seems to have forgotten the fact she claimed "I hate our troops" and I said "not enough of them have died." She is a prime example of a whiner, like patsy, if I have ever seen one or two. I thought Mike was bad, he is a saint compared to those 2. Dish it out left and right, for no reason, when it comes back, the tears start to flow. Poor Mrs. Philby. In case you haven't noticed, I don't back down or give up, Philby. One of my best qualities!

http://www.nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm is the correct link above

Patsy, not done lying? Can you show me anyone "on my side" proving me wrong or "warning" me? I hope you aren't referring to Sharon's post at 10:31. Wouldn't surprise me, though. Your desperation continues to show.......

SLOB,

How does one explain to a humanist that
1 Kings 8:39 supports that angels do not read men's thoughts? Actually, how can any answer be explained? The only reasonable answer I can give is that great minds have written on the the truths of the faith, particularly the early Church fathers and those who wrote against the great heresies. To a Christian, I would start with the authority of the Catholic Church comes from the power given to it by Christ. (Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Peter being the Greek word for rock.)

The first Christians willingly died for faith. It has been said that under torture, men will say anything to alleviate the pain. Christians would not renounce their beliefs under extreme torture and slow, painful death. Where does the ability to do that come from? A quick death, even the promise of freedom, and yet the person still holds on. That is one of the points that attracted me.

Non servium. It is what drove Lucifer out of heaven. It is more difficult for some than others to submit. My husband used to be agnostic (baptized Catholic and went to Church as a kid). He shocked the people who knew him during his late teens and 20's by eventually becoming an outspoken Catholic. He didn't have an "I was saved on the x of x, 19xx" experience. It was an awakening, a questioning of existence. He certainly is not the kind of person to just adopt a belief system out of emotionalism. I can't think of any other way to answer your basic question as to how I have certainty and specificity regarding some matters.

Here's a sermon from John Wesley that addresses the abilities of angels that is logically sound if you accept the premise that they exist in the first place.

Scroll down to part "I." , subsection "2." to read his thoughts on whether angels can "read" the thoughts of humans.

Wesley is not a Catholic, of course, and this may not be the Catholic perspective, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I want to add the concept here that God and spiritual beings do not operate in the dimension of time. This is an old teaching in the Church and was very well articulated by C.S. Lewis.

We judge time by the characteristic of decay. However, the dimension of spiritual beings is not a plane that is "in time". Many times you hear or see God pictured as an old man. That's the human conception because he's literally been around "forever". But God is not a part of fallen creation. He doesn't get old and he doesn't decay. We do because we are fallen and through us our world is fallen as well. But God is ever young, ever NOW.

Lewis gives the analogy that if you are reading a book about the character "Lucy", you can quit reading and have an unlimited (not really unlimited, of course, because we are human) amount of time to think about Lucy, to concentrate completely on Lucy. To even think of the complete story of Lucy that you have "seen" ahead, so to speak.

It's like that in the spiritual world. I doubt created beings, such as angels and fallen angels, are utterly "out of time" in the sense that they are able to see the end from the beginning the way that God sees it. But they are able to see and understand with a clarity we can't imagine in this sphere and in this flesh.

Oops forgot to link the Wesley piece.... :D

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/71/

I was fascinated by the certainty and specificity of those providing the answers - who were not even billed as clergy. Your declaration regarding oral sex - while far more nuanced and definitey more fun than those issued by cee - elicited this same fascination for me.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 31, 2007 10:27 PM

Sir Loin, In any sort of esoteric circle of folks, they generally don't preface their remarks with disclaimers about the uncertainty of some particular thing.

I think in teaching from the pulpit, anything that does not have a specific scriptural basis, such disclaimers should be made.

They often aren't and many times squabbles over ancillary things like this (I'm not talking about the eucharist or Catholic teachings about sex within marriage.) leads to all kinds of bad behavior.

"Sex is not a bad thing in the Catholic Church."

###
And I agree, sex is a gift from God. I believe Loin's "problem" with my opinion is that the "judgement" of what is perverted is removed from him, it is another standard he cannot form to his own liking. Well Loin, using a standard for what perversion is, and the health benefits from following the standard, may insult your rational secular humanist mindset, but you cannot deny the practicality.

I assure you, as a man, following the standards put forth by Christ in treating my wife is not only pleasurable, but more respectful to her....it is not "patriarchal" as you assume....it is sacrificial....I serve her as commanded by Christ.

Bill Clinton's actions with a women he did not love and care for, for a simple "outlet" was adultery and sodomy. Any person who has relations with another person with no love, commitment or "servant attitude" is simply doing a bodily function. Fine. I understand the biology....but your scornful reaction to my more objective (and correct) definition of perversion that includes more than how and where a person copulates shows just how far down the amoral road you have traveled.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"

A simple idea that when implemented in the context of the other revelations to the prophets makes perfect sense, especially when looked at in the context of the sin that occurred amongst the same people God revealed these commands to...

Abraham, Jacob, King David, and many others.

Their sexual sins resulted in horrible consequences that are still with us today.

You got all giddy along with Clucker and many others about Craig's perverted acts, yet you get all "liberal" and progressive when confronted with your ideological brother's just as equally sin. Why?

It goes back to the first post I made on the subject, you see the behavior through your myopic and hypocritical ideological lens.

Good post, Cee.

I was more than put-off by the "new-found", sudden, and convenient philosophy of basing a judgment of "sexual deviancy" and "perversion" upon civil law infraction and individual visceral reaction, when we all know such a thing would have generated a freight-load full of hyperbole-laden outrage and accusations of hate and bigotry, had it come from the Right.

My only defense is..... RRWR's...

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 11:10 AM

That most certainly has been your all-purpose defense.

The irony (in my opinion) of the Craig situation is that if you reject his defense (wide leg stance, picking up toilet paper, not purposefully tapping foot and making a hand signal, the substance of the evidence), what did he do that was illegal? I do agree with Clucker that it seems a guilty conscience made him plead guilty to a lesser offense of lewd conduct. But where is the lewd conduct? Tapping his foot and making a hand signal indicates a desire to commit a lewd act in a public place. There was no actual lewd act. There was no solicitation because there was no attempt to offer money. The thought police argument made so often doesn't seem to apply to a republican. THe officer said, "No wonder our country is going down the tubes." Is that because he believed a gay man was trying to get some action in a restroom? Or was he setting up a well-known politician?

I think he should still step down; he really has no choice anyway because he has been stripped of all of his committee positions.

Cecelia,

I think in teaching from the pulpit, anything that does not have a specific scriptural basis, such disclaimers should be made.
***

I am not sure what you meant by that. I don't know what SLOB heard on the radio, but Catholics believe in scripture and tradition with a single teaching authority: the Magisterium. Many Protestants believe in sola scriptura (scripture alone).

"No wonder our country is going down the tubes." Is that because he believed a gay man was trying to get some action in a restroom? Or was he setting up a well-known politician?

I think he should still step down; he really has no choice anyway because he has been stripped of all of his committee positions.
Posted by: Sharon at September 1, 2007 12:14 PM

I have no doubt Craig was looking for love in all the wrong places but I think you'd see how and why the course of the Public Discourse would be quite different on MSNBC and elsewhere... if it were Craig(D)..

We'd certainly see some Academy Award winning moral outrage apoplexy were Craig then called a pervert and sexual deviant by the Right... :D

I am not sure what you meant by that. I don't know what SLOB heard on the radio, but Catholics believe in scripture and tradition with a single teaching authority: the Magisterium. Many Protestants believe in sola scriptura (scripture alone).

Posted by: Sharon at September 1, 2007 12:41 PM

Sharon, I wasn't talking about a radio program when I stated that and yes, I had forgotten that there are differences between Protestants and Catholics as to canonical authority. Good point.

Sharon,

Go to the MSNBC site; they have clips of the tape.

Judge by yourself.
Posted by: Average American Patriot at September 1, 2007 12:38 PM

I doubt it was a sting operation, but if it were it wouldn't matter to me. I'd still then he should resign.

I listened to the tape on Olbermann; that is how I came to my conclusions.

I think Craig is unstable, just by listening to the tape. He certainly doesn't represent my values and not that of Iowans. He likely was trying to engage in lewd conduct, but I don't think he committed a crime. I am not losing any sleep over it and am glad he is resigning. Getting caught, even if he didn't follow through, will force him to face himself.

AAP,

He accused Craig of lying about the hand signal; Craig said it was the right hand, the officer the left because he said he observed the wedding ring. He also started to deny that he tapped his foot but then waffled on that. Craig was denying that he was signaling for an encounter. Solicitation has to involve an offer of money. How can a lewd act be tapping your foot and making a hand motion? Maybe harassment, I could see that or even battery (unwanted touching of the foot).

What Craig (R) did is called perverted and disgusting by the same ones who see no problem with gay civil unions, a (D) platform
.

is the cop, finally frustrated, that a politician, a Senator,
is lying to his face, after being read his Miranda rights.

Listen to the whole tape. Earlier, the cop tells Craig, "don't lie to me... don't insult me... I do this everyday"

Posted by: Average American Patriot at September 1, 2007 12:56 PM

No mention that the "cop" in question is a known far leftist? He was bragging about his "bust" on far left blogs? Now you know the rest of the news.......

I didn't bother to read the transcript because I watched Olbermann and already heard it from beginning to end. I don't know if it was a sting operation or not. It could have been chance; there is probably more information out there. Point 1: I think you probably know my position on homosexual activity. Point 2: Craig did not commit a lewd act. He was (likely) trying to.

A generalization, a joke, but still a bit inapproproate in the moment and more so over time.

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Is this kind of like "had I been in a better place I wouldn't have said it?" Do you have a calendar with excuses for every day?

Patsy, not done lying? Can you show me anyone "on my side" proving me wrong or "warning" me? I hope you aren't referring to Sharon's post at 10:31. Wouldn't surprise me, though. Your desperation continues to show.......

Posted by: royal king at September 1, 2007 2:00 AM

Still nothing?

AAP,

It is pointless to say any more. I used "crime" in an offhanded way but I think you know what I meant: he didn't commit the misdemeanor of lewd conduct, in my opinion. What did he plead down from? Solicitation, which could never have been proven and would have been thrown out. He plead guilty to stupidly try to make the whole scenario disappear. Fighting the charge would have brought the whole sitaution to light, which happened anyway. That is why Craig is angry. I would bet he spoke with an attorney after the fact who told him he could never have been convicted of the misdemeanor and since the whole event came out anyway, he wants his plea back. I am just going to end it at that.

I don't think anyone from the left or right ever envisioned or wanted this type of sermonizing at this site. There are religious sites you can all genuflect at. (AAP)

I admit I am off topic all the time. I said that I would completely understand if I were banned. Everyone here (you included) is in violation. My kids are kicking me off the computer.

Sharon,

Whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual act is irrelevant.

Posted by: Average American Patriot at September 1, 2007 1:40 PM

We know, the only thing "relevant" is Craig has an (R) after his name.

It's totally ironic that these holier than thou RW'ers are the same people who lash out at others for not posting about KO and strictly adhering to the OW credo.

I don't think anyone from the left or right ever envisioned or wanted this type of sermonizing at this site.
There are religious sites you can all genuflect at.

These are the same people who continue to want more American dead in the Middle East. Plus they never met a war they didn't love.

A strange and sick dichotomy that obviously is totally lost on them.

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 1, 2007 1:15 PM

Mind telling me when I've ever lashed out at others for talking subjects other than Olbermann?

Rather, I have pointed out that this IS an Olbermann site in response to idiots like you who chide others when they are talking about him instead of what you insist they SHOULD be discussing.

Just as you're doing now.

These are the same people who continue to want more American dead in the Middle East. Plus they never met a war they didn't love.

A strange and sick dichotomy that obviously is totally lost on them.

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 1, 2007 1:15 PM

Only an idiot would claim that "we" want more deaths in the war with absolutely no evidence anyone has made that claim. Hence, you are an idiot!

But he was trying to. You DON'T know that!
If he didn't run into a cop but instead found what he was looking for and engaged in oral sex ( or more) how would you have felt if one of your kids walked into that bathroom and was exposed to Craig's sex act?

And do you really think this is the FIRST time that Craig engaged in this type of activity?
Are you THAT naive?
He probably went there many times and it was probably a well known hang out for that type of activity.

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 1, 2007 2:01 PM

As far as I know "trying to" doesn't count unless you can prove that he was trying by money being exhanged, actual battery via touching the person or lewd language or suggestions directed towards the person.

Every bit of this stuff could be interpreted as accidental. I doubt it was, but had Craig gotten a lawyer, he never would have pled out.

However, I have no regrets that it worked out the way it did.

how would you have felt if one of your kids walked into that bathroom and was exposed to Craig's sex act?

And do you really think this is the FIRST time that Craig engaged in this type of activity?

Are you THAT naive?

He probably went there many times and it was probably a well known hang out for that type of activity.

He has now resigned, and I am glad for it.

patsy, you aren't naming names because you can't! If you could, you would, jerk. Nuff said.

Cecelia,

I just saw your comment of 2:17 above. You always put in a nutshell what I try to explain through several attempts.

Cecelia,

I just saw your comment of 2:17 above. You always put in a nutshell what I try to explain through several attempts.
Posted by: Sharon at September 1, 2007 2:46 PM

Oh, my goodness, Sharon. no one has ever accused ME of THAT before... :D

(Thanks!)

I'm tired of your lies..

You have championed this surge and war from the very beginning.
No evidence?
My. what a dumbfuck you really are.

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 1, 2007 2:12 PM

I may have "championed" the surge, as you claim, but, I have never claimed "I want more death's." I want to win the war, fool. You don't. You are the third radical leftist to make this claim with not one shred of evidence. In other words, an outright lie. Do you do this on other blogs, too?

I'll rely on Cheney's own words in 1994 and 2000 for proof that invading Iraq, much less a minor serge, is an invitation for certain failure in the region.

Are you calling the VP a liar?

philby, you, mike and patsy are the only three fools to make the claim with no proof. Much, much higher? Do you get tired of being caught lying? You do realize you have never proven me wrong, right? :) Keep up the good work.

I may have "championed" the surge, as you claim, but, I have never claimed "I want more death's." I want to win the war, fool. You don't. You are the third radical leftist to make this claim with not one shred of evidence. In other words, an outright lie. Do you do this on other blogs, too?
Posted by: royal king at September 1, 2007 2:51 PM

I'm sure he does this wherever he goes and yes, he sincerely believes that support for the war is tantamount to desiring that more people die.

I know that since I do not carry the burden of consigning so many American men and women to death and even more to a lifetime of painful injuries and disabilities, [and]sic squandering almost a Trillion Dollars, all because of Mr. Bush's hubris (and your shattered pride), I feel the loss but not the burdensome responsibility of wrong choices.(run-on) Do know I feel your pain, however, Cecelia.(awkward))

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Come on, teach. You should know you don't use "and" after a comma.

Surge =
More American Deaths
+
More American Injuries
+
Billions and Billions of Borrowed Dollars
+
More Iraqi Deaths

These are all common occurrences during a war. They serve as good far left talking points, though. They can't be avoided on either side. Bush has bungled this war, I agree. He should have stayed on the original path which was very aggressive. When the rules of engagement changed to kissin' ass and holdin' hands, the war went downhill.

Philby, you can't point other posters punctuation mistakes out while making them yourself. C'mon teach! Your 6:00 post is another example of you lacking the ability to prove me wrong. Your classic, yet, feeble attempts at belittling others as "rebuttal" is very telling, also.

P.S. My "wits" far exceed your "wits."

I can't begin to tell you how sorry I am your guy picked the wrong enemy at the wrong time and thoroughly botched the execution of the war. I only wish I could deny the reality of all of this to make your life easier and more comfortable. I know that since I do not carry the burden of consigning so many American men and women to death and even more to a lifetime of painful injuries and disabilities, and squandering almost a Trillion Dollars, all because of Mr. Bush's hubris (and your shattered pride), I feel the loss but not the burdensome responsibility of wrong choices. Do know I feel your pain, however, Cecelia.

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Oh, I feel your pain, Capon.

It must be terrible to be the kind of person who could engage in the sort of reasoning that argues that support for a war is tantamount to wishing innocent people and your own fellow citizens dead.

It must be hideous to have the sort of character that allows you to selectively lay this motivation on people who have no power over the particulars, while excusing some politicians who could, at the very least, make a public show of defunding what you have deemed to be the willful desire for the death of others.

It must be particularly devastating to be the kind of man who never fails to capitulate to the lowest sort of argument.... or characterizations....after having chided others for low arguments and bigoted characterizations. That you inevitably excuse this capitulation by declaring that ..they did it first.... must be the pimple on the canker sore.

Yeah, I feel YOUR pain, Capon. You know.... the pain you should feel, but can't.

I know that since I do not carry the burden of consigning so many American men and women to death and even more to a lifetime of painful injuries and disabilities, [and]sic squandering almost a Trillion Dollars, all because of Mr. Bush's hubris (and your shattered pride), I feel the loss but not the burdensome responsibility of wrong choices.(run-on) Do know I feel your pain, however, Cecelia.(awkward))

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 5:20 PM

>>>2 sentences with 3 mistakes, above. Then we get this, below from our holier than thou and almighty, clucker/philby/rudy/jennifer.

Aside from the fact that it is painfully obvious you learned nothing the three (3) years you were in school, and that I ought not waste my energy, I am enjoying your making an utter ass out of yourself and showing yourself to all the world to be a complete fool. I think I'll just enjoy he show.

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 8:35 PM

After we render you Bush-frei, we'll work on your snotty attitude and smart mounh.

Posted by: Clucker at September 1, 2007 8:30 PM

Nah... you're Stepford plastic enough for both us.

Cecelia, I think you may have missed the depth of Monsieur Capon's mean spiritedness displayed by his ugly bigotry. As soon as I saw his "Bush-frei" (sic) my immediate thought was of the Nazi term Juden frei.

Surely a man of Monsieur Capon's urbanity, education and worldwide travels must, or at the very least absolutely should, know that the term Bush-frei (sic) echoes back to Naziism's "Juden frei" for America's audience.

A tenuous suggestion except that Neo Con, which appears here regularly as a condemnation for conservative, is often a code word used by many for Jew.

It seems that the more things change the more they stay the same for some people.
.
Grammie

Note to lunatic KO fan: good weaves and plugs can be pulled on, washed, etc. just like real hair. And that little stunt proved one thing, Olbermann has thin skin and comments about him do get to him. More power to Olbermannwatch!

Funny how wrong others' perceptions are.

who was so pleased to have kids over, but who seemed to think all kids liked olive loaf sandwiches and apricot nectar.

- Tasty cake donuts and salt /n vinegar chips are BOGO this week. (eat some grapes first)

She was also a mystery, rail thin, serious without being stern behind those narrow-framed glasses, who always seemed to be dusting something

-dunking my head under the water at the pool and letting it fall over my face to be the "hairy monster" who chases the kids and their friends at the pool

-dusting? What's that?

-She realized I was the instigator behind putting rouge, lipstick and eyeliner on the concrete BVM, as well as one of my sister's training bras, but never spoke a word of it.

My children (as many do) are very spiritual. They get into trouble, but I don't think they would attempt that. They have laughed at my husband putting underwear on his head.

(as many are)

SPeaking of pool, gotta go

I just saw a clip from a 1999 Chris Matthews show where Larry Craig called Bill Clinton a " very naughty, naughty dirty boy !"

Yet the glasshouse residents ( Cecilia, Cee and their posse) can't understand why this makes the republicans, hypocrites, with this Larry Craig scandal !

Too damn funny !

Also it has been reported that the bathroom where Larry Craig tried to get some action, was a well known gay hangout known for this type of activity as reported in one of those gay underground publications.
Posted by: Why don't you think at September 2, 2007 3:17 PM

WDYT, as brilliant as your comment implying that what Chris Matthews says about Bill Clinton, makes Republicans culpable, seems to be........I never read anyone arguing that Republicans could NOT be hypocrites. Rather the argument was that on matters of sexual impropriety there is not a unique onus attacked to Republicans.

Ah... and then little Capon Fauntleroy Clucker. Small for his age, soft and pink with long tapered artistic fingers. A full moon face around which the bullies generally revolve.

But not as much as usual here. There's a nebbishness, yes, but with a hint of venom. The pale small toadstool. The puffball that will spew the noxious cloud if stepped upon.

The stage holds a thrill for our little Capon. Here he can be whoever he wishes.... ...in whatever way he wishes them to be.... He can march the world across the stage like the toy soldiers given to him by his father. The little tin men who hold no interest for him and whostare coldly with his father's disappointment.

But the stage, the play, the roles, the audience...here he can drive the world.... here they can be what he wishes....what they truly are, if only they and not just he knew it.....

"Get off your wide posterior off the butler's costume", came the cultured cool voice of Mrs Philby.... drama teacher and habitue of Capon's dreams.

That she was also his mother was confirmation that things were not as they should be.....

Ceceilia:

I would like to read and understand your 1648 Hours soliloquy. If you have a few minutes after you sober up and before you get sloshed again, do you think you can rewrite it one of the non-gibberish languages I read?
Posted by: Clucker at September 2, 2007 7:52 PM

You're not going to get any less superficial in your character or more complex in your processing abilities, Capon.

Carrie Nation couldn't help you there.

You mean "cashed in" like John Edwards did? Pretending to care about poor people there while foreclosing on their loans?

Edwards profited off of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Man of the People, I care about the Poor, was making money off of their misery.

You've already posted that crap once. Why don't you go look up an article about how John Edwards managed to profit from other people's misery and is just now admitting to it?

Edwards knew and had no intention of pulling his assets out of his profiteering escapades from the Katrina misery's until he was exposed. The "RNC and "Malkin" were far from the only people who talked about this story as the Olbyloon above would like people to believe. It was reported on ALL the major news networks, both broadcast and cable. Just because Olby chose not to cover it doesn't mean it was a "non-story".

Edwards is as fake as Olbermann.

Who has to swiftboat Edwards? He seems quite capable of shooting himself in the foot just the way Kerry repeatedly kept self-inflecting injury upon himself.

Kerry lost because he didn't have balls to fight the accusations. Kerry lost because he acted like he didn't want the damn job to begin with. Kerry lost for saying one thing and doing another. You know, sorta like John Edwards says he's helping the poor and Mr. Poverty while profiting off of them. Thanks for reminding US who the Democrats are-a bunch of incredibly wealthy fatcats who pretend to be sympathetic to the people while preying upon them.