Not a word from orinenglish...her head must be exploding with thoughts of Beefy-Keify & the 23-year-old "journalism" charity case gettin' it on in the new marbled Trump Condo lovenest. At least Mr. Tur is happy, his daughter has a nice place to live, while he fights utube. Maybe when he's completely broke, he can live with them, that won't be tooooo weird.

Moron parnoid demonmutt wipe$

The BungHole actually posted Gail Shitters' article & link to TVnewser, errors & all. Its like some ugly circle jerk of self promotion, yuck....

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328693.aspx

But here's a great comment from a Keith lover...seems her one night stand worked out a little better than Keith's:

"Lots of one time things become permanent. That's how I got my boyfriend. I expect Keith will be equally fabulous.
jen,il (Sent Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:31 PM)

Hey clear-thinkers....

Did you hear about how Katy's Dad is going to live with her and Keith in their new place?

I read about it here:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/08/the_olbyloons_o.php#comments

Isn't that weird?

Not surprising coming from Keith. He's such a perv.

Thanks for exposing Keith and his loons!

Too bad things didn't work out quite so well for Keith's little one-night stand, Karma and the no-doubt countless other fans he lured into his bed and then kicked out. The Olbylunatics also tried to deny her existence too just like they did his purchase of this multi-million apartment. They also tried to weave a fantasy in which Keith wasn't really living with a 22-year old girl but was just showing her around town as a favor to her Dad. And to this day I don't think they have ever admitted they were wrong about any of it. Like Keith, they seem to have issues with the truth.

Once Olbermann stops lying on a daily basis, I'll be glad to.

P.S., this site still gets more hits per day than all the other Olbyloon sites do combined. Eat it bitch!

"p.s., this site still gets more hits per day than all the other Olbyloon sites combined. Eat it bitch!"

That's like bragging about having the newest used car on your block.

That's right. The Olbyloons are fact-challenged. That's why even when confronted with evidence of Olbermann's repeated lying even about the most simple of details they still insist he's a truth-seeker. It's just sad really.

"it's just sad really."

I know....it's very sad that the public loves practicing voyerism into the private lives of celebrities more than they like keeping an eye on what their own government is doing.

In some ways, this site is a microcosm of that reality!

Mike,

You love this site. You are here more than just about anybody else.

It's sadder still that the Left are so eager to label those "truthtellers" who are pathological liars. And it's just pathetic that the loons like Mike insist on turning every single discussion into one about Iraq, particuarly when faced with overwhelming evidence of Olbermann's habitual deceit.

"And it's just pathetic that the loons like Mike insist on turning every single discussion into one about Iraq, particualarly when faced with overwhelming evidence of Olbermann's habitual deceit."

You go a point there. I mean why worry about silly things like a controversial war when we can gossip about the "habitual deceit" and personal life of a TV commentator who happens to be controversial mostly because of his stand against.....the war?

Anti-name,

The most important similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that the Left wanted to lose in Vietnam, starting around 1968, and has wanted to lose in Iraq almost since the start. Vietnam was the first war where the Left defeated their own country and they are trying to do it again.

Rico, do you REALLY believe that bulls#*t??

We are winning all the battles, just like we did in Vietnam. The media is just making it look like we are losing, just like they did in Vietnam.

"We are winning all the battles, just like we did in Vietnam. The media is just making it look like we are losing, just like they did in Vietnam."

When confronted with this kind of ignorance, what can you do but shake your head and sigh?

Mike,

I mean what I say. The Left wants their own side to lose. They are fucked up in the head. They are fighting their war, against Republicans, conservatives, and Christians every minute of every day, 365 days a year.

If you ever wanted the mission in Iraq to succeed, then say so.

Anti-name,

You said:

Vietnam was lost because there was no direct threat against the United States.

Nonsense. You win a war by winning it. Half of the wars in history have been won by the "bad guys". Nobody ever lost a war because the people they were fighting against did not constitute a "direct threat". Your assertion is not only nonsense, it is a vapid inanity.

Rico:

I mean what I say: ALl I can say to that Rico is; a mind is a terrible thing to waste!

"The left wants their own side to lose": I still don't have a clue what you mean by 'lose' when referenced to Iraq's Civil War? Contrary to your simplistic and ridiculous asserion, the left wants to save American lives and treasure, as well as the slow depletion and degradation of our military.

"They are fucked up in the head": I'll bet you STILL think invading and occupying a country that did not threaten or attack us for contrived reasons was a good idea, don't you?....And yet you have the nerve to call OUR side "fucked up in the head"!

"If you ever wanted the mission in Iraq to succeed, then say so": I hoped against hope that following what I personally thought was a monumentaly stupid decision to invade, it would work somehow. Early signs were actually encouraging. I became disallusioned when it became clear that it was a mission of occupation, and not just our stated goal of getting rid of Saddam. It became obvious we were in big trouble when the Abu Gharab story broke, because it meant we had lost the hearts and minds of the people, ... which was ALWAYS the ONLY way you will ever 'WIN' a conflict like this.

"You win a war by winning it"

Does that comment even make sense to YOU Rico?

Is that like saying 'you drive a car by driving it'?

Or how about 'you win a race by winning it'?

WTF!

Early signs were actually encouraging. I became disallusioned when it became clear that it was a mission of occupation, and not just our stated goal of getting rid of Saddam.
(Mike)

I was completely unaware of this act until now. I don't have the full document. Here is the link:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vzal18EFv5sJ:www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm+Public+Law:+105-338+(10/31/98)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.

Grammie,

If you are online casually observing, what do you remember about the public reaction to the above law? When I started staying home in 2000, I started to take an active interest in politics. I don't remember anything about the law, just a general impression that Saddam was still causing trouble.

It had been the official policy of the US government to try to assist in the overthrowing Saddam covertly since Desert Storm. Bush 41 openly talked of his hopes the Shia and Kurds would rise up and overthrow Saddam. It almost happened after that war by all appearances.

Law 105-338 was not an endorsement of a direct Military invasion.

Since Bush 41 so openly cheered for a Saddam overthrow at that time, I have always wondered what the aftermath would have been like without our help? .... Especially since some of us are so cocksure certain that they desperately need our continued help now.

It certainly was a strong statement:

it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

I can't believe how you are downplaying that policy, considering all of the talk here. I won't even bother quoting. Bush put into action a bipartisan ideal. That is why the vote was yes, to authorize war. Ron Paul is on the congressional record as opposing.

Mike,

Abu Ghraib was nothing trumped up by the leftest news media to help us lose. Yes, a few people had to do naked pyramids. So fucking what? You had better see how many GI's during WWII were hanged by Uncle Sam for war crimes. It wasn't for making anybody do naked pyramids. But it wasn't paraded about in the newspapers. The media was on the side of their country in those days.

The left does want to lose this war, and they are doing all they can to make sure that happens. For some reason you have taken leave of your senses, and joined their side. The left already has their mortal enemy, and it is all of those on the right. The war on terror is just another playing field in which the leftists can fight the right. And they are doing so very effectively.

Anti-name asserted that you lose a war if your reason for being in the war is other than that the other side was a "direct threath". THis is nonsense. Alexander, Napoleon, and a lot of others have won a lot of wars against people who were no "direct threat" to them.

The war in Iraq was not started for any "contrived reasons". Saddam was the WMD, and he sought, and used WMDs in the past. But that wasn't the only reason for the invasion. You pretend that it was.

Bush, Rummie, and the crew have been pussyfooting around in Iraq since the beginning. The surge should have been the SOP from the very beginning. Bush fucked it up. But I still want my own side to win. I don't think you do.

I tried to look up that property information at ACRIS, got no results.

Sharon: "I cen't believe how you are downpaying that policy".

Read the last paragraph in law 105-338.... It reads:

"SEC. 8, RULE OF CONSTRUCTION"

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in Section 4 (a) (2) in carrying out this act"

As I said Sharon, Law 105-338 was NOT an endorsement of a direct military invasion of Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
Sharon: "Bush put into action a bipartisan ideal"

Once again, it had been more or less official US policy to COVERTLY attempt to dethrown Saddam ever since the first Gulf War. There was nothing intrinsically new about this general policy, and that is why id didn't receive that much attention.
------------------------------------------------
Sharon: "That is why the vote was yes, to authorize war"

Wrong. It had little to nothing to do with it. The vote was to give Bush the authorization AS A LAST RESORT. Some in Congress actually believed Bush was responsible enough to use it as leverage in forcing Saddam to fall in line. They were fooled. Senator Russ Feingold is on record as stating that Congress would live to rue the day they gave THIS president Congresional authority to wage war. How right he was!
-------------------------------------------------
"Sharon: "Ron Paul is on the congressional record as opposing"

Yes he is. So why isn't he leading in the Republican race....instead of hopelessly trailing?
-------------------------------------------------
Sharon, you readily admit that you weren't paying attention to any of this at the time...yet you come on this blog and make such strong statements about things you are just now finding out about. It is difficult if not impossible to gain proper perspective about such things by reading about them later....just as with Cee's revisionist history of the Vietnam War, that he fervently believes nonetheless.

What did you think about Dick Cheney's highly rational justification for NOT invading Iraq in 1992 following Desert Storm? That statement is nothing new but it was widely circulated in the media just last week. Why did he display so much more rationality then than he does now?

Good night!

Rico: "Abu Gharab was nothing trumped up by the leftist news media to help us lose."

First off, it wasn't "trumped up". It was very real and some of it was caught on film. I understand the worst photos were never even published in the media.

Second, the rumors and stories about what was going on there were already rampant within Iraq long before the story broke. As far as they were concerned, It confirmed within the Muslem world their false preconceived notion that we were no more humane than Saddam himself. We were seen as international hypocrites...and yes, Rico, it WAS a major turning point in this war.

Your thinking is SO convoluted that it is obvious that you are never going to get over your patently FALSE worldview that everything 'bad' is the fault of the so called "Leftist Media. In that regard, you are every bit as much of a conspiracy theory nut as the 911 conspiratists are.

As for the remainder of your 2:37 post Rico, the depth of your delusionment concerning THIS war, AND others is disturbing, to say the least. It would take three pages of text to debunk all the false premises you alluded to, ... but trust me, they are all false.

Also Rico, you keep right on trumpeting the ridiculously simplistic and stupid "you want us to lose" O'Reilly type arguments. However, I find it revealing that you actually fall for such absurd right wing baiting.

Good night!

Mike had bough hook line and sinker the new revisionist hiostory stance of the backpedalling democrats that VOTED for the use of force...

According to Mike- "The democrats thought Bush would use force as a last resort" Its dribble. Just trying to reframe the moment 6 years later.

Nice try Rico, but Mike and others like him who see the actions of Bush as only naked aggression and American imperialism will never see reality any other way. It is an ideological problem of such a great nature that their reality is perverted. When a citizen can no longer recognize an enemy of their country's own core values (freedom of thought, freedom of religion) and replaces the true enemy with one only based on domestic political differences, reasoning is impossible.

And it will continue because the "leaders" the left is promoting also suffer from this poison. No one of national reputation I can think of on "their side" (other than Joe Lieberman and Bob Kerrey) has been able to put aside selfish partisan power protection in order to objectively evaluate the situation in Iraq. It is now only a matter of winning domestic positions of power in '08 and '10 while manufacturing protections against any responsible policy that could have the public think the Democratic party has any blame coming regarding Iraq. That is why the Democrats poll on the "issue" of Iraq and are all over the place in their take on it.....They are also not willing to take any political risk in implementing their fringe's demands BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS THE MORALLY WRONG THING TO DO AND WILL RESULT IN HORRIFIC RESULTS FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE...

Let me remind the posters here that the far left has called for IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWL....no troops in Iraq by Spring '08 at a minimum....This policy is morally bankrupt and no decent person should support it.

This is why in September and through the remainder of '07, Bush will continue to get what he wants from the Democrat Party controlled Congress and the war will continue to be fully funded.

The political garbage coming from people like Mike is just what muddied the moral compass during the mid and later parts of The Vietnam War. After George Bush, we will see if the leader of the free world chosen by our country embraces the pathetic and morally bankrupt pardigm of the American left fringe. God help us over the next 50 years as once again, those who embrace totalitarianism are once again appeased by The Democrats and those Republicans poltically weak enough to only think of their own personal polticial lives. Worldwide freedom of thought and religion will once again diminish like it did through the democrat's rule in the 1970's and this time the endorcement of radical islam's tactics of terrorism by the American left will also result in a lot more death. The lessons of history are rarely learned and the power the left blindly thirsts for is a strong motivation to leave the rational and moral behind.

Pukes Mike Lussy:

"As for the remainder of your 2:37 post Rico, the depth of your delusionment concerning THIS war, AND others is disturbing, to say the least. It would take three pages of text to debunk all the false premises you alluded to, ... but trust me, they are all false."

END QUOTE

Trust a liberal biased asshole like you. I'd rather be handcuffed in the backseat of a Ford Fairlane owned by Ted Kennedy at 4 a.m. at the Sea Mist Lounge that can only be accessed by a rickety old wooden bridge.

Mike The Lussy Pisses and moans:

"Also Rico, you keep right on trumpeting the ridiculously simplistic and stupid "you want us to lose" O'Reilly type arguments. However, I find it revealing that you actually fall for such absurd right wing baiting."

END QUOTE

You can tell how Simple Fucking Simon people like Mike Lussy and liberal politicians that blame Fox News or O'Reilly. It gives real credibilty to their criticizm of George Bush.

Mike Lussy, I don't find it 'REVEALING" that some loser asshole like you would not support our President or our country. YEah, I know, you support the troops.

I haven't read your obituaries yet in thenews paper so I assume it's safe to assume you never did attend a soldiers funeral that dies in Iraq and shot your big whooping mouth off how his death was for nothing.

You are just a chicken shit, whiney-assed liberal who is right at home snuggled up in the cracks of Mike Moore or Rosie or swinging off Olbyfucks nuts like a monkey on a set of monkey bars.

Mike Lussy Lucy:

"I understand the worst photos were never even published in the media."

END QUOTE

Got any proof? Where did you get that from, Olbyfuck or did it get stuck in your teeth while you were grazing in Mike Moore's ass?

Lucy reports:

"Second, the rumors and stories about what was going on there were already rampant within Iraq long before the story broke. As far as they were concerned, It confirmed within the Muslem world their false preconceived notion that we were no more humane than Saddam himself. We were seen as international hypocrites...and yes, Rico, it WAS a major turning point in this war."

Once again any proof? The fact is it was under a stupid bitch that was promoted up the chain of command without being qualified and we got hit in the ass because of her incompetency. I'm sure the freak astronaught had prenty of signs she was a fruit cake in her record and yet she was a shuttle astronaught. You are a liberal puke Lussy Lucy. You want to place the blame on others. YOu are fucking stupid to even compare what happened there to what Sadam did. It's a shame you weren't witness tot he entier families that were thrown off 6 story building while bound one at a time.

Lussy Lucy concludes:

"Your thinking is SO convoluted that it is obvious that you are never going to get over your patently FALSE worldview that everything 'bad' is the fault of the so called "Leftist Media. In that regard, you are every bit as much of a conspiracy theory nut as the 911 conspiratists are."

END QUOTE

Look, Lussy Lucy, you are insane. I know it's tough when you can;t afford a joint and have to rsort to sniffing paint out of a bag, trouble witht he wifey, can't get it up, living from pay check to pay check, but complaing about criticizm of the media compared to what you liberal fucks are doing to George Bush is evidence you are Alice living in Wonderland, a 6' x 6' box of sand. If you keep shooting your mouth, George Bush and I will come by and after I kick sand in your face George will piss on your head to wash it off.

So Bush, in his press conference last week, cited Graham Greene's Vietnam novel "The Quiet American" as an anolgy of the US occupation of Iraq? This may be the most perceptive allusion he has ever made; although he obviously has never read the book.

Aden Pyle, the proto-neocon featured in Pyle's book, perpetrates a terrorist car-bombing in Saigon - killing many civilians - in order to discredit the Viet Minh and promote the artificial division of Vietnam. This sure sounds like us in Iraq to me.

Bush, in his press conference, also cited the disasters experienced by Vietnamese "boat people" who fled the communist government following our retreat.

If he really had any concern for the safety of refugees, then perhaps his government would have let more than 450 of the the estimated 2 million Iraqi refugees enter our country. That's all we've let in, folks. These people who's well-being you all now claim was the reason for our invasion - we've only accepted 450 into our country.

The rest must remain in Syria, Jordan, etc., further destabilizing the entire region.

Your fetish/president makes no sense; except to war-profiteers who laugh sarcastically at human misery.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why — and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.
"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,"' Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."..."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-21-publishing-chief_N.htm

Why (do you post) spewed: "Most of his (Michael Moore) films are national treasures"

National treasures? Which nation are you referring to?

Ari Fleischer on Hardball, when asked about Bush's avoidance of the issue of national sacrifice:

"everytime one of them (US Soldiers) dies, we all sacrifice".

What a fucking vampire! Poor, poor Ari; loosing 4000 of his closest friends!

These people are miserable elitists who will throw your children away or burn their limbs off for their own personal gain, and pretend that its they who are sacrificing!

Sharon, you readily admit that you weren't paying attention to any of this at the time...yet you come on this blog and make such strong statements about things you are just now finding out about.

That is just another example of why you don't know how to engage in a debate. College age people who come here, hang it up as far as discussion with Mike. After all, your opinion is not valid if discussing prior events that you just now are learning. Secondly, I asked GRAMMIE for her take on the legislation. See other thread for further response.

oh blindrat...you are becoming too easy....

This is where one can find the facts of the poll you refer to....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_re_us/reading_habits_ap_poll

"There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives."

###
Note the word "slightly," and this is even considering (see below) that across the political spectrum, books with political subjects are a regular choice by a very small minority.

"Who are the 27 percent of people the AP-Ipsos poll found hadn't read a single book this year? Nearly a third of men and a quarter of women fit that category. They tend to be older, less educated, lower income, minorities, from rural areas and less religious."

###
Yep, that sounds like the typical conservative demo to me. Oh, and.....

"The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories. Popular fiction, histories, biographies and mysteries were all cited by about half, while one in five read romance novels. Every other genre — including politics, poetry and classical literature — were named by fewer than five percent of readers."

###
So I would say that the simplistic and very silly interpretation of the poll by the leftist loon Pat Schroeder is dubious, blindrat.....

Try again.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

"The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again."

###
Brilliant! The left's standard bearer for the 2008 Presidential race reveals her insightful thoughts regarding the political implications of terrorism.

What a great example of leadership.....Where can I donate?

Stop the illegal and immoral war!......Pull the troops out now!.....Cut the funds!

Where is Mental Midget (Why), this blogs Democrat Party apologist, on this latest Mensa moment for one of his candidates?

I would even be interested in Loin's take.....Who is the poor soul going to vote for on 11/4/08?

Cee,

The left does have a collective mental disorder. It is the cause of their political views. This disorder leads to everything they say and do. They literally are not on their own side. They think, that if Bush loses the war on terror, that they have won something. Even if they all get killed in the process. They die happy, with a smile on their faces, martyrs even.

cee,

Cherry picking from the article, I see...

You left out the fact that, among liberals, twenty two percent haven't read a book this year; however, among conservatives this number is thirty four percent...

Kinda insincere of you, doncha think, son?

The left does have a collective mental disorder. It is the cause of their political views. This disorder leads to everything they say and do. They literally are not on their own side. They think, that if Bush loses the war on terror, that they have won something. Even if they all get killed in the process. They die happy, with a smile on their faces, martyrs even.

Posted by: Rico at August 24, 2007 10:55 AM

This has to be one of the stupidest analyses I've ever seen.

"...if Bush loses the war on terror..."? How do you suggest that he proposes to WIN it? In his VFW speech he basically said we should still be in Vietnam, and that then everything would be fine.

We are merely demanding coherent policies and openly stated goals; not the post-modern miasma of moral and operational ambiguity promulgated for five years now by the Bushies.

"No it does not sound like what you and the leftist ruling elite are saying, Loin. Your own quote from the editorial even leaves the reader with the impression that the authors do not support precipitous withdraw from Iraq without regard to their progress towards stability."

Then you didn't read it. Surprise, surprise.

These soldiers say clearly that our presence is counter-productive to the stated aims of regional stability. They say, as I have been saying, that Iraqis won't "stand up" until our hooks are out of their country. I think you are (probably intentionally) misinterpreting in this regard their statements that they will fulfill their duties as soldiers no matter what those are (in fact, one of them suffered a headwound shortly after the piece was written), and that disingenuous pissants like you should not make political hay out of their "feelings" regarding our political debate. They are not as delicate you are.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081907A.shtml

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 23, 2007 7:05 PM

cee, you had made a vapid response in regard to the "What We Saw"opinion piece yesterday, and I did not see your response to my criticism. I thought I'd give you another chance.

I would even be interested in Loin's take.....Who is the poor soul going to vote for on 11/4/08?

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 10:50 AM

Clinton would be hands-down a far better president than Bush. However, she has deep-seated integrity problems and is clearly a mercenary to an array of corporate lobbyists.

Kucinich is my guy.

Ron Paul on the record against Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (mandate to kill Saddam?)

But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.

Kucinich voted yes.

Congressman Lee Hamilton (supported the legislation but expressed several concerns)

Third, there is a wide gap here between means and objectives in this bill. When we declare that our policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, we raise the objectives of our policy very high. Yet we provide modest means to achieve what has proven to be a very difficult objective. When you have a gap between goals and means, that often leads to trouble in the conduct of American foreign policy.

Ron Paul on the record against Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (mandate to kill Saddam?)

I forgot quotation marks

"But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be."

Yes, Sharon , Kucinich did vote for that act:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime. "

Do you see the word "invasion" or "military force" in there? Humanitarian aid to Iraqis and Iraqi refugees, propaganda, and training are all that are covered in the act.

You binary righties can't understand that change can occur without violence, and that that mode is, in fact, the most productive. Nobody in America since Ronald Reagan has been fond of Saddam; but some people like Kucinich realize that wars of choice bring only instability and chaos.

I would still think Ron Paul would have your support. I think he has exhibited the strongest opposition to the war. Beyond withdrawal, I would like to know his plans for the foreign policy. He supports social views of mine (pro-life, pro homeschool).

Third, there is a wide gap here between means and objectives in this bill. When we declare that our policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, we raise the objectives of our policy very high. Yet we provide modest means to achieve what has proven to be a very difficult objective. When you have a gap between goals and means, that often leads to trouble in the conduct of American foreign policy.

Posted by: Sharon at August 24, 2007 11:45 AM

That's a very good point. Have you paid any attention to anything in the past six years, for Crissakes!?!?

Some Bush's fatal "mosest means":

- No sacrifice asked of American people (other than Ari Fleischer's recently expressed personal sacrifice of other people's children)

-a tiny occupaton force counter to all military recommendations,

-no plan for reconstruction; other than a profound DE-construction, that is,

-no effort spent on oversight of the taxpayers' fortunes wasted in Iraq, leading to the disappearance of billions and billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of weapons.

I would still think Ron Paul would have your support. I think he has exhibited the strongest opposition to the war. Beyond withdrawal, I would like to know his plans for the foreign policy. He supports social views of mine (pro-life, pro homeschool).

Posted by: Sharon at August 24, 2007 11:51 AM

I respect Ron Paul's honesty and integrity; but I tink e is dangerously wrong on domestic issues, primailly regarding taxation and the roll of government. I support him on the war, but little else.

Kucinich showed weakness. He had one of the strongest pro-life voting records, even better than some republicans. He sold out for The Nation. It is so clear by the record. No matter what your view on abortion, you have to recognize a sell out. I used to think he was a person who stood his ground and complimented him several times for that, until I found out he is a politician at heart. Maybe Ron Paul is legitimate. You mentioned a poll several weeks ago that showed support for Paul among vets. Second in that poll was McCain (you didn't respond to that when I pointed it out). That , to me, is one indication of a clear divide among vets. Milbloggers are pro-war. I don't deny the existence of anti-war servicemen and women.

"No matter what your view on abortion, you have to recognize a sell out."

If you insist - but to me a "sell-out" in the right direction on a wedge-issue doesn't bother me too much. I prefer to view it as a change-of-mind.

What about the Republicans selling out on your abortion issue? They controlled the White House and both houses of congress for six years and gave you absolutley nothing but the Terry Shiavo burlesque. Why did they not act on their booming rhetoric in regard to this isue?

They are only stringing you along, because they realize that 75% of Americans sensibly support the constitutionality of choice. But they know that you will blindly adhere to the do-nothing pro-life paper-tigers; supporting their wars and their rape of the American commons because of their empty promises regarding your one moral priority.

Dearest Loin,

Just because I did not acquiesce to your call for immediate withdrawl from Iraq based on your interpretation of what the authors are proposing does not mean I had a vapid response.

You see, the goal of getting the Iraqis to take more responsibility in defending themselves is not the argument. The radical left calls for immediate troop withdrawl....you call for troop withdrawl....Mike calls for troop withdrawl....not decreasing troop levels, not anything even coming close to what most responsible (including the authors of the editorial) have proposed.

Do not try to hide behind more moderate and thoughtful (and patriotic) people, Loin, because your views have been clear. No American presence in Iraq as soon as possible. That is not what the authors propose.....

"Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit."

###
I do not see an implication of withdrawl, immediate or otherwise and I do not see an implication that The United States disengage in the process towards a stable democracy in Iraq. You, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, have made the grand declaration that our involvement now and from the beginning has been immoral and imperialistic....The authors do not imply their support for that silly idea either.

Please do not try to camoflage your morally bankrupt, conspiracy laden, selfish and downright radical opinions about the US war against terrorism with a well-intentioned and rational opinion piece from honorable people. It makes you look silly.

"What about the Republicans selling out on your abortion issue? They controlled the White House and both houses of congress for six years and gave you absolutley nothing but the Terry Shiavo burlesque. Why did they not act on their booming rhetoric in regard to this isue?"

###
A lie. The partial birth abortion ban was passed with bipartisan support and The President Signed it into law. The law is supported by a majority of Americans but the radical left has used the sympathetic courts to question its constitutionality based on the lovely idea of penumbra, Loin.

Wow, both you and blindrat are off your games today!

"75% of Americans sensibly support the constitutionality of choice."

###
Oh, and Loin.....now do you claim 75% of the American public support infanticide like you and the radical left does or something else?

Sharon, I guess your 10:55 post makes it pretty clear that you believe 40 years of life experience while closely following politics the entire time pretty much means nothing in the context of debating policy and recent history?

You may well be right. After all look at Cheney's dismal record recently after a virtual lifetime of high level political involvement. It was college age students who rightfully saw the lunacy of the Vietnam War before most of the rest of America did.

That said, you show an amazing amount of personal sensitivity for someone who is not afraid to slight someone yourself. Your comment that you "couldn't believe how I was downplaying" the significance of law 105-338...even as I rightfully pointed out that it was not considered anything earth shattering or alarming at the time,.... and it had ALREADY been the officially stated policy of the executive branch to dethrown Saddam for 6 years prior to that time. However, NEVER in any of that time was it real or implied US policy to take him out by militsry force. In a sense, you were guilty of dismissing me with that statement, even though you were clearly unaware of all of that. Also, how do you think I should have taken your statement yesterday that i wanted to believe only the worst in America?

As for your accurate assertion that you were asking "GRAMMIE" the question, you forgot that you are on a PUBLIC discussion board...one in which anyone is free to respond to anyone else...invited or not.

I have complimented you many times on this board, as you know, .... and I take back none of that. However, it is so obvious that you want to believe SO badly in what your country is doing that you will literally grasp at straws in order to do so.

People like me fervently believe in America too, Sharon. We just want to see the it once again become the shining star it used to be before it became tainted by a few very bad apples.

blindrat,

How does your quote,

"among liberals, twenty two percent haven't read a book this year; however, among conservatives this number is thirty four percent"

support the exaplaination, "The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page.'..."

Especially when the reading of political books is such a small part of what people actually read. Ms. Schroeder's idea is not supported by the poll's demographics.

Again, you are off your game, blindrat.

Benson, if you bother to actually read the "joint resolution authorizing the use of force", it will become very clear that the written provisions required the president to exhaust all available peaceful means before rushing in.

Therefore, there is nothing "revisionist" about my contention that many in Congress were voting as much to give teeth to the president in dealing with Saddam as they were actually voting for war, come hell of high water.

By calling me a "revisionist", you are also dismissing my own impressions as to exactly what the vote meant at the time.

There is one thing that never seems to change....People on your side insists on seeing eveything in black and white...but in reality, this is not a black and white world, and it never will be.

"Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit."

###
I do not see an implication of withdrawl, immediate or otherwise and I do not see an implication that The United States disengage in the process towards a stable democracy in Iraq. You, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, have made the grand declaration that our involvement now and from the beginning has been immoral and imperialistic....The authors do not imply their support for that silly idea either.

Please do not try to camoflage your morally bankrupt, conspiracy laden, selfish and downright radical opinions about the US war against terrorism with a well-intentioned and rational opinion piece from honorable people. It makes you look silly.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 12:23 PM

...and yet leaders of both parties in this country are talking about "replacing" Maliki, and we are actively arming every group of three or more Iraqis that we can identify so that they can fight one another. And, once again, one of these brave soldiers was shot in the head shortly after collaborating on the piece. So much for the "margins" in the soldiers' admonitions - such instances are clearly what the article was decrying.

But please cee; quit parsing. You cannot deny that the main theme of that opinion piece is the clear recognition that there is no general problem in Iraq that our military can solve, and that our presense will always motivate and legitimize in Iraqi eyes violent oposition to the occupation.

cee,

Obviously, it indicates a larger percentage of intellectually lazy people. You know, the kind that still use 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq; the kind that still pretend that Gore was a liar; the kind that still think that Bush won the 2000 election; the kind that think that there is enough oil in Alaska to last us for a decade; the kind that thinks that tax cuts are great when we are running a deficit; the kind that thinks that the surge is working...

In other words, the kind that don't think. Slogans are all that they understand. They hear "Kerry", they think "flip-flop"; they hear "Hillary" they say "Hitlery"; they hear "universal health care" they screech "communism"...

You know...the usual neocon idiots...