Can't wait to hear the latest from this bunch of phony soldiers.

Love the Olby and 'American Conservative' are soul mates blurb --you know, in an earlier era of our country's history, that wouldn't sound so silly.

Crack on!

Poor Keithy. He got little bang for his O'Reilly buck last night..

O'liely is disgusting.....I think I speak for all sane people on this site when I say-What an asshole......

Yet ANOTHER example of olbymoron editing info to suit his cause. He slams O'Reilly for journalistic ethics (like he would know journalistic ethics if they hit him over the orange-tinged lump on his shoulders). What he conveniently leaves out is that the reporter told O'Reilly one thing during the phone conversation and then printed an ENTIRELY different thing on a blog. O'Reilly played the tape to show the reporter's hypocracy. Obviously fat-ass didn't tell the whole story. Never does! What a pompous fool.

"Obviously fat-ass didn't tell the whole story. Never does!"

But I'll bet you believe J Dollar tells "the whole story" with his "recaps", don't you?

Why would anyone apply journalistic ethics to someone who isn't a journalist?

This site's here so normal people don't have to sit through an hour of keiffy's lies and left-wing propaganda. Johnny $ gets the relevant facts in his recaps. Let's put it this way. Monkeymans not too hard to figure out. I can pretty much predict four of his five stories every night, what he'll say about them, and who he'll have on to parrot his views. Same ol' shit, only the names of the night's are different. Monday, Tuesday,...yada, yada.

"This site is here so normal people don't have to sit through an hour of Keiffy's and left wing propaganda."

So you have only two choices in life: Either endure KO's show, or come and read this site?

Oh, the repression!

"Johnny $ gets the relevant facts in his recaps."

Sometimes, but he also adds a few irrelevant but damning misinterpretations along the way.

I don't know your rules about links in comments but here is a link to Rush's own rebuttal to all this. From his radio show today (9-26-07)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY

oops wrong date(sorry) it should be 9-28-07

But I'll bet you believe J Dollar tells "the whole story" with his "recaps", don't you?

Posted by: Mike at September 28, 2007 10:24 PM

It's comical how you continue to try to ridicule Johnny and his recaps, yet, you can't come up with a single example where he has ever been wrong or told "half the story" can you? Don't bring up that "blink" horse shit, either. Name and prove he was wrong or lied. Let me guess, you don't have time...........like when you claimed you could "factually refute every single one of his points." But, "didn't have time." That will go down as a classic.

I love O'Reilly's show, almost as much as the LSD!

Jeff's continuing nonsense: "yet you can't come up with one example of where he has ever been wrong of "told half the story", can you?"

Duh......I just "came up" with a whopper earlier today concerning the Pelosi "planegate" smear. JD even acknowleged it himself while spinning a ridiculous defense claiming his righteousness in smearing Olbermann for withholding a story without proper sourcing, and then immediately reporting the CORRECT version of the same story when it became known.

Where were you Jeff during that exchange? .... I think you were right here, as always, but anything that doesn't jive with your brainwashing program goes in one ear and right back out the other.

"Monkeymans not too hard to figure out. I can pretty much predict four of his five stories every night, what he'll say about them, and who he'll have on to parrot his views. Same ol' shit, only the names of the night's are different. Monday, Tuesday,...yada, yada."

Have to admit, you've got a point. Without rampant Republican corruption and hypocrisies, Limbaugh's and Bill-O's Nazi-defending, racists rants, and truth-sounding fictions, he'd probably struggle to fill the hour. Thank God for his sake there's such an overwhelming wealth of material to draw from.

Since I know the spolby's won't click on the link, I decided to post it myself. Enjoy!

HANOVER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton scored with a Democratic audience last night by contradicting her husband's belief that a terrorist could be tortured to foil an imminent plot - but what observers didn't know is she was contradicting herself, too.

"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to bepreparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."

She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.

> a ridiculous defense claiming his righteousness in smearing Olbermann for withholding a story without proper sourcing

You write that tripe and then accuse ME of misinterpretations? Olbermann didn't withhold ANYTHING because of a lack of proper sourcing. He uses any source he pleases when it suits his biases, including "American Conservative" magazine and "Insight".

The Pelosi story was reported on AP, UPI, and his own network. The story advanced, day after day, with new revelations. Yet he didn't touch it until it was claimed that a Republican was involved. Then, bingo!, all of a sudden the story became "correct" and it popped up on The Hour of Spin.

What's more, what you call the "correct" version of the story is deemed "correct" only on OlbyPlanet and its capital city, Kosville. Key aspects remain in dispute, despite the talking points you pick up from the blue blogs. You see, the Think Progress version of a story is not automatically correct because they say so. Unless you name is Olbermann, or unless you are a water-carrying Olbypologist.

And that's what you cite as a "lie" by me? That's pathetic.

I said "It cannot be American policy, period". But I did not say that I wouldn't do it. Don't you all see how clever I am being?

Hickory, dickory, dock,
Olby's a dupe for a limp wrist named Brock.
Reads his material with a grin,
as he wipes off his chin.
Must be 8:48 on the old Countdown clock.

"without rampant republican corruption and hypocrisies, Limbaugh's and Bill-O's Nazi defending, racist rants, and truth-sounding fictions, he'd probably struggle to fill the hour."

Then we might have to endure Natalie McCants, OJ Simpson, Paris Hilton, and Brittainy for the FULL hour, kind of like what is already polluting the majority of today's cable 'News' programs.

I guess the ongoing republican fiasco does have at least one benefit!

KO is a survivor of a partial birth abortion. His brains and spine were sucked out and his worthless body lives!!!

David Brock was in far too much pain
Being a gay Repub ate away at his brain
So he came out as a Dem
Prancing around like Le Fem
Ariana's loss is his cocksucking gain

Johnny: "Olbermann didn't withhold anything because of a lack of sourcing": The FACT remains that he rightfully withheld a smear story that had not been properly sourced.

YOU then claim to be clairvoyant enough to claim that he happened to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

And people actually respect you!

But I'll bet you believe J Dollar tells "the whole story" with his "recaps", don't you?

Posted by: Mike at September 28, 2007 10:24 PM

WOW, dr. mikey phduh, professor of English, finally figured out how to form a sentence with no spelling error's. You're moving up there dr. mikey. YUZ A GENUIS, dr. mikey. LOL Find the misspeled word's dr.mikey.

Johnny on "planegate": "key aspects of the story remain in dispute, deptite the talking points you pick up from the blue blogs."

By "blue blogs", are you referring to the press release by AP from the sergeant at arms stating that HE alone was the one requesting that plane for legitimate security reasons? Is THAT what is supposedly 'disputed'?

It's just SO convenient to keep blaming all your problems on "blue blogs", but reality speaks a different story.

It's good to know you have no bias Johnny, and we know it of course because you keep TELLING us you don't!

Johnny on "planegate": "key aspects of the story remain in dispute, deptite the talking points you pick up from the blue blogs."

By "blue blogs", are you referring to the press release by AP from the sergeant at arms stating that HE alone was the one requesting that plane for legitimate security reasons? Is THAT what is supposedly 'disputed'?

It's just SO convenient to keep blaming all your problems on "blue blogs", but reality speaks a different story.

It's good to know you have no bias Johnny, and we know it of course because you keep TELLING us you don't!

Where were you Jeff during that exchange? .... I think you were right here, as always, but anything that doesn't jive with your brainwashing program goes in one ear and right back out the other.

Posted by: Mike at September 28, 2007 11:19 PM

Planegate? Come on mike. That's weak at best. Is that all you got? 5 some odd yrs of recaps and all you got is planegate? Not laughing out loud, shaking head.

YOU then claim to be clairvoyant enough to claim that he happened to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

And people actually respect you!

Posted by: Mike at September 28, 2007 11:52 PM

You know exactly why Oralmann spiked the story at first. He's a biased hack/spokesman for the far left. He only ran with the story (planegate) when it tilted slightly in favor of Pelosi. Then, it was "big news" to Olbermahn.

Jeff, you asked for a SINGLE example, while ruling out another well known one. Are you renigging on your word AGAIN?

That said, do you REALLY think I would be stupid enough to waste my time reading those biased and inflammatory 'recaps' every day just to supply YOUR sorry ass with additional examples which I am well aware occur every day?

You're the one stupid enough to read and actually believe them!

> HE alone was the one requesting that plane for legitimate security reasons?

Look Einstein, somebody's press release solves the case? It's the end of story? Of course he's the one who requested the plane. But what was requested of him first? What did Pelosi's office ask for? Did they ask for something different from previous speakers? There are reports that they did. Now I know these are just reports, and not a "press release". So maybe you think they don't have that definitive final conclusory authenticity that a "press release" brings. Everyone KNOWS when a "press release" comes out, there's nothing else to say. But there are still other issues involved, issues that Olbermann never reported on. Because they involved (D)s and not (R)s.

BUt of course Olbermann, who didn't touch the story because, according to you, it wasn't properly sourced, can report rumors from Raw Story, a definitive source if there ever was one. He can even make up stories with no source at all (the White House leaked a memo to Drudge). And then refuse to correct his lie when the Washington Post publishes the truth.

But you say Oh No Olbermann didn't touch the Pelosi story because the AP, the UPI, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, ABC, and CBS weren't good enough sources for him.

Sell that repellent puke somewhere else. Everybody sees you for what you are.

Jeff: "You know exactly why Olbermann spiked the story at first."

So your argument is that Olbermann SHOULD have followed the herd and smeared our Speaker of the House with a false story?

Then you must also be arguing that it was perfectly OK for Shaun Hannity and others of his sorry ilk to pound this false smear story into the ground for an entire week?

Yet you call ME a "partisan hack"!

STILL smearing Pelosi with the "planegate" smear, are we Johnny? Just can't let it go with the truth, can you? Lets keep that modicum of smear going so that doubts may be allowed to linger with the liberal haters.

The handful of authentic "clear thinkers" who visit this personal smear site see YOU for what you really are as well!

Name and prove he was wrong or lied. Let me guess, you don't have time...........like when you claimed you could "factually refute every single one of his points." But, "didn't have time." That will go down as a classic.

Posted by: royal king at September 28, 2007 11:08 PM

This is what I said, mike. I'm not renigging. You haven't "proven" anything. Your evidence of a lie or being factually wrong is absent. P.S. The "blink" bs is only well known to you.

examples which I am well aware occur every day?

You're the one stupid enough to read and actually believe them!

Posted by: Mike at September 29, 2007 12:13 AM

If this is the case, you should be able to go to any recap and find one in a matter of seconds. No time?

So how are you not a partisan hack? I know who you are Mike. You're registered on Daily Kos. Plus you are Keith Olbermann's chief apologist on this site. Are you so delusional that you believe you are some independent thinker and not just a liberal, anti-war, ant-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative, global warming hysteria pushing, Rosie O'Donnell loving, terrorist sympathizing, Israel bashing, Keith Olbermann worshiping sheeple?

Jeff" "If this is the case, you should be able to go to any recap and find one in a matter of seconds. No time?"

No time for idiots like you!

This is Jeff's pattern: he asks for one example, and you give it to him, then he wants another one. You give him another one and then he demands another one. You give him yet another one, then he demands another one. Unless you keep right on giving him more and more specific examples, he calls you a liar.

All the while, he never provides ANYTHING of substance himself.

James:

"I know who you are Mike, You're registered on daily Kos.": REALLY? Who am I? What name do I post under on KOS? What have I posted there?

"Plus you are Keith Olbermann's chief apologist on this site." Actually Olbermann doesn't need an "apologist". I'm pretty sure that this site is of no consequence to him.

"Are you so delusional that you believe you are some independent thinker?": No 'delusion' about it. I AM an independent thinker.

"and not just a liberal": A slightly left of center moderate is what fits me best actually.

"anti-war": Defintely anti-war, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with either liberalism, or conservatism.

"ant-Bush": The more relevant question would be why would any sane American be 'pro-Bush' after all the damage that he has done?

"anti-republican": Then how do you explain my vote FOR Bush in 2000, in which he vowed he was AGAINST nation building during the campaign?

"anti-conservative": No, some of my positions ARE, in fact conservative.

"global warming pushing": Hmmm...you might want to go back and try and find even ONE post from me "pushing", or even mentioning Global warming.

"Rosie O'Donnell loving": No, I think she is a buffoon, much like Bill O'Reilly.

"Terrorist sympathizing": Hardly. I think we should have chased Bin Laden and his group until we caught them, instead of wasting our resources in Iraq. Instead we now foolishly allow them to hide in Pakistan and mock us whenever they please.

"Israel bashing": Well, once again, I challenge you to dredge up ANYTHING in which I have 'bashed' Israel.

"Keith Olbermann worshiping sheeple": Nope, I worship a higher entity than any human.

Enough about me James.....Now lets talk about YOU:

It is pretty clear that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, every stupid red herring stereotype that has been fed to you from the right, because I believe you pretty much covered them all in your silly rant.

"

Bob at least get your facts straight, that so called childrens health care bill wants to pay for the childrens health care for people making up to 80 k a year. For christ sake where is it going to end. The newest from Hillary land, she told the black caucus that she wants to give people 5k for every kid that a woman has. Boy talk about a blatant attempt to buy votes. It is never ending with the liberal slime in this country.

To show you how slimy and sneaky the dems are, in the new defense authorization bill they gave bush the same deal with iran as they gave him with iraq with something like a 77 to 23 positive vote. Last time i checked there was only 49 republican senators. funny thing though, hillary voted with the majority. and oh by the way bush approval rating in the high20s congress approval rating 11%

Barbara Cesca, You are such a funny long winded girl,

"and if it's so fucking important to wiretap your phones and read your mail, and to shit all over your constitutional rights and the Geneva Conventions --"

You know it's such a hoot when liberals talk about constitutional rights being trampled in this country. Being the spineless pussies they are, they don't actually get out enough to know that there are actually places in the world where people really do suffer at the hands of their governments, and where they would gladly trade their real ass-pounding government oppression for the so-called tyranny of the mean old Bush administration.
If you actually believe things are that bad under the Bush administration
your comments demonstrate that you have absolutely no knowledge of history. Truman left office with lowest approval rating in history , with his country embroiled in a war that by then had cost 36,000 American lives. I think maybe things were just a tad bit worse then for the presidency than they are now, wouldn't you think, Barb?

"he or she will have to dig deep into the destruction of our national character and detail the stories of torture and secret detention facilities; outsourced corporate thugs murdering foreign civilians; government scare tactics without substance --"

You conspiracy theorists are so fucking wacky! Do the words "grassy noll" mean anything to you?

Do us all a favor, Barb. Next time you start menstruating, please go to some other Blog. Your endless hormone-induced rant was really boring.

"Since I know the spolby's won't click on the link, I decided to post it myself. Enjoy!" ...

Wow. The NY Daily News. Really?!

Hey, RK... care to quote some National Enquirer, Washington Examiner, or some other reputable "news" sources?

Considering Hillary's historically centrist leanings (the kind so many wingers seem to confuse for liberalism), it might actually be true. but for your own credibility's sake, please find a paper the Olbyloons might actually read, or at least respect, to support news items (or related arguments) like this. That is, if you rather be taken half-way seriously. :)

Necessary War: when somebody has shoved a shotgun up your ass and pulled the trigger.

"Necessary War: when somebody has shoved a shotgun up your ass and pulled the trigger."

Pretty poetic stuff, coming from a chicken hawk like you.

I remember when having a strong defense, not an invading force, was a conservative principle.

OK, maybe I read about in a history book. It's been a while.

Here’s Mr.O’Reilly’s definition of what most blacks are: “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ “ As Joe Klein pointed out on his TIME Magazine blog, Stephen Colbert can’t make this stuff up.

Posted by: at September 29, 2007 1:23 AM

Billo is right about this. He should have added and there was no black-on-black crime there. It's gotten so bad, Al Sharpton's network is going around the country asking their "Role Model's, i.e. Gangsta Rap, Hip-Hop, etc. to clean up their act.

Billo was actually complementing Sylvia's and the patrons, and also the Anita Baker concert. Joe Klien and Stephen Colbert's kids are probably in private schools. In public schools their use of M--F'er is rampant.

I remember the 1930s, when we did not have a strong defense. Those were the days. We ran everything then. It was great.

"I remember the 1930s, when we did not have a strong defense. Those were the days. We ran everything then. It was great."

Nice post, grandpa.
You must remember the Great Depression too, or are you conveniently leaving that little development out of your recollection?

> Wow. The NY Daily News. Really?!

Yes really. A newspaper that Olbermann himself has cited nearly 200 times on his Hour of Spin. A newspaper whose writers have appeared and been interviewed by Olbermann at least a dozen times.

You don't know much about this stuff, do you?

Lawdy,

Show's a lot of hollerin' goin' on in her!

I damn nearly dropped mah waddermellon n fried chick'n havin' this stuff red to me! Yo Wyte fowks sho are funny.

Now, ays gots to go find me some mutha-fuckin i-tea!

Ya'll play nice now, hear?

I didn't say things were perfect way back in the 1930s. But we were too poor to have a strong defense, or to use our military. The depression was a small price to pay for peace, don't you think? Maybe we should try a drepression now.

"> Wow. The NY Daily News. Really?!

Yes really. A newspaper that Olbermann himself has cited nearly 200 times on his Hour of Spin. A newspaper whose writers have appeared and been interviewed by Olbermann at least a dozen times.

You don't know much about this stuff, do you?"

*sigh*

I do, JD. Apparently moreso than you.

It's an example of EXACTLY what I was suggesting RK do to improve support his arguments.

I think you need the help of Bill-O's Black Friend's reader.

"I didn't say things were perfect way back in the 1930s. But we were too poor to have a strong defense, or to use our military. The depression was a small price to pay for peace, don't you think? Maybe we should try a drepression now."

*heh*... a good point, and humorous too. Dark humor, but still. Been watching "The War" and the thought of "shared sacrifice" keeps coming to mind... you know, in some ways, folks then didn't have enough time (or resources) to bitch about politics.

Last time I checked, there aren't/weren't any billionaires enlisted or working the production lines or manning the hospitals, etc.

Kids today don't appreciate the sacrifices made to keep this country from falling into the hands of the Nazis.

But when Olby tells us every night how GDub is worse than Hitler, why the fuck should they?

"But when Olby tells us every night how GDub is worse then Hitler, why the fuck should they."

Good point!

When do you suppose Olby is going to start telling us that GDub is "worse than Hitler"?

YOU then claim to be clairvoyant enough to claim that he happened to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

And people actually respect you!

Posted by: Mike at September 28, 2007 11:52 PM

You know I used to think that you were willfully obtuse, but now I see it's completely involuntary. You haven't a clue.

It doesn't take ESP or even ESPN to ascertain that Olbermann treats one side differently than another. You've admitted it yourself.

That's the general tenor of arguments about this stuff with you. Johnny puts forth an example of Olbermann once again treating the DNC, Dems, and liberals in general different from their counterparts (the purpose of the bloody site!), you take issue that by speciously arguing we don't really know what Olbermann was thinking when he did such and such.....

After you are pounded a few times with the fact that one can come to conclusions about someone's behavior based upon their history (duh!) and that it possible to conclude that Olbermann goes beyond his worst criticisms of Fox News by censoring stories unfavorable to his side, you'll then slide into the old standby of "Well, I've always said Olbermann is biased. So what? We're back to where we started now"

Sheesh! You're like a dog with with it's foot nailed to the floor. You only go in circles.

If Olbermann does the "right thing" for one side, whereas with the other side he only too willing to air unfounded theories about everything from karl Rove timing terrorist alerts to claims that Ohio Voting Officials stole the election from John Kerry, THAT is the point.

I used to think you were willfully obtuse. Now I'm thinking that it's completely involuntary. You simply cannot be this way on purpose.

If his lips are moving he's lying
Lift and read without even trying
Krazy Keith is a hack
Credentials he'll lack
Moonbat jocksniffer just ain't flying

Lovely reparte between whiner Mike and the rest of the clear thinkers here at OW. If "Pelosi" was "Gingrich," Olbermann would have spent 20 minutes for the #1 story when the story first came out covering "Planegate" and would not have aired the later story that "cleared" the speaker.

Whiner Mike arrogantly pronounces absolute truth like all leftists and can only whine when others present their arguments defending their opinions.

Childlike behavior, whiner Mike....hence your childish nickname....You join the ranks of AAP and "I can't keep a name" Bob....otherwise known as the immature wannawipe and mental midget.

Go outside and play in your sandbox now.....the adults have things to do.

Olbermann is biased. It's been proven over and over and over again. But his Krazy fans still deny it because they're just as biased as he is. They attack Fox for their perceived biases but those of Keith Olbermann's? Nope, not a problem for them. Olbermann isn't a journalist, he's a half-assed sports desk jockey who wouldn't know how to be a real journalist if someone held a gun to his head and told him his life dependend upon him being able to report a story in an accurate, unbiased manner.

Considering Hillary's historically centrist leanings (the kind so many wingers seem to confuse for liberalism), it might actually be true. but for your own credibility's sake, please find a paper the Olbyloons might actually read, or at least respect, to support news items (or related arguments) like this. That is, if you rather be taken half-way seriously. :)

Posted by: at September 29, 2007 1:48 AM

First, you are deluded to think Hillary is a "centrist." The is the poster whatever she is for the far left. Next, you mean the NY Daily Times is not considered the "paper of record" like you consider the old york times? I don't consider the "enquirer" news, period. Do you? If olby uses the Daily Times as a source, why is it not good enough for you?

If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the two crowned kings of race hustlers are not calling for Bill O'Reilly's head on a platter, then the smear has no legs. Take your "Mission Accomplished" banner down Media Matters. You going to have to stay the course a little bit longer.

Welcome back Brandon. The loons have been lonely without you.

1-Hillary is a centrist, in fact a bit conservative.
2-O'Reilly is a pervert and a racist.
3-The Comedian Rush Limbaugh is a fat faggot, and he hates our troops.

Posted by:philby at September 29, 2007 6:40 PM

I know slander is commonplace and come naturally for you, but, would you happen to have any evidence to support your latest attemts at smear? Just curious.

1-Hillary is a centrist, in fact a bit conservative. LOL
Are you liberals really that retarded?
The woman just said she wants to give every woman who has a baby $5000. How exactly is that conservative? Just because she is not removing all the combat troops from Iraq does not make her conservative. It just means she knows the wind is blowing in a different direction. Blow Job taught her that.

Speaking of slander, RK, did you happen to see this?

Murtha Must Testify in Defamation Case

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Murtha-Suit.html

Yes, Sharon, I have seen that. Downhill from here for Murtha. Check this out, bbc defending and parroting terrorist propaganda to kids!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770

Check this out, too. The good ol' aclu keeping terrorists #1 on their priority list. Defending pedophiles being a close #2.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298407,00.html

Sharon and RK, thanks for the links.

The stories were all interesting and the one re Murtha was especially gratifying.

Grammie

No, philby. The constituition does not scare me. The fact that there are organizations like the aclu tripping over themselves to defend known terrorists, that scares me. Actually it doesn't scare me, it sickens me.

Cecelia:

"you take issue by speciously arguing that we don't know what Olbermann was thinking when he did such and such": I take issue with the utter arrogance that you people display by presuming to know what ANYBODY was thinking, something you are guilty of doing over and over again with all of your adversaries, including me. And now you just admitted it. This is NO different than presuming that O'Reilly is a racist based on borderline comments based entirely on one's perception of his past performance. In other words, if you now believe he is a racist, you probably always did, and if you don't, you were already convinced he wasn't. New information means nothing to either camp. All it does is stoke your tendency to either condemn or defend, based entirely on previous notions.

"I used to think you were obtuse" A classic definition of obtusity might be presuming to know what someone else is thinking, or what their motives are even better than the person of your contempt knows themselves.

The FACT remains that you are defending an example in which Olbermann turned out to be completely RIGHT, but your attack contines because you are presuming he did the right thing for the wrong reasons. You'd think you would choose your examples a little more wisely.

It's called BIAS...the very thing your side claims to loathe.

Goodbye again.

" ",

Good thing you didn't post your name. The Gestapo is on the lookout for you.

A classic definition of obtusity might be presuming to know what someone else is thinking, or what their motives are even better than the person of your contempt knows themselves.

posted by mike

By your own admission, you are obtuse and a hypocrite. How many posts do you think I could find where you claim you think you know what Olbermahn is implying or thinking or not thinking? A hundred? Maybe more? Secondly, obtusity isn't a word.

"Plus now that the GOP just blew off the black vote( and showed them what they think of them ) it's going to get scary bad for them !"

The (R)'s don't feel the need to pander. What's wrong with that?

Why,

Plus now that the GOP just blew off the black vote( and showed them what they think of them ) it's going to get scary bad for them !

-How did the GOP just blow off the black vote?

I have worked in a black community as a teacher during the Reagan/George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton (first term) 10 years ago and was the only white person in the room on most days. The young men cannot relate to white males and are sorely lacking in father figures. There is a mistrust of the white population in general and hatred of whites on some. I just read a quick history of the voting history of the Black population on Wikipedia because I was ignorant of the fact as to when the voting shift occurred. You are taking a complex issue and turning into Bush bashing.

-The article you gave is not exactly earth shattering concerning the outlook for the Republican party. Democrats will have power for awhile and then it will shift again. We need a third party.

Also, the Black community has no qualms about their faith. If it is indeed you who write the profanity using Jesus' name to irritate Cee, you doubtfully have ever been involved with the Black community intensively.

What I wrote above about teaching 10 years ago was poorly written. I got out of teaching 10 years ago. Actually, it's been longer than 10. I am getting old.

Mike said to you Cecelia:

"you take issue by speciously arguing that we don't know what Olbermann was thinking when he did such and such": I take issue with the UTTER ARROGANCE that YOU PEOPLE display by PRESUMING to know what ANYBODY [caps by Mike] was thinking, something you are GUILTY OF doing OVER AND OVER again WITH all of your adversaries, including ME...."

Caps, except for the one indicated, are mine.

I often find giving an example to go along with the points I am making can go a long way to shading in any gray areas and giving more definition to nuances. As it happens Mike gave us a tailor made example to flesh out his statement to you. No doubt he was far too modest to use his own words as an example. There is nothing, though, that prohibits me from honoring him with his brilliant example.

Mike said:

"No Jeff, I would never give a holocaust survivor a Nazi salute....but I would gladly give YOU [caps by Mike] one...because your DELUDED THINKING comes as close to how a NAZI THINKS as I've ever encountered.
Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 2:17 AM "

Note the definitive statement of what RK thinks, 'Nazi' thoughts*, and then the evaluation of RK's 'Nazi' thoughts* against untold numbers of Nazis and their THOUGHTS. The inevitable conclusion from Mike is that saluting RK with a Sig Heil is appropriate and justified because RK's "DELUDED THINKING comes as close to how a NAZI THINKS as I've [Mike] ever encountered."

Oh dear, this may not be a good example for Cecelia. Or for any of us for that matter.

I'll appeal to Mike to set us all straight.

Which of your contradictory statements, made in a short time, do you stand by?

Grammie

"Things are so bad for Bush and the GOP that this genius has now crossed over the line into RK territory with: THE NAME GAME !"

###
Um, mental midget, I have been renaming various posters for over a year now....it's a little quirk of mine, along with reminding you and the other leftist dingbats here at OW about the truths expressed by various people at the end of some of my posts. I renamed you mental midget a couple of months ago not realizing you change your name.....it does get a little confusing when people want to run away from what they post.

Oh and mental midget....my quirk to rename posters to amuse myself pales in annoyance to your quirks, including displaying utter ignorance about important issues.

Bush is fine....like you keep ignoring, he continues his policy untouched by your ruling elite's promises to change the policy. Why you ignore the fact that even as Bush pursues the right and honorable course in Irag, despite placing his selfish political costs way down the list, you, all by yourself, continue to harp on small and unimportant errors is a policy speech that now was almost 3 weeks ago! No one else has requested retractions. The "internets" were and remain quiet about those blaring lies! Why, mental midget?

Oh, and whiner Mike can defend himself if he chooses...He did a poor job with regards to Cecelia's excellent critique of his silliness Friday and I suspect he will not slink back anytime soon....unlike you, who seems to want to be abused some more.

I find this very easy and unchallenging, mental midget. You and wannawipe seem not to be able to get out of that little box you have put yourselves into regarding Iraq War funding. Oh, and wannawipe's obvious adolescent religious bigotry just seems to get worse and you seem willing to follow him down that dark corridor....how typical of you, mental midget.

Are you praying for Bush like Pelosi, mental midget? Or are you chanting to Tinkerbell, like Reid?

"Senate Democrats will never give in, never give in, never, never, never

"never give in, never, never, never

"never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never."

Democratic Senator Harry Reid, 9/24/07

###
You know these two leaders of your ruling class are REALLY effective! He, he, he.....

Maybe Pelosi should try this......

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/29/topless-moonbats-flag-burners-storm-dc/

###
Nice protest numbers, mental midget....less than 1,000 this weekend....Where are the millions against this war, mental midget....A lying president should be an easy target and we should be seeing a lot more about getting the criminal out of office before he does anymore damage! Where are those protesters? Why are you the only dingbat screaming Bush lied in his speech and demanding a retraction?

Please come back, mental midget...I would like to see some possible improvement in your ability to post cogent and consistent arguments regarding your worldview....I always have hope.

Oh dear mental midget, you made a huge gaffe.....all I have to say is remember the Mets next summer before the 2008 Presidential election...."choking" does not only happen in sports.....especially when leadership is lacking in an organization....

Praying, chanting, flip-flopping......great leadership techniques but poor replacements for principle, honor, sacrifice, risk taking and consistency.

Cut the funds!....bring the troops home now!

And this is my post today, the 1,574th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
KEITH OLBERMANN

Plus now that the GOP just blew off the black vote( and showed them what they think of them ) it's going to get scary bad for them !

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 30, 2007 1:51 PM

How did the GOP just blow off the black vote?

Posted by: Sharon at September 30, 2007 3:05 PM

>>

Philadelphia Phillies : National League (east) Champs!

NY Mets : one of the biggest chokes of all time !

It's a beautiful day !

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 30, 2007 5:41 PM

Most of the GOP candidates blew off the black voter debate.

Maybe they didn't tell you that on the Savage site, lame brain.

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 30, 2007 7:58 PM

That settles it. why/patsy/bob/anon is definately right. He said it's so and he claims it isn't on Savage's site. No need for anymore debating on this matter. Case closed.......

It sometimes fascinates me that when I return to this site after having made only one relatively brief comment in the last 30 hours, only to find that I have been addressed or referred to repeatedly within the last few hours by my some of my extreme right wing detractors.

I guess that means I actually do have an impact on this site.

So tonight, the first thing I see after returning from a weekend spent mostly on the road, is more nonsense from Cee:

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

Lets see, Cee (pun intended) asserted that I had done "a poor job relative to Cecelia's excellent critique of his silliness Friday": So, without any "critique" of his own to back it up, the most biased armchair warrier on this site has labeled my very coherent arguments as "silliness". What a surprise, .... that a known convoluted 'thinker' like Cee would label me as 'silly'... By jove, I assure you that I wouldn't have it any other way!

While it is certainly no surprise to me that Cee would pick Cecelia's arguments over mine, it doesn't exactly become him to use Jeff's tactic of simply dismissing a line of reasoning with with a stupid off the cuff label.

And Cee, as for your 'silly' assertion to you made to Why at 7:51 that you "suspect" I "will not slink back here anytime soon" .... What a stupid statement that was, considering the fact that, unlike yourself, I don't "slink" anywhere, and I have defeated you every time we have ever engaged in a protracted argument. Your only real weapon is persistance...which pretty much puts you on the same level with Jeff.

That said Cee, Cecelia IS certainly more of a challenge than YOU are, but still very much manageble

So go on Cee.....ABUSE ME PLEASE! .... I love reading and then shaking my head at your ongoing very illogical logical fallacies and Neoconish fantasies....or at least I love it when I find myself in the mood to read such nonsense. It also helps me to understand a little better the current wave of absolute insanity that has gained a temporary but nonetheless damaging grip on our great country.

But as you "abuse me" Cee, please leave off your inane out of context quotes that you continually force everyone to scroll past just to pick out your latest babble.

The damage that the far left democrat party has done in the last six years, to the nation, our Constitutional freedoms, our election process, our free press, the way judges are selected and confirmed, and to the collapse of faith in our government and political system, has become almost incalculable.

If the orange moron were acting on his own, and not as a direct monkey of the DNC, it would be laughable to see how far his stupidity and paranoia had carried him from his baseball card collection, and his Olber mommy.Howerver, the orange hued moron is not, and has not been acting on his own. Every word out of his mouth has been scripted, and has been done so at the behest of the far, left. Fat ass spews exactly what the far left wants, when they want it, and how they want it spewed, regardless of truth, decenctcy, and journalistic ethics .Fat ass, and his fellow useful idiots on the fringes of the radical left---but sadly now mainstream democrat party---has become the living talking points of the DNC----and its new owners�Move on.org, and Media matters, and the rest of the Soros� funded hate machinery.
Let�s look at their dangerous history. In 2000, the dems attempted a coup, to steal the election they had lost. Gore et.al went to court �to the Florida SC to bypass Florida election law�and have Gore declared winner of an election he lost. Recall the lie that Gore�s helpers in the media told about Gore winning Florida, despite that fact that the polls were still open in Florida. Why was it done? Why do you think, the heavy GOP panhandle regions on the Gulf were going to turn out heavy for Bush, putting Bush way over the popular vote counts and electoral votes�the dems knew this----so they got the networks to call Florida for Gore to kill voter turn out in Florida-----and all across the US. If Gunga Dan Rather and the rest of the dems�err anchors called Florida-----why would the GOP base turn out to vote? Its nonsense that they did not know about the time difference in Florid, they sure as hell knew about it in every other year they covered elections. Calling Florida while the polls were still open and the GOP base would have been going to the polls was a direct attempt to limit GOP votes, and an attempt to ensure Gore won an election he was losing.
After the democrat coup had been put down, and the damage done to not only the incoming Bush admin, but also to the Constitution and the rule of law, the dems moved on to trying to hamstring the winner of the 2000 presidential election by claiming Bush had cheated and his election was illegitimate ( despite the tons of evidence that it was the dems and Gore who cheated ).Then it was cries of voter fraud-----fraud in Florida in 2000 ( funny the outright theft of the Missouri Senate seat by the dems never made the news), voter fraud in 2002�sans any proof�but fat ass parroted the MS-DNC line ( again never a word about how the dems had cheated in NJ----replacing the crook Torricelli only when the poll showed he was a sure loser , despite the clear and unambiguous NJ election law. The Sorros party would have had no crisis of conscious in keeping a crook like Torricelli in the Senate ,despite his well known criminal activity just shows how power mad and corrupt the democrats are)of voter fraud. Never any proof, but fat ass opened his show night after night in his shrill voice only voicing the DNC talking points.2004---once again fat ass and the rest of the press---droned on about alleged voter fraud and GOP manipulation and keeping minorities out of the polls, just like the dems wanted them to do, again without a shred of proof. Gee, I wonder what that lie does to confidence in elections? Funny, in 2006, after the dems won , where was fat ass endlessly talking about voter fraud on his show, night after night, week after week?Oh wait, that was not in the script Jeffy Brock and George Sorros write for the most hated man at ESPN to read nightly on �Countdown� to no ratings. Speaking of ratings how it is the fat ass can come in dead last year after year and not lose his gig? Oh wait, fat ass does not have a show, it�s more of a DNC/ Sorros commercial (AND YOU THOUGHT MOVE.ON/DEMOCRATS GOT BREAK ON THE NY TIMES �BETRAY US �AD? Hmm I wonder what the free commercial fat ass stammers nightly would cost the dems if they were not getting it for free.) Then a show.
Then we have Senator Schumer�s new criteria for approving judges----they have to pass his ideological ph test. And if they don�t, well they never get out of committee. Why? Well they never get a vote ---since the threat of a filibuster puts them in limbo. Funny fat ass Olbertan thought this was peachy when Chucky and the Sorros gang�err sorry the dems were doing it. Yet last week fat ass was calling the Senate Gop obstructionist for following Schumer�s new rules? Still think fat ass is a �journalist� and not the talking monkey he really is?

The damage that the far left democrat party has done in the last six years, to the nation, our Constitutional freedoms, our election process, our free press, the way judges are selected and confirmed, and to the collapse of faith in our government and political system, has become almost incalculable.

If the orange moron were acting on his own, and not as a direct monkey of the DNC, it would be laughable to see how far his stupidity and paranoia had carried him from his baseball card collection, and his Olber mommy.Howerver, the orange hued moron is not, and has not been acting on his own. Every word out of his mouth has been scripted, and has been done so at the behest of the far, left. Fat ass spews exactly what the far left wants, when they want it, and how they want it spewed, regardless of truth, decenctcy, and journalistic ethics .Fat ass, and his fellow useful idiots on the fringes of the radical left---but sadly now mainstream democrat party---has become the living talking points of the DNC----and its new owners�Move on.org, and Media matters, and the rest of the Soros� funded hate machinery.
Let�s look at their dangerous history. In 2000, the dems attempted a coup, to steal the election they had lost. Gore et.al went to court �to the Florida SC to bypass Florida election law�and have Gore declared winner of an election he lost. Recall the lie that Gore�s helpers in the media told about Gore winning Florida, despite that fact that the polls were still open in Florida. Why was it done? Why do you think, the heavy GOP panhandle regions on the Gulf were going to turn out heavy for Bush, putting Bush way over the popular vote counts and electoral votes�the dems knew this----so they got the networks to call Florida for Gore to kill voter turn out in Florida-----and all across the US. If Gunga Dan Rather and the rest of the dems�err anchors called Florida-----why would the GOP base turn out to vote? Its nonsense that they did not know about the time difference in Florid, they sure as hell knew about it in every other year they covered elections. Calling Florida while the polls were still open and the GOP base would have been going to the polls was a direct attempt to limit GOP votes, and an attempt to ensure Gore won an election he was losing.
After the democrat coup had been put down, and the damage done to not only the incoming Bush admin, but also to the Constitution and the rule of law, the dems moved on to trying to hamstring the winner of the 2000 presidential election by claiming Bush had cheated and his election was illegitimate ( despite the tons of evidence that it was the dems and Gore who cheated ).Then it was cries of voter fraud-----fraud in Florida in 2000 ( funny the outright theft of the Missouri Senate seat by the dems never made the news), voter fraud in 2002�sans any proof�but fat ass parroted the MS-DNC line ( again never a word about how the dems had cheated in NJ----replacing the crook Torricelli only when the poll showed he was a sure loser , despite the clear and unambiguous NJ election law. The Sorros party would have had no crisis of conscious in keeping a crook like Torricelli in the Senate ,despite his well known criminal activity just shows how power mad and corrupt the democrats are)of voter fraud. Never any proof, but fat ass opened his show night after night in his shrill voice only voicing the DNC talking points.2004---once again fat ass and the rest of the press---droned on about alleged voter fraud and GOP manipulation and keeping minorities out of the polls, just like the dems wanted them to do, again without a shred of proof. Gee, I wonder what that lie does to confidence in elections? Funny, in 2006, after the dems won , where was fat ass endlessly talking about voter fraud on his show, night after night, week after week?Oh wait, that was not in the script Jeffy Brock and George Sorros write for the most hated man at ESPN to read nightly on �Countdown� to no ratings. Speaking of ratings how it is the fat ass can come in dead last year after year and not lose his gig? Oh wait, fat ass does not have a show, it�s more of a DNC/ Sorros commercial (AND YOU THOUGHT MOVE.ON/DEMOCRATS GOT BREAK ON THE NY TIMES �BETRAY US �AD? Hmm I wonder what the free commercial fat ass stammers nightly would cost the dems if they were not getting it for free.) Then a show.
Then we have Senator Schumer�s new criteria for approving judges----they have to pass his ideological ph test. And if they don�t, well they never get out of committee. Why? Well they never get a vote ---since the threat of a filibuster puts them in limbo. Funny fat ass Olbertan thought this was peachy when Chucky and the Sorros gang�err sorry the dems were doing it. Yet last week fat ass was calling the Senate Gop obstructionist for following Schumer�s new rules? Still think fat ass is a �journalist� and not the talking monkey he really is?

Then Janet asserts that I made two contradictory statements that were not "contradictory" in any way, and then asks which one of them I "choose"?

Easy Janet, ... I choose both!

Any more 'questions'?

Jeff: "Obtusity isn't a word."

Yes, Jeff, it very much IS a word.....Obtusity = Obtuseness.

You're not even right with your feeble and very hypocritical attempts to correct other people's English, you imbOcile you!.....:)

Jeff: "how many posts do you think I could find where you think you know what Olbermann is implying, thinking, or not thinking? A hundred, maybe more"

Easy answer! ..... None.

Now Jeff, before you go and knock your little peanut brain out compiling a list of posts claiming the opposite, please understand that all you will actually find is me simply responding to someone else's claim of clairvoyance by expressing alternative versions of what he COULD or MIGHT have been thinking....A big difference from claiming or implying that you KNOW what was on someone's mind.

Yes, whiner Mike, you took the bait....I know exactly what to post to get you to respond, Mike....

Why give someone control like that Mike? I noticed RK's techniques in posting something that you just can't resist and then.... bam....a lengthy post that always includes some statement on how you think you win the argument!

Mmmm, I don't think so, Mike. Just like mental midget's delusions about Bush despite the reality Bush has remained unchanged and untouched by the same pathetic tactics these last 3 years, you throw out "neocon," expecting that to win an argument.

Sorry Mike, the reality is that Iraq continues to be the battle of our generation, just like Vietnam was yours, and I hope America rises to the challenge this time....Just as my grandfather's generation did against the totalitarians in the '40's.

This is the knot in the stomach of people like you hoping America fails again so your guilt regarding leaving the totalitarians in South Asia supported by the American left, can be made easier for you....that is the "psychology" of what this is all about. Some of the baby boomers are a psychologically complicated bunch...seeing their parents win a violent conflict with numbers dead double of that in Vietnam but no one in American deciding to go on the side of the totalitarians during their struggle against Hitler. Mmmm...oh the contradictions in the boomers psyche and they are now some of the decision makers about freedom in our world!

That is why my McGovern's quote remains....a simple statement of failure on the part of the new "compasionate" progressive leftists of the 60's not willing to see that freedom is always important and worth supporting with force if necessary. McGovern abandoned his generation's commitment to democracy and freedom over selfish concerns of domestic political power and this is the struggle since.

Oh Mike, you are slipping away with this debate. Just like your ruling elite, you know now that the left may be responsible, again, for leaving people behind to fend for themselves in the face of despotism....

not Bush....
not Cheney....
not me....
not "neocons"....

but the American left, the same group that pulled the plug in Vietnam and allowed millions to die under leftist ideology.

Oh well. My hope is a change of heart of people like HRC, Obama or even Reid and Pelosi to support the continued mission for freedom and democracy in Iraq as they continue to struggle to respond to radicals like yourself and mental midget.....As they respond to fears of losing political power here in America....selfish ambition over principle....oh the struggle is hard for such weak people!

They choose not to pull the troops out prematurely despite terrorist activity in Iraq....That is my hope and was since 11/06....I predicted they would not because of their own selfish political calculations combined with the Constitutional powers afforded Bush that I KNEW we would not abandon and I have been proven right....I continue to hope that the left's radical nature continues to be marginalized for the benefit of the Iraqi people and our national security.

So Mike, have a great day as you struggle on whether to try to respond to the facts of my post....Mental midget seems to have decided long ago to ignore the facts and continue to bash Bush in a pathetic reaction that I again show has no effect!

I enjoy watching you avoid me then all I have to do is question your masculinity or bravery and you whip out a big, personal post. Mental midget is also easy to bait. I would suggest becoming less emotional and more rational as you read people's posts.

And again....my quotes....not out of context because they all, except the one at the end, pertain to the war, and can easily be researched for their applicability to my simple argument of the left avoiding real action by simply using GOOGLE....try it if you have any questions about them....even Sir Loin of Milquetoast's clear quote should apply to radicals like you Mike!

Stop the war, bring the troops home NOW!...Cut the Funds now!

And this is my post today, the 1,575th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
KEITH OLBERMANN

Oh dear anon, how long did that post at 8:33AM require you to think, 10 seconds?

How is Iraq not Vietnam?.....Ideologically, militarily, politically, how? Please expand on you opinion because I do not understand?

If you have any knowledge of my posts previously, I have claimed that ideologically, Vietnam was the same as every conflict in American history including now. Ignoring the ideology behind your enemy's actions is the mindset of most since the 1960's and is a threat to freedom everywhere.

Now, if you would like to think some more about your claim please do....but using catch-phrases like "quagmire" and "sending thousands of its brightest and best to their deaths" has no intellectual heft..... Persepctive without reflecting on ideology is intellectually dishonest. It is a flaw of the left, I know, but perhaps we can make some progress.

Mike said to you Cecelia:

"you take issue by speciously arguing that we don't know what Olbermann was thinking when he did such and such": I take issue with the UTTER ARROGANCE that YOU PEOPLE display by PRESUMING to know what ANYBODY [caps by Mike] was thinking, something you are GUILTY OF doing OVER AND OVER again WITH all of your adversaries, including ME...."

Caps, except for the one indicated, are mine.

I often find giving an example to go along with the points I am making can go a long way to shading in any gray areas and giving more definition to nuances. As it happens Mike gave us a tailor made example to flesh out his statement to you. No doubt he was far too modest to use his own words as an example. There is nothing, though, that prohibits me from honoring him with his brilliant example.

Mike said:

"No Jeff, I would never give a holocaust survivor a Nazi salute....but I would gladly give YOU [caps by Mike] one...because your DELUDED THINKING comes as close to how a NAZI THINKS as I've ever encountered.
Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 2:17 AM "

Note the definitive statement of what RK thinks, 'Nazi' thoughts*, and then the evaluation of RK's 'Nazi' thoughts* against untold numbers of Nazis and their THOUGHTS. The inevitable conclusion from Mike is that saluting RK with a Sig Heil is appropriate and justified because RK's "DELUDED THINKING comes as close to how a NAZI THINKS as I've [Mike] ever encountered."

Oh dear, this may not be a good example for Cecelia. Or for any of us for that matter.

I'll appeal to Mike to set us all straight.

Which of your contradictory statements, made in a short time, do you stand by?

Mike's response:

"Then Janet asserts that I made two contradictory statements that were not "contradictory" in any way, and then asks which one of them I "choose"?

Easy Janet, ... I choose both!

Any more 'questions'?

Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2007 10:13 PM "

Well that answer, and please note NO SARCASM, explains a lot!

Grammie

Then Janet asserts that I made two contradictory statements that were not "contradictory" in any way, and then asks which one of them I "choose"?

Easy Janet, ... I choose both!

Any more 'questions'?

Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2007 10:13 PM

No questions left for me.

Rather than honestly answering that you have extrapolated RK's mindset and philosophy into Nazi territory, based upon statements he has made (an extreme extrapolation on its face), you duck the question with the above garbage.

Why? Because you can't answer it without logically making allowances for your opponents to do the same thing about Olbermann's mindset and philosophy based upon what he has said and done.

THAT would put a kink in the ole "you don't know what he's thinking and you shouldn't speculate" speciousness in lieu of argument that, after six hours of your merely repeating it to anyone who challenges you, invariably culminates in you saying, "I know he's biased so you've gotten no where in this argument".

I'm sure you actually congratulate yourself on your "logic" after this sort of lameness.

There are any questions left, Mike. You couldn't ad lib a logical argument for not running with scissors.

Well that answer, and please note NO SARCASM, explains a lot!

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 1, 2007 9:29 AM

Indeed!

Excellent questions to Mike, Grammie. Of course he couldn't do anything else but ignore it or he'd have to admit that people come to conclusions about a person's mindset and even what they are thinking based upon the history and patterns they've revealed. That this board is filled with his own and others doing the same thing about Pres. Bush, VP Cheney, and even Cee, is something he'll easily ignore.

The "you don't know what he's thinking" stuff, is like a toy baseball bat to Mike. It's cute and shiny and it gives him the illusion of actually debating.

I think we should all reading his posts more often and start revealing his behavior towards opponents on this board that makes our treatment of Keith look like lovemaking in comparison of what is reasonable thinking.

And the post at 9:37AM took about 30 seconds of thought, hey anon....more generalizations and assumptions and my questions ignored......

"How is Iraq not Vietnam?.....Ideologically, militarily, politically, how? Please expand on you opinion because I do not understand?"

###
Ah but that's how it works with some posters here....Ignore easy questions that would only take a small amount of time to fashion a response to, and attack the poster. And on top of that, also be demogogic and imply I am dismissing people because I dismiss a "catch-phrase" tactic that I have shown time and again serves no other purpose but distraction from intellectual dishonesty.

Oh well, I tried.

"Our withdrawal was the result of opposition borne of the draft."

###
Opinion. Our withdrawal was multifactoral, none the least of which was the rise of the anti-American/procommunist radical left during the late 50's and 60's. The initial anti-war movement was solely from the academic centers on the coasts...the bastions of the new radical left which held great disdain for capitalism and representative governance. The academic leftist elite with their support for Maxist philosophy was the nidus for the movement....this was new to The United States and not present during previous conflicts.

The draft was only a weakness taken advantage of by the anti-American left. Most men drafted for the war served honorably and did not see their duty as any different than their fathers before them. The duty to serve in the protection of democratic, although flawed, allies in the face of dictiorial and repressive ideologues was valid and noble....However, the ideology of the enemy was that of the anti-war left and served as the reason why opposition to Vietnam started.

We see the same confusion today in the choice made by the same leftist ideologues regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. Use of force in the defense of national security and democracy is no longer an option to the fringe left and those dependant on their support are torn to do what is right and just despite the ideology. The idea of peace without justice should be wrong to those on the left but it is not and their choice with what to in Iraq shows this.

I once again point to the support the war had from the left's ruling elite and how it has eroded over the last four years. Why? I would think that as Al Queda has gotten more involved, the support to fight these totalitarians would grow....it has diminished because of the fundamental flaw in the left's world-view....no negative judgement on ways of governance (ideology) that represses people and enslaves them.

The United States is not an imperial power. Once Iraq is stable the people will have their ability to elect the representatives they choose and make the economic and social policies they find consensus. I have no reason to believe and there is no facts to show this is not the case. The left predicts that the oil will be confiscated and Iran will be attacked....well there is no evidence that this has, will or even may happen.

The occupation is easy to defend. Al Queda is there and it is a fact that the most spectacular and deadly attacks are being done my them, NOT the participants in the anti-government conflict (civil war). Since the insurgents and Al Queda share the imposition of the ideology of islamic theocracy (totalitarianism) through terrorism, fighting these WRONG ideologues is just and right, as much as it is against The Taliban, the North Koreans, The Viet Cong and NVA, The Nazis, Imperial Japan, The Soviets and if it happens, imperialist ChiComs, or the Iranians....the ideologies behind these movements is WRONG and we are right to stand against them in all ways....diplomatic, economic and if our national security is threatened and /or people's lives and freedoms are imperled, by justified and measured military force.

You seem to believe that we have to respect WRONG ideology....ideology that enslaves people's minds and lives and represses their religious freedom. Sorry, I do not join that radical left club....not in the 50's and 60's and not now.

So I guess that is the bottomline. I believe 100% in democracy and capitalism....I detest totalitarianism and economic systems that reserve centralized power to the few.

No circle, anon. Al Queda has made the tactical decision to defend Iraq and bring it once again into a totalitarian state.....this time under a theorcacy run by old men who believe it is okay to stone adulterers (women only), homosexuals and use terrorist tactics to promote hate.

Do you respect such an ideology and think it is ok to allow an ally asking for our help to be forced to live under such governance?

Your analogy to being fat but just giving in would be applicable if we to withdraw (give up) and allow a nondemocratic theocracy to overtake the current representative republic ally.

Sorry, anon, your logic is flawed. But I am glad you recognize the fact that Al Queda is the main criminal force in the anti-Iraqi and anti-American violence in Iraq now! We are making progress!

No only if Mike and mental midget would listen to facts.

Cee:

"I noticed RK's techniques of posting something that you just can't resist and then....bam....a lenghy statement on how you think you win the argument.".....Then why don't you try responding to MY arguments instead of reposting your tired old Neoconish fantasies about spreading "freedon and democracy" again? Arguments which I have responded to and thoroughly discredited MANY times before.

My wise father once made this analogy about how communist and other repressive regimes work: "repeat your lies often enough and people will start to believe it". That is ALL you ever do Cee, ... over and over and over again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cee: "You throw out "Neocon" expecting that to win an argument."....NO, I "throw" out "Neocon" because that describes perfectly your delusional fantasies. THEN, I follow with coherent argument which YOU completely ignor, and substitute a rational response with an emotional ad hominem attacks that includes such tripe as "whiner Mike" instead.

One example: I asked you a week ago how Vietnam was getting along today after we "failed" to "save" them, and received virtual silence from you about that.

"Arguments which I have responded to and thoroughly discredited MANY times before"

###
Only in your mind, Mike. I have posted time and again the statistics of demicide in South Vietnam after Saigon fell.

1 Million South Vietnamese dead at the hands of The North after The Democrats finalized the fund cuts and we totally withdrew from South Vietnam in 1975.

Not to mention what occurred in destablized Cambodia....But that is another entire argument.

The establishment of South Vietnamese re-education camps that taught leftist ideology to those not in agreement. The border of Vietnam closed, families split, no one allowed to leave formally with the resultant findings of secret refugees trying to flee by sea....many dying in the attempt.

Yes, Mike, there were serious repressions and murders for 25 years after The United States surrendered South Vietnam to the leftist North. You never discredited these facts nor came with a justification other than, "there was no choice."

There was. Victory. LBJ squandered it and left his position of authoirty in 1968 which allowed the radical left in this country the ability to thwart just and right US action in stopping terrorists and leftist ideologues in Vietnam.

Millions of voiceless South Vietnamese lie dead since 1975, Mike and your inability to ever rebutt such truth is laughable.

Next.

Start here, Mike, to review my facts,

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/05/countdown_with_266.php

Cecelia: "Excellent question to Mike."

OK, good point girls. You two spend most of your time on this board twisting around the words and perceived 'thoughts' of others instead of responding to the actual arguments....and then you pounce whenever you THINK that you detect a little hypocrisy.

If Jeff EVER were to dare to put forth an actual argument in place of using his typical sniping ad hominem attacks and labels in response to the arguments of others, then I probably never would have made that simple analogy.

My thought comparing RK's 'thoughts' to a typical Nazi's 'thoughts' were meant more to imply that there IS no 'thinking' involved in both cases.

If you consider THAT hypocritical, then so be it. After all, "hypocrisy" is the easiest charge of all to level against ANY ideological opponent when you have nothing else to offer.

And doing so is also the biggest cop out.

And finally , the silence remains deafening about now your side has ignored the fact that KO did exactly the right thing in his handling of two related news stories involving an unfounded personal smear attack.....simply because you believe he avoided joining in on a lynch mob because you know exactly what he was THINKING.

Cee: "Not to mention what happened in destabilized Cambodia....but that is another argument entirely."

Yes, thanks for admitting that Cambodia indeed WAS "another argument entirely".

But don't leave out the FACT that what eventually 'stabilized' Cambodia was the Khmer Rouge being routed out of there by their ideological enemy - Ho Chi Minh, .... the very SAME enemy we fought in Vietnam.

The only thing ANY of your Vietnam revisionist history arguments support is the very rational historical FACT that we should have kept our hands OFF of Vietnam in the first place, just like with Iraq.

The rest was (and will be) inevitable history.

"1 Million South Vietnamese dead at the hands of The North after The Democrats finalized the fund cuts and we totally withdrew from South Vietnam in 1975."

posted by cee

This is the fact I dared patsy/why/bob and mike to post last week on another thread. They showed their true colors with not addressing the question by me which read "How many people died when we deployed from nam?" patsy/why/bob came back with "a lot less than in Iraq" with not a shred of evidence, posting as anon, of course. They both diverted from that topic just as fast as I brougt it up. Thanks for putting it front and center, cee. I see mike avoided it again, though. He's too bust trying to dig himself out of the whole he put himself in with the "nazi" insults he defended. Classy. Then, he has the nerve to say it's my fault. Loser.

DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine!

I realize you are trying to fluff another of your boyfriends, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee.

How are those Farsi/Arabic lessons coming along?
How many Iraqi refugees are you two homos housing right now?

Not that there is anything wrong with housing refugees.

Jeff regarding Vietnam: "I see Mike avoided it again".

No Peabrain, I didn't "avoid" it. The number killed after we left Vietnam is NOT established fact and the estimates vary widely.

Jeff, do you understand the meaning of the word "inevitable"? Do you know what the phrase "we should have kept our hands off" means? Do you know what "demoralized military" refers to in regards to the Vietnam conflict?

Yes Jeff, bad things happened after we left Vietnam because that was the INEVITABLE outcome the moment we stuck out nose militarily in someone's else's civil war. But the problem was NOT our INEVITABLE pullout, it was the fact that we were there in the first place, which only caused far more people to die for the same INEVITABLE END RESULT.

My thought comparing RK's 'thoughts' to a typical Nazi's 'thoughts' were meant more to imply that there IS no 'thinking' involved in both cases.

If you consider THAT hypocritical, then so be it. After all, "hypocrisy" is the easiest charge of all to level against ANY ideological opponent when you
have nothing else to offer.

And doing so is also the biggest cop out.

And finally , the silence remains deafening about now your side has ignored the fact that KO did exactly the right thing in his handling of two related news stories involving an unfounded personal smear attack.....simply because you believe he avoided joining in on a lynch mob because you know exactly what he was THINKING.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 1:08 PM

Oh, that's quite an anaology to make, Mike. You don't think RK is thoughtful so you compare him to the folks who built gas chambers. Nice....

And why don't you think RK is thoughtful, I ask... Answer-- because he hasn't expressed any thoughts you deem as such.... In other words, you guaged his words and his past behavior and arrived at a conclusion about his thoughts....

No one's calling you a "hypocrite" for making deductions and for reasoning as normal people do, you idiot! What we ARE saying is that people, you included, naturally do and should do such things, in a REASONABLE manner.

For all the analysis of Olbermann, how many people here have done what you did to RK and compared him to a Nazi?

Although few people in the world are stupid enough to make the Nazi analogy and then claim that it's based upon some supposed thoughtlessness...on the part of the Nazis, how many folks have even that THAT towards Olbermann?

Now about Olbermann holding back the story until it was "confirmed". Since you've chosen to ignore my earlier point, that treating a story "right" when it's about a Democrat and treating a story "wrong" when it's about a Republican, IS the issue, let me address this idea you have that Olbermann handled the story rightly.

Republican members of the Senate complained about Pelosi's use of the airplane. THAT alone is a story. Their charges don't have to be "confirmed" as being accurate before news channels can report that there's a brouhaha by Senators over Pelosi and her plane. If criticism or accusations made by prominent people or leaders had to be confirmed BEFORE the fact that these people had issued them could be reported to the public, you would not have had much reporting of Plamegate prior to SC Fitzgerald's investigation.

I know enough about Olbermann, based upon his past actions and words, to know that had Sen. Kennedy or Rep. Reid made a charge or criticism against a prominent Republican, it would have aired on Olbermann and on all of cable. I know enough about Olbermann to know that although all the other channels would have been quick to add that the charge was unconfirmed, and would have had guests on to refute the charge, it's reasonable to be unsure if Olbermann would do the former and to be utterly sure he'd never do the latter...

I know it and I know enough about your thinking, based upon what you've said, to know that YOU know it too.

That doesn't take telepathy or any deep or special reasoning. If it did, YOU sure wouldn't be capable of doing it and occasionally...even you... can...

Posted by: Cecelia at October 1, 2007 2:13 PM

"The rest was (and will be) inevitable history"

###
Nice cop out, Mike....no, the rest was not inevitable. The pro-communist American leftist elite and their radical cousins, including anarchists began an intentional process to increase domestic opposition starting during Johnson's administration. Your swallowing of the left's pablum regarding their activity in the 1960's is a sad commentary on your education, Mike. I for one look at the era holistitcally and see political forces allied against a cause for good....one of freedom and democracy. Ideologically, you are endorcing the tactics and governance philosophy of the eventual victors, The North Vietnamese.

The same applies with the repression of radical islamic terrorists. The Iraqis, like The South Vietnamese, have acted in pursuit of self-governance. There are people, like the Viet-Cong, using terrorism and other evil cohersive tactics to stop that process....You call it inevitable and a failure yet there is no evidence that that is the case. I say ytou are wrong for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was what happened to the free South Vitenamese under the leftists after 1975.....you do a Pontius Pilate and wash your hands of it despite the fact that there was an alternative.....continue to fund the South and support their freedom militarily just like we did in South Korea.

No. The Democratic party succumbed to their radical fringe and abandoned The South to concentration camps and death.....

1 Million men, women and children, Mike.

Their deaths were not inevitable and I challenge you to prove your absurd point.

You can't.

Cecelia: "I know enough about you and your thinking, based on what you've said, that you know it to."

I suspect you are correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Olbermann got blasted for doing exactly the right thing and you assumed that the only reason he did the right thing is for the wrong reasons.

Why don't you reserve your attacks or Johnny defenses for KO doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons? And why didn't Johnny make a correction or apology when it turned out Olbermann was one of the few who actually got it right, regardless of the reason?

Cecelia: "and why don't you think RK is thoughtful"?

How many times do I have to answer that?

Jeff NEVER puts his thoughts and opinions out there to be systematically twisted, attacked, and dismantled by his opposition. He sits back and snipes and diverts, which ironically, is one of his favorite expressions.
He makes single sentence response to long factually based posts demanding "proof" for ideas in which he has provided neither an educated opinion nor a fact in an attempt to refute himself.

I know that you know that he does these things and that is why your defense of him is inexplicable.

Cee sez regarding me providing "proof" regarding Vietnam: "you can't"

And YOU either Cee, but Im the one who lived through it, not you.

- You can't "prove" your assertion that 1 million people died in retribution or in re-education camps in Vietnam as a direct result of our withdrawal or dropping funding.

- You can't "disprove" my own factually based argument that we were working with a VERY demoralized US military chock full of cynics about our mission based on what I actually OBSERVED as a serviceman, AND what other members of my own immediate family said who served in Vietnam several times, one of whom is no longer with us as a direct result of Agent Orange.

- You can't "prove" that spitting on servicemen was at the very worst, a very few isolated occurances, but you keep implying or posting that it was.

As you continue to demand 'proof' for things that can't possibly be proven while putting forth irrational revisionists theories that certainly can't be proven either, you show yourself to be nothing other than the radical that you keep labeling others to be.


- You can't "prove" that the fall of South Vietnam was caused directly by our removal of funding.

- You can't "prove" any of your laughable assertions that the people you call "leftist" are "pro-communists".

- You seem to be awfully vaque about whether you believe the fall of South Vietnam was due to our pullout, or whether it was ultimately due to funding denials to the South Vietnamese government. And you can't "prove" either one.

I know Cee....you read it all in a book somewhere...so it MUST be true!

Mike,

You don't read very well, do you?

Hint-- The above question, along with the question about RK (which I answered myself in my post by deducing YOUR thinking), was a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical questions are something you have a selective problem with as well....

Did you not read my rebuttal to your argument that Keith had done the right thing or are just acting like it's not there and scurrying to the only thing you feel good at-- attacking RK.

I do NOT think Keith did do the right thing by not reporting the story. Got that?

I don't object to Olbermann reporting on accusations, charges, theories, etc... as many other news shows do as well. I have objected that he only reports them if they are critical to conservatives and never allows rebuttal.

It IS news if senators make a charge against another senator-- whether that charge has been confirmed as factual or not.

Keith didn't do the right thing, he spiked a story that didn't suit him and then aired it when the story did suit him, just as he did the Iranian hostage story.

That's flaking not journalism.

You can say it's his show and he has a right to be as biased and as much a DNC party hack as he wishes to be....but that is a different argument from the one about our not being about to deduce his thinking.

We can. It's only too obvious, as you've admitted.

Poor Mike....he makes a grand unprovable statement of "inevitable history" despite actions of political forces dometically and he retreats to attacking me.

Well, whiner Mike, I will indulge you little by little because you ask a herculean task of me, but I will oblige.....

I will start with the propaganda that came out of Vietnam regarding you and your brave collegues being accused of atrocities....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010438

###
Your cynical attitude came from misinformation, Mike....and you still buy it. It is a shame because to learn from the manipulation, one must recognize the manipulation.

The pro-communist American left pounced on these reports of American imperialism. I will expand on their contribution and lies in latter posts....I just hope you keep an open mind to the poisonous ideology the Marxist left was and what they would do to prevail.

Cee

Here's a blog piece on the spitting stuff that you may find interesting.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/09/
when-the-legend.html#trackback

And Mike....if you agree to read this upcoming book, I will be glad to discuss it with you.....

"As for the eventual fall of South Vietnam--to be covered by Moyar in a planned second volume of his history:

"Mr. Moyar said the North Vietnamese only attempted their 1975 attack when convinced that America would not counter this violation of the Paris Agreement." And what gave the North this confidence? The Sun recounts the history: "Between 1972 and 1975, America's Congress passed a series of pieces of legislation that strangled the Republic of South Vietnam of resources and blocked any hope of an American air campaign.... These included the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1973, which blocked funding to 'support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam or South Vietnam'; the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1974, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, which went so far as to prevent third-party countries from assisting the South Vietnamese so long as they received American aid."

###
You can read this valid perspective at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_left_loses_the_vietnam_war.html

And Mike, I will continue to post regarding the forces at work to fashion the withdrawal of US Troops prematurely out of South Vietnam.....be patient....it is a lot of information.

I love this quote:

"By 1972 most of the south was judged secure and the South Vietnamese armed forces were able to throw back the Easter Offensive with help from lots of American aircraft but few American soldiers. If the US had continued to support Saigon with a small troop presence and substantial supplies, there is every reason to believe that South Vietnam could have survived.... But after the signing of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, we all but cut off South Vietnam, even while its enemies across the borders continued to be resupplied by their patrons in Moscow and Beijing.
This thesis is still somewhat new and controversial--but there is enough truth to it that it is beginning to stick. Whatever the failures of American strategy in Vietnam, there is no doubt that the anti-war left pushed for American failure and accomplished it by persistent and vigorous legislation. And that is the crucial issue. If the architects of the Vietnam War in the Johnson administration can be criticized (as Moyar does) for not doing enough to win the war, the later anti-war left actively pursued American defeat and humiliation as their goal. They didn't merely want us to withdraw; they wanted us to lose, and they did whatever was necessary to make sure that happened."

###
"[The Left] didn't merely want us to withdraw; they wanted us to lose, and they did whatever was necessary to make sure that happened."

Let's read this new book together Mike....how about it?....

"Mark Moyar, author of "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954 –1965," is part of a new wave of historians challenging the leftist version. Now at work on a book that tells the story of the second half of the war, Mr. Moyar insists that an Easter Offensive-style bombing campaign would have at least delayed the defeat of South Vietnam for a significant period of time and perhaps even put the North Vietnamese on their heels for a while."

http://www.nysun.com/article/47639?page_no=2

###
Mr. Moyer's first book, "Triumph Forsaken" was fascinating. I encourage you to research the real history of Vietnam, Mike, not just accept what the leftist ruling class wants you to believe.

An anecdotal account from a former leftist radical, David Horowitz:

"I say 'socalled antiwar movement,' because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by America’s war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a Communist victory and an American defeat.

"Along with thousands of other New Leftists, I was one who crossed the line between dissent and actual treason. (I have written an account of these matters in my autobiography, Radical Son). I did so for what I thought were the noblest of reasons: to advance the cause of "social justice" and "peace." I have lived to see how wrong I was and how much damage we did especially to those whose cause we claimed to embrace, the peasants of IndoChina who suffered grievously from our support for the Communist enemy. I came to see how precious are the freedoms and opportunities afforded by America to the poorest and most humble of its citizens, and how rare its virtues are in the world at large."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={BD0953E6-D84E-43DD-963E-4E5730A7D9C6}

###
More to come.

Some more truth about Ho Chi Minh's true connection to communism and the fallacy that the struggle was "nationalism:"

http://www.triumphforsaken.com/index.php?pr=Excerpt

###
The leftists of American academia have a real dog in this fight Mike, and it is one of ideology. The facts you claim are accepted are not beyond argument, especially since the fall of The Soviet Union and the ability to see records that were previously not available.

The NVA and The Viet-Cong were communists and their atrocities were overlooked and excused by the sympathetic American left both in the media and now, historically. It is a shame that those who profess they rely on facts actually use lies to maintain a whitewash of one of the worse cases of genocide in the 20th century.

Poor cee...on any given day he can be found here toiling away and spinning his yarn to anyone who he thinks will believe him.

>I detest totalitarianism and economic systems that reserve centralized power to the few.

Posted by: cee at October 1, 2007 12:17 PM

NO YOU DON'T! YOU SUPPORT IT!

If your statement was a true statement, instead of just convenient security blanket to snuggle up to, you wouldn't be such a blind Bushbot, cee...

What you SAY you support is the opposite of what you ACTUALLY support.

The conservative party used to actually support conservative ideology until it was hi-jacked by the religious right, which I happen to know you support.

Small Government? Uh, No...

Fiscal Responsibility? Uh, No...

Uphold the Constitution? Uh, No...

Protect personal Liberty? Uh, No...

Nation of Laws? Sure, unless you're the one 'signing' them...

Oh, and let's not forget that pillar of conservative thought called 'nation building.'

You are a fascist christian elitist who detests ideology you THINK is liberal because you THINK it will erode the power you THINK you have.

...And you're right cee, because it is and it will, and you don't stand a chance!

_________________________________________________

>Finally, you say I am a war-monger. Perhaps in the end I am.

Posted by: cee at August 3, 2007 3:34 PM

Where is Sir Loin of Milquetoast to defend the leftist totalitarian in Vietnam?......You're on your own here Mike.....

"The French Socialist party would be the stepping stone that took Ho to the Communism of Marx and Lenin. Coming from a country wrapped in authoritarian and communitarian traditions, Ho was not repelled by the lack of democracy and individualism in Soviet Communism, as many of the French Socialists were repelled. Ho later said that he went from being a Socialist to a Communist upon reading Lenin’s 'Theses on the National and Colonial Questions.' He recounted,

"'In those Theses, there were political terms that were difficult to understand. But by reading them again and again, finally I was able to grasp the essential part. What emotion, enthusiasm, enlightenment and confidence they communicated to me! I wept for joy. Sitting by myself in my room, I would shout as if I were addressing large crowds: ‘Dear martyr compatriots! This is what we need, this is our path to our liberation!’ Since then, I had entire confidence in Lenin.'

"What was in those inspirational Theses? Lenin’s Theses laid out a strategy for revolution in colonial and non-European countries, a subject neglected in previous Communist treatises. The struggle against colonialism, Lenin maintained in the Theses, was a key component of Communism’s quest to end the enslavement of the world’s people by a small number of Western capitalists. According to Lenin’s treatise, the proletariat would first collaborate with the native bourgeoisie to destroy the colonial powers, then the dictatorship of the proletariat would eradicate the bourgeoisie along with “bourgeois prejudices” such as national and racial animosities, and would also destroy the “medieval influences of the clergy, the christian missions, and similar elements” and the “petty bourgeois pacifist confusion of the ideas and the policy of internationalism.” Lenin called for “the closest union between all national and colonial liberation movements and Soviet Russia,” and demanded “the subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle in one nation to the interests of that struggle on an international scale.”

Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 by Mark Moyar

Jeff NEVER puts his thoughts and opinions out there to be systematically twisted, attacked, and dismantled by his opposition. He sits back and snipes and diverts, which ironically, is one of his favorite expressions.
He makes single sentence response to long factually based posts demanding "proof" for ideas in which he has provided neither an educated opinion nor a fact in an attempt to refute himself.

I know that you know that he does these things and that is why your defense of him is inexplicable.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 3:24 PM

Wow! talk about being "vague." And, factually untrue.

And what about this hero of the left, Mike?......

Halberstam

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI2N2RhOTRjMTQxZGY2NWE0NmYzOWJjOWE4ZDhhMjg=

###
I would like to know your opinion on the fact that there are very little press documented stories of American heroism in The Vietnam War compared to previous conflicts, Mike....Why do you think that is.....Could one theory be a bias against the American forces due to ideology?

Just a thought.

And Mike.....

"Three journalists handed down the standard version of the Vietnam War in three bestselling tomes. The first two, David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" (1972) and Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History," (1983) each sold more than 1 million copies, while the third, Neil Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie" (1988), received the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award.

"These books have profoundly influenced almost everything else that has been written about the Vietnam War. Because of the iconic status of these journalists and the political inclinations of the intelligentsia, the three books received few serious challenges – prior to the publication last summer of my "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965."

"Historians such as Guenter Lewy, Lewis Sorley, and Michael Lind have also effectively contested some of the journalists' basic interpretations, and antiwar historians have produced more modest modifications, but the Halberstam-Sheehan-Karnow rendition of the war has remained dominant.

"One reason for the durability of their version is that the endless repetition by other commentators produced the impression that it had to be right. Earlier, when writing a book on counterinsurgency in the latter years of the war entitled "Phoenix and the Birds of Prey," I, too, presumed that the first half of the war had been covered exhaustively. Only after many subsequent forays into archives and Vietnamese-language sources did I discover that the standard narrative of the critical early years was terribly wrong.

"The books of Messrs. Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow can be fully understood only in the light of the authors' actions in Vietnam during 1962 and 1963. Their writings were key elements in the drama, particularly in the summer and fall of 1963 when the US Embassy instigated a coup against South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.

###
More at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0122/p09s01-coop.html

"I detest totalitarianism and economic systems that reserve centralized power to the few.

Posted by: cee at October 1, 2007 12:17 PM

"NO YOU DON'T! YOU SUPPORT IT!

###
Prove I do, wannawipe....Prove I support anything but democracy and capitalism....

Find a post where I have been inconsistent with my views, wannawipe.

And do not try the old cop-out of Bush bashing....it does not hold water. The rabid left's assertions that Bush has done anything unconstitutional, undemocratic or un-American is opinion and I once again repeat my challenge.....

Impeach the man if he has stripped people of their constitutional rights...otherwise it is worthless tripe. No one should be allowed to remain the chief executive of The United States of America if....

They did not "Uphold the Constitution?"

They did not "Protect personal Liberty?"

Or if they did not function as under a "Nation of Laws?"

Sorry wannawipe.....you have a big job ahead of you.....I have never endorced one policy that was totalitarian.....But you have, wannawipe, in your demand that The United States immedietely withdraw from Iraq and allow radical terrorist theocrats to take over a country that has chosen to govern itself with representative and democratic rule.

Easy, wannawipe....all to easy. Also address your pathetic leftist worldviews regarding The Vietnam War.....whiner Mike seems to have given up (bait).....

Mike, let me try to get this straight in my mind.

So you now claim that when you attacked RK with your statement that you would be glad to give him a 'Sig Heil' because of what you claimed to know was his THINKING and that those THOUGHTS were so close to so many NAZIS" THOUGHTS, that we must assume you also knew, that we just misunderstood you, poor baby.

What you really meant was that RK and Nazis DON'T THINK:

"My thought comparing RK's 'thoughts' to a typical Nazi's 'thoughts' were meant more to imply that there IS no 'thinking' involved in both cases."

So, you have made a 180% U Turn that when you expounded on and made judgments on the THOUGHTS of RK and any number of NAZIS what you really really only meant was:

"That THEY, RK AND NAZIS, DON"T HAVE ANY THOUGHTS."

If only that were true of the inventor of Cylklon B Gas Chambers, the Crematorium Ovens, the work camps, the logistical Eichmanns (sp), etc. And that is not even scratching the surface of what Nazis' wreaked upon the peoples of Europe and the world.

You and your ilk often hold yourselves up as deeply sensitive men who feel every death morally and emotionally while charging "we people' with a callous disregard for suffering and loss lives for partisan political reasons.

Yet you and your ilk have no problems with cavalierly accusing others of being fascists, Nazis, death mongers because you disagree with and/or have a personal antipathy to them.

I have trouble believing that anyone with even a shallow knowledge of the history of Fascism, Nazism and Communism could bandy these terms around like a rubber ball on a paddle for fun.

Mike, any way you slice it or dice it you owe RK an apology. Calling someone a Nazi or accusing them of being Nazi like is a very serious charge and does not belong in the realm of gotcha cause I don't like ya for honest men.

Grammie

KEWL! Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee IS trying to pin other's posts on me, your humble journalist.

Nope. Never saw it comming. Nope.

ROFLMAO!

Posted by: KEWL! Pastor DUMBFUCK IS trying to pin other's posts at October 1, 2007 6:56 PM

Thanks, Patsy...

Oh, I forgot wannawipe, you along with other posters change their names in order to hide from their previous pathetic posts....ok....my mistake.....I should have realized it was not you because of the lack of profanity and EXCLAMATION POINTS WITH CAPS ON!!!!!!!......

....I'll just ask then......

Who posted at 6:22 PM?

Janet, I have some answers for you. Do me a favor and don't dismiss ANY of them or minimize one over another:

As for the 'Nazis don't think' analogy: How much deep thought or reflection do you think a typical German storm trouper or Hitler Youth member would have had? Don't you think this kind of subversive thought would have not only been discouraged, but severely punished? YOU may think Jeff has exibited a thought process beyond that of an indoctrinated follower of the extreme right, but I sure don't.

As for your assertion that I owe Jeff an apology. You have GOT to be kidding! After all the unfounded sniping attacks he has pulled on me? After falsely accusing me of posting as others for MONTHS! You dismiss all that? You might think that it was all in fun, but I beg to differ. No Janet, Jeff still owes me an apology, not the other way around.

Also Janet, how is it so much worse when someone like me suggests someone else is exibiting Nazi like behavior than it is for someone to accuse me of being a "communist", or the slightly less offensive "socialist"? I've heard that so many times I want to puke sometimes.

Trust me Janet, I take the horrors of the Nazi's and the Holocaust as seriously as anyone, and I doubt if anyone has more admiration and reverence for the survivors of that black smear on human history than I do. That is why I think it is imperative for each and evey human being on this earth to not only study the Nazi's, but to thouroughly understand how it could easily happen again....how it could happen to THEM....if they don't understand the warning signs....one of them being ignorance.

On that note, did you hear the results of a recent poll that the majority of High School students in America believe that we fought on the side of the Germans against the Russians in WWII? If THAT doesn't make you fear for the future of our country, I don't know what will.

Cee, I agree that the 6:22 PM post was apparently a very pale imitation. But that should not be your problem.

If these cowardly fools want to play games and hide behind multiple aliases it is not not our job to struggle to differentiate between cowardly fools.

As far as I am concerned what one cowardly fool says goes for every other cowardly fool.

Live by your anonymity then die by your anonymity.

Grammie

"High School students," Mike?....Were these from the government run schools you so proudly support and want to mimic our delivery of healthcare on, Mike?....

Just like that great postal service?

Yeah, the government is really doing a great job with educating our children, aren't they? Let's allow them to run our healthcare system.

Cecelia: "I do NOT think Obermann did the right thing by not reporting the story. Got that?"

Got it Cecelia...but you ignor the fact that I already 'had it'.

I disagree. It was a reprehensible personal smear story from the beginning, and we would be better served if all such stories were 'spiked' until more reliable information became available.

Trust me Janet, I take the horrors of the Nazi's and the Holocaust as seriously as anyone, and I doubt if anyone has more admiration and reverence for the survivors of that black smear on human history than I do. That is why I think it is imperative for each and evey human being on this earth to not only study the Nazi's, but to thouroughly understand how it could easily happen again....how it could happen to THEM....if they don't understand the warning signs....one of them being ignorance.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 7:19 PM

Then as Grammie so devastating put it, being the sensitive soul that you are.... you should know better than to use such an analogy in such a petty manner.

I'd wager that when someone here has called you a communist, they've rightly or wrongly meant that you aren't a capitalist, not that you're the type of person who would have supported the Gulags.

But here you are insisting that Grammie not "minimize" your arguments when you've made an analogy that likens a blogboard foe to a storm trooper!

Brandon does NOT say "hello" 7:12 pm. If I were going to say anything to Olbermann, you or your fellow Olbyloons it would be "Go to Hell"--big difference.

And the rules of the game are this-the one who invokes the Nazi comparison first loses. That would be Olby. But we already knew he was a big loser, just like his loser fans.

Cee: "Just like that great postal service".

Cee, THIS is a good example of why talking to you is like pissing in the wind. You ignor FACTs in favor of your own preconceived notions and stereotypes.

I've already explained to you how I ship hundreds of packages each and every month. Some of these packages are worth thousands of dollars. Over a period of 8 years, I have gradually shifted most of my shipping from UPS to the Post Office.

My criteria for doing this was STRICTLY a business decision based on who gave the best combination of performance, price, customer service, and package handling.

Despite that, you have obviously dismissed everything I've said on the subject, even though I AM in a position to know, and my very survival might depend on choosing the best shipping service. You dismiss it because it doesn't comfortable fit within your 'house of card' worldview that nothing can be efficiently managed by the government.

Don't ever let facts get in your way Cee.

I disagree. It was a reprehensible personal smear story from the beginning, and we would be better served if all such stories were 'spiked' until more reliable information became available.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 7:35 PM

I'm rather glad you aren't running any media operations because I think the mere fact that senators engaged in what you call a "reprehensible personal smear story" ought to be newsworthy, from the beginning charge onward.

Thankfully the vast majority of the media concur (and that includes Keith Olbermann if the charge happens to be against a Republican)...

I'm

Cecelia: "But here you ae insisting that Grammie not "minimize" your arguments when likening a blogboard foe to a storm trooper!"

Well obviously you haven't grasped my arguments that the typical rank and file storm trooper was probably not really much of a Nazi ideologue so much as they were a victim of the time and place they happened to live. I'm speaking of the dangers of taking everything your government feeds you at face value - and - the dangers of ignoring or minimizing the threat from within while allowing themselves to be focused on foes from without, ... both real and imagined.

Well obviously you haven't grasped my arguments that the typical rank and file storm trooper was probably not really much of a Nazi ideologue so much as they were a victim of the time and place they happened to live. I'm speaking of the dangers of taking everything your government feeds you at face value - and - the dangers of ignoring or minimizing the threat from within while allowing themselves to be focused on foes from without, ... both real and imagined.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 7:57 PM

Well, it's interesting to see that the "I was only following orders" defense works for you, Mike and that you now seem to have no difficulty not only extrapolating RK's "nonthoughts" as being the mindset of a "brainwashed" stormtrooper (try reading up on Nuremberg...) to making allusions that support for Pres Bush and for the Iraq War is equal to turning your head on Krystal Nacht or when the train loads of Jews went by.

By all means... keep explaining yourself.

My favorite issue....again....."Senate Approves $150B in War Funding"

WASHINGTON (AP) - Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

###
Oh yes, the left's ruling class representative Senator Reid, the Limbaugh killer!.....and Tinkerbell caller......

"Senate Democrats will never give in, never give in, never, never, never

"never give in, never, never, never

"never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never."

Democratic Senator Harry Reid, 9/24/07

###
I wonder if Pelosi is praying for the war funding to be cut?....How about that wanawipe?....She praying to the fairy tale god in the sky?

Cut the funds!....bring the troops home now!

And this is my post today, the 1,575th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
KEITH OLBERMANN

Unfortunately for humanity, the "I was only following orders defense" has worked throughout human history, and explains how every warmonging despot who ever lived was able to put together the necessary army to to turn evil dreams into reality.

As for your Iraq war analogy to the holocause, that WAS a little extreme, ... but remember what I said about warning signs. Thnik about that the next time you hear the war drums beating regarding Iran.

Unfortunately for humanity, the "I was only following orders defense" has worked throughout human history, and explains how every warmonging despot who ever lived was able to put together the necessary army to to turn evil dreams into reality.

As for your Iraq war analogy to the holocause, that WAS a little extreme, ... but remember what I said about warning signs. Thnik about that the next time you hear the war drums beating regarding Iran.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 8:31 PM

The only thing I'm thinking is that you're a fool, an extremist, and a hater.

"The only think I'm thinking is that you're a fool, an extremist, and a hater."

Now I see you've hit that brick wall used by so many on this site. You just resorted to calling me irrational names in place of a rational argument.

It's always fun to get on this site and find out I'm all these terrible things that everyone who knows me personally knows I'm anything but.

Nice!

Trust me Janet, I take the horrors of the Nazi's and the Holocaust as seriously as anyone, and I doubt if anyone has more admiration and reverence for the survivors of that black smear on human history than I do. That is why I think it is imperative for each and evey human being on this earth to not only study the Nazi's, but to thouroughly understand how it could easily happen again....how it could happen to THEM....if they don't understand the warning signs....one of them being ignorance.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 7:19 PM

This brought to us by the SAME person that thinks A-Jad is NOT a dangerous person and didn't know that the person aka "little hitler" is A-Jad. Things that make you go hmm.

Cee: "Yeah the government is doing a great job with educating our children, aren't they? Lets allow them to run our healthcare system."

Another of Cee's irrational arguments to contract out public education (but still keep it publicly funded).

Cee chooses to ignor my first hand experience that suggests the government owned Post Office is doing a superior job than it's private competion.

But let's take it a step further: Cee is apparently all for the government run US military. According to Cee, that is one thing the government can handle....and Cee is right. The Private contracors in Iraq are apparently creating most of the financial and public relations problems for us there.

Another of Cee's cherished beliefs 'debunked'!

As for your assertion that I owe Jeff an apology. You have GOT to be kidding! After all the unfounded sniping attacks he has pulled on me? After falsely accusing me of posting as others for MONTHS! You dismiss all that? You might think that it was all in fun, but I beg to differ. No Janet, Jeff still owes me an apology, not the other way around.

posted by mike

Let's see here. Nazi.......name.......Nazi.........name. That settles it. Accusing someone of posting under multiple names has GOT to be wrose than calling a Native American or anyone a Nazi. Must be true, mike says so......

"This brought to us by the SAME person that thinks A-Jad is not a dangerous person and didn't know that person aka "little Hitler" is A-Jad AKA. Things that make you go hmm."

Neither of those opinions came from me. I'm fairly certain you have taken another nuanced opinion and turned into something more extreme.

It's funny...Janet and Cecelia think I'm too harsh on you, but you keep publicly lying about what I've said. I still don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of sheer stupidity.

Now I see you've hit that brick wall used by so many on this site. You just resorted to calling me irrational names in place of a rational argument.

It's always fun to get on this site and find out I'm all these terrible things that everyone who knows me personally knows I'm anything but.

Nice!
Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 8:42 PM

Don't you dare make allusions to post war Germany when mentioning the Administration (government), the war, and policy, the people who support all three, and then say I'm being extreme for frankly summing up what you're suggesting.

You have made the most irrational of arguments (one that was dismissed and disgraced during WWII war trials) in order to justify your characterizing another man on this blogboard a way that is terrifically insulting to him and to the people who suffer under Nazis.

If your friends see you as only the sensitive, compassionate and "I CARE!" soul that you so frequently describe yourself as being, it's because there's a whole other side they haven't seen.

You and what you really think of conservatives is my 2nd wake-up call on this board. AAP was my first.

I get you folks now. Loud and clear.

patsy/why/bob, Why have you not posted this? I'm disappointed in you..... Think Olbermahn will bring this up? Put his famous spin on it?

BAGHDAD - The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year.

It's funny...Janet and Cecelia think I'm too harsh on you, but you keep publicly lying about what I've said. I still don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of sheer stupidity.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:00 PM

You going to make me re post it?

But let's take it a step further: Cee is apparently all for the government run US military. According to Cee, that is one thing the government can handle....and Cee is right. The Private contracors in Iraq are apparently creating most of the financial and public relations problems for us there.

Another of Cee's cherished beliefs 'debunked'!

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 8:52 PM

Just ignoring the fact that you really (yes, really!) think you've proven something by merely trelating your personal experience with the U.S. Post Office, let's put something else out there for your brilliant and logical...mind to process.

If I own a private business and am constantly being taken advantage of and ripped off by other people in private business, should it not occur to me that my own systems and methods of doing business were not stellar?

Does it not occur to me that I would HAVE to come to this conclusion, look at myself, look at my systems, or I would go out of business because I wouldn't have the money to operate.

Now imagine that I had a yearly influx of someone else's money....just to keep on keeping on.... being ripped off. I even have customers like you to tell me its those other darn capitalist's fault...

Try again with the "debunking" there... Mr. Logic...

Jeff: "You going to make me re post it?"

Where did you get the moronic idea I could "make" you do anything?

Lets see how this is going to go: Jeff will post the very accurate but nuanced post I made ACCURATELY stating that amadinejad posesses very little actual power within his own country...he doesn't even control his own military.....and that is what Jeff is going to use to back up his claim that I said he "wasn't dangerous"....problem is, he IS dangerous but he STILL doesn't have any real power within his own country. He is as dangerous as we make him out to be....it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

That said, I don't have a clue what Jeff is talking about when he said I didn't recognize who they were talking about when they called him "little Hitler"?

But Cecelia....I DO operate a business. I am arguably the purist entrepeneur on this blog.

The rest of your post was so convoluted and made so many assumptions that it would be impossible to respond to.

"(one that was dismissed and disgraced during WWII war trials)":

Really! I wasn't aware that we had tried ALL of the rank and file Nazi followers, sympathizers, and soldiers for war crimes.

Thanks for enlightning me.

"This brought to us by the SAME person that thinks A-Jad is not a dangerous person and didn't know that person aka "little Hitler" is A-Jad AKA. Things that make you go hmm." RK

Neither of those opinions came from me. I'm fairly certain you have taken another nuanced opinion and turned into something more extreme.

It's funny...Janet and Cecelia think I'm too harsh on you, but you keep publicly lying about what I've said. I still don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of sheer stupidity.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:00 PM

What is it about you Rico that makes you such a warmonger? Have you seen war? do you really, really know ANYTHING about it?

[[["I'll bet you think Ahmadinejad is dangerous, but God help the world if anyone who thinks like you ever come to power."]]]

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 11:48 PM

But Cecelia....I DO operate a business. I am arguably the purist entrepeneur on this blog.

The rest of your post was so convoluted and made so many assumptions that it would be impossible to respond to.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:31 PM

You're just a legend in your own mind for sure, but I'd venture to say it's highly arguable since for many years I assisted in helping my husband run the business that is our chief livelihood and worked at my own job simultaneously.

I"m sure there are others here to who have run or are running businesses, Mike.

As to the other, you argued that private businesses getting the better of govt puts THEM in a bad light. How's THAT for convoluted!

Really! I wasn't aware that we had tried ALL of the rank and file Nazi followers, sympathizers, and soldiers for war crimes.

Thanks for enlightning me.
Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:37 PM

Not all stormtroopers were tried but of the ones who were, none of them got by with blindly following orders excuse you've laid out for such people.

But you meant to imply that RK was one of the stormtroopers who wasn't guilty of a war crime. Perhaps one who just rousted the Jews out the attic so they could be hauled to the camps.

Yes.... that's better, Mike....

The astounding part is that you really think this way!

"As to the other, you argued that private businesses getiing the better of govt puts THEM in a bad light. How's THAT for convoluted!": I'm not really sure what you are referring to here, but it IS kind of an indictment of contractor and supplier relationships.

Before I started my own business, I worked for a company for twenty years that sold to government agancies. They thrived by taking advantage of the end of fiscal year "use it or loose it" requirement placed on most agencies, that required them to spend all of that year's budget or loose the unspent portion for the next year.

Trust me, I understand government waste. I also understand how wasteful private entities CAN be as well. I believe those kind of problems are neither endemic or insurmountable.

Not at all, Cecelia, Jeff obviously hasn't done anything because the phenomena hasn't advanced far enough along for that to happen.

In your growing hysteria, you keep forgetting that I am refering to warning signs.

Not at all, Cecelia, Jeff obviously hasn't done anything because the phenomena hasn't advanced far enough along for that to happen.

In your growing hysteria, you keep forgetting that I am refering to warning signs.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 10:15 PM

You're comparing the U.S. under Bush to the beginning of pre-WWII Germany and you're calling me hysterical?

You're calling RK a Brownshirt without an outlet (of yet) and THAT'S measured and thoughtful of you...THAT'S acceptable reasoning on your part when trying to deflect from Grammie pointing out the obvious--- that you make assumptions about the thinking of other's just as everyone else does!

Again, you're a fool, an extremist, and a hater.

Not at all, Cecelia, Jeff obviously hasn't done anything because the phenomena hasn't advanced far enough along for that to happen.

In your growing hysteria, you keep forgetting that I am refering to warning signs.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 10:15 PM

Mike situations haven't progress to the point where you feel it necessary to kill people ala the Weathermen and Tim McVeigh, but that's your mindset.... not that I'm calling you a murderer..."not at all".... yet

Cecelia:

"You're comparing the U.S. uner Bush to the beginning of pre-WWII Germany and you're calling me hysterical?." Your response is similar to the typical right wing reaction that doesn't seem capable of grasping nuance. I wouldn't define a child abusing small animals as a 'murderer' but I would be concerned about what might be on that child's agenda when he becomes an adult. Remember what I've said about warning signs, and also remember that there are different kinds of disasters that can be visited on your own country, even by those with the best of intentions.

"You're calling RK a brownshirt without an outlet": Not at all, but I AM saying that Jeff will swallow every single line fed him by his own government and might be the last to recognize that he is being led over the cliff. Get it yet?

"that you make assumptions about the thinking of others just as everyone else does": You've made your point about that and I concede. We ALL are guilty of misinterpreting the thoughts of others....some of us more than others.

"And again, you're a fool, an extremist, and a hater": And again, that is your ignorant hysterical opinion. I hate no one and I never knew I was an "extremist" until I got on this blog....A blog that is run by extremists, for the benefit of other extremists, against someone they peceive to be an extremist....and you expect me to be disturbed when you call me an extremist?

"You're calling RK a brownshirt without an outlet": Not at all, but I AM saying that Jeff will swallow every single line fed him by his own government and might be the last to recognize that he is being led over the cliff. Get it yet?

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 10:52 PM

You get more and more bizarre and unreasonable.

Jeff's not a child, Mike. Jeff isn't abusing animals. He's merely disagreeing with you and getting into name calling fests on a blogboard.

Disagreeing with you, calling you names in turn, and supporting the president (he doesn't as far as illegal immigration goes, he hold the majority view) isn't a red flag for having Brownshirt potential.

That's not nuanced thinking or a subtle analogy you've made, Mike. It's irrational, hysterical... and just hideously egocentric thinking!

Get some perspective for god's sake!

"As for the 'Nazis don't think' analogy: How much deep thought or reflection do you think a typical German storm trouper or Hitler Youth member would have had? Don't you think this kind of subversive thought would have not only been discouraged, but severely punished? YOU may think Jeff has exibited a thought process beyond that of an indoctrinated follower of the extreme right, but I sure don't."

So, you go from comparing the lack of deep thinking of the SA and Hitler Youth to RK's so called lack of thought (because he accused you of posting under more names than the three or four you actually did use) as the building block to justify your calumny of him. I also note that you laid your next brick that others have been duped into not realizing that RK is an "indoctrinated follower of the extreme right", which means that he is how many steps from full blown Nazism?

"As for your assertion that I owe Jeff an apology. You have GOT to be kidding! After all the unfounded sniping attacks he has pulled on me? After falsely accusing me of posting as others for MONTHS! You dismiss all that? You might think that it was all in fun, but I beg to differ. No Janet, Jeff still owes me an apology, not the other way around."

I got ahead of myself because you have been incessantly bitching about that for so long I sometimes think I mutter it in my sleep. You, Patsy and Clucker have barely put two coherent sentences in a row for months because of the flame war you have been in with RK. And RK has been doing the same back. That does not a Nazi make of any of you.

"Also Janet, how is it so much worse when someone like me suggests someone else is exibiting Nazi like behavior than it is for someone to accuse me of being a "communist", or the slightly less offensive "socialist"? I've heard that so many times I want to puke sometimes."

Poor little baby. I can't even conceive of how upsetting that must have been. All I've ever been called is a 'barbaric cunt', 'mad bitch', 'fag hag', 'warmonger', 'murderous traitor', 'fascist', Nazi, 'inbred', 'incestuous', 'racist', 'homophobe' and a long list of too many epithets to remember much less have to type. And I really enjoyed seeing my premature death notice posted here with much glee and jocularity being bandied about.

Communism is the ultimate extension of socialism and based on what you have written I would say that you have at the least socialist tendencies. So, if you object to the labels put on you either confront the poster saying it or just move on. Do not fall back on that to smear a blogger here with your and KO's sick Sig Heil.

"Trust me Janet, I take the horrors of the Nazi's and the Holocaust as seriously as anyone, and I doubt if anyone has more admiration and reverence for the survivors of that black smear on human history than I do. That is why I think it is imperative for each and evey human being on this earth to not only study the Nazi's, but to thouroughly understand how it could easily happen again....how it could happen to THEM....if they don't understand the warning signs....one of them being ignorance."

Yes, Mike, we all know that you are a sensitive, caring, altruistic man because you keep telling us if only so that you can then point out how deficient conservatives (or as you said earlier that started this - 'YOU PEOPLE") are in these qualities.

You have hitched your star to the premise that ignorance is one of the primary causes of the horror inflicted on the world by Nazis. Actually, the Germans were back then and are now some of the best educated people in the world. They fell prey to a systematic campaign to dehumanize their political and religious opposites. Does any of this ring a bell, Mike? Bovine. Phallu-Cee. Inbred. Moron. Fascist Pig. Murderous Traitor. These and many more such terms we see daily is, to my mind, the real danger. Wallow in that cesspool long enough and you don't have political opponents anymore. You have obstacles to achieving nirvana no more significant than a bump in the road. Dehumanization.

"On that note, did you hear the results of a recent poll that the majority of High School students in America believe that we fought on the side of the Germans against the Russians in WWII? If THAT doesn't make you fear for the future of our country, I don't know what will."

And in the 1980s the majority of college students thought that Japan and the US were allies in WW II. So, what else is new? We have lousy public schools that have been deteriorating year after year for many decades. That is a whole other subject.

Now, back to the matter at hand. I stand by my first statement. I don't care how you slice it and dice it, saute it, sauce it and then flambeau it and serve it on Hyacynth's Royal Dalton China.

YOU OWE RK AN APOLOGY.

What you said was inappropriate and should not be said or tolerated by decent people.

Grammie

A blog that is run by extremists, for the benefit of other extremists, against someone they peceive to be an extremist....and you expect me to be disturbed when you call me an extremist?

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 10:52 PM

Good no! I don't expect you be anything other than self-satisfied even as you shout "debunked" at Cee and later....invariably... have to say the more measured

"Trust me, I understand government waste. I also understand how wasteful private entities CAN be as well. I believe those kind of problems are neither endemic or insurmountable."

Well, that makes it arguable who does what better. Hardly a "debunking".

As to your knowing that private entities can be wasteful as well as govt, let's hope you also understand as a business owner that if you are wasteful you will soon be out of business. You won't have an infusion of money into your business (TAXES to spell it out for you...) that were collected from the public under the threat of jail...

"DEBUNKED"! I think not...

Now go to bed and say your prayers and tell God how lucky he is to have such a kind and logical guy like you around.

"That's not nuanced thinking or a subtle analogy you've made, Mike. It's irrational, hysterical... and just hideously egocentric thinking!": That's YOUR opinion, but there is nothing irrational or hysterical about me OR my thinking. I have questioned the rationality of supporting a war that is getting us nowhere, and still gets us nowhere even if we succeed in whatever it is we're trying to do, and nobody but Cee has even tried to explain the rationality of it all....and HIS delusions are clearly irrational!This all leads me to believe America remains on an irational, hysterical course that eventually leads to the proverbial cliff, and no one has yet offered me a rational explanation for it, least of all, you.

My analogy is nothing more than comparing our current national state of irrationality to a far more eggregarious example from the past. Again, nothing "hysterical" about it. I fear for the future of my country.

As for Jeff, I'll repeat once again....the only original thought he has EVER added to this blog is accusations of name changing by other posters.

"The ghostly sound of silence as the troops began to surge"

"This brought to us by the SAME person that thinks A-Jad is not a dangerous person and didn't know that person aka "little Hitler" is A-Jad AKA. Things that make you go hmm." RK

Neither of those opinions came from me. I'm fairly certain you have taken another nuanced opinion and turned into something more extreme.

It's funny...Janet and Cecelia think I'm too harsh on you, but you keep publicly lying about what I've said. I still don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of sheer stupidity.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:00 PM

What is it about you Rico that makes you such a warmonger? Have you seen war? do you really, really know ANYTHING about it?

[[["I'll bet you think Ahmadinejad is dangerous, but God help the world if anyone who thinks like you ever come to power."]]]

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 11:48 PM

chirp-chirp......chirp-chirp......chirp-chirp.....

What you said was inappropriate and should not be said or tolerated by decent people.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 1, 2007 11:10 PM

He doesn't think we're decent people. He thinks we're latent Brownshirts.

I think he's a ridiculous self-impressed putz.

We all know who'll be accurate in the end. :D

-----

I got ahead of myself because you have been incessantly bitching about that for so long I sometimes think I mutter it in my sleep. You, Patsy and Clucker have barely put two coherent sentences in a row for months because of the flame war you have been in with RK. And RK has been doing the same back. That does not a Nazi make of any of you.

======

You, Bovine, are the one armed with weapons up the ass. Could you please take a nice cup of ice tea, into whichever sanitarium she is.

Please be a nice little Bovine.

"He doesn't think we're decent people. He thinks we're latent brownshirts"

Are your names either RK or Jeff?

"He doesn't think we're decent people. He thinks we're latent brownshirts"

Are your names either RK or Jeff?

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 11:57 PM

So calling YOU names and accusing you of posting under several names is what makes for a Nazi mindset.

Cecelia: "So calling YOU names and accusing you of posting under several names is what makes for a Nazi mindset.":

No, that part just proves him to be a jerk. I've already explained the other part.

No, that part just proves him to be a jerk. I've already explained the other part.
'
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:40 AM

That consisted of RK holding "unguestioned" views about the President and the war that conflicted with yours and very nearly mirror Janet's and Cee's.

Is there something new now?

"is there something new now?"

I've already explained it. Suffice to say I think you should change the word "views" to "parrots" when it come to Jeff.

"No, that part just proves him to be a jerk. I've already explained the other part.
'
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:40 AM"

Have you?

I must have missed all those Nazi posts by RK and/or your expose of them.

All I hear from you, Mike, is Sig Heil followed by crickets.

Grammie

Well Janet, if "crickets" is all you think you've heard, then "crickets" is what you'll continue to hear about it.

Don't like it? .... Fine. then stop 'speaking' to me again!

Well Janet, if "crickets" is all you think you've heard, then "crickets" is what you'll continue to hear about it.

Don't like it? .... Fine. then stop 'speaking' to me again!

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 1:26 AM

How about repeating to me then what you have said that puts RK in the category of latent Brownshirt.

Cecelia: "How about repeating to me then what you have said that puts RK in the category of latent Brownshirt."

Naw...I'd rather talk about "gasoline prices"....LOL!

Cecelia: "How about repeating to me then what you have said that puts RK in the category of latent Brownshirt."

Naw...I'd rather talk about "gasoline prices"....LOL!

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:15 AM

No doubt. It's old stuff that would be hard to find.

How about repeating what you've said in the last 24 hours. You've had two people tell you they missed it.

What's the problem with repeating it?

"What's the problem with repeating it?"

Because like you siad, my favorite subjects are "Global warming" and "gasoline prices" damnit!

What's the problem with repeating it?"

Because like you siad, my favorite subjects are "Global warming" and "gasoline prices" damnit!

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:30 AM

You refused to reiterate long before I said either.

I didn't say your favorite subjects were ether, I said you have posted things about Cheney and gas profits for friends and that you have made statements about global warming if only to denigrate those conservatives who either don't believe it or don't think it's man made.

I'm not going to go looking for the posts.

I've apologized because I can't prove that you aren't entirely illogical and irrational enough to have changed your mind and gone for people who hold positions -- non-war ones-- that you despise based upon the war.

I don't believe that you voted against Gore in '00 for one second, but I can't prove it or deduce it to the extent that it's plausible to say. So I apologized for the liar comment.

But I'll be watching and you're going to have some explaining to do.

"What's the problem with repeating it?"

Because like you siad, my favorite subjects are "Global warming" and "gasoline prices" damnit!

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:30 AM

The classic olbyloon diversion!

Cecelia, I don't think that Mike wants to answer the specific points I raised in my point by point response @ 11;10 PM to him, which was hours ago now.

So much easier to accuse those that disagree of being part and parcel of some of the most heinous people who ever lived and refuse to offer any proof.

If Mike ever publishes a book it will be titled A Million Reasons I Didn't Do My Homework, Or the Dog Ate It.

Grammie

Mike, I guess without Sir Loin of Milquetoast to back you up with far left talking points about why Vietnamese Communists were supported by the fringe American left, you will just leave my numerous posts unchalleneged.

How about this:

"The existence of photographs showing Senator Kerry meeting with General Secretary Do Muoi is not in question. In the course of pursuing the POW and MIA issue, it is reasonable that Senator Kerry would seek to meet with the communist leaders of Vietnam. The critical issue is that the Vietnamese communists have chosen to honor Senator Kerry in their War Crimes Museum for his assistance in helping them achieve victory over the United States. The sign outside the entrance to the room where Kerry's photo is displayed reads: 'The World Supports Vietnam in its Resistance.' Also exhibited inside the room are protest banners and emblems from various nations and photographs of international leaders who supported North Vietnam's cause."

http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799

###
Please look at the entire page. You voted for John Kerry in 2004, right? Mmmm, a man revered by the totalitarians in Vietnam who were reasponisble for the death of millions before and after The US ran away, almost President of The United States! Wow....what great people the democrats have willing to serve America!

Now we have HRC as the likely candidate and she can't decide whether she'll demand troop withdrawal now and perhaps even if she becomes president!

Wishy washy.....And even Sir Loin of Milquetoast is prepared to support the corporate owned HRC....the fringe left is amusing.

Oh and Mike....I will continue to provide examples of the true history of The Vietnam War....the facts you avoid like the plague because they don't fit you guilt ridden template.....the greatest generation wannabes just have to live with their cognitive dissonance. I will undestand if they remain unaddressed like yesterday's.

Later.

8:34AM was cee

Again, Mike, I guess without Sir Loin of Milquetoast to back you up with far left talking points about why Vietnamese Communists were supported by the fringe American left, you will just leave my numerous posts unchalleneged.....

More from wintersoldier.com.....

From 31 January to 2 February 1971, the VVAW, with financial backing from actress Jane Fonda, convened a hearing, known as the Winter Soldier Investigation, in the city of Detroit. More than 100 veterans and 16 civilians testified at this hearing about "war crimes which they either committed or witnessed"; some of them had given similar testimony at the CCI inquiry in Washington. The allegations included using prisoners for target practice and subjecting them to a variety of grisly tortures to extract information, cutting off the ears of dead VCs, throwing VC suspects out of helicopters, burning villages, gang rapes of women, packing the vagina of a North Vietnamese nurse full of grease with a grease gun, and the like. Among the persons assisting the VVAW in organizing and preparing this hearing was Mark Lane, author of a book attacking the Warren Commission probe of the Kennedy Assassination and more recently of "Conversations with Americans", a book of interviews with Vietnam veterans about war crimes. On 22 December 1970 Lane's book had received a highly critical review in the "New York Times Book Review" by Neil Sheehan, who was able to show that some of the alleged "witnesses" of Lane's war crimes had never even served in Vietnam while others had not been in the combat situations they described in horrid detail.

###
Wow, the anti-war left holding mock war crimes trials of your buddies, Mike! Nice group. Again, I encourage you to read the entire page....more about your ruling elite's 2004 Presidential nominee metal fiasco....what a joke Kerry is!

Yeah, those anti-war protesters were real mainstream and from the "heartkand." Jane Fonda was a woman of the people, I tell ya!

And Mike...more from the left today about America....glad you are in bed with them?....

"Every movement has its moment of truth. At an 'anti-war' teach-in at Columbia last week, Anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova told 3,000 students and faculty, 'Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live--a world where the U.S. would have no place.'"

###
Ah yes, the elite halls of American academia, controlled, like despots do, by the radical left.....

The same places the "peace movement" erupted in during the 60's....

"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus. If we really [believe] that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."

###
Wow....this leftist professor wants US military deaths. What a guy! Nice ally, Mike.

"In other words, the American left as represented by faculty and students at one of the nation's most elite universities wants America to lose the war with the terrorist and fascist regime in Baghdad. In shorts, the crowd might just have well applauded the professor's first statement as well. The phrase 'a million Mogadishus,' has a resonance for those of us who participated in an earlier leftist 'peace' movement, during the war in Indochina. In 1967, at the height of the conflict, the Cuban Communist leader, Che Guevara (still an icon among radicals today) called on revolutionaries all over the world 'to create 'two, three, many Vietnams,' to defeat the American enemy. It was the Sixties version of a call for jihad."

###
So the next time you choose to talk about "neocons," and "American imperialism," Mike....think about who neoconservatives really are and what the left really means when they rant against them in their "imperialism."

Poison. Really, Mike. Anti-American, anti-freedom poison.....

"In the late Sixties, I was the editor of Ramparts, the largest magazine of the New Left and I edited a book of anti-American essays with the same title, Two, Three, Many Vietnams. Tom Hayden a leader of the New Left (later a Democratic State Senator and activist against the war in Iraq) used the same slogan as he called for armed uprisings inside the United States. In 1962, as a Marxist radical, I myself had helped to organize the first protest against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley. At the time, America had only 300 'advisers' in Vietnam, who were seeking to prevent the Communist gulag that was to come. John F. Kennedy was President and had been invited to speak on the campus. We picketed his appearance. Our slogan was, 'Kennedy's Three R's: Radiation, Reaction and Repression.' We didn't want peace in Vietnam. We wanted a revolution in America.

"But we were clever. Or rather, we got smarter. We realized we couldn't attract large numbers of people by revealing our deranged fantasies about America (although that of course is not how we would have looked at them). We realized that we needed the support of a lot of Americans who would never agree with our real agendas if we were going to influence the course of the war. So we changed our slogan to 'Bring the Troops Home.' That seemed to express care for Americans while accomplishing the same goal. If America brought her troops home in the middle of the war, the Communists would win. Which is exactly what happened.

"The nature of the movement that revealed itself at Columbia is the same. When the Mogadishu remark was made, it was as if the devil had inadvertently exposed his horns, and someone needed to put a hat over them before others realized it. That someone was the demonstration organizer, Professor Eric Foner, the prestigious head of Columbia's history department. Actually, when Foner spoke after De Genova at the teach-in, he failed to find the Mogadishu remark offensive. Instead Foner dissociated himself from another De Genova comment to the effect that all Americans who described themselves as 'patriotic,' were actually 'white supremacists.'"

###
Again, this sounds like Sir Loin of Milquetoast's rhetoric, Mike! Wow, again what allies you have on the fringe left!

"Eric Foner is the scion of a family of American Communists (and American Communist leaders) at that. In the Sixties he was an anti-American Stalinist. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he wrote a piece in the London Review of Books saying, 'I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House.' After receiving much adverse reaction, he wrote a self-exculpatory piece for The New York Times explaining that his uncertainty was actually patriotic.

"Eric Foner's cover-up reflects a powerful tactical current in the movement to derail America's war in Iraq. Until now, the largest organization behind this movement has been 'International ANSWER,' has been revealed as front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea. According to a comprehensive (but partisan and sympathetic) report in The New York Times,3 some factions of the left became disturbed that the overtly radical slogans of the International ANSWER protests were 'counter-productive.' Last fall, they met in the offices of People For The American Way to create a new umbrella organization called United for Peace and Justice that would present a more palatable face to the American public."

###
This next fact is most impressive regarding my knowledge that the anti-war movement in the 60's was radical and forced by American communists, Mike....

"As it happens, the name of the new organization was similar to that of one of the two main groups behind the national protests of the anti-Vietnam movement. It was called the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice and it was a run by the American Communist Party. (As it happens, the other organizer of the national demonstrations was the MOBE, which was run by the Trotskyist Communist Party.)"

###
Wow, what a mainstream movement that anti-war stuff is and was, Mike.....

You can read more at....

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/horowitz2.htm

More Mike....Iraq is Vietnam because of how you, your ruling elite and the rest of the left are behaving....

"In October the U.S. government released a letter found in Iraq and purportedly written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 man, and addressed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terror group's leader in Iraq. 'More than half of the battle is taking place on the battlefield of the media,' Zawahiri wrote. 'We are in a media race for . . . hearts and minds.' He added, 'The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam--and how they ran and left their agents--is noteworthy.'

###
Yep, it is noteworthy....And Bush is not going to be the agent of that immoral act....

perhaps HRC (although she seems to leave the door open like Nixon did).....

perhaps the Democratic Congressional Leadership (although they seem to continue to be weak and timid to do anything real....as I have been predicting!)

perhaps someone we have yet to know....but the FACT remains....nothing is preordained....nothing is without consequences....

"Here's an example that illustrates both the media's antiwar attitude and their powerlessness: In October the Baltimore Sun ran a story under the headline, 'Little Outcry Raised on Iraq.' The subhead read: 'Md. deaths push toll near 2,000, but public is distracted, experts say.'

"Consider what this headline tells you about the assumptions that prevail in the newsroom. 'Little Outcry Raised on Iraq.' Why is the absence of an outcry a story? News consists of the unexpected--man bites dog, not dog bites man. 'Little Outcry Raised on Iraq' means that, in the view of the Baltimore Sun, an outcry is to be expected when the country is at war. If there isn't much of one, it means something is wrong: 'Public is distracted, experts say.' The so-called mainstream media are following the Vietnam script, according to which a war is supposed to become a quagmire, which provokes opposition and leads to American withdrawal.

"If there is in fact 'little outcry,' as the Baltimore Sun acknowledges, the media will do their part to help generate such an outcry. So, last summer, we met Cindy Sheehan, whose protest outside President Bush's ranch made her a cause célèbre. Her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had died in the liberation of Iraq. She opposed the war and believed he had died in vain. The media portrayed her as a grieving everymom; Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times that 'the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.'

"Ms. Dowd didn't really believe this, of course. The parents of fallen servicemen are a diverse group, but it seems safe to surmise that on average they are more pro-war than the public as a whole. In fact, if the Sheehan protest was news, it was because of the man-bites-dog aspect of it: Her position was at variance with what you would expect from someone who had lost a son in the war.

"The problem, though, is that her views were at variance with those of any sane person. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cindy Sheehan is an anti-American crackpot--and 'anti-American crackpot opposes Iraq war' is a dog-bites-man story if ever there was one.

"During her August protest, she gave a speech to an outfit called Veterans for Peace. According to a transcript on the group's Web site, she said that if the President agreed to meet with her:

'I'm gonna say, 'And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for.' And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy I'm gonna say, bullshit. You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.
Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.

"'You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine.'"

###
Oh my, this sound like you Mike...."Imperialism," "war for oil." And do you agree with your ally regarding Israel?

Please read more at....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007888

And feel free to try to comment on the accuracy of the media both now and back in Vietnam....I addressed the left-wing propaganda machine lead by Halberstam.

Please try to comment, Mike!

Simple common sense, Mike.....

"The purpose of 'anti-war' groups is not to stop war. It's not to bring peace. While many dupes may attend and believe this to be their cause, the leaders have a particular purpose in mind. It is to demoralize the troops and our country. They also seek to damage recruitment levels of the military. With massive mainstream news media support, the evil endeavor has had some success. But the courageous efforts of Free Republic, Rolling Thunder, DiscoverTheNetwork.com, MoveAmericaForward.org and other patriotic organizations continue to expose their agenda.

"Frankly, it's not hard to figure out. The signs are obvious to everyone except most newspaper and television news station reporters. When Code Pink sends a delegation to Venezuela to visit Hugo Chavez and praise his country, we know they support Communism. When Jane Fonda says 'If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist,' we know that she supports Communism. When tables of Communist pamphlets and books are set out at major 'anti-war' rallies, we know the leaders support Communism. But that political philosophy is diametrically opposed to the American way of life."

###
And that's the whole thing, Mike...These protests, then and now, are Anti-American, period. No whitewash can hide the ideology behind why a fringe part of our open society wants dead American soldiers and defeat.

Please continue to read at....

http://www.americanprotest.net/columns/02232007.php

Oh, and wait Mike....what about that new Senator Jim Webb....what did he say in 2003?....

"It is difficult to explain to my children that in my teens and early twenties the most frequently heard voices of my peers were trying to destroy the foundations of American society, so that it might be rebuilt according to their own narcissistic notions. In retrospect it’s hard even for some of us who went through those times to understand how highly educated people—most of them spawned from the comforts of the upper-middle class—could have seriously advanced the destructive ideas that were in the air during the late ’60s and early ’70s. Even Congress was influenced by the virus.

"After President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, that fall’s congressional elections brought 76 new Democrats to the House, and eight to the Senate. A preponderance of these freshmen had run on McGovernesque platforms. Many had been viewed as weak candidates before Nixon’s resignation, and some were glaringly unqualified, such as then-26-year-old Tom Downey of New York, who had never really held a job in his life and was still living at home with his mother. This so-called Watergate Congress rode into town with an overriding mission that had become the rallying point of the American Left: to end all American assistance in any form to the besieged government of South Vietnam. Make no mistake—this was not the cry of a few years earlier to stop young Americans from dying. It had been two years since the last American soldiers left Vietnam, and fully four years since the last serious American casualty calls there.

"For reasons that escape historical justification, even after America’s military withdrawal the Left continued to try to bring down the incipient South Vietnamese democracy. Future White House aide Harold Ickes and others at 'Project Pursestrings'—assisted at one point by an ambitious young Bill Clinton—worked to cut off all congressional funding intended to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves. The Indochina Peace Coalition, run by David Dellinger and headlined by Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, coordinated closely with Hanoi throughout 1973 and 1974, and barnstormed across America’s campuses, rallying students to the supposed evils of the South Vietnamese government. Congressional allies repeatedly added amendments to spending bills to end U.S. support of Vietnamese anti-Communists, precluding even air strikes to help South Vietnamese soldiers under attack by North Vietnamese units that were assisted by Soviet-bloc forces.

"Then in early 1975 the Watergate Congress dealt non-Communist Indochina the final blow. The new Congress icily resisted President Gerald Ford’s January request for additional military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia. This appropriation would have provided the beleaguered Cambodian and South Vietnamese militaries with ammunition, spare parts, and tactical weapons needed to continue their own defense. Despite the fact that the 1973 Paris Peace Accords called specifically for 'unlimited military replacement aid' for South Vietnam, by March the House Democratic Caucus voted overwhelmingly, 189-49, against any additional military assistance to Vietnam or Cambodia.

"The rhetoric of the antiwar Left during these debates was filled with condemnation of America’s war-torn allies, and promises of a better life for them under the Communism that was sure to follow. Then-Congressman Christopher Dodd typified the hopeless naiveté of his peers when he intoned that "calling the Lon Nol regime an ally is to debase the word.... The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Tom Downey, having become a foreign policy expert in the two months since being freed from his mother’s apron strings, pooh-poohed the coming Cambodian holocaust that would kill more than one-third of the country’s population, saying, 'The administration has warned that if we leave there will be a bloodbath. But to warn of a new bloodbath is no justification for extending the current bloodbath.'

"On the battlefields of Vietnam the elimination of all U.S. logistical support was stunning and unanticipated news. South Vietnamese commanders had been assured of material support as the American military withdrew—the same sort of aid the U.S. routinely provided allies from South Korea to West Germany—and of renewed U.S. air strikes if the North attacked the South in violation of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Now they were staring at a terrifyingly uncertain future, even as the Soviets continued to assist the Communist North.

"As the shocked and demoralized South Vietnamese military sought to readjust its forces to cope with serious shortages, the newly refurbished North Vietnamese immediately launched a major offensive. Catching many units out of position, the North rolled down the countryside over a 55-day period. In the ensuing years I have interviewed South Vietnamese survivors of these battles, many of whom spent ten years and more in Communist concentration camps after the war. The litany is continuous: 'I had no ammunition.' 'I was down to three artillery rounds per tube per day.' 'I had nothing to give my soldiers.' 'I had to turn off my radio because I could no longer bear to hear their calls for help.'

"The reaction in the United States to this debacle defines two distinct camps that continue to be identifiable in many of the issues we face today. For most of those who fought in Vietnam, and for their families, friends, and political compatriots, this was a dark and deeply depressing month. The faces we saw running in terror from the North Vietnamese assault were real and familiar, not simply video images. The bodies that fell like spinning snowflakes toward cruel deaths after having clung hopelessly to the outer parts of departing helicopters and aircraft may have been people we knew or tried to help. Even for those who had lost their faith in America’s ability to defeat the Communists, this was not the way it was supposed to end.

"For those who had evaded the war and come of age believing our country was somehow evil, even as they romanticized the intentions of the Communists, these few weeks brought denials of their own responsibility in the debacle, armchair criticisms of the South Vietnamese military, or open celebrations. At the Georgetown University Law Center where I was a student, the North’s blatant discarding of the promises of peace and elections contained in the 1973 Paris Accords, followed by the rumbling of North Vietnamese tanks through the streets of Saigon, was treated by many as a cause for actual rejoicing.

"Denial is rampant in 1997, but the truth is this end result was the very goal of the antiwar movement’s continuing efforts in the years after American withdrawal. George McGovern, more forthcoming than most, bluntly stated as much to this writer during a break in taping a 1995 edition of cnn’s "Crossfire." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, 'What you don’t understand is that I didn’t want us to win that war.' Mr. McGovern was not alone. He was part of a small but extremely influential minority who eventually had their way.

"There is perhaps no greater testimony to the celebratory atmosphere that surrounded the Communist victory in Vietnam than the 1975 Academy Awards, which took place on April 8, just three weeks before the South’s final surrender. The award for Best Feature Documentary went to the film Hearts and Minds, a vicious piece of propaganda that assailed American cultural values as well as our effort to assist South Vietnam’s struggle for democracy. The producers, Peter Davis and Bert Schneider [who plays a role in David Horowitz’s story—see page 31], jointly accepted the Oscar. Schneider was frank in his support of the Communists. As he stepped to the mike he commented that "It is ironic that we are here at a time just before Vietnam is about to be liberated." Then came one of the most stunning—if intentionally forgotten—moments in Hollywood history. As a struggling country many Americans had paid blood and tears to try to preserve was disappearing beneath a tank onslaught, Schneider pulled out a telegram from our enemy, the Vietnamese Communist delegation in Paris, and read aloud its congratulations to his film. Without hesitating, Hollywood’s most powerful people rewarded Schneider’s reading of the telegram with a standing ovation.

"Those of us who either fought in Vietnam or supported our efforts there look at this 1975 'movie moment' with unforgetting and unmitigated amazement. Who were these people who so energetically poisoned the rest of the world’s view of us? How had they turned so virulently against their own countrymen? How could they stand and applaud the victory of a Communist enemy who had taken 58,000 American lives and crushed a struggling, pro-democratic ally? Could they and the rest of us be said to be living in the same country anymore?

"Not a peep was heard then, or since, from Hollywood regarding the people who disappeared behind Vietnam’s bamboo curtain. No one has ever mentioned the concentration camps into which a million South Vietnamese soldiers were sent; 56,000 to die, 250,000 to stay for more than six years, and some for as long as 18. No one criticized the forced relocations, the corruption, or the continuing police state. More to the point, with the exception of the well-intentioned but artistically weak Hamburger Hill, one searches in vain for a single major film since that time that has portrayed American soldiers in Vietnam with dignity and in a true context. Why? Because the film community, as with other elites, never liked, respected, or even understood those who answered the call and served. And at a time when a quiet but relentless battle is taking place over how history will remember our country’s involvement in Vietnam, those who ridiculed government policy, avoided military service, and actively supported an enemy who turned out to be vicious and corrupt do not want to be remembered as having been so naive and so wrong.

"Among everyday Americans, attitudes during this troubled time were much healthier. Behind the media filtering and distortion on Vietnam, the fact is that our citizenry agreed far more consistently with those of us who fought than with those who undermined our fight. This was especially true, interestingly, among the young Americans now portrayed as having rebelled against the war.

"As reported in Public Opinion, Gallup surveys from 1966 to the end of U.S. involvement show that younger Americans actually supported the Vietnam war longer than any other age group. Even by January of 1973, when 68 percent of Americans over the age of 50 believed it had been a mistake to send troops to Vietnam, only 49 percent of those between 25 and 29 agreed. These findings that the youth cohort as a whole was distinctly unradical were buttressed by 1972 election results—where 18- to 29-year-olds preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern by 52 to 46 percent.

"Similarly, despite persistent allegations to the contrary by former protesters who now dominate media and academia, the 1970 invasion of Cambodia—which caused widespread campus demonstrations, including a riot that led to four deaths at Kent State University—was strongly supported by the public. According to Harris surveys, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believed the Cambodian invasion was justified. A majority in that same May 1970 survey supported an immediate resumption of bombings in North Vietnam, a complete repudiation of the antiwar movement.

"Vietnam veterans, though persistently maligned in film, news reports, and classrooms as unwilling, unsuccessful soldiers, have been well thought of by average Americans. In the most comprehensive study ever done on Vietnam vets (Harris Survey, 1980, commissioned by the Veterans Administration), 73 percent of the general public and 89 percent of Vietnam veterans agreed with the statement that 'The trouble in Vietnam was that our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win.' Seventy percent of those who fought in Vietnam disagreed with the statement 'It is shameful what my country did to the Vietnamese people.' Fully 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam combat stated that they were glad they had served their country, and 74 percent said they had enjoyed their time in the military. Moreover, 71 percent of those who expressed an opinion indicated that they would go to Vietnam again, even knowing the end result and the ridicule that would be heaped on them when they returned.

"This same survey contained what was called a 'feelings thermometer,' measuring the public’s attitudes toward various groups on a scale of 1 to 10. Veterans who served in Vietnam rated a 9.8 on this scale. Doctors scored a 7.9, TV reporters a 6.1, politicians a 5.2, antiwar demonstrators a 5.0, and draft evaders who went to Canada came in at 3.3.

"Contrary to persistent mythology, two-thirds of those who served during Vietnam were volunteers rather than draftees, and 77 percent of those who died were volunteers. Of those who died, 86 percent were Caucasian, 12.5 percent were African-American, and 1.2 percent were from other races. The common claim that it was minorities and the poor who were left to do the dirty work of military service in Vietnam is false. The main imbalance in the war was simply that the privileged avoided their obligations, and have persisted since that time in demeaning the experience in order to protect themselves from the judgment of history.

"And what of these elites who misread not only a war but also their own countrymen? Where are they now, other than in the White House? On this vital historical issue that defined our generation, they now keep a low profile, and well they should.

"What an eerie feeling it must have been for those who staked the journey of their youth on the idea that their own country was an evil force, to have watched their naiveté unravel in the years following 1975. How sobering it must have been for those who allowed themselves to move beyond their natural denial, to observe the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese fleeing the 'pure flame of the revolution' on rickety boats that gave them a 50 percent chance of death at sea, or to see television pictures of thousands of Cambodian skulls lying in open fields, part of the millions killed by Communist 'liberators.' How hollow the memories of drug-drenched and sex-enshrined antiwar rallies must be; how false the music that beatified their supposedly noble dissent.

"Indeed, let’s be frank. How secretly humiliating to stare into the face of a disabled veteran, or to watch the valedictory speech of the latest Vietnamese-American kid whose late father fought alongside the Americans in a cause they openly mocked, derided, and despised. And what a shame that the system of government that allowed that student to be so quickly successful here is not in place in the country of her origin."

###
What great facts rebutting your dare, Mike! Mr. Webb wrote this in 1997 during the Clinton administration and seem vey critical of that draft dodger!

Well, well, well....he sounds kind of like an evil "neocon?".....I wonder what happened....Oh yeah....political power and prestige were dangled in front of his chops by the Democrats and we had a conversion!

Hallellujah!

Well, the facts he cites remain intact despite his flip-flops.

The post at 10:56 should have started....

"Oh, and wait Mike....what about that new Senator Jim Webb....what did he say in 1997?...."

###
The opEd was reprinted in 2003 at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={1C8D3E09-9B12-49DF-9D4D-3EDA7899672D}

It was originally written in 1997.

HOLY SHIT! BATMAN!

Not only has Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee been talking to himself for hours;
Now Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee believes that the FreePers are actually doing a service.

How did you survive the purge, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee? By being a nice little fascist?

Free Republic Purge: Conservative Web Site Bans Giuliani Supporters
http://www.observer.com/2007/free-republic-purge-conservative-web-site-bans-giuliani-supporters

Poor poor Robin.....look further back....

Cee sez regarding me providing "proof" regarding Vietnam: "you can't"

And YOU either Cee, but Im the one who lived through it, not you.

- You can't "prove" your assertion that 1 million people died in retribution or in re-education camps in Vietnam as a direct result of our withdrawal or dropping funding.

- You can't "disprove" my own factually based argument that we were working with a VERY demoralized US military chock full of cynics about our mission based on what I actually OBSERVED as a serviceman, AND what other members of my own immediate family said who served in Vietnam several times, one of whom is no longer with us as a direct result of Agent Orange.

- You can't "prove" that spitting on servicemen was at the very worst, a very few isolated occurances, but you keep implying or posting that it was.

As you continue to demand 'proof' for things that can't possibly be proven while putting forth irrational revisionists theories that certainly can't be proven either, you show yourself to be nothing other than the radical that you keep labeling others to be.

- You can't "prove" that the fall of South Vietnam was caused directly by our removal of funding.

- You can't "prove" any of your laughable assertions that the people you call "leftist" are "pro-communists".

- You seem to be awfully vaque about whether you believe the fall of South Vietnam was due to our pullout, or whether it was ultimately due to funding denials to the South Vietnamese government. And you can't "prove" either one.

I know Cee....you read it all in a book somewhere...so it MUST be true!

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 3:47 PM

###
I am not sure Mike has read these posts, Robin....but I do know not one cogent rebuttal was made and is not possible because the facts remain.

I know you are not capable of responding to serious debate, Robin, as shown by your silly diversion....I do enjoy watching the pathetic left unable to respond to facts.

I am not talking to myself...I am simply waiting patiently for someone from the pathetic anti-American left to respond and I think I won't see any....

Wanna try Robin?

Nice sound of silence....

More arguments likely left unchallenged by whiner Mike and Robin....

What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

By Lauren Zanolli

The prospect of Democrats controlling the 110th Congress has raised speculation over a possible suspension of funds for the war in Iraq. Given control of the purse strings, a Democratic Congress would be in the position to force the government to begin the withdrawal of troops. Although they have been hesitant to define their plan for Iraq, some Democrats have hinted at a drastic reduction in funds. When asked in a recent interview how a Democratic Congress could stop the war, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), who is set to chair the Ways and Means Committee should the Democrats win the majority, precociously answered, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?” Fellow member of the Out of Iraq caucus, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has stated that “Personally I wouldn’t spend another dime on the war,” and notes that Congress helped force an end to the Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it. 1

What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.” 2 Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.” 3

In January of 1973, President Richard Nixon approved the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days. Two months later, Nixon met with South Vietnamese President Thieu and secretly promised him a “severe retaliation” against North Vietnam should they break the cease-fire. Around the same time, Congress began to express outrage at the secret illegal bombings of Cambodia carried out at Nixon’s behest. Accordingly, on June 19, 1973 Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, which called for a halt to all military activities in Southeast Asia by August 15, thereby ending twelve years of direct U.S. military involvement in the region.

In the fall of 1974, Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal and was succeeded by Gerald Ford. Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from a proposed 1.26 billion to 700 million dollars. These two events prompted Hanoi to make an all-out effort to conquer the South. As the North Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary Le Duan observed in December 1974: “The Americans have withdrawn…this is what marks the opportune moment.” 4

The NVA drew up a two-year plan for the “liberation” of South Vietnam. Owing to South Vietnam’s weakened state, this would only take fifty-five days. The drastic reduction of American aid to South Vietnam caused a sharp decline in morale, as well as an increase in governmental corruption and a crackdown on domestic political dissent. The South Vietnamese army was severely under-funded, greatly outnumbered, and lacked the support of the American allies with whom they were accustomed to fighting.

The NVA began its final assault in March of 1975 in the Central Highlands. Ban Me Thout, a strategically important hamlet, quickly fell to North Vietnam. On March 13, a panicked Thieu called for the retreat of his troops, surrendering Pleiku and Kontum to the NVA. Thieu angrily blamed the US for his decision, saying, “If [the U.S.] grant full aid we will hold the whole country, but if they only give half of it, we will only hold half of the country.”5 His decision to retreat increased internal opposition toward him and spurred a chaotic mass exodus of civilians and soldiers that clogged the dilapidated roads to the coast. So many refugees died along the way that the migration along Highway 7B was alternatively described by journalists as the “convoy of tears” and the “convoy of death.” 6 On April 21, President Thieu resigned in a bitter televised speech in which he strongly denounced the United States. Sensing that South Vietnam was on the verge of collapse, the NVA accelerated its attack and reached Saigon on April 23. On the same day, President Ford announced to cheerful students at Tulane University that as far as America was concerned, “the war was over.” The war officially concluded on April 30, as Saigon fell to North Vietnam and the last American personnel were evacuated.

If Mike ever publishes a book it will be titled A Million Reasons I Didn't Do My Homework, Or the Dog Ate It.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 2, 2007 3:04 AM

hahahahaha!

To be followed by a sequel titled My Rebuttal: I'm Great, You're Not.

Open the book and the first and only page says "The End".

Cee, thanks for the posts and the links to the sources.

I am going to bookmark this so I can go back and read it more closely.

Grammie

Yes Cee, I've read all of that before...AS it was happening, and you've yet to provide prove that cutting funding of the "Vietnamized" South was the cause of their ultimate defeat. While, it MAY have helped speed up the process, the ultimate result is what would have occured regardless of whether the funding had been cut or not. The FACT is that South Vietnam and it's army lacked the morale or the motivation to stand on it's own against a determined and highly motivated Civil War ideological enemy who would have continued the struggle for the next 20 years if necessary, aided by almost umlimited financial and arming support from both China and the Soviet Union.

Mindless quotes from history books with intersperced personal opinions won't help you to make your case for Iraq, nor does it change your revisionist perception about Vietnam.

That said, you failed to answer my question about how things have turned out in Vietnam today? And how our inevidible withdrawal from a situation we should NEVER have been stupid enough to involve ourselves in in the first place has hurt us OR Vietnam in the long term?

And please, no more conjecture about how many Vietnamese died in re-education camps. The actual numbers are unknown and highly speculative, and there is no evidence that these things would have turned out differently had we prolonged the enevitible anyway.

The lesson we SHOULD have learned from Vietnam is to never commit American Ground troops into alien cultures and their civil wars unless absolutely necessary, ... and invading Iraq was anything BUT necessary!

And now that we find ourselves undeniably there because of the incredibly ignorant worldview and lack of respect and understanding of alien cultures by rubes such as yourself....what do we do now?

Definitely not an easy answer for that question, ... but the one thing we SHOULD NOT do is to keep listening to the same fools who got us into this quagmire in the first place.

Now do me a favor and stop questioning why I haven't answered you, because I had already resolved to make up the work I missed doing yesterday, partially because of excessive posting on this blog.

Sorry you ignored the points, Mike. It is clear a large body of work has concluded at least 1 million South Vietnamese died after 1975 under the government of The North and many more died trying to flee the totalitarian regime.

Sorry you ignored the points, Mike. It is clear a large body of work has concluded that the loss in Vietnam was not ineviotable but actually a result of the loss of will on the part of domestic American politicians under the influence of a small minority of leftist, pro-communist faction. What about my invitation to read the upcoming work by Mark Moyar....he has great primary sources from the NVA and Societ Union regarding their tactics to sway US public opinion!

Sorry you ignored the points, Mike. Iraq and Vietnam are not alien cultures. They are human beings just like you and me, practicing the same religions, having the same yearning for freedom and loving the same way all people do and deserve self governance as much as you or me. Insuring that is a great and noble task....one you think is no longer right....You are wrong.

America stands for freedom. Not economic imperialism, not slavery, not totalitarianism....America is for freedom....this is right and no one will conivce me that freedom is "alien" to any human being.

Cee: "Sorry you ignored the points Mike"

I ignored the OPINIONS, Cee.

Cee: "America stands for freedom"

But it DOESN'T stand for military interference in the internal affairs of others.

"You can't "disprove" my own factually based argument that we were working with a VERY demoralized US military chock full of cynics about our mission"

###
"Seventy percent of those who fought in Vietnam disagreed with the statement 'It is shameful what my country did to the Vietnamese people.' Fully 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam combat stated that they were glad they had served their country, and 74 percent said they had enjoyed their time in the military. Moreover, 71 percent of those who expressed an opinion indicated that they would go to Vietnam again, even knowing the end result and the ridicule that would be heaped on them when they returned."

"This same survey contained what was called a 'feelings thermometer,' measuring the public’s attitudes toward various groups on a scale of 1 to 10. Veterans who served in Vietnam rated a 9.8 on this scale. Doctors scored a 7.9, TV reporters a 6.1, politicians a 5.2, antiwar demonstrators a 5.0, and draft evaders who went to Canada came in at 3.3.

"Contrary to persistent mythology, two-thirds of those who served during Vietnam were volunteers rather than draftees, and 77 percent of those who died were volunteers. Of those who died, 86 percent were Caucasian, 12.5 percent were African-American, and 1.2 percent were from other races. The common claim that it was minorities and the poor who were left to do the dirty work of military service in Vietnam is false. The main imbalance in the war was simply that the privileged avoided their obligations, and have persisted since that time in demeaning the experience in order to protect themselves from the judgment of history.

"And what of these elites who misread not only a war but also their own countrymen? Where are they now, other than in the White House? On this vital historical issue that defined our generation, they now keep a low profile, and well they should.

###
Again, Senator Webb wrote this fine editorial (using the survey in 1980), in 1997....with the draft dodger you now support, in The White House.

Poor whiner Mike....thinks he speaks for all Vietnam Vets. Well, you don't and I know this from personal experience.

Your other points are opinion too, so opinion for opinion, Mike...that is how it works.

More to come...I am sad to see you not present the left's views of historical events...calling my history revisionist without even presenting evidence from "the accepted" history is intellectually weak, Mike. (Especially regarding Minh's communist ideology and the very anti-American/communist ideology of the real source of 60's anti-war activity in academia)

Even Sir Loin of Milquetoast tried to refute my facts.

Again, Robin, I direct you to Senator Webb's excellent essay. You are wrong. The popular sentiment was support for freedom and democracy in South Vietnam and this was opposed from the start by a small but powerful faction in The United States. Read Mark Moyar, Robin and stop swallowing the pablum of the same leftist elites who choose defeat of America as an ideology.

Just like with The Iraq War, popular support for intervention in Southeast Asia eroded over time BUT there was the American left, in the beginning and in the minority, hoping for defeat and death of the American forces. Read ALL of my posts since yesterday and become a bit more informed about the real history before you try to retreat to the silliness, Robin.

That is the truth and anyone saying something was inevitable is copping out in trying to prove their argument.

Poor poster at 4:05....wrong is wrong and leaving the South Vietnamese, even if polling showed 99.9% American support, was wrong.

The funny thing is that when the majority supports something wrong the left feels is right, democracy should not be allowed to function.....(a la late term abortion, gay marriage)

Mmmmm....what an irony....wrong it wrong.

Well, on to more thoughtful commentary....

The Nov. 15 edition of the left-wing radio show "Democracy Now" featured former Sen. George McGovern debating whether we withdraw troops from Iraq or increase them.

This is certainly a worthy topic of debate. However, one must inquire as to how much someone like former Sen. George McGovern can contribute to this.
He was asked by the host, "You were one of the earliest people speaking out against the U.S. attack and U.S. involvement in Vietnam. What happened? How did the U.S. pull out? What were people saying then?"

McGovern's reply was nothing short of delusional. He said, "... they were saying the same thing they're saying about Iraq. We were told all during those long years when I and others were trying to terminate our military involvement in Vietnam, an intervention that the chief architects now say was a dreadful mistake. ...that if we pulled out - maybe it was a mistake to go in, but if we pulled out, there would be a slaughter of people in Vietnam of indescribable dimensions, that Ho Chi Minh and his people would just slaughter everybody in the country that disagreed with him. We also were told that the countries next door would start toppling into communism, if we left Vietnam. None of that happened."

None of this happened? Maybe he should ask - as I have - the "boat people" who fled Vietnam to escape the holocaust that followed the communist conquest of Vietnam, or talk to the Vietnamese refugees who were sentenced to "re-education" camps for five and 10 years.
Maybe he should talk to Vietnam War protester and singer Joan Baez, who in 1976 and 1979 protested the human rights atrocities of the Vietnamese communists (and was denounced as a CIA stooge by Jane Fonda's ex-husband Tom Hayden).

Indeed, all Sen. McGovern really needs to do is review his own 1978 speech calling for military intervention in Cambodia to stop the communist holocaust. (Leftist icon Noam Chomsky vehemently criticized McGovern for this.) McGovern wanted to use military force to stop the very same holocaust he now denies occurred.

Why would they deny?

The answer may be found in a 1995 essay written by the newly elected Virginia senator, Democrat James Webb. A veteran of Vietnam, Webb wrote an essay titled, "Robert McNamara, the Anti-War Left, and the Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty," for the Fall 1995 edition of Strategic Review.
Webb's essay begins with him describing a presentation he made to some business people about Vietnam when the subject of the war was broached. He mentions the then-recently published book about Vietnam by Robert McNamara, the architect of the war.

He states how the war was distorted by the anti-war left then and now. Webb comments, "... there has been a persistent conspiracy of silence that has lasted for decades, accompanied of late by an attempt to leap over the carcasses and the devastation that followed the communist takeover, to simply pretend it did not happen."

###
Wow, Jim Webb......AGAIN!......

Webb continues, "Few, if any, of the old anti-war luminaries, Stanley Karnow, Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam, George McGovern, Peter Arnett, 'Tom Harkin, Bill or Hillary Clinton ... could find it in themselves to conjure up an apology, or admit they were wrong in judging a communist apparatus that brought Southeast Asia's strongest and most pro-Western culture back into the dark ages, only to haltingly emerge fifteen years later reeking of torture, prison camps, Stalinism and corruption."

The next paragraph mentions McGovern and the motivation for this denial of the communist holocaust. Webb wrote, "The reason ... was stated most honestly and directly to me by George McGovern ... while taping the "CNN Crossfire' show ... the antiwar candidate who had once promised to go to Hanoi on his knees if he were elected President turned to me and announced in his emotionless monotone, 'What you don't understand is that I didn't want us to win that war."' (Emphasis added)

Webb applies this to the entire anti-war movement, "The people who directed the antiwar movement did not care whether McNamara had a workable strategy ... They did not care whether Nixon's Vietnamization program might have worked. They did not care whether the South Vietnamese should have been given an adequate chance to adjust their strategy after the American withdrawal. ... they did not care whether the communists signed a pledge guaranteeing free elections and a peaceful reunification of the country. Quite simply, they wanted the communists to win. Those who were adults during the Vietnam era know this truth full well. Others, however, particularly our children, have seen it glazed over and even denied as the reality of what happened after 1975 became ever more clear." (Emphasis added)

Webb then makes a salient point, "The failure of the media to show these old luminaries and their younger disciples in this true light is important ... . Only by understanding their deeper motivations can future generations comprehend the making and ultimate failure of American policy during that period, and the subsequent refusal of our media elites to speak and write honestly after South Vietnam's fall ... . Vietnam was the first war where a generation's elite not only excused itself from fighting but often openly supported the side that was killing their own countrymen ..."

Genocide authority Professor R.J. Rummel described what occurred in SE Asia as democide. He wrote, "...after the North's victory ... . Hundreds of thousands were murdered - executed outright, or dying in "re-education camps," and in the "new economic zones." ... over a million Vietnamese that risked an awful death on the ocean to escape the communists enslavement (the Boat People), of which perhaps 500,000 never made land again... . Then there was the communist Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia ... Result: about 2,000,000 murdered."

Why is it that McGovern and others who deny the Indochinese communist holocaust are not considered lunatics as they would be if they were denying the holocaust of the Nazis?

###
Holocaust deniers.....Mike and the wacko anon poster......anyone else want to join in?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

Let me know what you think about denying the South Vietnam holocaust, Mike and anon.

Oh and you wanted more VIetnam and Iraq connections Mike....great FACTS follow....

The Vietnam Fallacy
We must not lose resolve in the face of our enemies’ failures in Iraq.

By Max Singer

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTg1YTVmYzUwNjU3Y2ZhMjA3Y2NkNjhhMmFlNjZkNGY=

The lessons of the Vietnam War are engraved on the souls of Americans. Everyone knows that the United States lost because we intervened on the unpopular side of a civil war in South Vietnam, and because we thought our modern army could defeat an irregular band of idealistic guerrilla forces. The turning point came when, just as the Johnson administration was hinting that victory was near, the Communists’ Tet Offensive dashed our hopes to pieces. Thereafter, America turned against the war for good.

In hindsight, however, the evidence tells a different story — a story that is beginning to seem familiar after the failed “Ramadan offensive” in Baghdad last month. Vietnam was not lost to guerrillas — virtually all the guerrilla forces had been eliminated in 1968 after the disastrous failure of the Tet Offensive. South Vietnam was conquered only when North Vietnam sent a 15-division army with 600 tanks across the border. After their victory, the North Vietnamese proudly revealed that they had organized, supplied, and commanded the Viet Cong guerrillas in southern Vietnam from the beginning. So it had never been a civil war within South Vietnam. The new regime went on to kill tens of thousands of South Vietnamese and sent hundreds of thousands more to brutal “reeducation camps.” Nearly 250,000 South Vietnamese took to the open seas in small boats to escape the supposedly more popular victor.

To this day the United States is charged with “invading Cambodia” and “bombing Cambodia” because American forces attacked North Vietnamese troops who were in Cambodia supporting the Communist side in the “civil war” in South Vietnam. The U.S. also tried to protect the Lon Nol government of Cambodia from its Communist Khmer Rouge attackers. The actual invaders of Cambodia were the North Vietnamese.

The most dramatic part of this conflict between memory and evidence is described in the book by award-winning correspondent Peter Braestrup, Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, which shows how the press completely missed the big story of the Communists’ failure and decisive defeat in the Tet offensive.

Today, the American press and most political commentators have missed the failure of Iraq’s enemies in their “Ramadan offensive.” This failure has been chronicled by Iranian correspondent Amir Taheri in the New York Post.

Although the Baathists, jihadists, and Iranian-sponsored militias did succeed in making outsiders believe that they were unstoppable by killing large numbers of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers, they failed to achieve the objectives Taheri reports they had set for themselves:

To seize territory around Haditha to establish an “Islamic emirate”

To gain a foothold in Mosul

To blow up the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf

To attack the “green zone” in Baghdad

To paralyze the Parliament by threatening to kill its members

To prevent Arab Sunni clerics from traveling to Mecca to sign a concordat with Shiite clerics

To fulfill the jihadist promise to force the closure of schools, hospitals, and newspapers

To prevent the forthcoming local elections by destroying voter lists and killing election officials

To prevent traditional celebrations of Eid-al-Fitr (end of Ramadan)

Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia failed in its attempts:

To seize control of the city of al-Amarah

To seize control of the part of the Iranian border where crude oil is smuggled to Iran

To seize the Interior Ministry and reinstate 1300 members who had been purged

These efforts were all defeated — in most cases with large casualties on both sides — by the Iraqi army as well as by U.S. forces, and, in some cases, with important help from a strong new coalition of Sunni Arab tribes in the Anbar Province who are fighting against the foreign jihadists.

Because there have been few reports on what the enemy tried to do and failed, all Americans see is that Iraqi citizens and U.S. troops are being killed, and that the law and order we’ve been trying to implement must be failing. But when the enemies of the government make a crescendo of efforts to seize territory and to cause chaos, and fail with heavy losses, it is an important victory for us and for the Iraqi government, despite the casualties.

The defeat of the Ramadan offensive does not mean that we have achieved victory in the war. Since our enemies in Iraq are more diffuse than the North Vietnamese were, their failure will not be as decisive as the Communist failure in the Tet offensive. But it does mean that the U.S. and the elected Iraqi government have not been defeated. The outcome will depend on what we and the Iraqis do in the future. If we give up as we did in Vietnam, the Iraqi government will probably not survive, and there may be nearly as many resulting casualties as there were in Cambodia when we left Indo-China.

Although the outcome is still highly uncertain, Saddam is gone and there is a consensual broad-based Iraqi government struggling to establish itself. The Iraqi political class has not achieved a good record for patriotism, competence, or honesty so far, but most of them are still trying to build a united federal Iraq to avoid either going back to the old system of dictatorship and ethnic oppression or becoming a cleric-dominated religious regime like Iran. They may not be able to succeed — because their task would be difficult even if our enemies did not have such a large stake in preventing their success, and because the U.S. bureaucracy has been ignorant and heavy-handed in its efforts to help.

The one thing that is clear is that we should avoid the mistake we made in Vietnam of allowing our enemies to convince us that we must give up because our cause is hopeless (or evil). If we are talked (or lied) out of Iraq as we were talked out of Vietnam, jihadists around the globe will take heart, and we and others are likely to pay a high price in renewed attacks.

Retrospectively, it turned out that the US army had been serving some purpose in Vietnam—apart from protecting the south from the oppression and stagnation of the last 30 years. Removing our forces in defeat resulted in 2 million Cambodians being killed by the Khmer Rouge, which came to power with the help of North Vietnam—a result that doesn’t seem to have troubled many of those who take pride in their role in bringing our troops home.

Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee!

I didn't Cee your canard of concern for the Vietnamese refugees coming. You got me good this time.

I ask you again, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee!
How are those Farsi/Arabic lessons coming along?
How many Iraqi refugees are you, and the Bovine, housing right now?
Uh? Pastor DUMBFUCK!

First you BU$HWIPES promised Iraq would not be like Viet, but now you BU$HWIPES are trying to convince us that indeed Iraq is ANOTHER Vietnam.

LOL!

More CEEisms (I can't keep up with them all):

"removing our forces in defeat from South Vietnam resulted in 2 million Cambodians being killed by the KHmer Rouge.".....Absolutely untrue! Removing our forces did not cause the Khmer Rouge to win in Cambodia. It had nothing to do with it!

"which came to power with the help of the North Vietnam"....You mean the SAME North Vietnamese who overan their ENEMY, the Khmer Rouge later?

"a result that doesn't seem to have troubled many of those who took pride in their role in bringing our troops home."....Thats because bringing the troops home was the ONLY correct course of action at that time, and it saves many thousands of American lives.

What is it Cee, that you have trouble undertanding about the FACT that our Army in Vietnam was thoroughly and completely demoralized?

How in the hell can you stand back and Monday morning quarterback withdrawing an army completely devoid of morale from an obviously unwinnable civil war that the troops themselves saw NO personal stake in whatsoever? Fragging incidents were rampant. Survival was ALL they cared about, and very few of them believed in, or even understood the "mission".

I saw it!....damnit....you deluded revisionist!

You don't give up with you revisionist theories, I'll give you that....but you're convincing no one but your equally deluded wingers.

Cee: "The one thing is sure is that we should avoid the mistake we made in Vietnam.".....To late! We've already invaded and involved oursleves with someone else's civil war.

"This brought to us by the SAME person that thinks A-Jad is not a dangerous person and didn't know that person aka "little Hitler" is A-Jad AKA. Things that make you go hmm." RK

Neither of those opinions came from me. I'm fairly certain you have taken another nuanced opinion and turned into something more extreme.

It's funny...Janet and Cecelia think I'm too harsh on you, but you keep publicly lying about what I've said. I still don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of sheer stupidity.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:00 PM

What is it about you Rico that makes you such a warmonger? Have you seen war? do you really, really know ANYTHING about it?

[[["I'll bet you think Ahmadinejad is dangerous, but God help the world if anyone who thinks like you ever come to power."]]]

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 11:48 PM

chirp-chirp......chirp-chirp......chirp-chirp.....

Well Janet, if "crickets" is all you think you've heard, then "crickets" is what you'll continue to hear about it.

Don't like it? .... Fine. then stop 'speaking' to me again!

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 1:26 AM

How about repeating to me then what you have said that puts RK in the category of latent Brownshirt.

Posted by: Cecelia at October 2, 2007 1:39 AM

nothing but silence.......

"How about repeating to me what you have said that puts RK in the category of latent brownshirt."

"nothing but silence"

Whats that you just parroted, you deluded potential Nazi you?

Didn't think you were man enough.

Mike swallowed the left's lies....

"Fragging incidents were rampant."

Mark Woodruff dissects the accepted wisdom that US forces suffered chronically low morale and that "fragging", the murder of officers by rolling grenades into their tents, became a problem. Pure myth. Of the 58,183 Americans killed in the war, 84, or 0.14 per cent, were "fragging" deaths, lower than the "fragging" rate in the Australian forces in Vietnam, where it was never perceived as a problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/29/1056825276660.html

###
Care to provide your evidence that fragging was rampant, Mike?

Retrospectively, it turned out that the US army had been serving some purpose in Vietnam—apart from protecting the south from the oppression and stagnation of the last 30 years. Removing our forces in defeat resulted in 2 million Cambodians being killed by the Khmer Rouge, which came to power with the help of North Vietnam—a result that doesn’t seem to have troubled many of those who take pride in their role in bringing our troops home.

Posted by: cee at October 2, 2007 4:25 PM

Pardon me, Phari-cee, but please quit making shit up. Our illegal and extensive bombing of Cambodia, combined with the decade of chaos we initiated next-door - destabilized the country and allowed a crackpot regime to take control. Specifically what help did North Vietnam give to the Khmer Rouge? I've never heard of such before. I am aware, however, that the Pol Pot regime was eventually brought down by its vicious war with Vietman following our retreat, during which it recieved significant sore-loser aid from the US.

Running around the world bombing people for stupid reasons - whether acquisitive, ideological, or academic - always ends up badly for everyone concerned. Why don't you destructive children just give up and let some responsible adults handle things for a while?

...and soneone - I think Mike - asked you a great question above: Where is your direct or political aid to the over 4 million Iraqi refugees that your fetish/president's war has generated? Have you advocated to your representatives that larger numbers of these unfortunates be allowed into this country? Have you offered your own home or resources?

I think by now barely over 1000 Iraqis have been permited refuge in this beacon of liberating liberators called the USA. Syria and Jordan are taking up the monumental slack, with no help from us whatsoever. More insight on what passes as Republican responsibility...

84 strikes me as pretty damned HIGH Cee, considering how deviant of a behaviour something like that is, .... and that for every fragging incident, there were literally hundreds of discipline problems, if not thousands.

You keep accusing me of "swallowing the left's lies", but I was the one WHO WAS IN THE DAMNED MILITARY AT THE TIME, not you!

Moral was VERY low throughout the military. When I left the military, most servicemen looked on career men with disdain...they called them lifers! The belief was prevalent that the only reason 'lifers' even stayed in the military was because "they couldn't make it on the outside. THAT was the state of military following and during the later years of the Vietnam conflict. It took many years after Vietnam to bring morale back up again. You ACTUALLY seem to believe that our thoroughly demoralized military was up to staying in Vietnam for another 5, 10, 15 years...or whatever it took. How deluded can you get?

What planet are you living on?

How many times do you need to be reminded that your own heros EVADED real military service? ... And most of the wingers writing the books you worship have NO real world perpective? Anybody can write a damned book, and everyone seems to have one these days!

Just like anything else, you can find a muriad of historical perspectives written about Vietnam. You have personally chosen to pick and choose the most radical, the most intellectually dishonest, and the most radical of them to anchor your belief system.

What you are actually doing is searching for something that mirrors what you want to believe, and obviously you found it....but that isn't the definition of truth.

Leaving Vietnam was the right thing to do....entering Vietnam on the contrived Gulf of Tonkin lie was the wrong thing to do....entering Iraq on more contrived lies was the wrong thing to do....and leaving them to decide their own future is ultimately going to be the right and only choice that we will have.

It is utter arrogance for us to decide that we know what is best for another culture, and for the world...but you seem to have that in spades!

Mark Woodruff dissects the accepted wisdom that US forces suffered chronically low morale and that "fragging", the murder of officers by rolling grenades into their tents, became a problem. Pure myth. Of the 58,183 Americans killed in the war, 84, or 0.14 per cent, were "fragging" deaths, lower than the "fragging" rate in the Australian forces in Vietnam, where it was never perceived as a problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/29/1056825276660.html

###
Care to provide your evidence that fragging was rampant, Mike?

Posted by: cee at October 2, 2007 8:05 PM

Pharicee, I attended to your link, and found only the exact claim you make in your post - word-for-word - no data. Look around a little, and you may find that the startlingly iconoclastic decalarations made by this "Mark Woodford" appear in their vast array to be somewhat sensationalistic.

"Fragging. When one American killed another American, usually a superior officer or an NCO, the term "fragging" came into use. Although the term simply meant that a fragmentation grenade was used in the murder, it later became an all encompassing term for such an action. It is known that "fraggings" did occur during Vietnam, but the precise number is uncertain.

"During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging - that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field," says historian Terry Anderson of Texas A & M University. "The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously."

http://home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietcrim.htm

- a collumn is provided on the link

Loin, I don't know about you, but is absolutely astonishing to me that somebody like Cee even exists.

...the "fragging" link provided in my post above is from a page on a site dedicated in honor of a particular unit of military police.

Sorry Sir Loin of Milquetoast, you are too late....there is a mountain of posts to try to refute and your pathetic attempt to take me down over Cambodia will also fail.

You see, there is the truth about what The leftists in America did to the ability of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords being enforced....Try and follow now....

The strategy chosen to extract the US with the minimum of risk to its ally South Vietnam and the region was “Vietnamisation”. The US would withdraw its military, train up the Vietnamese and back Saigon with guaranteed and continuing military and economic support. Those guarantees were written in to the The 1973 Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger under which North Vietnam pledged to withdraw from Laos and Cambodia and not to overthrow the Saigon Government. But Hanoi knew it could violate the accord with impunity, confident that the large postWatergate Democrat majority in Congress would never authorise renewed airstrikes. Not only that; the Democrats refused to authorise the promised US military aid, leaving the South Vietnamese all but defenceless against North Vietnam’s rapid Soviet-assisted military build-up, and its full-scale tank-led invasion in 1975.

from "Why Democrats dread hearing the V-word"
Vietnam: a lesson in fouling up the endgame

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rosemary_righter/article2317291.ece

###
You see Loin, the anti-war left ruined it for South Vietnam...McGovern even said it himself.....he wanted the US to lose....so that meant South Vietnam was to lose. The leftist regime in The North knew their allies in The Democratic Party would insure no enforcement of the peace treaty and that meant their continued influence in Cambodia and a destabalized reqion when we left.....including the demicide in South Vietnam and the holocaust in Cambodia.

No Loin, the speedy retreat and abandonment of democracy in the region was the cause for the radical leftist regimes we saw.

Read the entire article and you'll see why your ruling elite in the congress is not listening to your radical councel with regards to cutting off the funds now in Iraq. He, he, he.

Try again....And I would like to hear your comments about what McGovern said and what James Webb said....Try not to be so choosey!

Loin, I don't know about you, but is absolutely astonishing to me that somebody like Cee even exists.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 8:44 PM

He's a remarkable moral cuttlefish, isnt he? There is nothing right-wing or Bushy that he will not salute and defend with dizzying logical acrobatics.

"...the "fragging" link provided in my post above is from a page on a site dedicated in honor of a particular unit of military police."

Or so you hope, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....those statstics are no more valid than the rates I quoted.....and furthermore....

You should really check your sources.....the "MP" page Loin cites is connected to the following website....

http://www.marxist.com/usa/defeat_US_in_vietnam1102.html

###
He, he, he....anything to support the template of the radical left that the US Army was destroyed....Sorry, no dice.....The Marxist page does have a lot of other talking points I have heard from Mike and Sir Loin of Milquetoast....or should I say propaganda.

I like Jim Webb's statistics....do you care to comment? The essay is above, gents.

"No Loin, the speedy retreat and abandonment of democracy in the region was the cause for the radical leftist regimes we saw."

Speedy retreat? 10 years of quagmire finally ending represents a "speedy retreat"? You people are fucked up.

Yes, "Hanoi knew it could violate the accord with impunity", because America was beaten, and had no more stomach at that time for made-up conflicts that it had no valid stake in.

America's war in Vietnam began when the artificial division of Vietnam was perpetuated beyond its planned termination by an earlier (1956) American/RVN violation of another treaty, made in Geneva in 1954, so perhaps the north considered such perfidy within bounds.

In any case, the entire 15-year mess - an extension of an ungraceful death of France's colonial empire - and all of its committant misery was created by American war-mongers more eager to flex muscle than to cultivate civil international relations. This is clearly analogous to the mess we are in today in Iraq, and to the one you sport a rigid little woody for in regard to Iran.

Cee: "I like Jim Webb's statistics"

We know!....You like anything and everything that supports your delusional worldview, and summarily reject anything and eveything that doesn't.

Absolute truth is irrelevant to you, so you make your own.

Good Loin, I am glad your 9:15 PM post is using the exact stuff from.....

http://www.marxist.com/usa/defeat_US_in_vietnam1102.html

"Absolute truth is irrelevant to you, so you make your own."

###
You are being dim Mike....Loin's fragging statistics are no more "truth" than mine....The problem with his is that the site he uses is "unofficial" and associated with a Marxist website. Sorry dude, I am not going to impugn the honor of a sitting US Senator and a poll he cites from 1980 while swallowing without question fragging statistics from a communist website.

Please try again.

I read it it, Pari-cee. I disagree with it strongly. Your lamentation regarding Vietnam's purported genocide is one more example of the crocodile tears of a a chaos-peddler. Reseach the concept of "regional destabilization"; its causes and effects. Bad shit happens when a superpower occupies and bombs a number of nations for over a decade, and the bombers and their supporters humiliate themselves by blaming their predictable disasters on those who advocated wisdom from the outset.

According to you we should have remained for another 10 years and killed another 4 million SE Asians.

....and I particularly liked this little unconsious admission on your part that you have no real faith whatsoever in the "facts" you post - they are merely useful to your entrenched but baseless position:

"...those statstics are no more valid than the rates I quoted".

Spoken like a sinking, rudderless moral barge in a lake of floating turds.

Cee: "you are being dim Mike"

And so are you....as usual. That comment wasn't about Loin's post. It was about YOU and every lie you swallow like the rube you are.

Did you bother to look at MY response to your abject dismissal of 84 incidents as being statistically 'insignificant'?

The military at that time WAS demoralized. I personally SAW it. And no amount of propaganda from you and your "ruling elite" will change that.

http://home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietnam.htm

This is the home website that Phari-cee derides as a Marxist pamphlet. I can't find what he's talking about - I suspect he's just faking it again to "win" another argument in his own brain.

"Between 1969 and 1971, the Army reported 600 fragging incidents that killed 82 Americans and injured 651. In 1971 alone, there were 1.8 fraggings for every 1,000 American soldiers serving in Vietnam."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513069/posts

...and this one is from the fucking Freepers! How far right do have to go for your revisionism, Pari-cee?

"in 1971 alone, there were 1.8 fraggings for every 1000 soldiers in Vietnam."

And yet Cee just accused me of making it all up!

...apparently the 651 incidents that merely wounded their targets are not sufficient to be considered by Phari-cee and Mark whats-his-name as indicative of a demoralized military.

Oh my, you two are priceless. The fragging statistic is the common one given by the media and never referenced....in fact do you know if the number reflects number of people killed by assumed fragging or the incidents of fragging? Mmm?

Who is right, Woodruff or Anderson? To be honest, the unofficial MP website is dubious especially as it is cited by the nice Marxist.

Go to the nice blog cited below and read some real Vietnam vets discussing the issue and please comment on Jim Webb's anger over your characterization of the troops as "demoralized." My research over the years have found no concensus as Mike would want to believe and the blog, Mr. Webb's opinion and the argument over the actual statistics regarding fragging supports this.

Your far left ideology is sad, Loin and Mike's need for your babysitting just makes his position all the more pathetic.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52294

"Also, 10% of what number? The stats on this crime are what I would call murky at best. The numbers of fragging deaths cited in this thread alone range from 86 to around 1000."

From

http://www.marxist.com/usa/defeat_US_in_vietnam1102.html

"Between 1969 and 1973, there was an increased incidence of fragging, says the historian Terry Anderson from Texas A&M University. The U.S. Army does not have any exact statistics on how many officers were killed in this manner. But they do know of at least 600 cases of confirmed fragging and another 1400 where officers died under suspicious circumstances. As a result of this, the U.S. Army was not at war with the enemy in the beginning of 1970. They were at war with themselves."

It wasn't the brutality of the war that in and by itself led to the disintegration of the U.S. Army. All wars are brutal. The very essence of war is to solve conflicts using a maximum of force. American soldiers where subjects to and perpetrators of brutality also during the Second World War. The crucial difference is that they believed in their cause. Their supposed aim then was to defeat fascism and defend democracy.

No matter how hard American propaganda tried to portray the Vietnam War as a righteous battle for a better world, it didn't take long for soldiers stationed in Vietnam to realize that this was not the case. Rebellious tendencies did in fact arise even at the end of the Second World War, but that was when attempts were made to use the troops to fight communists in Italy and in other places.

Back in the U.S. ordinary workers were strongly affected by what their sons were going through in Vietnam and they didn't watch idly. As early as 1965, 25,000 people gathered in Washington, 20,000 in New York and 15,000 in Berkeley, California, to demonstrate against the war. In April 1967, 300,000 people demonstrated in New York.

A series of so-called moratorium days were organized by the two largest antiwar organizations. (Moratorium is defined in the dictionary as an agreed, temporary break). The most extensive of these days was October 15, 1969. More than 5 million people are estimated to have been involved one way or the other. There were demonstrations, sit-ins, teach-ins and other organized activities. Some actions were small - lighting a candle, leaving headlights on. In New York, the mayor declared a day of mourning and ordered flags to be flown at half-mast. The soldiers in Vietnam participated by wearing black armbands.

The largest demonstrations were held on April 24, 1971. In San Francisco about 300,000 people gathered, in Washington between 500,000 and 750,000. These were probably the biggest political demonstrations in the history of the United States.

Of course, protests were also being held at the universities. During the economic boom of the postwar years the universities opened up and by the end of the 60s millions of working class students were attending various colleges across America. Many of the largest and most militant protests were staged at universities that were not dominated by affluent students, such as Kent State, San Francisco State and the State colleges in Michigan, Maryland and Wisconsin. However, there was a decline in student protests at the beginning of the seventies. Various leftwing sects came to dominate the movement, fragmenting it through unproductive squabbling. This brought added importance to the strong impact of the antiwar movement on the labour organizations.

American labour unions had experienced an explosive development during the 30s, when they grew and became radicalised. However, during the 50s active participation by ordinary workers in the unions had declined as working conditions improved and the anticommunist hysteria of the cold war came to dominate the unions. The unions became heavily bureaucratised.

The 60s saw a new rise in union activity. Despite significant economic improvement, people still held the same bad jobs and experienced the same authoritarian rule in the workplaces. Many strikes erupted, especially within heavy industry, and extensive union campaigns were launched in order to organize agricultural workers, health care workers and civil servants. However, the union bureaucracy effectively slowed the movement down.

George Meany, president of AFL-CIO, personified this bureaucracy. His stand on the war was clear. With Meany's whole-hearted blessing the AFL-CIO's international department consisted mainly of CIA agents. In June 1966 the AFL-CIO's executive issued a statement saying: "Those who don't offer our armed forces their unconditional support are to all intents and purposes helping the communist enemy, during a time when the U.S. Army is carrying the heaviest load in defending peace and freedom in the world."

Naturally it wasn't easy for an opposition constantly harassed and persecuted to voice its opinion. In 1967 an anti-war resolution was proposed at the AFL-CIO congress. It lost by 2000 votes to 6.

Despite this, some union locals started positioning themselves as anti-war as early as 1965. The UAW (autoworkers union) left the AFL-CIO and in June 1969 they started the Alliance for Labor Action together with the Teamsters (transport workers' union). The Alliance supported the demand for an immediate termination of the war.

More and more unions were adopting an anti-war stance. Individual unions started to show open support for anti-war demonstrations and their members started to flock to them. In 1972 unions organizing four out of 21 million American workers were officially against the war. In the 1972 elections half of all union households voted for the democratic candidate George McGovern, who demanded an immediate retreat from Vietnam. Despite the fact that Meany for the first time refused to endorse a democratic candidate.

Meanwhile an increasing number of strikes were breaking out, including wildcat strikes. Meany was now on shaky ground. Even the construction workers were showing another side than the one we are accustomed to see. In June 1970 a reporter from the "Daily News" followed a group of activists visiting construction sites in Chicago with anti-war leaflets and saw that 90% of the men they spoke to were against the war and everyone found it idiotic to beat up students. (Phillip Foner, "US Labor and the Vietnam War").

No parliaments were stormed, no barricades were built and no presidents were overthrown in the U.S. (at least not until two years after the American troops had been withdrawn). Yet the American working class possessed enough strength to bring the troops home, at least once it had decided that it didn't want to see it's sons die for a cause they didn't believe in, a cause that they had to pay for and only favoured the establishment.

This didn't happen for high minded ideological reasons or out of support for the NFL, yet it happened. Eventually the logic of the movement itself also brought some sympathy for the Vietnamese people. New York Times/CBS News published the results of a poll in June 1977. The question asked was: "If the president would recommend helping Vietnam, would you want your representative in congress to approve aid for Vietnam in the form of food and medicine?" 66% said yes, 29% no.

The U.S. military resources were far superior, they controlled the airspace and had unlimited possibilities of bombing the country. Even if the costs were high and were starting to affect the American economy, speaking in purely military terms the Americans could have stayed in Vietnam for many more years. However, it wasn't possible to finance it if the working class refused to pay. It wasn't possible to continue the war if the American working class refused to fight. If the government had ignored this and had prolonged the war the U.S. would have been on the brink of revolution.

In 1975, after 28 years of war, imperialism was finally ousted from Vietnam. Now U.S. imperialism is again threatening to go to war. This time in Iraq. If it turns out to be a long war the American working class will be instrumental in stopping it once again.

###
Workers of the world, UNITE! Yeah, Loin baby! Thank you for leading me to this cite through your unofficial MP website.....I see all of your talking points!

Yeah, that far left propaganda will kill the objective mind. Compare what this marxist moron says and what Senator Webb and others wrote above about the soldiers and their mission in Vitenam, guys.....

Compare and contrast!

From the same site....

"Praise boss when morning work bells chime.
"Praise him for chunks of overtime.
"Praise him whose bloody wars we fight.
"Praise him, fat leech and parasite."

###
Oh dear....no Mike, no communist connection to the anti-war rhetoric....none what-so-ever! He, he, he.

Sleep on it and get back to me tomorrow.

G' night.

Well Phari-cee, as you've forcefully ascerted several times tonight: "...those statstics are no more valid than the rates I quoted". How can I argue with integrity like that?

So cee, Why do you respect Jim Webb's opinions when it suits you and reject them when it doesn't?

Try as you might, you cannot and will not dispell the FACT that the military was demoralized at the end of the Vietnam fiasco and I personally OBSERVED and lived it.

Answer my question Cee: How many MORE years do you believe the military could have sustained any semblance of morale based on your "research over the years"?

- 2?
- 3?
- 5?
- 10?
- 20?

And how many more American deaths should we have tolerated in pursuit of your mindless fantasies?

- 5,000?
- 10,000?
- 20,000?
- 50,000?
- 100,000?

And since you discount any and all realities that don't suit your lurid fantasies, tell us how many deaths, how much treasure, and how broken would our military would have had to become before YOU accepted the reality that the Vietnamese were the only ones who could decide their own future?

You freaking nutcase!

Well, SLOB, was I right? Is that why we haven't seen you for awhile?

"Joker, that site is a hoot. Here is a link to another part of their site:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Marxism101

This is where they link to their classes in MARXISM.

Do you think SLOB might be teaching any of the classes?
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at September 23, 2007 9:40 PM "
Grammie

"Praise boss when morning work bells chime.
"Praise him for chunks of overtime.
"Praise him whose bloody wars we fight.
"Praise him, fat leech and parasite."

Catchy; and highly relevant to the wars, croneys and brain-slaves of Bush. Thanks, Phari-cee.

...and do you actually go "he he he" when you laugh? Sounds about right.

Sleep on it and get back to me tomorrow.

G' night.

Posted by: cee at October 2, 2007 10:47 PM

Kiss my ass, Chickenhawk.

mike, aren't you being a little demanding after avoiding every single question posed to you last night?

Typical right wingers...when you can't when an argument based on facts, turn to the 'Marxist' card.

I bring up the FACT that fragging was a big problem in Vietnam and that it was but ONE indicator of a larger moral problem in Vietnam, and Cee ends up taking refuge in the tired old the 'marxist' argument.

And then Janet comes along and plays right along with it.

I personally find it very revealing that Cee finds it so threatening that he cannot bring himself to accept this simple established FACT.

It must be one of the cards holding up his fragile little house.

11:19, can you say R H E T O R I C A L?

11:20 should read; "morale problem in Vietnam"

Mikey, Mikey Mikey there you go again.

Everything is an assault, according to you, on your position and sensibilities.

That post was 40/60 or maybe 60/40 having a bit of fun with SLOB while making a point.

Do you really think that SLOB does not have Marxist leanings to one degree or another?

Is any discussion of Marxism/Communism verboten, SIG HEIL, to you?

Grammie

David Horowitz has written an article responding to Olbermann's "Worst Person" "award" - and has come out with both barrels running:
http://www.newsmax.com/horowitz/worst_person_in_the_world/2007/10/01/37097.html
Basically, Horowitz has named Olbermann as being part of the parcel of the radical socialist Left who has been "running interference" for the Islamofascists in the "War on Terror." I would encourage the regular writers of columns on this site to emphasize this. A sample quote:

"Today, Keith Olbermann and left-wing activists are performing the same service [acting as "frontier guards"] to the Islamic totalitarians. They are attempting to defame a Week [Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week] designed to educate America’s students about the enemies they face in the global war on terror. Instead [of] making Americans aware of the threat from Islamic terrorism, they are telling Americans to ask “Why do they hate us?” as though there were some answer other than the fact that they are religious fanatics who regard America as “the Great Satan.” Today, Keith Olbermann and the progressive left are acting as frontier guards for the Islamo-fascists who want to kill us.

"The scurrilous slander campaign that has been launched against Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week casts an illuminating spotlight on the war at home. The left in America has taken its stand. Just as progressives ran interference for the Soviet empire during the Cold War, progressives are today running interference for the Islamo-fascists.

"They ran interference for Saddam Hussein before the war in Iraq, and if successful would have prevented the overthrow of the one of the world’s most monstrous regimes. They are running interference for the terrorists who are fighting our troops in Iraq, attempting to force an American retreat, just as they did in Vietnam. If successful, they will have provided the Islamo-Fascists in the Middle East — in particular Iran — with oil rich Iraq as their new military and political base. And they have run interference at home for religious hate groups — Islamic hate groups — whose agendas include the oppression of women and gays, Christians and Jews and any infidel who stands in their path."

Re the "part of the parcel" - I meant "part AND parcel."

"I personally find it very revealing that Cee finds it so threatening that he cannot bring himself to accept this simple established FACT."

###
Nothing coming out of the mouths of the establishment can be considered FACT regarding Vietnam, Mike. I would like you to try to be a little more careful what you consider FACT. Even a sitting Democratic Senator who served sees the hidden agenda of those who want to quickly shut the books on Vietnam with conclusions regarding the whys and hows.

Sir Loin of Milquetoast is a radical ideologue who sees the function of government paramount in the lives of people. I am 180 degrees from that position and stand with the founders who had much more skepticism of the government. You have turned the world upside down in believing I would accept whatever the government and other authority that vies to make me a subject hands to me....and this argument is but one example showing you I do not allow others to automatically take authority over my beliefs and behavior.....

Fine, believe what you choose....I have met enogh vets and read enough primary sources to doubt the narrative given to me by the leftist elites....the etsablishment. I continue to research this very interesting subject. You and Loin have hardened conclusions and accept the narrative from tainted sources with agendas while ignoring the fact that there is ample evidence for one to doubt it. I will continue to post the alternatives and you can choose to be insulted and angry and I will continue to react with the same "he, he, he" that signals I am feeding off of your anger....I asked you before to lighten up, Mike, yet you insist on reacting with rightous indignation despite the fact that you claim to be such a calm and openminded person. I would expect your behavior from someone like Loin, and I am starting to doubt you are the calm centrist you claim to be.

Look how Loin reacted to "The Doxology" above....

"Praise boss when morning work bells chime.
"Praise him for chunks of overtime.
"Praise him whose bloody wars we fight.
"Praise him, fat leech and parasite."

###
Once again, it is very easy to show the alliances such radicals have and these are the same people who were against the United States in the 1940's when super-power status was attained....a VERY small group especially after WWII but in areas of society where influence was abundant and policy could be shaped....and the democrats evolved to be their slaves by the end of the 1960's and bam....look what we got....

Even the neoconservatives you despise are a result of this same process....a valid and needed reaction to the anti-American movement.

Please, Mike, I have said it before, ideology is everything and when the base of a movement is anti-American I cringe because it is the sadest example of "throwing the baby out with the bath water.' The base of the anti-war movement in the 1960's were anti-American ideologues who used the same terms you throw around so easily....

hegemony
imperialism

Sorry, you lose me when such terms are believed and applied to the best intended society the world has seen. A society that attempts to be transparent and accountable to only one thing.....it's constitution. Flawed as an human being is, most of the time there are checks and punishments on Americans because of our commitment to the rule of law.

I like how you and Loin ignored the tons of other posts that had facts in them....McGovern's quotes, Webb's essay, the information refuting the famed Habersham, etc....All basic points that put the left's simple anti-American narrative in question.

When you and Loin respond to all of that, then I will begin to take what you say seriously.

Oh my LLARRY, you are a busy fellow.....

No, I am not the final arbiter but I will call it as I see it and everyone can decide for themselves. The simple reality that the democratic party even became a minority in the legislative branch in 1994 and could only attain The White House since 1964 after either resignation of the previous office holder or by presenting themselves as "centrist," easily makes my point about the anti-American fringe left.

I suggest you read my post October 2 9:34AM, LLARRY and see an example of the radical left I mean....Do you agree with the professor's statement?

Be careful . . . whenever someone from the anti-American, anti-military Left says something about "don't believe what the government tells you," what they really mean is "only believe what the radical fringe kooks in MoveOn.org / Daily Kos / Huffington Post / International Socialist Organization / ANSWER etc., etc., and their water carriers at CBS / ABC / NBC / CNN / MSNBC / KGB / LSMFT et al., tell you."

Concerned, can't forget the good ol' bbc.

Ah yes, the good ol' BBC. Whose American cable channel cancelled daily repeats of "The Benny Hill Show" after an openly gay TV executive who once ran the show at Fox, NBC and the (now-defunct) WB took over as head of the cable channel:

http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/people/2007/1/hollywoodmen.html

What the bbc gay execs do with Benny Hill is the least of my worries. Their consistent defense of our enemy is more of a "worry."

And given that gays in Iran are targeted for stoning or execution (per the Persian Hitler's bragging at Columbia about there being "no gays" in his country), that the gay "activists" in America and elsewhere either say nothing about that or outright support the Islamofascists ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality at work here), is nothing short of incredible - not to mention suicidal.

("the enemy of my enemy is my friend")

This is a favorite line of a certain olbyloon. Lost track of how many times he used it.

You mean someone repeated a proverb, Dipshit? I've never heard of such. Damn diabolical.

*.*