Atlanta Opinion

AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > March > 01 > Entry

Are liberals not supportive enough of our military?

Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Commentary

By Shaunti Feldhahn

Shaunti Feldhahn

In February, the Berkeley, California, City Council passed a measure saying Marine recruiters were “not welcome in our city.” The measure emphasized, “If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders,” and asked residents to “impede…the work of any military recruiting office.”

Shock and outrage swept the country. It’s one thing for private citizens to exercise their freedom of speech; quite another for the government itself to undercut national security and military morale. Even many liberals decried the Berkeley action as extreme, saying their fellows should oppose the war, not the military.

The Berkeley action may be extreme — but it’s also a natural and almost inevitable outgrowth of what I believe is a systemic flaw in liberal thinking. Liberals tend to believe that people are inherently good, so problems can almost always be solved by working harder at understanding, education and dialogue. Under this reasoning, the use of force (e.g. the military) becomes not only counterproductive but often shameful and wrong.

Well-intentioned people on the left, therefore, frequently have an inherent tension and discomfort with the military, and a deep lack of understanding for its importance. And that translates into policies and actions that look non-supportive or even hostile.

Some of those actions may be merely frustrating, like Toledo’s Democrat mayor recently refusing to let Marines into his town for a pre-approved training exercise. But others are far more demoralizing, such as when congressman John Murtha read an early and very inaccurate news release of a battle in Iraq and called a press conference to say Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” And still others are deadly serious, like President Clinton’s enormous shrinking of our military forces; 30 percent in the Air Force alone. He promised to shrink defense by $60 billion, then struck $120 billion from the defense budget. Yet, he sent more troops abroad on operations than in the previous thirty years. By 1999, more than half of those enlisted planned to leave the service at the earliest allowed time.

Unfortunately, perhaps influenced by ideological discomfort with military action, both another Clinton and Obama are refusing to recognize that we are now winning in Iraq, and threaten to return lower morale to our military when we can least afford it.

Rebuttal

By Andrea Cornell Sarvady

Andrea Cornell Sarvady

I’m not really a wear-your-heart-on-your-car kind of gal, but right about now I want to slap a big bumper sticker on the back of my van that says, “You can support the troops AND be concerned about this war. I think we all know that. Now, stop tailgating me.”

If troop morale is in danger, I doubt it’s due to antics in The Peoples Republic of Berkeley or the justifiable disappointment of decorated marine colonel John Murtha, (who magically transformed into a liberal the second he parted ways with the official stance on Iraq.)

We could guess how the troops feel — but why not just ask them? The Military Times did, finding in a recent poll of active-duty service members that a third of respondents do not feel that their own commander-in-chief has their best interests at heart. Perhaps that’s why active service troops are increasingly less inclined to align with the Grand Old Party. Sixty percent of respondents identified themselves as Republican in 2004.Three years later, only 48.9 percent claimed the GOP as their party of choice. I wonder what “systemic flaw” in troop-think is causing this abandonment?

The troops do need our support, now more than ever, but with our advocacy for their protection, not with bumper sticker platitudes that solve nothing, help no one. To call such advocacy liberal might startle moderates and conservatives; all Americans are more than capable of recognizing that our brave men and women face an uphill battle, for not even an encouraging surge can insure permanent stability in Iraq.

Black and white stereotypes simply don’t hold up in this gray-area war on terror. For any of us, supporting the troops should mean acknowledging that in a front-less war where enemies and allies change in an instant, giving our soldiers tools for diplomacy and education is just as vital as decent helmets and body armor.

If there’s a “systemic flaw” to be found here, it’s in my colleague’s temptation to consider an entire group of people naively immune from reason, yet expect them to work with her towards democracy. That doesn’t play any better here than it does in Iraq — and it certainly doesn’t support the troops.

Post your commentCommenting open from 7a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F. | Read other comments (337)

Comments

Commenting is now closed for this entry.

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 6:54 AM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 6:54 AM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 6:54 AM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 6:55 AM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 6:55 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

March 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

soma double cross

By kistov

March 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

http://index1.hipslick.com >women sex http://index9.hipslick.com >big t** on tv http://index8.hipslick.com >girls who eat spunk http://index4.hipslick.com >usps com passport http://index6.hipslick.com >cum to me http://index3.hipslick.com >kristin gerhmann 38 female lives in atlanta http://index5.hipslick.com >casa grande arizona classified http://index2.hipslick.com >skateboard videos http://index10.hipslick.com >armed and dangerous female bodybuilder http://index7.hipslick.com >local bi females

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

March 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

By Bob

March 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Liberals want our troops to come home from a pointless war, safe and sound. Conservatives want the troops to remain in the midst of a civil war that we caused with an invasion based on falsified intelligence, and the ‘support’ that they offer appears to be car magnets and a whole hell of a lot of hot air.

Also, you appear not to have read the full details about the Berkeley situation, seeing as how it is in fact a protest against the military’s stance on gays, rather than hating on the military in general.

When the hell did this column turn into a less informed version of Hannity and Colmes?

By kistov

March 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

http://index2.boybluejay.com >american educational research association division a http://index13.boybluejay.com >vintage marantz speackers ebay http://index9.boybluejay.com >buttermilk pie http://index1.boybluejay.com >christian nurses assciation http://index7.boybluejay.com >massachusetts granite distributors http://index12.boybluejay.com >long hair bikini brunette http://index5.boybluejay.com >big booty cheerleaders http://index14.boybluejay.com >hancock http://index8.boybluejay.com >photos of grassy sprain estates housing http://index15.boybluejay.com >blacl f*** black gallery pictures

By kistov

March 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

By kistov

March 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

By kistov

March 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

By kistov

March 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

By The Other Jack

March 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Bob

Liberals want our troops to come home from a pointless war, safe and sound.

This is the problem. Sound bite foreign policy is how we got into this mess in the first place. To attempt to summarize this very important geo-political conflict as a “pointless war” is ignoring an encyclopedia of facts about the results of just packing up and leaving Iraq.

No one wants to see our sons and daughters continue to die. But if we leave, we will need to return over and over again and the vacuum of power that we leave will be instantly filled with despots and fascists who will subjigate women and revert a promising culture back to a thirteenth century hell-hole.

Obama made the mistake of saying that if Al Quida returns to Iraq, we will respond. So make no mistake. The US will still be the world’s policemen, protecting the oil company’s sources, no matter who is in the White House. As soon as we pull out, we will need to go back in.

As far as the real reason for the controversy in Berkley: So let’s see, a group of liberals take a stand against something and another group of liberals hijack the story. Then the second group of liberals make everyone look bad. Say it ain’t so.

By HsvsRsvsesv

March 2, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

generic cialis

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

Yep. Shaunti has the right of it. I am a liberal, so I, therefore hate the military. Nevermind that both my parents served (dad: army, mom: air force nurse). I’m a liberal, so I therefore hate the military. Nevermind that both my uncles served - I’m a liberal, so therefore hate the military. Nevermind that my brother-in-law’s brother (whom I love dearly) is a chaplain in the airforce and has done 2 tours in Iraq - I’m a liberal, so therefore hate, don’t bother to understand and generally mistrust the military.

Gosh, I wish I lived in Shaunti’s world - getting dressed in the morning must be a lot easier when everything is black and white.

Oh, as far as the Toledo military exercise - it was NOT approved by the mayor, only by the police - which was why they were asked to leave as soon as they were finished with their urban assault exercises. (the mayor had a silly notion that pedestrians may be a little unsettled seeing a bunch of guys in cammos running around with guns - especially when they didn’t have any warning that it was just training).

By Lyrazel

March 3, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

We are winning in Iraq? Winning what? The hearts and love of an invaded people? What are we winning? Name it please because I cannot. We went to Iraq on false information. The crew we put in charge failed and the government we selected (or say let them select) has failed. Here is the liberal truth of what the war has won:

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers’ funds. President Bush has requested another $200 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion. U.S. Daily Spending in Iraq - over $270 million, in November 2007 Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers’ money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem “questionable or supportable” - $3.2 billion

Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)

Iraqi Troops Trained and Able to Function Independent of U.S. Forces - 6,000 as of May 2007

Troops in Iraq - Total 166,895, including 157,000 from the US, 4,500 from the UK, 2,000 from Georgia, 900 from Poland, 650 from South Korea and 1,845 from all other nations

US Troop Casualities - 3,971 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 80% active duty, 12% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 18% killed by non-hostile causes. 51% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 70% were from the US Army

Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 307, with 174 from the UK

US Troops Wounded - 29,203, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)

US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home

US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 68 total, at least 36 by enemy fire

Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007.

Journalists killed - 126, 83 by murder and 43 by acts of war

Journalists killed by US Forces - 14

Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 7,924

Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 548

Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 305, including 54 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 94 status unknown.

Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14

Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70

Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000

QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS

Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000

Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million

Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect

Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%

Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007

Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%

Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000

Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000

Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007

Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007

Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24

Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37% Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%

RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute) Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82% Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1% Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67% Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%

Again I will ask, What have we won? Enlighten me.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

USinUK

You are the one that is making this a black and white issue.

No one is saying that you hate the military, but the party you support definitely has some issues with the military. And it has become one of the many stereotypes that hangs on to your party.

Berkeley is an example of several such instances, and until liberals openly denounce what they are doing in Berkeley, one has no choice but to conclude that most liberals agree with them.

I don’t like how everyone hangs religous fundamentalism on all Republicans anymore than you probably want to be associated with the great unwashed of Berkeley.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel

Thanks for the numbers. Now i have a very simple question for you. This is it.

What happens to Iraq when we leave?

Obama has already said that if problems arise, he will send troops back in, so we are in Iraq whether you like it or not.

So we leave, give up everything we have gained, go back in after our enemies have established strong-holds, costing thousands more American’s lives.

Obama is using the war to get elected.

It’s disgusting.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

“Are Liberals Not Supportive Enough of Our Military.” That is the headline.

I am a liberal - therefore, I evidently do not support our military and have (to quote Shaunti) “an inherent tension and discomfort with the military, and a deep lack of understanding for its importance.”

sorry, my friend, but Shaunti wants to paint us all with a Berkley Broad Brush (and you know how much I love it when people do that!!)

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Obama is using the war to get elected. It�s disgusting.

Not nearly as disgusting as how RoveCo used 9/11 during the 2002 mid-terms. I mean, really - saying that Max Cleland supported OBL? THAT was disgusting.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

She says “that well intentioned people on the left” have those feelings. She didn’t say all liberals.

How was your weekend? I spent mine cleaning out the storage shed. It was really nice here.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

yeah, it was pretty nice here, too … did a lot of spring cleaning (although we’re being threatened with a cold snap this week) … went out for dim sum on Sat (YUM!) … yesterday was Mother’s Day, so we went to the MIL’s house (I’m very lucky - LOVE my mother-in-law - fantastic woman!!).

have been thinking about all your recording stuff - you really should try Craig’s List … have a friend of mine who is a composer in DC - he uses Craig’s List to buy/sell gear all the time!

meanwhile (getting off-topic early this week) … did you see the crazy story about the guy in Las Vegas who had the 20-some-odd vials of ricin AND the Anarchist’s Handbook - but they’re treating it like it WASN’T an act of terrorism??? in-flippin’-sane.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Politics is disgusting, and both sides of the isle smell to high heaven.

But tell me what you would consider a good result of pulling out of Iraq. Tell me why Obama won’t send troops right back in. You know that Iran will waltz right in and accomplish what they have been trying to do for 40 years.

This is the same Iran that the UN is launching yet another string of sanctions toward, today. Both parties openly recognize the danger of Iran so what are the chances we won’t be back in Iraq, fighting the armies of Iran?

It’s nuts, girl.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

She says �that well intentioned people on the left� have those feelings. She didn�t say all liberals.

ummm … if we’re not one of the well-intentioned, what does that make us? it’s the equivalent of “bless her heart” (as in, my aunt betty, bless her heart, is as nutty as a fruitcake and needs to be locked in the attic)

By Lyrazel

March 3, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

We cannot leave now. We have made the situation in the Middle East worse than it was for all nations in the region. Clearly it would be an unconscionable mistake to leave everything—but you know tOJ we will not be abandoning the 74 military bases we installed. What we need to do is instill some kind of competent direction in the spending vs waste situation both in our government and independent contractors and start editing all budgets for fraud, hiring practices and making sure civilian workers who are abused in Iraq have recourse. We must also protect and serve the countless vets who are returning and finding themselves homeless, jobless and without medical care who are increasingly finding themselves unable to cope, provide for families and weed through paperwork that derails their service.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I saw that. Yes, I would say that manufacturing ricin and taking it to a highly populated area just might be suspect. LOL!

That book, Anarchist�s Handbook, is very common. I think it is actually called The Anarchist�s Cookbook. I had a friend in high school that had it and that was 1970. It’s probably been updated.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

It�s nuts, girl.

I’m sayin’.

As far as Iraq goes … forget an invasion by Iran, look at Turkey! They’ve already gone in and started scouting neighborhoods.

Yes, it’s going to be a mess, but you’ve got to look at it another way - how much of the current mess is because we’re there??? I guess I’m reiterating a lot of what Lyra (and Obama) was saying earlier - a lot of the violence (especially from AQ in Iraq) is simply because of the US presence.

And, yes, a lot of it is because of tribal warfare - despite Bush’s “I have a vision” speech in his SOTU a few years back (“I envision Sunnis, Shias and Kurds living together in peace” - I remember IMing with a friend of mine who wanted to know if Bush had started drinking again). That is going to be there whether we’re in Iraq or not. We’re never going to solve that problem.

Fact is - we have to get out. We need to come up with some hard deliverables for the Iraqi gov’t (who, by the way, WANT us out!) and begin a process of turning their country back over to them …

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Well, while the Anarchist’s Cookbook on its own may not be suspect … add that to 20 vial of ricin and, Houston, I think we have a problem.

(of course, if his name was Mohammad-Abu-something-or-other, then OF COURSE we’d be talking terrorism … and, as you say, CNN would have already come up with a theme song and some dramatic graphics)

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel

We agree. I also agree with your issues about returning soldiers.

Washington is bound and set to stay involved in Iraq. I like the fact that there is so much pressure to reduce our presence in Iraq. We WILL be the military force in Iraq, like it or not. We are still in Japan and Germany.

By chuck

March 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Uhhhh USinUK, did you read the same article I read? Shaunti’s words wer:

I don’t see ANYTHING that says liberals HATE the military. She did say that you (liberals) fail to see the importance of the military role in Iraq…ESPECIALLY now that the surge is working.

LIErazel, THOSE were interesting statistics to say the least. The fact is that the SURGE was not fully in place until late June of 2007. I noticed that ALL OF YOUR “FACTS” were from BEFORE the surge. Kind of makes your post pointless don’t you think?

By Vincent

March 3, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

So this is how conservatives support our troops?

“On February 6th, The New York Times reported that Sioux Manufacturing, which makes the Kevlar for helmets, has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company had shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including helmets used by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense, aware of both the problem with Sioux’s helmets and the company’s efforts to cover it up, awarded another contract to Sioux a mere 12 days before the lawsuit was settled.”

That contract is worth $74 million dollars. Thanks for taking care of our troops Mr. Bush.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

We are still in Japan and Germany.

true - but, come on, it’s not the same, now, is it? You don’t have a problem with Zen Buddhists and Shinto Buddhists bombing each other in the marketplace … same with the Catholics and Protestants in Germany. Those countries lost wars against other nations they invaded.

In this case, Iraq did nothing to deserve our invasion - in fact, we removed the one thing that was keeping the different religious sects at bay, Saddam Hussein (say what you want about dictators, but they know how to keep the peace). I know that’s flippant - and, yes, he was a horrible person who needed to be brought to justice. But it should have been done by Iraqis, not by an invasionary force.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

USinUK

This is going to be big liability for Obama. See what happened there? I’m asking what will happen in the future and you started talking about the past. It is debatable as to whether we did any good in Iraq, but it is what it is.

We can’t look at it another way. You are looking to blame someone. I want to solve some problems. The Democrats are saying that this is a mess that the Republicans made (even though most Democrats supported the action) so we are just going to clear out. That’s like trying to put spilled milk back in the carton. The mess has been made and is getting bigger.

Turkey is a much more stable country with a fairly stable government. I would love to think that we go marching out of Iraq and the Iranians leave Iraq alone, we get some good allies that treat us fairly as to petroleum distribution and neighborhoods spring up with schools dedicated to the great peace maker: Barrack Obamma, but I just don’t see it happening..

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Terror is Vegas: The Big Gamble!!

I gotta get out of here. It is beautiful outside and I have places to go and things to do.

Have a great day.

By chuck

March 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

And yes USinUK, the LIBERALS in Berkely and across the country are NOT supportive enough of the military.

Saying “I want the troops to come home where they are safe” is NOT being supportive of the military. FIRST, they don’t WANT to come home with the job left undone. (See Vietnam).

Second, the only way to support the military is to SUPPORT THEM IN THE MISSION WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN. The military doesn’t choose the mission in the United States, the President and Congress do. It is oxymoronic to say “I am against the war but I support the troops”. The truth of the matter is that it can’t be done. Conservatives need a kick in the butt for letting liberals get away with that line in the first place. It’s like saying “I support the teachers, but I am against the education policy.” The truth is that soldiers are in charge of IMPLEMENTING the policy of our government. Whether we support the policy or not, we are hurting our military by constantly expressing opposition to it. It hurts morale, it emboldens the enemy and it is nothing more than political posturing for most politicians who just want to use it as a wedge so they can get elected.

Cut it out.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Terror is Vegas: The Big Gamble!!

HA!!

By Chilao

March 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Should liberals support the troops in the same way that the Pentagon does?

Make sure that active duty members in Iraq are only allowed to serve 738 days, and are removed and brought home then. Why 738 days? Because at 740 days active duty the armed forces members are entitled to educational benefits. And you know we can’t have that.

Don’t hold me to the EXACT number of days there(738vs740), but the days differential(2) IS accurate.

And I disagree with the baloney that liberals think everyone is good at heart. It is just that liberals don’t immediately think tanks, fighters, and armed troops is the FIRST thing to come out. What is the new term for gunboat diplomacy, B1-B Bomber diplomacy?

And we all know Bush was planning in March, 2000(US News and World Report THEN, before 9/11), on invading Iraq, so tying it to 9/11 was a sham.

By Chilao

March 3, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

and who knew the first US person stockpiling ricin(that we know about) would be the out-West anti-government home-grown terrorist/anarchist types? LOL

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

chuck -

the only way to support the military is to SUPPORT THEM IN THE MISSION WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN

so, basically, the only way to “support the troops” is to shut our yaps, retreat to the corner and agree humbly with everything this administration says.

well, bite me. that isn’t going to happen. you know why??? because I, as an American, have the right to an opinion - and I am not alone in the opinion that we were lied into this war, this war was planned badly from the get-go and the people fighting it have NOT gotten the REAL support they need from all the folks who like to label people like me as “traitors” or “against the troops”: Body Armor is support. Tanks and armed vehicles are support. Medical assistance when they return is support. A real frickin’ PLAN and OBJECTIVE is support.

And, what happens when people point out that the REAL support like that isn’t there??? we’re told we’re the ones eroding morale. we’re told we’re the ones aiding the enemy.

well, you can take those tired old cliches and stuff them where the sun don’t shine - it doesn’t work, anymore. we’re not going meekly into a corner under the bullying of people like you any. flippin’. more.

By kimberly

March 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

USinUK, thank you so much for your responses! I would express these same sentiments myself, if not for being so utterly nauseated by this tired old topic, and the EFFERS who repeat the LIE that questioning our government is an insult to our fine men & women in uniform instead of our DUTY as citizens. Please carry on; I haven’t the stomach for these tapeworms today. Thank you.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

kimberly -

:-) thanks!!

(hug) keep fighting the good fight - you’re not alone!!!

By Vincent

March 3, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

This war has been a massive boon to the bottom line of the military contractors and that is about it. It has been horribly mismanaged from the beginning and THAT is what puts our troops in harms way… NOT American citizens exercising their right to dissent. I am sick and tired of conservatives who give nothing but lip service to the notion of “supporting our troops.” Slapping a yellow ribbon on your SUV and screeching your blind patriotism is truly Anti-American. You believe in this country? Then believe in any one’s right to disagree. If you do not question what your government is doing, then you get the government you deserve.

By chuck

March 3, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

I didn’t say you could not have an opinion OR express it. If you do so, however, YOU ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS. You can’t have it both ways. It’s fine to say you are against the war, blah, blah, blah, blah. You’ve said it 1000 times. Guess what sweetie. THE FREAKIN WAR IS OVER. IT HAS BEEN SINCE ABOUT 3 WEEKS AFTER WE GOT THERE.

This is a DIFFERENT MISSION from the WAR. It is no different than what we were doing in Germany, Japan(for about 20 years after WWII), Kosovo (been there 12-13 years), Korea (for about 54 years), and many other places around the globe in the past or currently.

Face it USinUK, you are a Bush hater and even thought the NEW mission is succeeding, you can’t bring yourself to admit it because you might have to give Bush some credit. Get over yourself.

By Archie

March 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

Is Shanti touched in the head? The first three paragraphs of her commentary sound crazy. I mean as a liberal-leaning person I still had a brother in the military and he had to travel overseas several times. Don’t you think I supported him and others like him??? My brother has retired but I am still concerned that someone’s brother may be killed or maimed in this war. Remember a report by a nonpartisan group says there were no WMD’s in Iraq and this was the reason given for the war. I sent packages and I would email my family member and that says nothing of the worrying by his family. People don’t want war the ended because they’re wimps but because they are concerned about the safety of the troops and infrastructure of the country. Also there was well written letter by a veteran praising Clinton for her work posted in the state newspaper here in SC. The way Shanti frames her argument is insulting and borderline nutty.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 3, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

FIRST, they don�t WANT to come home with the job left undone. (See Vietnam)

I guess that’s why formerly career military are turning down substanstial bonuses and refusing to re-up, because they’re all so excited to be there? I guess that’s why 58% of the graduating class of West Point left the military as soon as their first tour was over and why the military is losing its junior officers at ever-increasing rates? Because they’re all just so damned happy to be there?

And thanks, Chuck, for letting us know that we can’t actually support the troops and disagree with the war. What WOULD we DO without YOU and your ALL CAPS to share the TRUTH with us?

I want the troops to be armored and geared effectively as long as they are there. I want them to have medical care both while deployed and when they are shipped back. I want as many of them to survive unscathed as possible. I contribute to care packages that are distributed to units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support the troops. I do not support the war.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

chuck -

THE FREAKIN WAR IS OVER. IT HAS BEEN SINCE ABOUT 3 WEEKS AFTER WE GOT THERE.

oh, really??? I’m sure the Pentagon would be surprised (if not amused) to hear that. but, since you say it’s over, then we should bring the troops home, no???

actually, chuck, what we’re doing in Iraq is VERY different from what we were doing in Japan and Germany - again, read my reply above (they lost a war they started, etc). SOUTH Korea we have been there as protection from North Korea - no where NEAR the same reason we’re in Iraq. Kosovo - we went in because of a genocide that started before we got there (if anythng, we waited way the heck too long) - not to mention, we weren’t the only ones who went in (helllooooo, NATO) and aren’t the only ones still there. And, in each of those places, our presence has not been the cause of violence as it currently is in Iraq.

The thing that amuses me to no end when people like you like to throw out “you hate Bush, so (random buzzing noise about whatever they’re trying to justify, be it torture, invasion of a sovereign nation, setting aside Constitutional rights, etc)” … you’re the very same people who hated Clinton to such an extent, you impeached him over a blow job.

so, really, you can take your “you hate Bush so blahblahblah” and put that in the same place you put your “the only way you can support the troops is MY way”.

By Nancy

March 3, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

So you’re the 19% Chuck! I wondered who was the Bush supporter.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Archie

troop hater.

;-)

By k

March 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Oh, snap!

By cranky old man

March 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

I suspect the morale hit to the USMC from any actions taken by the Berkeley City Council would be minimal. I read in one of the articles that a protestor was holding a sign that read something like, “Join the Marines to see the world, learn about other cultures, meet new people, and then kill them.”

I know quite a few ex-Marines, as there are a lot of them in the GA National Guard. Based on my experience with them, I suspect most would be much more likely to get that saying tattooed on their arms than have their morale damaged. Maybe add a skull and a dagger dripping blood.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

“Hater” is such a trivial phrase now - honest opposition to anything can be instantly dismissed by calling someone a “hater”. Don’t like Emminem? Rapper Hater! Don’t like the Coen brothers? Javier Hater! Don’t approve of Bush’s policies? Bush hater!

It’s such a simplistic way to reject opposition. By reducing anyone who disagrees with Bush and his politics and philosophy to “Bush Hater”, you insulate yourself from having to consider the idea that there are people - a LOT of people if the numbers are accurate - who simply disagree with how the man has run the country and prosecuted this war or military action or police action - whatever some people want to call it.

Well, sorry - I feel no overwhelming personal animosity towards George W. Bush, but I sure do have lots of objections to his policies. If you want to reduce that down to “Bush Hater”, I can stop you.

Complexity hater.

By chuck

March 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter who started WWII as far as the mission AFTER THE WAR. The mission AFTER the war was to keep the peace and keep the defeated nations in line until they re-adopted democratic non-agressive stances toward their former enemies. AND, to keep the Russians from taking them over. That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq, except this time it’s Iran.

There was certainly no mass killing of Kurds in Iraq before we went in WITH 19 ALLIES was there?

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Vincent

Actually it’s both. To ignore a national news story about telling the service men that they are not welcome in an American community is ignoring reality.

Give up on the yellow ribbon thing, man. People need to express their support how ever they want. Who are you to tell them what they should do? Open your mind, Pal.

By Lyrazel

March 3, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

How is the surge succeeding chuck? Clearly we are loosing ground in Afghanistan but that is a mute point to any discussion about Iraq, I guess. My problem with the surge is that it has left America in a bind larger than the administration wants to admit. My numbers have the same flaw the Pentagon budget has, sir. By the time it is released the costs and expenses have already tripled and the data is old. Please try to find current surge numbers that say what we have gained: in revenue, international opinion, peace or maybe a drop in oil prices, since the surge. What have we gained, chuck? New trade? Safer borders? Closer allies? The surge only proves we have made the area more unstable than it ever has been.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

To ignore a national news story about telling the service men that they are not welcome in an American community is ignoring reality.

okay, I know that I’m not nearly as exposed to US national news as you guys are, but I haven’t seen ONE news story about how the troops aren’t welcomed/celebrated when they return home. NOT. ONE. (unless, of course, you want to discuss how little support they get in the VA system … but, I’m sure that’s now what you meant).

In fact, the way the US has been welcoming home troops from Iraq has become a model here in the UK for towns welcoming home troops from Afghanistan - the media here has played up how SUPPORTIVE the US has been in welcoming home the troops (and I’d lay every last penney in my accounts that there were at least one or two democrats in those crowds).

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Cranky Old Man

I know this will be a shock to you, but soldiers are trained killers. Weren’t you aware of that?

They aren’t policemen.

They aren’t social workers.

They are either trained to personally kill other people or they are trained to support people and machines that kill other people.

We are in the unfortunate situation of being born at this place in history where mankind is still at war. Because of this, we need to train certain people to kill people who want to hurt us. I don’t think any of us like it.

I’m sorry that you are so repulsed by these people. Personally, I’m glad they are there.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

chuck -

There was certainly no mass killing of Kurds in Iraq before we went in WITH 19 ALLIES was there?

you mean the mass killing of Kurds by Saddam that WE helped him cover up by blaming Iran??? that killing of Kurds?? or the killing of Kurds done by Turkey after Gulf War I - which got all of about 3” in the national papers (because they are a friend, after all).

The mission AFTER the war was to keep the peace and keep the defeated nations in line until they re-adopted democratic non-agressive stances toward their former enemies

so, going by that, we’re staying in Iraq until the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds all learn how to play nice and get along??? that’s our goal?? to overcome hundreds of years of hatred and mistrust between religious sects??

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel

Clearly we are loosing ground in Afghanistan

And you wonder why liberals are stuck with the reputation of not supporting the military. Yes, you will always find experts that say we are losing ground, but you will always find just as many experts who say we are making and have made huge strides.

Why do liberals always side with the folks that say we are losing ground?

Please, try to consider:

It is GOOD when American Troops win.

It is GOOD when downtown Baghdad becomes a bustling city full of people with new hope for their country.

It is GOOD when we wipe out a house full of people who are plotting to kill Americans.

It is GOOD when we build schools that actually allow women to attend.

It is good when we clear out common Islamic thugs who surpress the rights of citizens.

Good things are happening and bad things are happening. You continue to look at the bad. Because of that one view, you love to preach at how wrong America is.

I like to also consider BOTH sides.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 3, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

I think you’ll find, TOJ, that most career military would be perfectly happy if they were never called upon to use the training to which you refer.

While I don’t think “Cranky Old Man” was suggesting he was repulsed, I am personally repulsed by anyone who would rejoice or glory in killing, as was suggested by the story of marines happily tatooing the statement in question on their arms.

Except that Marines can’t have tatoos on their forearms anymore.

And yes, the military is necessary, and no, I don’t think the Recruiting office should be banned - the right to serve in the military is just as much about freedom as anything else - and yes, most of the people in the military are good, honest and hard-working people but there are also !GASP! crooks, murderers, theives and felons wearing digital desert camo and toting a gun. Just wanted to cover all possible bases.

By The Other Jack

March 3, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Yes. They have been welcomed home. Several reality shows have built returning vets new homes, cars, etc. That’s great. But the Berkeley thing is also in the news.

I think it all boils down to the post by Cranky Old Man. Training our brightest and best to kill others is repulsive, but it is a fact of life. At least life in the US.

Why can’t we all just get along?

By chuck

March 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Ask your “adopted country” how long that takes.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

Yes, you will always find experts that say we are losing ground, but you will always find just as many experts who say we are making and have made huge strides.

sorry, but I gotta ask - please cite one expert who says we’re making huge strides in Afghanistan. I’m not talking kill stats - I’m talking about less poppy grown, I’m talking about fewer people joining Al Quaeda, I’m talking about better quality of life.

cuz, let’s be honest - our own state department has said that we’re losing on all 3 fronts mentioned above. poppy production is up (yay! cheap heroin - that’s a win-win for everyone). Al Quaeda recruitment is up. Quality of life is down (more black-outs in the Helmland province, more bad water, their infrastructure is in shambles).

And, frankly, if our own state department is admitting to that, then, really, any “expert” who negates that is really just trying to be a war cheerleader rather than talk about the truth on the ground.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

chuck -

Ask your �adopted country� how long that takes.

you know, one of the signs of being a grown-up is learning from other’s mistakes. the UK has definitely made its share of mistakes (one of them being creating the country of Iraq in the first place) … too bad people like you haven’t learned from them.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

But the Berkeley thing is also in the news.

not to make light of it, but do you really think the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan watched the news about Berkley and said “dammit!! Berkley hates us!! why are we here??? woe is me!!!”

no, they did what the rest of us did and rolled their eyes and probably did a rude hand motion to go with it.

By chuck

March 3, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Is that why Hillary is losing right now? The liberals learned from their mistake and are “growing up.”

By chuck

March 3, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

There really is an easy fix in Afghanistan and we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone so to speak.

First we drive the Taliban into the mountains on the border with Pakistan and THEN we bomb both sides of the border and wipe them all out. Better yet, nuke the border area and get rid of Obama Bin Laden AND the Taliban. Then we need to napalm the poppy fields.

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

chuck -

boy, I’ll bet just the thought of nuking those towel heads gives you a thrill, doesn’t it … mmmmboyhowdy … turning the whole middle east into a glass factory … feeling a little warm, are you??? a little lightheaded at the thought of all those innocent people dying?? all that carnage??

I’ll bet you were just sorry you weren’t there to personally drop Fat Man and Little Boy, yourself … or, at least pilot the Enola Gay …

gosh, I love how christian you are. you’re definitely an inspiration to us all.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 3, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

lol, it’s like a compulsion. No matter what the topic, chuck just can’t resist making nasty comments about liberals and Clintons.

Oh, and chuck…I’m fairly sure that God would disapprove of you nuking even the least of His Creation.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 3, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

oh, and chuck - if, as pretty much every reliable intelligence source concludes, our presence in Iraq is providing AQ with the mother of all recruitment tools, exactly what do you think nuking Pakistan and Afghanistan would do?

By USinUK

March 3, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

f(x)

No matter what the topic, chuck just can�t resist making nasty comments about liberals and Clintons

and then he talks about everyone else hating Bush.

By cranky old man

March 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

The Other Jack

I think you misread my intent. Sorry. I have a dry sense of humor, and I’m a compulsive smartass. I have nothing against the troops. Indeed, I’m one of them. I spent eight years on active duty and I’m currently in the Guard. I spent one year in Iraq already, and I’m probably going to end up in Afghanistan next year.

My point was that those of us in the military are big boys and girls, and our feelings aren’t easily hurt. Some of us have a warped sense of humor and we can be crude and insensitive when we’re among our own kind. But we try to tone it down around civilians, especially those of us in the Military Police Corps.

Generals in charge of fighting a counterinsurgency love to have MPs, especially from the Guard and Reserve. A very high percentage of them are cops in their civilian jobs, so they are used to handling stressful situations without getting trigger happy. We also tend to be older, on average, than active duty troops.

And as for my personal opinion on the Iraq war, I think it was a stupid idea. But now that we’re there, we’re kind of stuck with it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t hold those responsible for it accountable at the polls.

By Chilao

March 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

our presence in Iraq is providing AQ with the mother of all recruitment tools

as well as direct (urban often) combat experience.

By Archie

March 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Oh, and chuck�I�m fairly sure that God would disapprove of you nuking even the least of His Creation. God would disapprove of the casual killing thought pattern that Chuck has. As a christian it bothers me how little people think of other people that don’t look like them. I mean how can you quote scripture then mention bombing someone indiscriminately in the next sentence??? My thing is we keep seeing nonpartisan reports that say Al Q..da is getting stronger and we have spent billions of dollars per month for that? As for Hillary I will print part of what this veteran had to say: Since she joined the Armed Service Committee, Clinton�s unsurpassed support of our military and veterans resulted in the American Legion naming her the �unsung hero� of the 108th Congress. Efforts on behalf of the military date to her first lady position, when she brought attention to Gulf War Syndrome.

Achievements include support for the disabled, funds for VA hospitals and defeating attempts to increase drug co-payments. With Lindsey Graham, she expanded health care for National Guard and reservists.

Her �Heroes at Home� legislation provides families of soldiers with traumatic brain injury training to assist loved ones, enhance detection, assessment and treatment and expand support systems.

Her efforts increased survivor benefits $12,000 to $100,000. She helped create the Purple Heart stamp, honoring our outstanding military.

Those were the reasons I said I think Shanti is touched in the head.

By F'(x)

March 4, 2008 12:15 AM | Link to this

My comp is dead. Posting from phone. Be back in the game soon. Hang tight USinUK.

By Natural Male Enhancement

March 4, 2008 6:18 AM | Link to this

Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it. I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don’t know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.

By fred sanders

March 4, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

The only government organization or branch that keeps us safe and secure is our miltary might and the liberals that enjoy our freedoms need to learn this simple fact of life.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this

USinUK

You and others are going after chuck like there is no tomorrow for saying that we should nuke the Taliban but you try to claim that the stance taken by the Berkeley City Counsil is A-OK and has never effected any American soldier.

And some people have actually said that the liberals on this forum are bullies and looking to attack anyone for saying anything they don’t agree with while just blowing off anything bad about liberals or what they do.

Say it ain’t so.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

gosh, Fred … all those men and women risking their lives as spies in the CIA are feeling a whole lot like chopped liver long about now … not to mention the men and women who work domestically for the FBI keeping us safe from the drug-dealing gang scum who think nothing of polluting our cities … and I’m sure the police REALLY appreciate your high regard …

and there are judges and prosecutors who risk their lives on a daily basis prosecuting the bad guys who are right here on US soil.

but, yeah. you’re right. the military is the ONLY government institution that keeps us safe and secure - and we, as liberals have absolutely no respect for the hard work they do.

please see my post from yesterday at 8:24 - then do us all a favor and zip it with the “liberals don’t support the military” BS - we’re not putting up with that crap anymore.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

You and others are going after chuck like there is no tomorrow for saying that we should nuke the Taliban Your statement suggests that we can infer that you agree with him on the arbitrary nuking, no?

but you try to claim that the stance taken by the Berkeley City Counsil is A-OK and has never effected any American soldier.

It is ok for Berkley to have an opinion, no? Or do you believe the city council should be reprimanded? I have yet to read where anyone said it has not effected any soldier. Only that if it had an effect it would be extremely small potatoes. Or do you believe that there are a substantial number of soldiers freaking out about it? Cite proof of these soldiers?

Lets see if you can simply answer these questions, and state your own opinion on the matter, instead of being on the sidelines providing ambiguous insults and cheers…

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

I’m sorry - I said that the stance taken by Berkeley is A-OK??? and where did I say that??? what I did say is that I have a VERY hard time believing that any of our men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan saw that coverage and did more than roll their eyes and make a rude hand gesture. I mean, we’re talking BERKELEY after all … frankly, I’d be surprised if they didn’t make that kind of stand. Again, let’s be clear - not saying that I agree, jsut saying I’m not surprised.

As far as going after Chuck for his asinine “nuke the border” comment - I’m not really seeing what you’re distressed about, here. Are you saying I bullied him?? Are you saying I called him names?? What is wrong with anything I said?? Or are you upset that I’m not the only one who called him out on it??

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

Cranky Old Man

First, Thanks for serving your country.

I have no doubt that you are being sincere about what you say. I have never been in the military but strangely enough have worked and traveled with the military a great deal.

Did you see this: I am personally repulsed by anyone who would rejoice or glory in killing, as was suggested by the story of marines happily tatooing the statement in question on their arms.

Our young soldiers are taught to be proud of protecting our country. The heroes at Iwo Jima were not heroes for planting trees in a peace park. They were made heroes for killing our enemies and taking their land so we could kill many, many more of our enemy.

They just don’t get it and pardon me for putting you in that bucket. Liberals just need to get out more. And I mean get out to other countries where people are taught that killing an American is the ultimate badge of courage.

The vast majority of the world is an armed camp and they want us, the most powerful and coveted nation in the world to become a girl scout camp, while not even having the ability to spy on our enemies.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Lighten up. You are not the only person going after chuck. But it happens every time. Either I or Chuck or somebody mentions something that Salon.com has not pre-approved and it is post after post after post attacking personalities and going after everything he says. But then conservatives are accused of the vitriol on this blog.

If the Berkeley deal were the only example of liberals hating the military, I would agree with you, but it is not. Our military has been thrown off many college campuses and the democratic candidate for President for the democratic party in 2004 made comments claiming that soldiers cannot find a decent job doing anything else. There are dozens and dozens of examples of this kind of nonsense.

You and many others may be totally supportive of our military but the party that you support is generally against our military. So how long does the military need to roll their eyes at the ignorance of the left before people in the left start to defend the people that defend us?

It is always the same. Someone points out the ignorance of a large group of liberals like the entire city of Berkeley. Then some liberal claims that their father, brother and cousin are all in the military and that is supposed to negate what the large group is doing.

Conservatives are stuck with the far right that hate and liberals are stuck with the far left that hate. But neither group should get a free ride.

By 2D

March 4, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

I normally prefer to simply dive into the more compelling conversation on the BLOG, but did feel the need to make a few quick statements about the topic at hand first.

I think it is preposterous to say that liberals are not supportive of our military. Liberals are very supportive of the military. Our military is a composition of the best and brightest this country this has to offer. They sacrifice more in one day than many of us do in one year. Liberals want our brave men and women to be with their friends and families, working at their jobs rather than at war. Liberals do not want to lose those fine people in a needless operation. If that’s not support then I’m not sure what is.

That being said, I do believe that political war rhetoric, has in the past and has now hampered the ability of the military to complete their assigned mission. I know that debate is the corner stone of our government. However, the types of debate we have had over this war and others in the recent past will embolden the enemy and make the task of our military much more difficult. This was absolutely the case in Viet Nam. A strong commitment in 1968 would have ended that conflict by 1969. Based on what we know now, I don’t believe too many rational people can dispute that. I believe it has been a similar case in Iraq.

Too often, politicians want to place blame for failures and use those failures for their own political gain. When in reality, the question shouldn’t be “What idiot got us into this mess?” but “How can we bring the most advantageous end to this operation?” Rather than trying to fix the past, we should simply move on and learn from it.

I do believe, however, that the modern liberal movement needs to do something about the perception of their desire to strip the military to the bone. Whether or not that is true, that is the perception. It certainly was true under Clinton, and I believe under Carter. Peace is achieved through diplomacy and strength. We must have both in order to make and continue peace in this very dangerous and difficult world. We haven’t used much of the former for the past eight years, but we should not forget the latter either.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

By JokesOn

Your statement suggests that we can infer that you agree with him on the arbitrary nuking, no?

It is ok for Berkley to have an opinion, no? Or do you believe the city council should be reprimanded?

I don’t think they should have the ability to pass laws that restrict the actions of our military. Why would you?

I have yet to read where anyone said it has not effected any soldier. Only that if it had an effect it would be extremely small potatoes.

It doesn’t have an effect? Hello!!!

Or do you believe that there are a substantial number of soldiers freaking out about it? Cite proof of these soldiers?

Is that the litmus test? Soldiers need to be freaking out before any harm can be done?

Lets see if you can simply answer these questions, and state your own opinion on the matter, instead of being on the sidelines providing ambiguous insults and cheers

I’m on the sidelines, after I have been here since 8 am and you just got here and immediately launch into yet another personal attack. Do you ever actually read what you post?

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Can’t do anything about it if I’m not the only person going after Chuck for what he says. Heat. Kitchen. You know the drill.

Berkeley - okay, from what I read, the city doesn’t want the Marines to have a recruiting office there. Tell me if I’ve missed anything - like I said, didn’t see much of the story here, only the blowback. I found it amusing - I mean, we’re talking BERKELEY - how many Marines do they think they’re going to get from there, anyway??

As far as Kerry’s quote - he was absolutely right. The majority of people who go into the military (not ALL, but the majority of recruits who aren’t entering the military via ROTC or West Point) do come from either inner cities or rural areas - they’re young, they don’t know what they want to do with their lives, and they’re looking for $$ for school.

As far as universities not allowing recruiters on campus, the ones who have asked them to leave have had those decisions overturned (Columbia law school comes to mind). And, even in that case, it had nothing to do with how we liberals hate the military maiming and killing - it had to do with DADT/equal opportunity.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

2D -

If that�s not support then I�m not sure what is.

wow. I gotta say, that nearly brought a tear to my eye (and, yes, I’m being sincere). thanks. :-)

as for the the modern liberal movement needs to do something about the perception of their desire to strip the military to the bone

1) it’s hard to fight the “perception” when all we get is the right-wing echo chamber of how much liberals don’t support the military and want to do away with it, blahblahblah.

2) (and more to the point) - The world is in a weird transitional time right now, where war is concerned. We don’t need the same Cold-War-Fighting-machine that we used to have. I wish I could claim that statement as mine, but numerous generals have made that point before - we need something more nimble and agile for a lot of the work that needs doing. We need to look at the “tools in our toolbox” and figure out if they’re what we still need - if we still need as many - what we need instead.

I know of NO liberal who wants to cut the military to the bone - we DO, however, want to put our money in the right places (protected vehicles, body armour, night vision stuff, etc).

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

Since the neoconservative agenda took over the GOP, the military (through no fault of their own—they HAVE to follow orders) has been used as a tool for needless intervention, occupation, enforcement of our internationalist agenda, and general arm-twisting.

Liberals, being sane, disapprove of this agenda. Does that make them “anti-military”? Chuck would say yes, it does. That’s your first clue.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

Liberals want our brave men and women to be with their friends and families, working at their jobs rather than at war.

At that point, they are not soldiers, they are part of the Great Society, waiting on their checks and getting fat off food stamps. We all know how Democrats love those human warehouses full of voters, but these are fine people who will not accept your designated welfare roles.

Liberals do not want to lose those fine people in a needless operation. If that�s not support then I�m not sure what is.

So you get to decide what operation is needed and what operation is needless. Damn. What position do you hold?

Absolutely correct. How much longer will we need to fight after the New York Times exposed our methods of spying? How many US soldiers will need to die because of that single politically inspired event. When John Murtha stands up and says that American Soldiers are killing civilians, how many recruits does that give to our enemies? How many Americans will those recruits kill? Liberals are killing American soldiers, literally.

Too often, politicians want to place blame for failures and use those failures for their own political gain. When in reality, the question shouldn�t be �What idiot got us into this mess?� but �How can we bring the most advantageous end to this operation?� Rather than trying to fix the past, we should simply move on and learn from it.

Agreed. I tried to say that yesterday, but look how all the conversations went: exactly as you say. Obama clearly stated that he would send troops back in if Al Quida enters Iraq. So we gain what we have gained and then we give it all to our enemies and then we go back in, starting from square one. How many Americans will die for Obama�s dishonest promises to magically withdraw our troops? Does any liberal have the courage to ask: What then?

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Look at what you are saying. You are justifying obvious determents toward our military, made by liberals and wonder why liberals are known for not supporting our military.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

TOJ,

Just as usual you have provided a bunch of hot air without a single actual stance, besides I don�t think they should have the ability to pass laws that restrict the actions of our military. They are restricting all actions? Or only a specific type of action? I think you should re-read the actual events taking place and quit the gross generalizations.

Chuck is a single individual expressing his opinion on a very small forum where his word means nothing more than a single voters opinion. But you put his opinion in the same league with a government of a fairly large American City that passes legal president that forbids the recruiting of citizens, a very real and effective stance. Where did I correlate chuck and a whole city? I did not. I simpley and accurately am questioning the rationality of a blogger’s post as is the purpose of of this site.

I�m on the sidelines, after I have been here since 8 am and you just got here and immediately launch into yet another personal attack. Did I say something about you personally? Really? I insulted your hair or hygiene? Jeez, I had no idea that is what I wrote. I thought I asked your personal stance on his post to complement your opinion on other blogger’s stance on his post.

If you want to try again, your response is welcome. Understood if you do not.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Copyleft

Yes. You are soooo right. Before 2001, the military was only used for Good things. Giving out cookies at X-mas. Helping little old ladies cross streets. Toys for tots, etc.

It’s those mean old neo-conservatives that made them hurt other people.

Why can’t we be like Bill Clinton and only kill women and children working in a aspirin factory, launching missiles at mules and bombing people in eastern Europe back into the stone ages. Those were the good old days.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Look at what you are saying. You are justifying obvious determents toward our military, made by liberals and wonder why liberals are known for not supporting our military

what? tell me one thing that is a detriment to our military.

as far as the “who are we to say what’s necessary and what isn’t” - show me one military report that said attacking Iraq was necessary. Saddam didn’t have WMDs - much less the capability to attack the UK within 45 minutes.

Afghanistan? yes. Iraq? no flippin way.

As far as your constant assertion that people in the military want to be at war/fighting - please put a quarter on the table and BUY a clue. Every person I’ve known who has served or is currently serving doesn’t WANT to fight - they do it because that is their job. But WANT to fight??? No. War is horrible/horrifying/brutal - they do not long to be in the midst of it. If you think they do, you’ve been watching too many movies.

By Archie

March 4, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

know of NO liberal who wants to cut the military to the bone - we DO, however, want to put our money in the right places (protected vehicles, body armour, night vision stuff, etc).* Preach USinUk!! Smart commentary.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

Just as usual you have provided a bunch of hot air without a single actual stance,

And you start yet another post with yet another personal attack. Take it somewhere else, Joke. As soon as you learn to control your fragile temper, I’ll be more than happy to debate anything you want.

By Jim

March 4, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

It’s quite simple. If the liberals had their own country, it would look and act like France or Cuba. Without the conservatives and the warriors, the liberals would be enslaved. A failure to recognize the inherent evil that is present in the world makes liberals very vulnerable. History is replete with examples of this weakness. Senators Obama and Clinton cannot wait to increase the largess of government while decreasing the one thing that government can do. Defend itself!

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

I know of NO liberal who wants to cut the military to the bone - we DO, however, want to put our money in the right places (protected vehicles, body armour, night vision stuff, etc).

Right On. We want to fight smart, not through the use of pure excess. The mentality of bigger is better and the more money thrown at a problem equaling victory is only accurate for those willing to omit all the places that we lose ground due to those tactics: Lives, Economy, PTSD, Inherent Rights, taxing the middle class…

Who would look at it this way? Crusty old men that have enough money to guarantee their own personal rights through buyouts, force, manipulation, and a condo in the Philippines.

This is what conservatives think of as the American dream; control a large enough middle/lower class to keep the American engine running so a select few can benefit from the dividends.

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

More ducking the question, OtherJack… why am I not surprised. But to answer your comment:

“So you get to decide what operation is needed and what operation is needless. Damn. What position do you hold?”

CITIZEN. Yes, I DO get to decide what operations are needed and needless. The soldiers certainly don’t get to decide, so it’s our job to do so for them. That’s why we have a civilian-run military answering to an elected official.

Chuck would rather pretend that every military mission is automatically legitimate and deserves our unquestioning support. He, and those like him, don’t realize the potential for abuse of such power—which is kind of quaint considering how often these so-called “conservatives” otherwise complain about how government can’t do anything right.

No, I’m not saying everything was hunky-dory about our military adventures prior to 9/11. (of course, you’re assuming that 9/11 heralded the takeover of the neoconservative agenda for our military. It didn’t.) I’m saying the use of our military for expansionist purposes is WRONG, no matter which corporate flunky is in office. And liberals quite correctly oppose such use of our military.

And conserva-drones, with nothing new to offer, fall back to their standard response to any questioning of their imperial dreams: “You’re a traitor! You don’t Support Da Troops!” Nonsense. Conservatives live in a world where “support” means blindly sending our soldiers off to die needlessly, and trying to protect them and not waste their lives is “emboldening our enemies.” The rest of us live in the REAL world, and are waiting for the neocon nightmare to end.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

And you start yet another post with yet another personal attack.

So sorry.

I know this will be a shock to you, but soldiers are trained killers. Weren�t you aware of that?

They aren�t policemen. I know this will be a shock to you, that is what half of the forces are doing 90% of the time!

They aren�t social workers. I know this will be a shock to you, that is what the other half is doing 90% of the time!

It just might be part of the problem, no?

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

JokesOn -

We want to fight smart, not through the use of pure excess

I wish I could remember all the details, but a few years ago, there was a huge expose in the WaPo about the former Pentagon officials who are subsequently snapped up by defense contractors to lobby for their wares. What winds up happening is that we end up with more planes/helicopters/missiles/etc than the Pentagon even WANTS (which was the case in this particular story) - waste, waste, waste.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

USinUK

what? tell me one thing that is a detriment to our military.

Let’s see. Agreeing with John Kerry that our military is made up of people who can’t find a job is a good start.

as far as the �who are we to say what�s necessary and what isn�t� - show me one military report that said attacking Iraq was necessary. Saddam didn�t have WMDs - much less the capability to attack the UK within 45 minutes.

Don’t ask me. Ask the many, many Democratic congress-people who voted to send our troops in.

Afghanistan? yes. Iraq? no flippin way.

Hindsight= 20/20. And for you and me, hindsight is harmless, but for the cowards that voted to send our troops into harms way and then turned their back on these same soldiers in order to gain political points with an anti-military party, it should be punishable by life sentences at hard labor. Maybe a little harsh, but I personally blame the deaths on many soldiers on those criminals.

As far as your constant assertion that people in the military want to be at war/fighting - please put a quarter on the table and BUY a clue. Every person I�ve known who has served or is currently serving doesn�t WANT to fight - they do it because that is their job. But WANT to fight??? No. War is horrible/horrifying/brutal - they do not long to be in the midst of it. If you think they do, you�ve been watching too many movies.

When did I say that they want to fight? They are in the military and that happens to be the same military that is constantly called to fight. Please don’t tell me that you believe that Bush was the first president to send soldiers into harm’s way.

It is their job. Sorry it is a hard job. Perhaps with support from home, it would be easier. Oh that’s right. they could care less about support from home. Berkeley? nah, they will just roll their eyes, after all, those liberals are completely different than the open arms that most liberals have for those people who can’t find a job doing anything else. Welcome home. Have a seat. Have some babies. We vote every two years. We’ll send a bus to take you to the polls. Welcome to the Great Society.

(Pardon the sarcasm this morning.)

By Eisenhower

March 4, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

(rolling over in my grave) I warned the nation about the Military-Industrial Complex, but did they listen?

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

“Ask the many, many Democratic congress-people who voted to send our troops in.”

And they’ve admitted they were wrong. Why can’t BushCo do the same? It’s not like anyone still believes Saddam was an actual threat to us.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Copyleft

CITIZEN. Yes, I DO get to decide what operations are needed and needless. The soldiers certainly don�t get to decide, so it�s our job to do so for them. That�s why we have a civilian-run military answering to an elected official.

So you get to decide? No. You get to vote for someone who makes promises that they seldom keep.

Chuck would rather pretend that every military mission is automatically legitimate and deserves our unquestioning support.

But you believe that American soldiers putting their very lives on the line for that mission should understand that a mission, any mission is open to discussion. That should really inspire them.

He, and those like him, don�t realize the potential for abuse of such power�which is kind of quaint considering how often these so-called �conservatives� otherwise complain about how government can�t do anything right.

People could be killed. Giving the power of life and death to soldiers and military leaders can only lead to war. So let�s debate the missions. After all, that�s how Democrats did it during WWII. I�m sure you read about those huge meetings where common citizens voted to nuke Japan. It�s such a shame that neoconservatives want to change all that and give the power of deciding missions to military experts.

No, I�m not saying everything was hunky-dory about our military adventures prior to 9/11. (of course, you�re assuming that 9/11 heralded the takeover of the neoconservative agenda for our military. It didn�t.)

Hmmm. And all this time, I thought that when Clinton / Gore decided to change the policy towards Iraq from containment to regime change, they were serious. LOL. I should have known that it was those wacky liberals smoking weed and having fun. I love those guys.

I�m saying the use of our military for expansionist purposes is WRONG, no matter which corporate flunky is in office. And liberals quite correctly oppose such use of our military.

I�m also personally opposed to Iraq becoming our 51st state. Talk about problems!! Hell, I�m not even supporting Iraq becoming a US territory. Damned conservatives. It�s obvious we want to own that wonderful vacation spot. You have obviously read about the plans conservatives have for the new Six Flags over Baghdad.

And conserva-drones, with nothing new to offer, fall back to their standard response to any questioning of their imperial dreams: �You�re a traitor! You don�t Support Da Troops!

And all that just because some patriotic liberals want to keep that mean old military from existing. Whodathunkit?

Nonsense. Conservatives live in a world where �support� means blindly sending our soldiers off to die needlessly, and trying to protect them and not waste their lives is �emboldening our enemies.

You are right. I doubt that our enemies ever pay attention to what democratic congressmen say when they are claiming that our soldiers are killing innocent civilians. What was I thinking?

The rest of us live in the REAL world, and are waiting for the neocon nightmare to end.

Oh, our nightmare is almost over. Wait until Obama pulls us out, then sends us in, then pulls us out, then sends us back in. Then tries to launch cruise missiles to settle international disputes. Maybe he can consult with Al Quida and convince them to love us. I’m sure he will do just that.

I am tempted to vote for Obama just to see what happens.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Obama clearly stated that he would send troops back in if Al Quida enters Iraq.

That would be worth mentioning IF Iraqis wanted AQ there, but they are adamant about not wanting them. The greater possibility would be that it would be a totally different war at that point because the Iraqi people and US would have a common enemy. Our mission would go from occupation/policing to (what it was supposed to be) the great War On Terror (and echo and reverb for effect).

By Newzwyre

March 4, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

“When John Murtha stands up and says that American Soldiers are killing civilians, how many recruits does that give to our enemies? How many Americans will those recruits kill? Liberals are killing American soldiers, literally.”

The Other Jack implies that Murtha is lying when, in fact, American soldiers do and have killed non-combantant civilians in non-combat situations. Some are unfortunate accidents, some are deliberate acts of murder.

Example:

“For the second day in a row, U.S. soldiers on Tuesday killed Iraqi civilians when they fired on a vehicle that they thought was a threat, the U.S. military said.”

“The shooting deaths of the civilians took place in the al Shaab neighborhood of northern Baghdad. Two people died and four were injured when an American soldier fired at a minibus that was transporting workers to a bank operated by the Iraqi Finance Ministry, the military said in a statement. But Iraqi police and employees at al Rasheed Bank said that four people were killed, including three women, and that two were injured.”

There are reports and reports and reports of soldiers shooting on reflex or because they perceived danger where none existed only to find out that the dead were unarmed civilians who were just trying to go about their business.

And then there are the even more horrifying reports—

“Four active duty US soldiers have been charged with participation in the �rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and three members of her family,� the US military stated in a news release on Sunday. A fifth soldier is accused of dereliction of duty for failing to report the crimes.”

and -

“A soldier who had been charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed Iraqi was convicted by a military jury Wednesday of aggravated assault.”

“Spc. Christopher Shore, based in Hawaii, had insisted that his platoon leader ordered him to kill the Iraqi man on June 23 near Kirkuk [but] that he intentionally fired to miss.”

and -

“A third American soldier has been charged with murdering an Iraqi civilian and planting a weapon in a shooting that the soldiers tried to cover up, the United States military said Monday.”

“the soldier, Sgt. Evan Vela, of Phoenix, Idaho, served in the headquarters unit of the First Battalion, 501st Infantry, of the 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska. That is the same unit as Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley and Specialist Jorge G. Sandoval Jr., who were charged last week with killing three Iraqis and placing weapons near their bodies to make it seem as though they were combatants.”

so — these are a small sampling of incidents that the military acknowleges as fact. Do you think that if our military or politicians didn’t speak out nobody would ever know and our enemies wouldn’t be getting recruits?!

Do you think that the relatives of the dead don’t speak? That the stories aren’t used by our enemies as recruitment tools anyway? Are you trying to say that people in the Middle East wouldn’t be outraged by these incidents and sympathetic to our enemies if we Americans just deny, deny, deny?

Do you really think all this was a secret to “the arab street” before Murtha and all the others started talking about it?

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

whether you like it or not, the enlistment statistics are what they are - the majority of people who join up from channels OTHER than ROTC and West Point are from urban and rural backgrounds - they don’t know what they want to do with their lives (which, by the way, is NOT the same as “they can’t get a job”), and they want $$ for school. Them’s the facts, my friend. deal.

I’m not talking about the people who voted to give Bush authority to go into Iraq - I’m talking about YOU telling US where the justification is for Iraq?? You said we don’t get to say what isn’t necessary - so, tell me why Iraq is/was neccessary.

When did I say that they want to fight? you said so in your earlier conversation with Cranky - in fact, I wasn’t the only person who read your comments that way (in case you didn’t mean them the way they came out). Are they trained and is this their job - yes and yes - I’ve said the same in this forum. But, to say that we should, therefore, send them blithely out to fight does them and our country a disservice. War should be a very last resort and should only be taken against countries that are being provocative - which Iraq was not.

Just as we put our trust in the armed forces to protect us from those that would do us harm, the armed forces trusts US that we will watch THEIR back, so that they won’t be put into dangerous situations without a proper plan/objective and that they’ll be given MORE than enough resources. This administration has failed them miserably on both counts.

Lastly, as far as their morale goes, as you have noted repeatedly above, do you really think they are such delicate flowers that a stupid protest in Berkeley is going to ruin morale? Evidently, you do. I happen to think they are made of sterner stuff and laugh that kind of crap off.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Copylef

And they�ve admitted they were wrong. Why can�t BushCo do the same? It�s not like anyone still believes Saddam was an actual threat to us.

Well silly me. That makes it OK and completely pardons them for that vote that resulted in thousands of American dead. Sorry is all we need.

Turning their backs on our soldiers was totally justified. After all they were sorry about it.

By jhpoke

March 4, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

The only reason the surge is working the main war lord Moqtada Sadr called a cease fire. Twice now he has done this for 6 months at a time. He is only rebuilding his strike force. This thing is not even close to being over.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Newzy!!

thanks for addressing the Murtha stuff - good job and well answered!

:-)

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre

The Other Jack implies that Murtha is lying

Too much to ask to get the facts right? Does your logic only work when you take this tack?

when, in fact, American soldiers do and have killed non-combantant civilians in non-combat situations. Some are unfortunate accidents, some are deliberate acts of murder.

This is war. American soldiers did the same things during WWII. Any speech like Murtha�s would have been greeted by a prison term during war. Does that mean that it never happened?

TRY TO THINK!!!!!

Do you think that the relatives of the dead don�t speak? That the stories aren�t used by our enemies as recruitment tools anyway? Are you trying to say that people in the Middle East wouldn�t be outraged by these incidents and sympathetic to our enemies if we Americans just deny, deny, deny? Do you really think all this was a secret to �the arab street� before Murtha and all the others started talking about it?

We all know that democrats in Congress are complete idiots with no credibility. But amazingly enough some might put the public testimony of a United States Congressman on a level of credibility a bit higher than talk on the Arab streets. Perhaps reprinting these anti-American speeches in Arab newspapers would have enlightened you as to that amount of credibility, but guess not.

Why do you think that such testimony during a war which we needed to win (WWII) would have been greeted by a prison term? Was the term �lose lips sink ships�, just a lie?

By 2D

March 4, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

USinUK… I appreciate the response. I didn’t intend to bring tears to anyone’s eye but I think that post did get across a true belief that I hold. While I don’t always agree with other’s points of view, I do recognize that the intent is there to bring about a better America and a better world. Unfortunately, I believe there are extremists on the far left and right that would rather further their own personal ambitions than keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal.

If we as a society keep the discussion at that level, we would all be far better off. Personally and as a society.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

By USinUK

whether you like it or not, the enlistment statistics are what they are - the majority of people who join up from channels OTHER than ROTC and West Point are from urban and rural backgrounds - they don�t know what they want to do with their lives (which, by the way, is NOT the same as �they can�t get a job�), and they want $$ for school. Them�s the facts, my friend. deal.

So let�s point it out as much as we can. That should help recruiting.

I�m not talking about the people who voted to give Bush authority to go into Iraq - I�m talking about YOU telling US where the justification is for Iraq??

WHAT!!!??? I didn�t vote to go to Iraq. Your democratic leaders did. Ask them.

When did I say that they want to fight? you said so in your earlier conversation with Cranky - in fact, I wasn�t the only person who read your comments that way (in case you didn�t mean them the way they came out). Are they trained and is this their job - yes and yes - I�ve said the same in this forum. But, to say that we should, therefore, send them blithely out to fight does them and our country a disservice. War should be a very last resort and should only be taken against countries that are being provocative - which Iraq was not.

It should be the last resort. 17 different sanctions that were ignored made most of Washington, on both sides of the isle believe that the last resort was upon us. They all voted to go, so we went. Many democrats faced a voting public that was against anything military so, for strictly political purposes, they not only turned their back on the people they sent into harms way, they started making speeches about civilians being killed, inspiring our enemies to kill our children. You may believe that is OK. I think it is criminal.

Just as we put our trust in the armed forces to protect us from those that would do us harm, the armed forces trusts US that we will watch THEIR back, so that they won�t be put into dangerous situations without a proper plan/objective and that they�ll be given MORE than enough resources. This administration has failed them miserably on both counts.

This administration? I give up. You will never hold your own leaders responsible for what they do and the votes they cast. Apparently saying �opps, sorry� forgives the deaths of our children.

And I�ll say it again, if that were the only thing that liberals do to discourage our military, I would agree.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

If we as a society keep the discussion at that level, we would all be far better off. Personally and as a society.

testify!!

seriously, I couldn’t agree with you more - which is why I HATE-HATE-HATE broad brush statements like “Democrats don’t support/understand/like the military”. Things like that get under my skin and make me nutty. (well, nuttier than usual)

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Al Quida in Iraq has been there since 2003. Most of the leaders were given sanctuary since the mid 90s. They are still there but not nearly as effective as they once were.

But they will be. They understand that a big part of America wants them to control Iraq. They are inspired. Too bad it is just not politically correct to inspire our own soldiers.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I find it amusing when two liberals agree: that they decide this is the way all conversations about the war should be conducted. Just agree with what we say, and the world would be a better place. No arguments, no other opinions, just go along.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Your democratic leaders did. Ask them.

I’m asking YOU - you keep saying that this is a justifiable war and that we’re not allowed to say that it’s not necessary. So tell us why it is necessary.

As for the Dems voting for it - please, try to remember that they were in the MINORITY at the time - even if every single one of them had voted against, it still would have gone through as the GOP vote was unanimous.

Many democrats faced a voting public that was against anything military so, for strictly political purposes, they not only turned their back on the people they sent into harms way, they started making speeches about civilians being killed, inspiring our enemies to kill our children

what ARE you talking about??? the Dems faced a voting public that was against anything military??? are you on crack?? The GOP war machine had people ginned up for a fight - we were already fighting in Afghanistan - so where are you getting that the public was against anything military??? - we had to go after the WMDs in Iraq - don’t you remember Colin Powell standing up at the UN talking about the mobile weapons labs (yea, they looked like regular trucks, but they could be carrying ANYthing! boogabooga!!!)

as for the speeches about our troops killing civilians - other than Murtha, name one. name one congress critter who has come out and raised a stink about the “collateral damage” of this war???

and, as for that “emboldening” our enemies - THEY know of atrocities that we haven’t heard about, yet. THEY knew about Abu Ghraib before Sy Hersh’s articles were printed, THEY knew about Haditha, THEY know about other attacks/rapes/atrocities that I hope I never hear about.

Like our own State Department has said, AQ is stronger than before the war - we have been their best recruiting tool - not speeches from the House floor - our actions there.

That should help recruiting.

Lastly, do you not think that the military already knows who is serving, demographics-wise?? fercryingoutloud - they do TALK to each other when they serve, doncha think?? as for future recruitment, do you think people who are thinking of joining up are going to hear those stats and then say “eeeewwww .. the great unwashed … I don’t want to serve with THEM” Frankly, if that’s the kind of person who is turning away, aren’t you glad they AREN’T joining up???

By OtherFoot

March 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Just agree with what we say, and the world would be a better place. No arguments, no other opinions, just go along.

that pretty much sums up 8 years of the Bush administration.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

I know it’s not as EASY as broad brush statements (or as fun), but it is a more civil way to discuss the war. I don’t think disagreement is bad - I do think idiotic simplification is (Dems hate the military, Dems don’t support the troops, the only way you can support the troops is blind trust and agreement with the administration.)

If you find that amusing, so be it. Sad, but so be it.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

I find it sickening when two conservatives agree that citizens should have: No arguments, no other opinions, and should just go along with what the government does. If something goes wrong, blame the liberals for believing Bush’s lies and just going along.

By Newzwyre

March 4, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Too much to ask to get the facts right?

what facts did I get wrong?

This is war. American soldiers did the same things during WWII. Any speech like Murtha�s would have been greeted by a prison term during war. Does that mean that it never happened?

and your point is—what? Yes, atrocities happen in war (though, technically, this isn’t a “war”), this war, that war, every war. So? This isn’t the 1940’s when there was no such thing as war crimes, forensics, 24-7 news cycles, and cyberspace.

When incidents happen today the relative goes down to the local cyber-cafe and blog posts it on every newpage they can find. Within hours the story will have traveled around the world and been read by literally millions. Human rights groups cite international law and the Laws of War. Our enemies post denunciations and interviews with other ‘victims”. So we should keep our mouths shut and pretend that it never happened?

“Perhaps reprinting these anti-American speeches in Arab newspapers would have enlightened you as to that amount of credibility, but guess not.”

telling the truth is now considered “anti-American”? Honesty and humility is “anti-American”? Hmm. I must update my definition of “American”.

“Was the term �lose lips sink ships�, just a lie?”

the phrase is “Loose lips sink ships” and it was coined to remind citizen-soldiers that the details about their own personal deployment, where they thought they’d be next, information about their companies movements, etc were it to fall into enemy hands, might help them to decipher allied strategy and *troop movements”, thus literally “sinking ships”. So when writing home, they should be vigilant in not naming cities, not giving dates, etc. A Senator acknowleging that soldiers are human and sometimes do bad things is not the same as writing to tell your wife that your platoon is heading to Anzio, Italy in two weeks. That kind of stretch I cannot make.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Jokes on -

That’s because we don’t “get it” … we “need to get out more” because we don’t understand that it’s a great big scary world out there with everyone else in an “armed camp” out to get us.

gah.

By GOB

March 4, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

But they (al queda) will be. They understand that a big part of America wants them to control Iraq. They are inspired. Too bad it is just not politically correct to inspire our own soldiers.

I’ve just been lurking so far this week, but this is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing posted in a long time.

TOJ - Who exactly consitutes this “big part of America” that wants to see Al Queda in control in Iraq? Do you honestly believe that liberals are quietly rooting for Al Queda to win in Iraq and take control? Really?? Seriously??

By OtherFoot

March 4, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

No arguments, no other opinions, and should just go along with what the government does. If something goes wrong, blame the liberals for believing Bush�s lies and just going along.

you have to keep in mind that this is the same conservative who has no problem with Hickabee being interested in the very UN-American idea of having Hickabee’s concept of God’s rules written into the U.S. Constitution. Sometimes people just do NOT pay attention in history class.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

Jokes … of course, I live in a foreign country and travel internationally somewha frequently, so I don’t know how much more “out” I can get … but there it is …

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

I notice OtherJack continues throwing out the “turn their backs on our troops” phrase without saying what that’s supposed to mean.

Could it be just a convenient emotional slogan for rabble-rousing? Nahhh, OtherJack is a serious and objective commentator—not a mean-spirited old talk-radio style hateful Bushdrone. Because cheap, empty insults are what the LIBERALS are guilty of, never good ol’ OtherJack!

Spit it out, O.J. Dimson… how exactly has admitting a mistake equated to “turning their backs on our soldiers”? How does bringing them home “hurt their morale”? How does acknowleding that America can make mistakes “embolden our enemies”? C’mon, you’re always bragging about how fact-based you are… so let’s hear some facts.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

GOB

TOJ - Who exactly consitutes this �big part of America� that wants to see Al Queda in control in Iraq? Do you honestly believe that liberals are quietly rooting for Al Queda to win in Iraq and take control? Really?? Seriously??

Oh I’m sure that most Obama supporters don’t actually want Al Quida to fill the vacuum that we will leave. But they will. It has already come up in the national debate. So while you might not want it to happen, your actions will cause it to happen, IF Obama breaks the long standing practice of doing nothing that a Democrats says he will do.

We always have that: the fact that Democrats only say things to get elected. So maybe, if Obama is the liar that every other democrat has been, we will be fine. He won’t allow Al Quida to take over Iraq.

By candide

March 4, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

The best way to support our military is to bring them home. Until then they are cannon fodder.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

Here’s a fact. I have answered al the questions you listed, but to recall all those facts for someone who refers to me as OJ Dimson. Surely you jest.

By 2D

March 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

USinUK… I don’t think the question really should be whether or not Iraq is/was justifiable. The answer to that question does not negate the fact that we are there and therefore must do what is necessary to leave Iraq with the best possible outcome.

This is where I think some folks may not have read or understood the second part of my original post. While I do believe that yours and other liberals’ efforts are to do what is best for the military, I believe that you are sadly misguided by continuing to keep the rhetoric at a point where we contiually question the original action. That boat has sailed. We must now resolve the current situation.

If we look back at history, the best way to undermine our effort is to continue with the same partisan bickering about why we are and whether or not we should be there. That undermines the mission, whether or not you agree with the mission. When you undermine the mission, you make it last longer than necessary which ends up costing more lives and money (see Viet Nam).

Should we question bloated spending? Yes. Should we ensure our troops get the best equipment and training? Yes. Should we ensure our troops get the best care and services when they come home? Yes. Should we allow the enemy (and yes we have them) see that there are cracks in our national resolve? HELL NO!

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

candide

The best way to support our military is to bring them home. Until then they are cannon fodder.

And the best way to support long haul truckers is to bring them home. And the best way to support Airline piloys is to bring them home. And the best way to support bankers is to bring them home.

Let’s all set on our butts because the world is just too cruel.

We’ll call it The Great Society!!

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

This administration? I give up. You will never hold your own leaders responsible for what they do and the votes they cast.

I knew I forgot to address something you said earlier … this was it … (in reverse order)

1) yes, I hold my leaders responsible for what they do and the votes they cast … there’s an election in November if you haven’t noticed.

2) yes, THIS ADMINISTRATION. I don’t know if you realize this, but the President also has the title of Commander in Chief - he is in charge of our military. He has a Joint Chiefs of Staff which are supposed to guide him and make strategic recommendations - but THIS CiC won’t have it. The general who said we needed more troops on the ground has been effectively dismissed from the military - followed by others who said things our CiC didn’t want to hear. HE has far more direct responsibility for the military than anyone in Congress does.

The pathetic thing is that you know this - but the last thing you want to do is agree that Bush is ultimately responsible for this disaster of a wreck of a mess in the middle east.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Too much to ask to get the facts right? what facts did I get wrong?

I never implied that Murtha was lying. Try to keep up.

When incidents happen today the relative goes down to the local cyber-cafe and blog posts it on every newpage they can find. Within hours the story will have traveled around the world and been read by literally millions. Human rights groups cite international law and the Laws of War. Our enemies post denunciations and interviews with other �victims�. So we should keep our mouths shut and pretend that it never happened?

Yes we should. Or we should disband the military. Don�t ask people to put their lives on the line and then explain why it is OK to put them in even more danger.

telling the truth is now considered �anti-American�? Honesty and humility is �anti-American�? Hmm. I must update my definition of �American�.

You honestly just don�t get it. This is War. I�m sorry that you are inconvenienced with the fact that you were born into a world of war. War is when people kill each other and that brings everything up to a higher level. This isn�t about sports or the weather, this is about information that can kill our children.

It is true that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan, but the low class, yellow media of England, actually didn�t tell the truth in order to protect a soldier. By your thinking, they should have told the truth and told the enemy where Harry was serving.

Lose ships sink ships was a very broad phrase that also included the actions of our leaders. Do you deny that?

We are a very modern society that abhors war. To expect the rest of the world to accept our standards is idiocy. They love war. They really love to kill Americans. Is it just too much to ask that our media doesn�t tell military secrets?

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Bush made a lot of mistakes, the largest being his paying attention to the liberal media. Look at what he was up against when he pushed for the surge. My opinion is that we should have gone in there full bore from the start and won the thing and got out.

How would that have played on CNN?

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Great post st 12:38.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

t is true that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan, but the low class, yellow media of England, actually didn�t tell the truth in order to protect a soldier. By your thinking, they should have told the truth and told the enemy where Harry was serving.

Of course, the irony that it was right-wing Matt Drudge that let that cat out of the bag goes zinging on past TOJ …

By Scalia

March 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

How about the demoralization of the military with the discharge of a number of soldiers that happen to be gay? The conservatives manage to never say anything about this. How about allowing gays to serve in the military? How about all of the gays that have lost their jobs under Bush’s watch?

And TOJ, I know that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” came under Bill’s watch. But has Bush or any of the conservatives done anything to change that? Of course not.

By MediaMatters

March 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

but the low class, yellow media of England, actually didn�t tell the truth in order to protect a soldier. By your thinking, they should have told the truth and told the enemy where Harry was serving.

The British media actually were able to keep it under wraps, it was the Great Conservative DrudgeReport who spilled it to the world. But in all fairness to Drudge, he got it from a little Australian newspaper. And that is from an interview I heard on the radio with a spokesman for the U.K. Defense Ministry. (or is it Defence)?

Drudge needs to hang his head in SHAME.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Is it just too much to ask that our media doesn�t tell military secrets?*

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY - YES it is too much to ask when those “secrets” are that people are torturing in OUR name … that people are committing unspeakable acts to people held in Abu Ghraib prison in OUR name … that people are killing innocent men, women and children in OUR name - YES, g*******, it is too much to ask!!

Filing it all under “War Happens” “Gotta Break A Few Eggs” and “Collateral Damage” may make it easier for YOU to deal with, but I think people in this country deserve to know the TRUTH about what is going on over ther IN OUR NAME.

and last, but not least, would you quit talking about how Dems are causing the “killing of our children” (…”inspiring our enemies to kill our children…”) when you seem to have no problem with us killing THEIR children???

By Newzwyre

March 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

2D writes “we are there and therefore must do what is necessary to leave Iraq with the best possible outcome.” and “Should we allow the enemy (and yes we have them) see that there are cracks in our national resolve? HELL NO!”

You are right about having to “do what is necessary to leave Iraq with the best possible outcome” but the question remains, best out-come for who? And what defines the “best” outcome?

Originally the mission was fairly straight-forward; depose Hussein and remove the threat of WMD from the region. Mission Accomplished.

Now what? If we support ‘democracy’, there’s the possibility that we end up with an elected theocracy or a Hamas-style militant government supported by Iran. If we support this or that faction, we run the risk of repeating the “Shah of Iran” fiasco. It seems to me that this is what it’s all about now. Do we do try to pressure the Iraqi’s to comply with OUR best interests, do we “allow” them to decide what THEY want, or what?

Yes, many liberals are still angry about how the war was initiated, and many would indeed like to punish those who they think misused their power. But they also believe that it is best for us to politely withdraw and leavee the Iraqi people to sort it out for themselves. To find a solution completely of Iraq, by Iraqi’s, and for Iraqi’s. We’ve given them the tools they need, now we have to let them go their own way.

Is that a “lack of resolve” or just a completely different view of the issues?

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

That�s because we don�t �get it� � we �need to get out more� because we don�t understand that it�s a great big scary world out there with everyone else in an �armed camp� out to get us.

Hear, Hear! We should just shut up and listens to the wise ones!

How about this statement that ignores all reality: Bush made a lot of mistakes, the largest being his paying attention to the liberal media.

And I thought all those people left his administration because he did not want to hear what they had to say (when it did not agree with his position) regarding the War On Terror!

I also thought that repubs followed, as usual, blindly and democrats followed what the people wanted; believing there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 because of the administrations own words saying so.

Remember TOJ and Chuck, like Bush, are the deciders! To disagree is a personal attack. Only certain privileged people are allowed to dissent, not the masses.

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

2D -

I think putting aside the partisan bickering is a lovely idea. Could you please pass that message along to Shaunti, chuck, Jim, Fred and all the rest of the “Democrats don’t support our troops” chorus?? Actually, it goes beyond that - it goes all the way down to the “Liberals are traitors and godless” crowd - how on earth is ANYone supposed to have a non-partisan discussion when you’ve got that crap slinging around???

And, I know “how we got there” is a moot point - but it’s first cousin “what the hell is our mission” is NOT a moot point. “Success” has NEVER been defined by the folkses in charge - and THAT is what bothers a lot of us - how do we know when we can leave if we don’t know what our mission is???

*Should we question bloated spending? Yes. Should we ensure our troops get the best equipment and training? Yes. Should we ensure our troops get the best care and services when they come home? Yes. Should we allow the enemy (and yes we have them) see that there are cracks in our national resolve? HELL NO!”

ARGH!!! No one is saying we don’t have enemies!!! Fercryingoutloud!!! Yes, there are terrorists out there who want to cause murder and mayhem - and yes, we are ALL resolved that they need to be stopped before they act. However, there are a LOT of us out here who don’t think that the war in Iraq is the way to achieve that end. In fact, many of us think it’s actually doing more to create new terrorists than it’s eradicating terrorism.

So, the resolve is there - just not for this particular tactic.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

JokesON

Try to calm down. That chip on your shoulder must be the size of the Titanic.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

USinUK

You try to justify what John Murtha said but then claim that this administration has caused an increase in terrorist activities. Hmmm.

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

For the committed war-hawk, open debate is treason. That pretty much sums up the OtherJack perspective, folks.

The rest of the world shouldn’t be permitted to see democracy and freedom in action… because that’s a “lack of resolve” that could “embolden our enemies.”

Well, I ain’t buying it. I’m not afraid of our freedoms, but apparently OtherJack thinks freedom is a luxury we simply cannot afford in a World At War(TM). And plenty of real Americans—true PATRIOTS—agree that the “shut up and obey” motto of the current administration, wrapped in a flag of faux-patriotism, has gone way too far.

If you think so much of the freedoms our soldiers are defending, OtherJack—maybe you should think twice about the contempt you’re showing for those who exercise those freedoms: by speaking up, by challenging the government, by insisting on accountability and open debate, and all those other “treasonous” things.

You’re a pathetic, terrorized coward, OtherJack. America isn’t listening to voices like yours any more. And that’s what REALLY drives you nuts—knowing that people who (gasp!) think differently from you are not only NOT being locked up in Gitmo, but are actually winning the debate and changing America for the better, with each passing day.

The neoconservative dream is dead; America is back!

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

You try to justify what John Murtha said but then claim that this administration has caused an increase in terrorist activities. Hmmm.

ah. no. I didn’t say there was an increase in terrorist activities. The State Department has not only said there has been an increase in terrorist activities, but OBL has had a heyday recruiting, as well.

And they’ve been saying that LONG before Murtha ever said anything about what’s going on over there.

By Newzwyre

March 4, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

TOJ, you should look up the definition of “imply”. I do not think it means what you think it means. (hattip to Inigo Montoya, LOL!)

“Try to keep up.”

Do you have to be an insulting a-hole?

“Don�t ask people to put their lives on the line and then explain why it is OK to put them in even more danger.”

I fail to see how the troops are in “more danger” if we acknowlege what the entire world already knows. And, as the right is so fond of pointing out, it’s a volunteer army. Nobody asked them to “put their lives on the line”.

“You honestly just don�t get it.”

No. I honestly don’t.

“Lose ships sink ships was a very broad phrase that also included the actions of our leaders. Do you deny that?”

Yes, I do deny it. It is you who is stretching the phrase to IMPLY that any talk that doesn’t toe the propaganda line will “sink ships”.

“Is it just too much to ask that our media doesn�t tell military secrets?”

If it’s been plastered all over the internets by our enemies and the relatives of the murdered civilians, had millions of hits, been linked to every major website on every continent, how do you figure it’s still a secret, military or otherwise?

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Obama has already said that he would do what is needed if Al Quida steps in to form a base in Iraq. They are already there, so there is no doubt that Obama will have us back in Iraq. So … is that better than sustaining our bases and continuing with the advances that have been made?

I don’t like that we are there. I don’t like that we even need a military. I don’t like the oil companies, but there is no doubt that they are one of the big reasons we are in Iraq. All of the things that I don’t like don’t change any of these facts:

We are in Iraq.

If we leave, Washington’s penchant for protecting our petroleum sources will not go away.

The Petroleum reserves in Iraq will make whoever takes over the country a very wealthy ruling party.

The United States cannot afford to turn over those reserves to people who will not sell those resources to America.

The United States cannot afford for Iraq to become an agressive radical Muslim state who will threaten our few remaining Middle Eastern Allies.

To believe that we will not have our soldiers sent back into this region is insane.

I don’t like any of those facts either. But to vote for a candidate because he says that he can magically wave his hand and all the problems of the Middle east will disappear is lunacy.

I wish it were true. I honestly do. But Barrack Obama is either clueless or lying.

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

“Do you have to be an insulting a-hole?”

Yes, he really does. But he’ll deny it to his dying breath. That’s what makes OtherJack’s hypocrisy so funny to watch!

With great minds like this behind Bush, it’s no wonder America is stampeding in the other direction.

By All Dissent/Support Is Not Equal

March 4, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

In my experience, there are two kinds of war dissenters: (1) Those who oppose the war in a reasonable, respectful way who are open to hearing both sides of the issue (2) Those who oppose the war in a hysterical, disrespectful way who are open only to one side of the issue. Ditto for the war supporters.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I can’t belive that you think what Murtha said makes no difference. It was reprinted all over the middle east.

I think it is obvious that a Congresman would give credibility to their cause, which is to kill our children. It is so obvious that I just can’t think of anything to say.

How do you convince someone that a cloudless sky is blue?

Have a good night.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

Try to calm down. That chip on your shoulder must be the size of the Titanic.

Nope. Just trying to keep the bs being posted to a minimum in case there is anyone lurking naive enough to believe your bile.

Liberals are killing American soldiers, literally. I am not the one claiming democrats/liberals are killing our soldiers. It must take one big chip to directly accuse people of such gross things.

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Actually, we COULD have afforded to let the Middle East do whatever it wanted if we’d only listened to—get ready!—Jimmy Carter.

Yes, it was JIMMY who first told us that infinite cheap oil was not an American birthright; that we needed to look into alternative energy; that we needed to conserve and establish energy independence; that we needed to kick our dangerous oil habit.

And America hated him for it… because he was right. Now, 30 years later, we’re stuck in a Middle East quagmire because, despite all our protestations about “enforcing UN resolutions” and “fighting THEM over there,” we’re really trying to take control of Middle East oil. And the whole world knows it.

Bush, a long-standing oilman, sees only one solution to our energy crisis: More Oil. And whether we have to drill and destroy our own natural resources, or sacrifice billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in an insane power-grab overseas, the motto “More Oil!” is the only one he understands.

We CAN leave Iraq. We CAN achieve energy independence (and not by “drilling more at home,” as Big Oil insists). But the Republicans aren’t going to get us there. Obama might. I say it’s time to try something different.

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

For the committed war-hawk, open debate is treason. That pretty much sums up the OtherJack perspective, folks.

These debates sound much more like socialist versus Pro-Dictatorships to me.

Obama has already said that he would do what is needed if Al Quida steps in to form a base in Iraq. They are already there, so there is no doubt that Obama will have us back in Iraq.

Only if you are totally ignorant to the fact that AQ arrived as helpers to the natives in response to us invading, not before our invasion - and - that as Iraqi natives saw that AQ were killing Iraqis in order to promote more violence.

Only the people in denial would refuse to ask why AQ was not there before our invasion. Answer: Iraqis hated AQ and would have beat them out; just like they are doing now and will continue, most likely, after our presence is no longer.

Oops - I mentioned hard, multi-faceted points! Shame on my “anti-american” self!

By JokesOn

March 4, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Blows my mind when people who believe in the Trinity only apply binary logic to the rest of reality!

By USinUK

March 4, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

Even though you say you’re leaving, I’m going to post this, anyhow on the off-chance you’re still lurking.

Murtha’s comments were in 2006.

The State Department reports on Terrorism have shown increases in terrorism and recruiting for groups like AQ since 2001 …

as you say It is so obvious that I just can�t think of anything to say. How do you convince someone that a cloudless sky is blue? Indeed.

you don’t seem to want to hear facts that negate your very narrow view of the world, there’s nothing else I can do except keep presenting you with facts - as opposed to all you can present me with, which is your opinion.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

TOJ, you should look up the definition of �imply�. I do not think it means what you think it means. (hattip to Inigo Montoya, LOL!) �Try to keep up.� Do you have to be an insulting a-hole?

You tell me that I need to look up the definition of a commonly used word and I am the ahole. I see.

I fail to see how the troops are in �more danger� if we acknowlege what the entire world already knows. And, as the right is so fond of pointing out, it�s a volunteer army. Nobody asked them to �put their lives on the line�.

I know. And that�s what amazes me. The internet is not the excuse for liberals to expose the workings of our entire military and an excuse for American Politicians to commit treason. This �The Whole World Knew It� is garbage. According to the same internet that you are sighting as the world�s great informer, Bill Clinton killed or had killed over 200 people.

Yes, I do deny it. It is you who is stretching the phrase to IMPLY that any talk that doesn�t toe the propaganda line will �sink ships�.

Please tell me why such stories were not told during WWII. I have asked and you have not done it, but please, just once, back up what you are saying and explain why United States Congressmen did not get up in front of International Radio and openly talk about the Tokyo Fire Bombings where we killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians. If you are so sure that the term loose lips sink ships did not apply to our leaders, please give me a reason to believe you.

If it�s been plastered all over the internets by our enemies and the relatives of the murdered civilians, had millions of hits, been linked to every major website on every continent, how do you figure it�s still a secret, military or otherwise?

Well then why do we even have the CIA or the FBI? Everything is on the internet. I am amazed. A US congressman being broadcast on the world’s leading news agencies and you guys think it has no more impact than obtuse internet stories. And this is the excuse for the acts of treason of a GD politician. What you guys have to believe in order to avoid the crimes of the party that you support. Amazing.

Today has been horribly enlightening. Thanks for that.

Have a good night.

By hipnoj

March 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

http://index9.yourherlad.com >goodys http://index4.yourherlad.com >182 kestner doll http://index7.yourherlad.com >vitamins http://index2.yourherlad.com >bowling tournament in pittsburgh pa http://index5.yourherlad.com >signs of premenapausal http://index10.yourherlad.com >adult fanfiction http://index6.yourherlad.com >high speed http://index8.yourherlad.com >google moon http://index1.yourherlad.com >safe and secrurity http://index3.yourherlad.com >water peru hoax

By hipnoj

March 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

USinUK

2001, you say? So attacking us brought up recruitment. The war didn’t start until 2003.

Lots of things brought up the recruitment. I never claimed it didn’t. However, you have made the claim that Murtha’s comments definitely did not. DEFINITELY did not

The sky is blue.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 4, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

And this is the excuse for the acts of treason of a GD politician. What you guys have to believe in order to avoid the crimes of the party that you support. Amazing.

Treason? Really? Treason?

Well, you certainly set the bar low, don’t you.

By chuck

March 4, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

So copyleft, how has our nation “expanded” as a result of military force? Have we stated any desire to add Iraq asa commonwealth? Maybe they can be our 51st state.

the use of our military for expansionist purposes is WRONG

This is just another hyperbolic rant from the not so swift left. I also found it interesting that YOU are now the leader of the free world. Last time I checked we had an ELECTED GOVERNMENT. They are in place until January 2009. Until then THEY are the DECIDERS.

Chuck would rather pretend that every military mission is automatically legitimate and deserves our unquestioning support.

IF OUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT SENDS THEM ON A MISSION IT IS A LEGITIMATE MISSION. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE THAT NOT SO IS IF THE MILITARY STARTED RUNNING MISSIONS ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

Certainly you can protest all you like, but the military has no control over the mission and neither do you.

As for Berkley, there is a very simple way to deal with idiots like that:

1) remove every federal office from the city. Need help from the Irs? Do you know the way to San Jose?

2) remove EVERY FEDERAL DOLLAR from them. If the marines aren’t welcome, they don’t deserve a dime of federal money. We should have removed all federal funding from that joke of a “university” LONG ago.

My gosh Jim. That was a BRILLIANT post at 9:40. God Bless you.

By Newzwyre

March 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

TOJ, why do you twist everything all out of shape? We were talking about Murtha speechify about soldiers killing civilians, which is an undisputed FACT. All of a sudden you go bonkers and decide that if we’re going to let Senators talk about FACTS that even the Military acknowleges, then we shouldn’t have a military at all. And you go off on a wild hair about not needing the CIA or the FBI if our enemies and the surviving relatives of murdered Iraqi civilians (which are different from “collateral damage”) are posting on the internets and the world is reading these FACTS.

What is your deal?

By Monica

March 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Sorry to change the discussion… actually I’m not sorry, I’m politicking…

If you live in Georgia please please check out the new tax cut proposed by Richardson, and please please please contact your House Representative so that you can have voice in the decision (either way. As a public educator, you can guess how I stand.) You can find out your local reps and their contact info at www.votesmart.org

By Copyleft

March 4, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

OtherJack is asking the media to choose between “patriotism” and the truth. If the truth would hurt the U.S. government’s actions, what should they do?

The answer is: You’re asking the wrong question. If the truth would hurt what the government’s up to, then who’s at fault—the media, for reporting it? No. The government, for relying on lies.

America shouldn’t need to depend on lies and secrets. If we do, then blaming the media for telling the truth (their job) only makes us look spoiled and childish.

Chuck, predictably, would stifle all dissent until election day. Sorry, that’s not how free speech works. Speaking out against your government is the MOST IMPORTANT type of free speech of all! (Yes, even more important than porn!)It’s the right, and the duty, of every patriotic American to challenge what the government says and does at every turn.

By John

March 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

It’s Berkeley, not Berkley.

Don’t confuse all of the University of California at Berkeley with the radical fringe there.

Judging from what I’ve read about you, I doubt if you would qualify for entrance to that joke of a university.

By The Other Jack

March 4, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Man, believe me. I have learned enough. I am not about to try and convince anyone that the lives of American soldiers in combat are a million times more important than any politician’s right to get up and make political hay.

The uses of the rights involved with truth on this blog are terrifying. Murtha’s rights are more important than American lives because he is telling the truth. The truth will set you free and get Americans killed. TO HELL WITH THE SOLDIER’S LIVES WE ARE TELLING THE TRUTH HERE!!!

It is literally like trying to convince a blind man that the sky is blue. If you can’t see it, you simply can’t see it.

I’ll give it one more try.

Say a person like Murtha would have been around during WWII. It was the truth that the British Intell had broken the axis code and we were gaining lots of intell because we had simply bought the same machine that the NAZIs had used. That is all the truth.

Murtha gets up and makes his speech about how the Allied powers were being unfair and NAZI women and children were being killed because we were intercepting codes.

Murtha was telling the truth. The Germans probably already suspected that their messages were being read, so what was the harm?

That’s not a great example, but that’s the best I can do.

I think the bottom line is that I wouldn’t take the lives of 1,000 John Murthas over the life of a single combat soldier. He had no intention of improving anything. Civilians still get killed, at least as much as they did, except radical Muslims now have yet another example of a leading Democrat that is contributing to their cause. He did nothing for anyone, but you and others put his right to do nothing for anyone except our enemies above the lives of American combat soldiers.

That is troubling at best. To be honest, it completely creeps me out. How crazy do you need to be?

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

2001, you say? So attacking us brought up recruitment. The war didn�t start until 2003.

oh, fercryingoutloud. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. Or doesn’t that count, anymore? Even in the early days of that invasion, we bombed mosques and hospitals, destroyed villages and took out downtown Kandahar. We basically blanket bombed the country and didn’t care WHO we took out along the way.

And as for the WWII comparison you made to Newzy, That�s not a great example, but that�s the best I can do.

“not a great example” doesn’t even begin to sum that comparison up. Murtha didn’t expose how we’re monitoring AQ - he didn’t even expose anything that had not already been in the media. A better comparison would be if he said something about our soldiers behavior in Viet Nam - say, the My Lai massacre. That’s more of an apples for apples comparison.

I wouldn�t take the lives of 1,000 John Murthas over the life of a single combat soldier I’m assuming you don’t realize that he actually was a combat soldier - and a darned good one - he won the Marine’s American Spirit Honor medal, the Bronze Star with valor, 2 purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry and a Navy Distinguished Service medal. If there is anyone who has earned the right to stand up and speak the truth - and if there is anyone who understands the ramifications - it’s John Murtha.

And I’ll take 1 of him over 1,000 second-guessers like Rush “boil-on-my-butt-so-I-can’t-serve” Limbaugh any day of the week.

Which, by the way, I find VERY interesting that you think a protest in the People’s Republic of Berkeley is going to damage morale of the troops, but you don’t have anything to say about Rush calling any soldier who speaks out against the war is a “phony soldier” … or calling officers “staff pukes” (even if they’re serving in a war zone)

By Copyleft

March 5, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Hypocrisy is a necessary pre-requisite for serving the Bush administration these days, Newz… and OtherJack is, if anything, overqualified.

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Hypocrisy is a necessary pre-requisite for serving the Bush administration these days, Newz� and OtherJack is, if anything, overqualified.

Man, that sentence is clear, concise, and accurate….beautiful. You should get an award for that post.

By Facts

March 5, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

oh, fercryingoutloud. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. Or doesn�t that count, anymore

Now, now, let’s not confuse the ole boy with facts.

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Now, now, let�s not confuse the ole boy with facts.

Those pesky facts have a liberal bias.

By Newzwyre

March 5, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

USinUK - good info on Murtha. thanks.

Copyleft - I don’t know as TOJ is actually hypocritical as he is willing to trade his rights and freedoms (as well as everyone else’s) to acheive the illusion of complete safety and control. He’d rather his family feel safe in a police state than run the (statistically unlikely) risk of terrorists being able to attack in a free nation. Or at least that’s the impression I get.

Anybody want to comment on Conservative bigwigs urging their folks to vote for Hillary in the primaries so that McCain can run against her instead of asking them to vote for McCain, who presumably they believe will make the best president? It seems to me that everyone should vote for who they believe the best candidate is. Shouldn’t the election be about which person the voters think can lead the country in the best direction? Are the conservatives afraid to go head-to-head with Obama?

By The Other Jack

March 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I’m going to try and stay away from here. I meant what I said yesterday when I said this whole deal creeps me out.

Here, on this forum, an entire group of people put rights of a useless US Congressman over the lives of US soldiers. I don’t even want to know that people that think like that live in my country.

Murtha, Kennedy and Reid’s comments are regularly reprinted in pro-Islamic web sights and newspapers. You can try and rationalize all you want, but the editors of those newspapers know what they are doing. Osama bin Laden supported John Kerry. That should tell you something, but you will just rationalize it away.

The party you support is criminal. I always worked for the Republican Party, but last night, after reading what you and others were saying about our military and after reading posts like copyleft’s explanation of why our country should always tell the truth (I guess he never knew about that whole international spying thing), I called my contact at the RNC and offered much, much more work.

I have already been working on an anti-abortion ad which talks about the fact that we have slaughtered 1/10th of our population. It doesn’t even mention religion. It only talks about the wasted humanity. It should be finished by the end of the week.

Yesterday’s discussion inspired my next spot which will emphasize how the radical Islamic world uses the pointless and dangerous rantings of people like Jack Murtha and Teddy Kennedy to inspire young men to join Islam to kill American soldiers. It will be distorting nothing and it will be nothing but the up-front, undeniable truth. All you liberals that love tha fact that Murtha told the truth will love that. The TRUTH is important, don’t you think?

I have a backer and will start on that one next week.

My sweetie gave me a good talking to last night. She said if I really cared about these issues, I would do something about them instead of wasting my time trying to convince people that think they are still living in 1967 that what they believe is wrong on ALL fronts. My Sweetie is Russian. Her views of your party would leave you with months of rationalizations to come up with.

you don�t have anything to say about Rush calling any soldier who speaks out against the war is a �phony soldier

Rush never said that. He was referring to a specific person who was in fact, claiming to be a soldier when he, in fact, wasn’t. I heard the actual statement when he said it and was shocked that the liberal media would twist it into something that was a complete lie. I don’t even like Limbaugh, but what you are claiming stems from your accepting whatever you are told about Republicans.

You are the smartest liberal here, but you fell for that completely false story without question. Before yesterday, that would have bothered me. After yesterday, I understand that misinformation is the backbone of your party.

People like Copyleft and JokesOn are what most conservatives expect liberals to be. They are uneducated, dim-witted emotional, irrational people who are expected to fall for whatever propaganda the DNC puts out. You are intelligent and well educated. You have no excuse. 1937 Germany proved that intelligent, educated people can be led to believe anything with the proper amount of propaganda. I’m sure you have already forgot the speeches of Goebells I had pointed you to.

I can’t counter your lifetime of accepting overt propaganda and today’s comment about Rush Limbaugh says it all. You aren’t interested in truth or facts, but instead whatever you can find that will justify your supporting people like KKK Robert Byrd, “Leave em in a ditch” Teddy Kennedy and Al Quida’s best friend, John Murtha.

I think you have a great heart, but you really need to take a step back and look at what you are supporting.

By lozen

March 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

I haven’t had time to participate this week but I’ve been lurking and I have to say the hysteria exhibited by TOJ and chuck is amazing. Chuck is screaming in Caps and TOJ has lost it. Yes, what is his deal? Isn’t it interesting that the two who argue for religion are the same two who are primed for political dictatorship? Kinda like their hero GW who said a dictatorship would be fine if he could be the dictator! Copyleft, fine postings, esp. your 2:06 yesterday. USinUK, glad you’re here. Newswyre, keep up the good work.

By lozen

March 5, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

D-a-m-n liberal FACTS!

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Sounds like someone is recreating their fantasy world. Not any different than calling your ex to explain how they found the perfect person and they are so much different now. Lies of a lonely boy. Sad.

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Re: Rush - you poor, deluded sod. Rush was not talking about 1 particular soldier when he said that - in fact, he had to doctor his own transcript to try to say that’s what was going on. Then had to ‘fess up that, no, what he said was an unedited transcript was, in fact, edited. He then changed his story 2 or 3 times after that, twisting in the wind to defend the indefensible.

But, hey - you haven’t been receptive to facts so far, so I don’t expect you to accept that fact, either.

I do find it sad that truth and honesty creeps you out. I find it horribly sad that you seem to have no problem with atricities committed in your name (maybe as long as you don’t know about it, it’s okay).

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

hey lozen - been quiet in here without ya!

By kimberly

March 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

TOJ, dang, you’ll fall for anything, won’t you? “Osama Bin Laden supported John Kerry?” REALLY? His pre-election public service announcement in ‘04 got more votes for whom: (a) John Kerry, or (b) George Dubya (related through the Carlyle Group family businesses) Bush? Do you really believe Bin Laden thought, “Hey I want Kerry to be the US President, so I’ll endorse him and the American people will listen to ME?” Could that BE any more retarded? Hey Dude, do you play poker?

By Facts

March 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict.

By The Other Jack

March 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Keep your insults to yourself. Slobbering at people who disagree with you doesn’t suite you.

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

Listen to the whole thing and you will hear the entire discussion, not the 4 seconds that media matters used.

Now who is the deluded sod? Your “facts” are bullsh*t.

This is what I am talking about. You didn’t even check and see if the comment was on U-Tube. Your intelligence means nothing if you are too indoctrinated to check facts.

One of the main reasons I need to leave here is that I am just tired of being disappointed in someone I had some respect for.

Now go yuk it up and rationalize this with your dim-witted friends.

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

kimberly -

funny. I was just going to let that one go - it was too preposterous to even dignify with a comment.

By Scalia

March 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

I am completely amazed. I am the first to admit that the Democratic Party has its flaws. I also will admit that the Republican Party has its flaws. I don’t understand how somebody can be so completely blind to support a party and completely ignore the flaws that that party possesses.

By chuck

March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

I’m going to have to take issue with you on this statement USinUK. You’ve got to stop getting all of your information from the daily KOS. You said:

but you don�t have anything to say about Rush calling any soldier who speaks out against the war is a �phony soldier�

This statement does not make it through the crap-o-meter. Rush made that statement about ONE soldier who claimed he had been in Iraq and witnessed atrocities etc. This story was WIDELY reported in the media. The problem was, it WASN’T TRUE. So here is the “inconvenient truth” for you. The guy who made all of these claims actually washed out in BOOT CAMP. He never served ANYWHERE.

Now I hardly ever listen to Rush because I think he is often full of crap and a pompous jerk to boot, but he did not make the statement in the context you indicated.

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

I am completely amazed. I am the first to admit that the Democratic Party has its flaws. I also will admit that the Republican Party has its flaws. I don�t understand how somebody can be so completely blind to support a party and completely ignore the flaws that that party possesses.

Some people obviously think being open minded is a purely liberal trait. So if you consider all views, you are automatically omitted from participating in the GOP. Same goes for questioning The Party.

It almost got McCain too. That that type of thinking is not allowed! “Praise dictatorships!” should be the motto of extreme repubs (notice I did not say ALL repubs????).

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

deep, cleansing breaths … you seem like you’re at risk of blowing a gasket.

he aired his “entire” segment - which conveniently cropped out 1 minute 50 seconds that was between his “phony soldiers” comments and his discussion of Jesse McBeth. you want to believe otherwise? that’s your prerogative - but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

In the same post…

Keep your insults to yourself. Slobbering at people who disagree with you doesn�t suite you.

and then…

Now go yuk it up and rationalize this with your dim-witted friends.

Is there an emoticon for complete disbelief?

By Newzwyre

March 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

excuse me, chuck. But according to Rush’s own transcripts he said “phony soldiers”. that’s plural, not singular. here’s the words straight off his own website, along with the link so you can check the wording out yourself -

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092607/content/01125113.guest.html

RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers (not “that soldier” singular) that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers. (see? soldiers with an “s”)

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

it’s pretty clear that the caller and the host were both agreeing that “real” soldiers want to be in Iraq and only “phoney” soldiers rally against the war. It’s true that later on in the show Rush talks about one specific anti-war person who misrepresented himself as a soldier, but he does so to illustrate that no real soldiers are members of the anti-war Left. Read it yourself. It’s in plain writing.

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

Sorry about the chuck-esque cut/paste, but I thought it was pertinent.

Here is the link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020011

Washington, DC - As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comments continues to grow, Media Matters for America would like to highlight the falsehoods that Limbaugh, America’s top conservative talk-radio host, has used to claim that he was taken out of context.

Limbaugh claims he referred only to Jesse MacBeth, but smeared other veterans

Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his “phony soldiers” comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his “phony soldiers” comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his “phony soldiers” comment.

Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of “phony soldiers” to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally “talking about a genuine phony soldier,” Limbaugh went on to state: “And by the way, Jesse MacBeth’s not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?”

According to Murtha’s biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.

Limbaugh claims he was only speaking about one soldier, but used the plural

Misinformation: Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, that he was “talking about one soldier with that ‘phony soldier’ comment, Jesse MacBeth.”

Fact: As the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to “phony soldiers,” plural. Responding to a caller’s statement that supporters of withdrawal “like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media,” Limbaugh responded, “The phony soldiers” [emphasis added].

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Maybe Reality doesn’t have a liberal bias, but it sure seems to have an anti-extreme-conservative one.

By lozen

March 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

“I�m going to try and stay away from here.” TOJ, I certainly wish you lots of luck with this! Have you ever found yourself pregnant with no way to support a child? Didn’t think so. Then how the h-e-l-l can you tell any woman she can’t have an abortion? You sanctimonious jerk. How I wish men could get pregnant! If they could, abortion would earn one a government medal, a gala party celebrating one’s selflessness, and a blessing from the priest!

By chuck

March 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

BTW, USinUK, while your facts about Murtha’s service are true, he showed extremely poor judgement when he made those comments about the Marines involved in the “Haditha Incident”. It is that kind of “rush to judgement” that makes it appear that liberals don’t support the troops. When he made those comments, the investigation into the incident had barely begun. They were based on reports primarily from the Hammarabi Human Rights Organization, which is nothing more than a propaganda front for the terrorists in Iraq who are intentionally trying to foment unrest in the region.

How many NEWS OUTLETS are reporting the fact that court martial proceedings have been stopped for 4 of the 8 marines originally charged in the incident and that the 4 prosecutions still ongoing are on life support just waiting for the plug to be pulled? You see AFTER INVESTIGATING the incident, it was found that terrorist propoganda not withstanding, the MEDIA GOT IT WRONG. AND, Murtha gave aid and comfort to the ENEMIES of our country by giving credence to their propaganda. He should be ashamed of himself.

It’s one thing to call Bush a liar, but it is entirely another to say that:

There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

before any investigation into those allegations is complete. Especially considering the facts that we now know that there was INDEED A FIREFIGHT.

So feel free to support him if you like, but I think I’ll stick with the Marines who haven’t forgotten the Marine Corp motto: Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful, unless your name is John “turncoat” Murtha).

By Zell Miller

March 5, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

The Marine Corp motto: Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful, unless your name is Zell Miller).

By chuck

March 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

You have to be really obtuse to read the transcripts from the show and come away with that conclusion. WOW, he used an “S” on the end of “soldier”. Yes there was a nearly 2 minute discussion between the term and the example. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FIRST IS NOT RELATED TO THE SECOND. If you read the context of the discussion AND more importantly if you actually listen to the show occasionally, you would understand that in those intervening moments, RUSH WAS LOOKING FOR THE ARTICLE WHILE HE TALKED TO THE CALLER. At the apprpriate moment he gave the example of the KIND of “SOLDIER” to which he was referring AND more importantly the kind of “soldier” the ACTUAL soldier was talking about.

geez louise what a bunch of MORONS.

By chuck

March 5, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Oh and BTW, USinUK, BENEDICT ARNOLD was a decorated American war hero also.

By Rushie the Hero of Talk

March 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Yes, yes, I know I was cought by customs returning from a trip to the Dominican Republic, where boy sex is sold like Big Macs, with a bottle of Viagra that did not have my name on it. It was just a trip with the boys!! Yes, yes, I know I was in rehab for a long, expensive Oxycontin addiction for which I used my maid as a drug mule… Yes, yes, I know I called 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton the “White House Dog” on television, and that no woman will stay with me, and that I turn on my own people when I need the ratings, but HEY, I’m a good guy, really!

Defend me to those liberal “morons” okay? Thanks, buddy.

By USinUK

March 5, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

chuck -

From what I’ve read, only 1 person has had their charges dropped without strings - the other soldiers who have had charges dropped have immunity deals.

also, some of the most damning pieces of evidence came not from Hammurabi, but from the soldiers’ own digipics.

By Scalia

March 5, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

If you really want to talk about getting more recruits for Al-Qaeda, try this one: why haven’t we found Osama Bin Laden? His name is only mentioned when TOJ makes a fact that he supported John Kerry.

Here is a scenario: Johnny talks about robbing a bank. Nobody believes that he can do it because it is the toughest bank, has a ton of security, etc. Johnny is steadfast, and ends up robbing the bank. He makes a way with a ton of money. The bank president vows to get Johnny. The tellers rally around the bank president, and believe him.

7 years later, Johnny is still out enjoying himself. So why won’t other people try to rob the same bank?

By lostyand

March 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

http://index5.myhji.com >classichotmail http://index6.myhji.com >is smoking bad when your breast feeding http://index2.myhji.com >coping assessment instrument http://index8.myhji.com >babysitting jobs for 14 years old teens in baltimore city http://index10.myhji.com >free spanking stories http://index7.myhji.com >single black swingers in dallas tx http://index3.myhji.com >list of cosmo cover girls http://index1.myhji.com >dvd movies releasing may 8 2006 http://index4.myhji.com >spider glue strips http://index9.myhji.com >couples on their honeymoon

By chuck

March 5, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Nope USinUK, yet another false media report that to my knowledge has never been corrected. Another non-reported event, NONE of the marines is charged with murder or voluntary manslaughter any longer. 2 are charged with INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER and 2 are charged with something akin to falsifying a report for not including all of the information available.

EVEN IF CONVICTED of the worst charges remaining (involuntary manslaughter) that hardly qualifies as a “MASSACRE” or “killing women and children in cold blood” as Murtha put it.

By Newzwyre

March 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

“these soldiers” - “phony soldiers” - all indicators of “plural”, Chuck. As a teacher you shouldn’t be having this hard of a time understanding that if they were speaking of an individual it would be “this (or that) soldier” or “the phoney soldier()” etc.

Regardless of whether he was distracted by looking for a specific article, he and the caller were speaking in generalities about the type of people “The Left” proclaim as “heroes”. People, heroes, soldiers, these…all used in the plural.

You don’t have to admit that “The Right” doesn’t think any “real soldiers” could possibly be anti-war, but it’s obvious to anyone not blind with bias. To be fair, the Left isn’t much better when attacking pro-war people.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 5, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Really, chuck? Because I find article after article listing the marines who received immunity for their testimony. Care to share with us what makes it a “false media report”?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it’s “false” because it doesn’t appear in some ultra-right wing source. I think we all know your criteria for considering something “Factual”.

By Incredulous!

March 5, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Scalia, whoa whoa whoa whoa… hold up there a minute. What do you mean we haven’t found Osama Bin Laden? Wha? Are you SH—ing me? How can that BE? Bush said he could run but couldn’t hide! Bush said he’d hear from us! That there would be justice for the murdered Americans! Are you going to tell me that OBL was NOT pulled out of a spidey hole in Iraq and hanged for his crimes against America? Isn’t THAT why our troops pulled out of Afghanistan to go to Baghdad — because OBL was there? How could this be true and yet the Bush cheerleaders keep cheering and cheering? It’s isn’t possible, is it?

By Scalia

March 5, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

If Clinton was president, and had not found Osama Bin Laden in seven years, they would be trying to hang him by his b-a-l-l-s in the town square.

He would be called a coward, etc. They would even find a way of blaming it on Hillary.

But Bush, nope, not a peep.

By NetBanker

March 5, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

the only way to support the military is to SUPPORT THEM IN THE MISSION WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN. The military doesn�t choose the mission in the United States, the President and Congress do. It is oxymoronic to say �I am against the war but I support the troops�. The truth of the matter is that it can�t be done. Conservatives need a kick in the butt for letting liberals get away with that line in the first place. It�s like saying �I support the teachers, but I am against the education policy.� The truth is that soldiers are in charge of IMPLEMENTING the policy of our government. Whether we support the policy or not, we are hurting our military by constantly expressing opposition to it. It hurts morale, it emboldens the enemy and it is nothing more than political posturing for most politicians who just want to use it as a wedge so they can get elected.* Chuck, I think this is total non-sense. I know a number of teachers who are completely against NCLB as well as quite a few citizens. So are you telling me that YOUR morale in the classroom is hurt by this? Is it really impossible to disagree with a policy and yet tell the folks who must implement it that you understand that is their job and your support their efforts? I know in my own work environment I’ve objected to decisions and new policy, but I do it anyway. When someone is negatively impacted by the decision I don’t view their complaint over the policy/decision as a personal attack nor does it make me feel undermined. Total load of crap, IMO.

THE FREAKIN WAR IS OVER. IT HAS BEEN SINCE ABOUT 3 WEEKS AFTER WE GOT THERE. If the war is over then why does the Administration continue to talk about “THE WAR IN IRAQ?”

You and many others may be totally supportive of our military but the party that you support is generally against our military. On what basis do you make this statement?

When it comes to military spending it does seem that the Democrats do want to cut funding while Republicans do not. Do all y’all realize that the U.S. spends the same amount on it’s military as the next top 10 spending countries in the world? With that level of spending does anyone honestly think there isn’t waste that couldn’t be cut thereby reducing our spending without negatively impacting the military? Yet the military budget is sacred!!

Liberals tend to believe that people are inherently good, so problems can almost always be solved by working harder at understanding, education and dialogue. So is Shaunti trying to say that believing people are inherently good is BAD? If the conservative position is supposedly contra to that of liberals isn’t this intimating that conservatives believe people are inherently BAD? If so, that sure explains a heck of a lot about conservatives.

By chuck

March 5, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

LCPL SHARRATT In the report of the dismissal paragraph 4 states that he is INNOCENT in the eyes of the court. They did not make a plea deal of any kind. Major Jeffrey Dinsmore will Testify…FOR THE DEFENSE

Dinsmore will testify that Wuterich and his fellow Kilo Company Marines had been forewarned of a possible insurgent ambush in Haditha and alerted as to what to look for in intelligence briefings prior to the incident.

Sullivan has claimed that there is no proof Wuterich was ever forewarned.

Dinsmore�s testimony about the attack warning could be crucial to the defense because Wuterich contends he was acting under proper rules of engagement when he ordered his men to assault several houses, which they cleared with grenades and gunfire.

Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum has been ordered to appear at the trial of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, which is scheduled to start in less than three weeks, and tell the jury his version of the events of Nov. 19, 2005.

Tatum’s attorney Jack Zimmerman said he was caught by surprise when served with the order.

“We were sent a copy of an immunity order that we did not negotiate nor ask for,” Zimmerman said during a break in a motion hearing for his client on Wednesday. The order specifies that anything Tatum might say at Wuterich’s trial would not be used against him at his own court-martial.

“We have no deal and we still plan to plead not guilty,” Zimmerman said.

I’m looking for 2 other articles I read on a seargent Delacruz and another one whose name I cannot recall. All four of the Marines whose charges have been dismissed had articles that exhonerated them that had NOTHING to do with testifying.

By HsvsRsvsesv

March 5, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

buy tramadol

By chuck

March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

NetB:

Is it really impossible to disagree with a policy and yet tell the folks who must implement it that you understand that is their job and your support their efforts?

Not my point. If you disagree with NCLB AND take active steps to make sure it doesn’t work, like cutting funding, it doesn’t matter how much you TELL ME you support my efforts, you are hurting them. This situation is more akin to telling me you support my efforts an then telling my students That I suck so they really don’t have to listen to me.

By HsvsRsvsesv

March 5, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.google.com/group/oredr-tramadol-online]tramadol ultram[/URL]

By chuck

March 5, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

So is Shaunti trying to say that believing people are inherently good is BAD.

I suppose you lock your doors at night because you believe people are INHERENTLY GOOD?!?! That’s just silly. I was watching some stupid show on ABC last night called What would you do? They set up these false situations with actors doing bad things like picking on a homeless person to see what normal every day people will do. The vast majority of people walk past without saying a thing or taking any steps to make the situation better.

Ever hear of the phrase “It’s Human Nature”?

By Newzwyre

March 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

he said, she said (yawn) How tiresome.

I’ll re-post from earlier and re-extend the invitation to get over what’s past and start paying attention to what’s happening now -

Anybody want to comment on Conservative bigwigs urging their folks to vote for Hillary in the primaries so that McCain can run against her instead of asking them to vote for McCain, who presumably they believe will make the best president? It seems to me that everyone should vote for who they believe the best candidate is. Shouldn�t the election be about which person the voters think can lead the country in the best direction? Are the conservatives afraid to go head-to-head with Obama?

By chuck

March 5, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

ALSO NET B, MURTHA 0f all people should KNOW BETTER. If you haven’t been to the POW museum at Andersonville, I urge you to go. Listen to the stories of the men who were constantly beaten and tortured as POW’s. In several of the stories, the men spoke of their captors using the words of the war protestors at home to demoralize and break them. It both saddens me and sickens me to see a former marine who used his service record to get elected to congress do the same thing to those serving in Iraq.

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

If the conservative position is supposedly contra to that of liberals isn�t this intimating that conservatives believe people are inherently BAD? If so, that sure explains a heck of a lot about conservatives.

Food for thought: Projection

According to Corey Mixon, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one “projects” one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.

To understand the process, consider a person in a couple who has thoughts of infidelity. Instead of dealing with these undesirable thoughts consciously, he or she subconsciously projects these feelings onto the other person, and begins to think that the other has thoughts of infidelity and may be having an affair.

In this sense, projection is related to denial, arguably the only defense mechanism that is more primitive than projection. Those who project deny a part of themselves that may otherwise come to the surface. In this case, they cannot face their own feelings of infidelity and therefore project them onto the other person.

Hence why the compulsive need of some people to control others. They cannot control themselves and justify it by projecting that nature onto all others.

By kistov

March 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

http://index4.ezjor.com >mommy gave me a belt spanking http://index3.ezjor.com >music and its influence on teenagers http://index7.ezjor.com >tight p*** hoes http://index10.ezjor.com >movie guide http://index12.ezjor.com >the girl with the red hat http://index5.ezjor.com >are sharks in massachusetts http://index11.ezjor.com >girls topless http://index13.ezjor.com >canibal movies http://index8.ezjor.com >mississippi mass choir discography http://index9.ezjor.com >scanning taped documents

By Shirley U. Geste

March 5, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Listen to the stories of the men who were constantly beaten and tortured

you mean like the guys at Gitmo and Abu Graib?

By ArabBasher

March 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

you mean like the guys at Gitmo and Abu Graib?

but dem ders A-rabs and other forms of Terrorists.

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

I suppose you lock your doors at night because you believe people are INHERENTLY GOOD?!?!

If what you said made sense, the couple times I forgot to lock my doors at night I would have had break-ins.

How many times have I read that someone (taxicab is most recent) returned $100,000+ in diamonds etc over the last year? Somewhere around 3-4. Compare that to the (probable) number of times this type of loss occurs…

I know what studies you are referring to, but the element missing (and proven so) is whether the test subject believes he will/can make a difference. In 90%+ cases the test subject reverses their actions if they believe they have a positive impact.

By chuck

March 5, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

I’ll comment on it though I don’t think it’s a big deal. McCain presumably didn’t need the votes because he has the nomination locked up. Why not try to get the easiest to beat candidate on the other side? I think it’s silly and don’t think I would participate…I mean, VOTE FOR A CLINTON????? I just don’t think I could.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck…nothing you posted refutes the fact that at least seven marines had charges dropped in exchange for immunity.

Yeah…that’s what happens when they drop all charges in exchange for immunity. Who said anything about a plea deal?

I do appreciate your proving my point, however. The article you referenced came from NewsMax. What I find so amusing about you is that you constantly rail against some of the most established, long-lived and respected newspapers in the world because they have a liberal bias, and then expect us to take as gospel the word of a relatively new news organization that describes itself as being conservatively slanted.

EVEN IF CONVICTED of the worst charges remaining (involuntary manslaughter) that hardly qualifies as a �MASSACRE� or �killing women and children in cold blood� as Murtha put it.

Maybe you should read the article a bit closer, chuck…Wuterich is being charged with voluntary manslaughter.

It both saddens me and sickens me to see a former marine who used his service record to get elected to congress do the same thing to those serving in Iraq.

Funny, it saddens and sickens me that we are doing things that would require Murtha to speak out against them. I like that you reserve your scorn for Murtha and ignore the various official intelligence briefings that show unequivocally that our actions and continued presence in Iraq and Afghanisan are the primary recruiting tool of Al Qaeda. I guess admitting that our own mishandling of things since 9/11 has created our current problem - easier to blame it on one man.

By chuck

March 5, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

It’s not a study joker…it was a television program.

BTW you really don’t think very logically at all. You lock your doors to prevent people from breaking in because YOU KNOW AND BELIEVE AND HAVE SEEN THE PROPENSITY OF PEOPLE TO DO EVIL. It does not automatically follow that you WIL BE broken into just because you forget to lock the door. The point is that locking the door is reflective of your TRUE belief that people ARE NOT inherently GOOD.

By chuck

March 5, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Well folks, I must bid you adieu. Farewell and good morrow dear chaps and chappettes.

By Newzwyre

March 5, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

chuck writes “Why not try to get the easiest to beat candidate on the other side?”

why not get the BEST of both parties instead of trying to game the system? If you thought Clinton, Obama, or Huckabee would be the best candidate then you should have voted for them, regardless of your ideology. I don’t see anything wrong with a registered Republican voting Democratic in the primary (or vice versa) if they thought the candidate was the best; but to cancel out the vote of a registered Democrat only because you didn’t want your candidate to have to face real competition? Well, IMO I think that is subversive to our system of government and ultimately damaging to the nation as a whole.

Why are conservatives afraid of a fair, open campaign that might actually educate voters and resulting in an election where everyone ends up believing that the best candidate won the election?

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

So, to extend chuck’s metaphor about locking one’s doors a bit…next time someone on the other side of town looks at you funny, get a couple of friends from your neighborhood, break into HIS house in the middle of the night, beat the crap out of him and his family and then take over his house for an indefinite period of time.

By JokesOn

March 5, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

It�s not a study joker�it was a television program. There are multiple studies that existed before TV was invented, history teacher…(clears throat).

The point is that locking the door is reflective of your TRUE belief that people ARE NOT inherently GOOD.

No. It means that over the course of a lifetime someone will probably break in, showing that the majority of people are good. It means that there are a few morally challenged people among the masses.

chuck writes �Why not try to get the easiest to beat candidate on the other side?�

Crazy how he stated the other day that he does not approve of lies and dirty pool, yet acts the opposite of (all his sermoning) in action.

By NetBanker

March 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

*I suppose you lock your doors at night because you believe people are INHERENTLY GOOD?!?! * Locking doors to prevent criminals from entering one’s home and believing people, in general, are inherently good are mutually exclusive ideas. I know that not ALL people are good, but it seems as though one either starts from the perspective of people are good until they prove me wrong or people are bad until they prove me wrong. Chuck, based on your responses and thoughts about locking doors you DO seem to believe that people are inherently bad.

If you disagree with NCLB AND take active steps to make sure it doesn�t work, like cutting funding, it doesn�t matter how much you TELL ME you support my efforts, you are hurting them. So how exactly are American citizens who are liberals taking active steps to ensure the War in Iraq doesn’t work thereby hurting soldiers’ morale? A war protest or writing a letter to Congress or even blogging isn’t an active step. The average American citizen has no ability to do what you allege. Members of Congress might when it comes to the purse strings, but that is Congress not “Liberals.”

Listen to the stories of the men who were constantly beaten and tortured as POW�s. In several of the stories, the men spoke of their captors using the words of the war protestors at home to demoralize and break them. I can certainly understand how this could be used against a POW, but we’re not talking about POWs and that is a special situation. YThe discussion and accusation from conservatives about ‘liberals’ undermining our soldiers is THE MILITARY in general. You are comparing apples to oranges.

By chuck

March 6, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Of course NEWZWYRE you left out the next sentence in my post:

I think it�s silly and don�t think I would participate

But no “NEWZ” there. The democrat party IS the party of Half Truths. Not to mention the fact that MANY democrats did exactly the same thing in the 1996 primary election.

72john, ACTUALLY there were only 4 Marines who had Charges dropped. There are 4 still facing courts marshall and only 8 were EVER CHARGED. Do the math.

BTW, your 3:29 was asinine.

NETB…The LIBERALS in congress have forced 50 VOTES to defund the troops. Do you think they did this in a VACUUM? Obviously they did it because of the pressure from their BASE. Not to mention the fact that as stated in the POW analogy, THESE INANE PROTESTS give hope to the enemy. They think if they keep up the violence that they can break the will of the American people and little weenies like you and some of the others on this forum GIVE THEM THAT HOPE EVERY DAY. You have no solutions so you just want to give up. It is SHAMELESSLY POLITICAL and nothing more. I call it (AND THIS IS ORIGINAL so don’t steal it out there) THE SPINELESS LEADING THE MINDLESS. Coming to a republican campaighn near you. Mark my words. If we lose this fight in IRAQ the attacks will never end.

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Chuck is among the ever-shrinking minority of Americans who still believe that

Terms like “Winning” and “Losing” apply to the non-war occupation of Iraq, and

That Iraq has anything whatsoever to do with defending America OR fighting terrorism.

As such, Chuck is clearly confused or misinformed. Does anyone want to tackle the task of educating him? Or is it a lost cause?

I DID enjoy OtherJack’s meltdown earlier this week, when confronted with his own hypocrisy yet again. He actually claimed, with a straight face, that if Congress or the media learn about atrocities being committed in our name it’s their patriotic duty to shut up, say nothing, and do nothing about it! Because to acknowledge the truth would ‘weaken our resolve’ and ‘embolden our enemies,’ of course.

Truly, this kind of mentality would be pathetic if it weren’t so frighteningly anti-American. It’s sad how terrorism can make some fools so eager to abandon their freedoms, isn’t it?

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Oh, and chuck? We HAVE solutions… you just don’t want to hear about them because they don’t go ‘boom-boom’ loud enough to satisfy your oh-so-Christian bloodlust.

By Chilao

March 6, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

If we lose this fight in IRAQ the attacks will never end.

and SouthEast Asia is now fully Kommunista(domino effect), which we are glad to be doing business with(Vietnam at least) and Laos the only two Kommunista countries I know about in that part of the world. did I miss something somewhere?

Actually I think Vietnam is a good example of a total waste of everything done then. On that thought, Smithsonian this month has an article about them paving the HoChiMinh Trail.

Actually if we WIN(whatever that means) in Iraq, what would be next, Pakistan?

However, I have to support Chuck’s recommendation of visiting Andersonville, also the National POW Museum with a GREAT visitors center. However, I am certain I would have perceived POWs being confronted with at-home anti-war protestations very differently than Chuck, and did.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Or is it a lost cause?

Most definitely. People like chuck make me believe there is a human/animal split in the homosapien line. One actually has consciousness, and they other still operates on reaction/emotion/dogma but thinks it is conscious.

My dog has more awareness of right/wrong and the grey area that joins those extremes than he does.

By chuck

March 6, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Jokeson, face it…you just aren’t very smart and your critical thinking skills appear to be diminishing by the day. It’s been pointed out here many times, but I thought reminding you might bring you back to this demension from whatever “bizarro” parallel universe you must be living in.

I have to give you at least one point though. I do believe you know what your dogs capabilities are because apparently your head has been lodged in his butt for some time now.

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Check your terms again chuck. 7 Marines given immunity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18237072/

And chuck, you are certainly the expert on what is and is not asinine.

By chuck

March 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A SOLUTION FOR IRAQ FROM THE LEFT. The only problem is that your “solution” is to cut and run. Maybe growing up without a Dad in the home you didn’t hear the lesson on that topic. My Father taught me that you don’t solve your problems by RUNNING AWAY FROM THEM. You face your problems head on and you deal with them.

Our CHARACTER word yesterday was LOYALTY. Maybe we can teach that to John Murtha.

Today’s Character word is PERSISTENCE. Maybe those of you on the left can learn that one. It pays off in the end.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Jokeson, face it�you just aren�t very smart and your critical thinking skills appear to be diminishing by the day. It�s been pointed out here many times, but I thought reminding you might bring you back to this demension from whatever �bizarro� parallel universe you must be living in.

You are pretty confident sounding for not having anything but spelling errors to back that up. Especially since everyone on here calls out your idiotic posts, including other conservatives and christians.

You cannot even understand that a vast majority of the population, given all our freedoms, act in a generally moral way. I am convince you are a sick man in reality and use this projection to justify your behavior.

Given your fear-the-angry-god view of the world, bigotry, binary thinking, self-centered/egocentric demeanor, and general retarded (apologies to the genetically slow for clumping you in with chuck) comprehension skills, blogging with you is a total waste of time.

I have to give you at least one point though. I do believe you know what your dogs capabilities are because apparently your head has been lodged in his butt for some time now.

You cannot even pose an intelligent insult. What a huge disappointment you must be to your kids/wife/parents/students/god/etc. I feel for them all.

By Scalia

March 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

No Chuck, what is giving them hope is that we haven’t found Osama Bin Laden in SEVEN YEARS.

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Did your father also teach not to start fights if you didn’t have to? Because Daddy Bush apparently skipped that part of GW’s education.

By USinUK

March 6, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

f(x), CopyLeft and Newzy -

Thanks for all the info on Haditha - work has been insane today, so I’ve only just jumped on for a moment. Way to go and well done!!

Of course, not that chuck will agree/acknowledge or generally accept it, but at least we’ve presented the facts as they are as opposed to their “facts the way they wish they were”

ANYhoooo … just to lob another grenade into what has already been a contentious debate this week …

don’t you find it interesting that WandCo have been talking about how they’re “bringing democracy into the middle east” - and yet they won’t recognize Pakistan’s recent election??? The US is supporting Pervez Musharraf (from the AP about 30 minutes ago):

Moderate, secular parties routed Islamists as well as the former ruling party of Musharraf in the Feb. 18 parliamentary and provincial elections, prompting calls for him to resign.

But the U.S.-backed president is resisting, raising the risk of fresh political turbulence in Pakistan just as it faces surging Islamic militancy and looming economic problems.* (emphasis mine)

so … they want democracy … as long as it supports the people they want in office.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Riddle for those of you who wish to try - especially you chuck (please let chuck try first to show his smarts):

Chuck and I are in a bar. There is a spinning dartboard on the wall that is divided into three equal parts; area 1, area 2, and area 3. One of the areas will award him loads of money, hitting either of the other two earn him a kick in the %$#.

Chuck is blindfolded the whole time and instruct him to throw a dart. I inform him that he hit area 2. I tell him that area 1 is one of the “kicks in the %$#,” and give him the chance to switch his area to the remaining area, number 2, if he wishes.

Should chuck switch? If you state he should, what is the new probability of him winning the cash? If you think he should not switch, explain, in probability, why not?

(this is a real riddle that can be done in ones head if generally smart - no statistical background is needed, only good critical thinking skills)

By chuck

March 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Yes he did copyleft, but once the fight IS STARTED, you finish it. Last one standing!!!

72john I did check my terms dude. You said:

…had charges dropped in exchange for immunity. Let me repeat myself at the risk of being crude…there must be 50 ways to be a dufus. If only 8 marines were charged to begin with…stay with me now…and 4 are STILL charged, how many does that leave whose charges have been dropped? Yes 4. Very good john.

By kimberly

March 6, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

OH! OH! OH! Let me!

Chuck SHOULD take the blindfold off and look at the dartboard himself, but he won’t. When you kick his a—, (and I predict you will), he will complain bitterly that the darboard was manufactured by godless homos and baby killers on a mission to destroy America, and that his willingness to (a) engage in such a contest and (b) agree to do so while wearing a blindfold, is not his fault, but rather the fault of all those golldang liberals who will do ANYTHING to avoid “personal responsibility!” Am I right?

By kulzer dental

March 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president I will not support Hillary Clinton for president

By chuck

March 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

My gosh joker, even your ATTEMPTS to just SOUND smart fall short.

he hit area 2.

give him the chance to switch his area to the remaining area, number 2,

Please quit embarassing yourself.

By USinUK

March 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

chuck -

�had charges dropped in exchange for immunity. Let me repeat myself at the risk of being crude�there must be 50 ways to be a dufus. If only 8 marines were charged to begin with�stay with me now�and 4 are STILL charged, how many does that leave whose charges have been dropped? Yes 4. Very good john.

oh, fertheloveofjeebus.

the phrase that pays, chuck, is IN EXCHANGE FOR IMMUNITY. In other words, these guys have information and are being asked to testify for the prosecution. the charges aren’t just being dropped for no reason.

By Shirley U. Geste

March 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

If I were chuck, I’d assume you were lying, as anyone who isn’t chuck is likely to do. There fore I, that is, “chuck”, would not switch. Besides, God could be either blessing Me-chuck with prosperity or testing Me-chuck with adversity. Either way, who am I-chuck to challenge His will?

By Shirley U. Geste

March 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

D-mn it! kimberly, your answer was much much better than mine! ROTFLMAO!

By jobs dental technician

March 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president I will not support Hillary Clinton for president

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 6, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Oh my gosh, I misspoke…yes, some of those Marines were not charged, but were given immunity first. That tiny mistake makes chuck absolutely right.

Of course, that raises the question of why so many marines were given immunity for something that chuck claims didn’t actually happen. Those 19 dead civilians notwithstanding…

By Copyleft

March 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Personally, I suggest we fully embrace democracy in Iraq—by accepting the will of the Iraqi people (repeatedly expressed) that we get out of their country. Then we can focus on our country’s own problems, instead of trying to meddle in someone else’s… oh yeah, and get back to stopping terrorism for a change.

How’s that grab ya? Is it pro-freedom enough? Does it wave enough flags to qualify as “American”?

By USinUK

March 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

F(x)

Those 19 dead civilians notwithstanding

actually, it was 24 … 11 of which were women and children

By NetBanker

March 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

The LIBERALS in congress have forced 50 VOTES to defund the troops. Do you think they did this in a VACUUM? Obviously they did it because of the pressure from their BASE.
And this is obvious, how and through what verifiable manner? I don’t suppose that the funding votes might just have something to do with needing measurable goals and outcomes attached to the money when the Administration just wants carte blanche dollars? Given the billions in waste that has been documented to date it is not an unreasonable request to set benchmarks to go with funding requests.

And enough with the personal attacks, Chuck. They just serve to undermine any arguments you’re trying to make.

Has anyone considered that in pulling back in Iraq we shift the burden for security in the area to the Arab countries in the area. Keeping the U.S. in Iraq is currently in their favor because we’re the targets for attacks rather than other Arabs. We should be shoving Saudi Arabia right out in front of getting involved since security in Iraq is in their best interest as well as because they have been subject to terror attack on their own soil too.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

kimberly, Too funny.

Chuck, Yup. I had a typo. In my cut paste I forgot to change the number to a 3. You got me soooo good!

Now your answer?

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

The fact that you were unable to deduce that the “2” should have been a “3” speaks volumes of your stupidity.

By Guess

March 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

I thought the “2” was “I inform him that he hit area 2.” which does not mean it actually HIT on “2”; just what he was told.

I thought he should stay put.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

I thought he should stay put.

So to recap:

His dart is on area 2 and area 1 has been disclosed as a “kick in the #$&^%” after he threw the dart. He has been given the choice of moving his dart to the remaining area, area number 3.

Can you provide your reasoning for not switching? (not that it is the right choice;)

By Guess

March 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

it is at best, 50/50 at this point.

By Gandalf, the Grey

March 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Take the Marines that got kicked out of Toledo, have them do a fast rope mission into Berkley. Take out any terrorists trying to interfere with the recruiters that are trying to indoctrinate fine new killing machines. 2 birds with one stone.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Guess,

it is at best, 50/50 at this point. That is what common sense would seem to dictate, but not so;) Do not feel bad, without the superior mental skills of a person like chuck it is rather difficult to get (and believe) the answer.

Every time chuck is posed with a question that he cannot obscure he runs away, even if it is a riddle.

By Shirley U. Geste

March 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

33.333% chance

Donald Rumsfeld - “Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don�t like the results.”

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Does the dartboard have anything to do with iocane powder?

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 6, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Hmmm…seems like your initial chance is 33%. You establish that section one is a kick in the chuck section, but are still in the dark about the section you’re on. Therefore, your odds remain the same, as you haven’t really eliminated anything by the revelation that section 1 is a kick in the chuck section.

By JokesOn

March 6, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

33.333% chance

Nope.

Therefore, your odds remain the same, as you haven�t really eliminated anything by the revelation that section 1 is a kick in the chuck section.

Nope.

The answer is you change your odds from 1/3 at the beginning to 2/3 if you switch. Hard to believe but it is true. The “catch” is that I can only, of course, reveal one of the areas that is a “kick in the &&%.” So, my choice in revealing is dictated.

You change your odds from 1/3 to 2/3 if you take the switch.

If you do not believe, look up “Let’s Make a Deal Paradox”

By USinUK

March 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

f(x) -

Does the dartboard have anything to do with iocane powder?

you’ve fallen for the classic blunder!

By HsvsRsvsesv

March 6, 2008 9:37 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.google.com/group/buy-cialis-online-here]generic cialis[/URL]

By ISHMAel back

March 7, 2008 5:43 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 7, 2008 5:43 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 7, 2008 5:43 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 7, 2008 5:44 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 7, 2008 5:50 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 7, 2008 5:51 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By Copyleft

March 7, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

Dang, that’s a lot of spam!

Spam, spam, spam, spam…. lovely spam, wonderful spam….

“Never get involved in a land war in Asia… or the Middle East, as it turns out.”

By USinUK

March 7, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

Copyleft …

you know what goes well with spam???

Tramadol.

By lovelyliz

March 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

This liberal along with countless others has served in the military unlike many of those of a conservative or neo-consevative who had better or more important things to do with their time.

By kimberly

March 7, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

LovelyLiz, thank you for your service! That your commitment to our nation went beyond empty words, pointing the fat finger of judgement, and squawking about blame, and embraced action and service instead, makes you a Patriot in my book!

By lovelyliz

March 7, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

John McCain’s war service and time served as a POW has been criticized and pick apart. Who’s guilty of this? Well it certainly isn’t the liberals.

John Kerry’s Purple Hearts are negated as virual worthless and undeserves. Who’s guilty of this? Well it certainly isn’t the liberals.

Trust me, there is more than enough unpatriot behavior coming from all sides.

By Monica

March 7, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Wow, f(x), we now have two issues on which we can agree:

1)UGA football is dear to my heart. 2)The Princess Bride is a brilliant work of art.

No more rhymes now, I mean it! Anybody want a peanut?

By Copyleft

March 7, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

So long, folks! Have fun stormin’ the castle!

By fioricet on line

March 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say lately. Eh. Not much on my mind lately. fioricet overnight http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com

By fioricet on line

March 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say lately. Eh. Not much on my mind lately. fioricet overnight http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com

By cheap fioricet

March 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

My mind is like a fog. I don’t care. That’s how it is. butalbital fioricet http://fioricetbuyfior.blog.ijijiji.com

By m8rich

March 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Link to this

Good site! I found lots of intresting things here. Nice site! Very useful. I will be back!

By qpbm guiezkvdy

March 15, 2008 1:18 AM | Link to this

uspgiy pwyh wujlbtkfm tjqm mzgfp igfpr rcnpesty

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:31 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:31 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:32 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:32 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:32 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:45 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:46 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:46 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:46 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:46 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:56 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 1:59 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:00 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:00 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:12 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:12 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:12 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:13 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:13 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:13 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

March 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By hrjfiu asihetjm

March 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

cuav ctfnmslk egtjfdaqn uwvcondt ozenwihu wfdjum masv

By hrjfiu asihetjm

March 25, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

cuav ctfnmslk egtjfdaqn uwvcondt ozenwihu wfdjum masv

By hrjfiu asihetjm

March 25, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

cuav ctfnmslk egtjfdaqn uwvcondt ozenwihu wfdjum masv

By hrjfiu asihetjm

March 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

cuav ctfnmslk egtjfdaqn uwvcondt ozenwihu wfdjum masv

By universityni

April 1, 2008 5:05 AM | Link to this

Years later, he got well attempt. from and began these trees The hollow

By universityau

April 1, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

and one day, that day. neighborhood as proud horizontal they had pulled removing the dead tree

Recent Woman to Woman columns:

More previous Woman to Woman columns

Woman to Woman

Are liberals not supportive enough of our military?

Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Commentary

Rebuttal

Comments

Recent Woman to Woman columns:

Find Atlanta homes for sale

Find new and used cars in Atlanta

Search Atlanta classifieds

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Services » Find the right people for the job

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Woman to Woman

Are liberals not supportive enough of our military?

Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Commentary

Rebuttal

Comments

Recent Woman to Woman columns:

Find Atlanta homes for sale

Find new and used cars in Atlanta

Search Atlanta classifieds

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Services » Find the right people for the job

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites