Mike Luckovich

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 20, 2006 07:31 PM | Link to this

Gosh, did I miss the summer of 2006? What happen to Feingold’s censure proposal?

Oh, the libs are the ones dreaming, excuse me.

By Midori

March 20, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

snicker

snicker

that is too cute!!!

however, I’d rather wait and see.

Diebold always has a way of “saving the day”.

By RW-(the original)

March 20, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

Ah yes Spring time in the land of jacka-sses.

More Democrat party plans, Durbin’s is especially good and don’t miss the use the troops manifesto from Harry Reid a few posts down.

By getalife

March 20, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this

[Brilliant] Mike!(http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/12/27/inside1-guinness.jpg

Complete with flowers.

By DavidU

March 20, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this

I think RW had a post about this a couple of days ago…with a slight Rep slant.

ML are you getting your material from RW?

By Semper FI

March 20, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

Dems can’t do or come up with anything. They can only throw rocks. Sad. A once good party down the toilet.

By David

March 20, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Great cartoon, Mike! Thanks, GOP, for demonstrating how inept a party can be when it has complete control of the government!!

By Semper FI

March 20, 2006 07:47 PM | Link to this

For those still interested in Katrina, Popular Science has a good article on the events and NOW WHAT

By DavidU

March 20, 2006 08:14 PM | Link to this

SemperFi - Thanks for the link, good article.

By @@

March 20, 2006 08:17 PM | Link to this

In response to today’s cartoon. How can the Democrats be liberated as long as “the radical leftists” run the show? The only freedom they support is “their freedom” to tax and spend. They encourage civil war within the U.S. by creating class warfare.

By Semper FI

March 20, 2006 08:18 PM | Link to this

DavdU, you’re welcome. I don’t think Popular Science has ever been bias, so maybe everyone will read it with an open mind.

By Semper FI

March 20, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

Actually my link on Katrina is to Popular Mechanics and not Popular Science.

By getalife

March 20, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

@@,

Looks like Mike nailed the Cheney sneer.

Cheney spoke at the luncheon being held at the Spread Eagle Tavern and Inn, in Hanoverton. About 300 people were in attendance.

Nice name!

By @@

March 20, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

Nice name indeed! Now I wonder why no protestors showed up? Maybe we can attribute it to the name of the tavern and his propensity to use that “infamous” verb for which he is so well known. Yaaa think?????

“24” is on. Gotta go look at another sexy sneer.

By getalife

March 20, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

@@,

I think I have to have that t-shirt.

By Buy Danish

March 20, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

Well, as a former Democrat, I guess one could say that it was liberating to be rescued by the Republican Party.

@@

You make good sense. When I think of the Left and liberation the image that immediately comes to mind is of women being liberated from their bras (albeit temporarily).

A bit later women were liberated from high heels and started walking to work in the very attractive combination of suit and sneakers. Hmmmm. I’m thinking…

Oh yeah. Some were liberated from their children. And husbands. And men altogether.

Groovy.

By Bill

March 20, 2006 10:03 PM | Link to this

Aye, Semper Foney. You would certainly know all about TOILETS. Constantly peeking out that little hole, it’s the birthplace of your mentality. Stand proud.

By MikeIsABigot

March 20, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

Maybe someday the Dems will actually win some elections.

Luckovich also mocked Republicans for dounting Howard Dean’s unstoppable march to victory too. LOL

By Semper FI

March 20, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this

Bill, you’re like a little dog on my leg. What is it with you??

By @@

March 20, 2006 10:45 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

You have touched on a nerve. My mandated work attire has left me rather sensitive. Now you’re telling me I might be mistaken for a liberal female!!! Alright, they never mentioned shoes, so it’s six-inch stilletos with khaki trousers tomorrow. Now that’s liberating.

Bill-board:

You do a fine job advertising for the Democrats. Keep up the good work.

By Buy Danish

March 20, 2006 11:03 PM | Link to this

@@,

When I lived in NY during the Eighties, many of the Power women would power walk miles to work in these ridiculous outfits: Suits (skirt and jacket with big shoulders), big hair, a briefcase, nylon stockings and sneakers.

Presumably they changed their shoes when they got to the office.

They looked terribly dowdy and frowsy and gave the impression that they were trying very hard to not look feminine, almost as a political statement. “I can compete with a man by not looking too much like a woman” …

By RW-(the original)

March 20, 2006 11:10 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Should we keep baiting finch on the dead thread or bring it over here?

By Buy Danish

March 20, 2006 11:12 PM | Link to this

Bill,

I think I shall refer to you as “Porta Potty” from now on.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 04:44 AM | Link to this

Bush pledges not to give into insurgents

“We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness,” Mr. Bush told the City Club of Cleveland yesterday in the second of a series of speeches on the war on terror. “Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now.” (Some of us do whimper, however.)

What’s behind everything that’s wrong with the Bush administration: Manliness…

He won’t run! He won’t surrender!

By AntiRadical

March 21, 2006 05:15 AM | Link to this

Certainly Bush/Cheney are the two best reasons any voter could have for voting Democratic but this toon underscores the real problem with American politics today. Focus is now entirely centered on negative attack campaigning. Neither side talks about the positives that they have accomplished; their proclamations are always about what the other side has done wrong. Norman Vincent Peale (“Power of Positive Thinking” for all the illiterate GenXers) must be so very proud of what America has become, the negativity capital of the entire known universe! **Osama bin Laden must surely be thinking, “Mission Accomplished”!!!!!

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 05:19 AM | Link to this

“The Stone Face of Zarqawi” Iraq is no “distraction” from al Qaeda. BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention (“to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates” and “accelerate the emergence of the Messiah”), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq’s largest confessional group that: “These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger.”

Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of “al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. “Civil war” has replaced “the insurgency” as the proof that the war is “unwinnable.” But in plain truth, the “civil war” is and always was the chief tactic of the “insurgency.”

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:38 AM | Link to this

Moreover, there’s no evidence whatsoever that any innocent Americans have been harmed as a result of the NSA wiretaps or that Bush has ordered them for some nefarious or political purpose.

Feingold wants to censure Bush - and personally believes it’s impeachable - for, at worst, an excess of diligence in protecting the country from terrorists who have vowed to kill millions of us if they can. This is scarcely a “high crime” or even a “crime.”

By Bobby Elrod

March 21, 2006 06:39 AM | Link to this

Why does today’s cartoon seem very similar to one in 2004 and 2002. Sounds to me like more wishful thinking as 2/4 years ago.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:51 AM | Link to this

“The reporting on Operation Swarmer is a microcosm of the sub-par reporting on the Iraq war,” Mr. Roggio said. “Events are immediately placed into a political context. Commentary is often mixed in with reporting. There is little understanding of operational intent or how the military even works. Operations are viewed as individual events, and not placed in a greater context. Failure and faulty assumptions are the baselines for coverage and analysis. Success is arbitrarily determined by a reporter or editor’s biases. The actions of the U.S. and Iraqi military are viewed with suspicion and even contempt.”

The dimwits have confused an air assault (where infantry is moved by helicopter into contested territory to conduct an operation) with an air strike (where fighter-bombers blow up something) or a ground assault.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 07:00 AM | Link to this

Georgia is close to becoming the first state in the nation to pass a bill sanctioning Bible studies classes in public schools. Under the measure, which passed the House on Monday by a vote of 151-7, high school students could take state-funded elective courses on the history and literature of the Scriptures. Other states offer similar classes, but none is believed to have a law specifically authorizing classes on the Bible.

Interesting…

By Charles

March 21, 2006 07:20 AM | Link to this

ML … I think there are more than four Democrock as@es left in Congress like you show in your cartoon …. hopefully, we’re getting closer to that point with you and your Liberal buddies’ help. :)

By AntiRadical

March 21, 2006 07:22 AM | Link to this

DavidU: I wonder when the law suits will begin to, also, include study of the Koran, the teachings of Abdul B’Hai, the covenents of Wicca, the chants of Hare Krishna, and the apostates of Buddhism! Sounds too good to be true. Finally children will enjoy exposure to religious beliefs that may conflict those of their parents upbringing and the taxpayer gets to foot the bill. This may well be a dark day for Christianity but it will bring a bright new dawn for more inclusive free religious expression!

By @@

March 21, 2006 07:24 AM | Link to this

Better book for the Democratic party! “Napkin Notes on The Art of Living”, By Gary Michael Durst, Ph.D. How to move forward in life without blaming others. Take responsibility for your situation. It’s all about the individual.

But then, it’s funny, so the Democrats probably won’t appreciate it.

By Edd Williams

March 21, 2006 07:31 AM | Link to this

Oh the wishful thinking Lukavich. It won’t happen. The Jackasses will be crying in their beer come election night, as they have for the last six Congressional elections!!

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical - It will be placed in the curriculum as an elective, so that’s a positive. However, I thought this was the point of things like Bible study at local churches? And you forgot to mention the second most influential religious book to add to that list, the Torah. I’d like to see how they plan on teaching the class before I decide if I’m against it or for it.

AP English classes study passages from the King James Bible already. But not in a religious way. So I will withhold criticism until I can learn more about what exactly will be taught and how.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 07:36 AM | Link to this

Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations — except to be taxed.

And that is why the citizens of less socialist — and more religious — America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries. That is why Americans volunteer time for the needy so much more than citizens of socialist countries do. That is why citizens of conservative states in America give more charity than citizens of liberal states do. The more Left one identifies oneself on the political spectrum, the more that person is likely to believe that the state, not fellow citizens, should take care of the poor and the needy.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

I’m not trying to get every body excited, for once, but I think the point of studying the Bible in school may be that the United States is like 90% Christian and this nation was founded upon those same principles. It’s like our history.

Just a thought.

By TakeThatAndShoveIt

March 21, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

Most charities are just as corrupt as our government. They are morally bankrupt and lacking of “true” compassion!

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 07:47 AM | Link to this

The same holds true for foreign affairs. Why did the conservative government of Spain support the American war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and send troops there, while the Spanish socialists withdrew Spanish troops as soon as they were voted into office? Because the idea of risking one’s life to bring freedom to others — or to risk one’s life for another nation for just about any reason — is alien to the socialist mindset.

Similarly, in the great litmus test of moral acuity — the Middle East — socialist countries and parties virtually all line up behind the Palestinians. They do so either out of moral confusion or out of cowardice — it takes a lot more courage to support Israel than to support the Palestinians and the whole Muslim world.

The socialist idea sounded altruistic to those who began it, and it sounds altruistic to the naive who believe in it today. In practice, however, it creates self-centered individuals and a narcissistic society. So while it may have begun as a way to help others, it has come to mean a way of evading responsibility for oneself and for others.

By TakeThatAndShoveIt

March 21, 2006 07:47 AM | Link to this

“but I think the point of studying the Bible in school may be that the United States is like 90% Christian and this nation was founded upon those same principles. It’s like our history.”

Now that’s HILARIOUS!

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

By TakeThatAndShoveIt March 21, 2006 07:44 AM | Most charities are just as corrupt as our government. They are morally bankrupt and lacking of “true” compassion!

The ones that liberals administer, I agree. The Red Cross practically spends more on overhead than they do on the needy.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 07:58 AM | Link to this

Liberals S&L -I’m just thinking about the next step…lets say its a success and more states adopt this legislation. Will a school in a predominantly Jewish or Muslim community teach the Torah or the Koran? And then how will non Jewish or Muslims in that community react. Like I said I was just interested by the bill and want to read more about it before I get on a soap box for it or against it.

I just still have nightmares about reading the Old English version of the bible and trying to decipher stuff like: alliteration, kenning, caesura, metaphor, or imagery regarding specific verses. Wow I can’t believe I remember the words ‘kenning’ or ‘caesura’ and what they mean. I need to call my English teacher and complain about this.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this

Speaking of hilarious:

Why didn’t the CIA act on this information

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in “several months to a year.” Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as “500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents” and had “renewed” production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had “poison gas” left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

By TakeThatAndShoveIt

March 21, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this

And add any charity that “existed” after Sept. 11. It doesn’t matter who runs them … there are very few that I would consider giving a dime to.

By hterrya

March 21, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

To: “Liberals Suck And Lie,” “RW-(the original),” “DavidU,” “Semper FI,” “@@,” “Buy Danish,” “MikeIsABigot,” and “Charles”

For my amusement, I check into the comments section of Mike Luckovich’s wonderful Cartoons from time to time. I do it just to assure myself that the sycophants of the current president and his harem of cronies are still in full circle jerk.

All you folks of the sycophant persuasion please keep it up. It:

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

finch,

Good morning! Do you have that information that discredits Jayna Davis yet?

DavidU,

Thanks for not joining in the secular hysteria. The Bible (King James version) is an intrinsic part of literature, history, and - I know this is a dirty word to some - traditions of our country. It is folly to censor it from the public square, and its passages may be read without fear of indoctrination.

I await more belabored and overwrought protests from the same crowd who have no problem teaching our children that our president is a terrorist.

By TakeThatAndShoveIt

March 21, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

Yeah that is hilarious!

Amazing what a corrupt person could say for money. Maybe if they would have given him a little more … the story would have been better.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

hterrya- It’s always nice to be part of a group, even if you put me with the wrong political one. But since this is a political blog, I don’t mind being grouped with those that keep the discussion alive here. It would really suck if all the comments here focused on the artistic quality of ML’s cartoon; what am I saying there would be fiery discussion on the amount of shading he applies to the shadows of his characters.

Keeps Mike L.’s “Yes” vote in the 75-95% range

Great point…now if ‘those’ people would get off their b.utts and stop voting on a cartoon and vote in actual elections….

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

BD - If they decide to teach HS students the King James version of the bible, I can almost assure you there will be little to no indoctrination LOL. But yeah, I expect a lot of debate on this topic once the specifications come out (and if it passes in the Senate floor).

By Souldrift

March 21, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Semper, I could show most Republicans a 4 page agenda with bullet points and they’d claim the Democrats don’t have an agenda. Stop living in a fantasy world and actually debate the ideas.

Blog and Tan

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

DavidU,

I would object to any bastardized “modern” version that destroys the original poetry and prose, and turns it into politically-correct oatmeal.

Blasphemy!

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

Souldrift,

Let’s see that agenda! You can be the whistleblower and leak it without fear of reprisal.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

Souldrift- Nice post on the Israeli influence. I’m not sure about the Spiritual left one though…seems like the Dem party would be sacrificing a lot of the things that they stand for (as a political strategy to win, it’s more than worthy of consideration, but just at what cost?)

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

BD - as an aside to politics: what’s the “modern” version? What do you mean? Like a modern version of the Bible, or a modern version of King James version?

I just typed ‘version’ too many times into one sentence, just ignore that.

By hterrya

March 21, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

DavidU:

If you want to play the circle jerks’ game with them, that’s your decision to make.

A Word to the Wise: Be careful not to get any of their sperm on you. You don’t know where they’ve been. {;-)

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

hterrya,

Okay - Bill is “Porta Potty” and you are “Porta Potty Mouth”.

David U,

I refer to versions that rewrite the text to make it “easier” but destroy the beauty of the original language.

So as not to offend, I’ll take a phrase from Shakespeare to demonstrate:

Instead of an “old fashioned” phrase like, Get thee to a nunnery, a modernist might change it to “Pack your bags and go directly to the convent”.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

hterrya - Not really sure how to respond to that…..so I guess I’ll just leave you with “Drive Safely”

BD- ok I understand what you are saying now. And even though I hated having to read and comprehend the literary structure in “old English”….It’s kind of the point of using the King James version, in a situation like an English class. I don’t see the point of reading a translation of it, if you want to follow the actual ‘story’ you can just get a regular bible. You lose the literary flare (lets say) other wise.

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

The heck with it - what do I care if I offend some militant atheists!

Here is a good link that explains the different versions. I would object to using any scrubbed version for the purpose of teaching literature, and ideally we would rely on what Shakespeare used. I find the use of “gender neutral” language and other such changes offensive to the ear, and trust that Shakespeare would also object.

The newer versions may be taught in a church of one’s choosing.

By finch

March 21, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I certainly do! Jayna Davis’ claims have been investigated by everyone, and nobody’s found anything to corroborate them. If they had any validity, the FBI, NSA, the White House and zillions of neocons would be on them like white on rice. They’re not. Case closed.

Fantasy worlds can be exciting, but they’re so unfufilling.

By Eric

March 21, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

I can hardly wait to defeat those self righteous, hypocritical, so called conservative, republican, morons. Hello November!

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Finch,

Let’s see the specific arguments that “discredit” her!

There are many reasons why the FBI et al would not be too eager to go down that road - it makes them look really bad.

By candide

March 21, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Bush/Cheney have made canon fodder out of young men and women. They should be shot.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Finch and BD - Her web site needs a little work though…the title “From Middle America…”, just comes off as a Lord of the Rings spoof of “Middle Earth”. And thus it is hard for me to take seriously without thinking of hobbits and wizards

By finch

March 21, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

President Bush turns lying by omission into an art form.

March 20, 2006 (in Cleveland) - ” …if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”

Okay, maybe he didn’t SAY it. But he WROTE it, to justify the invasion to Congress.

March 21, 2003 (letter to Congressional leaders) - “I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Liar liar pants on fire….

By finch

March 21, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The reason nobody, and I mean NOBODY is following up on Janya’s outrageous theory is because there’s no there there.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

IRAQ: FORMER PM REVEALS SECRET SERVICE DATA ON BIRTH OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ

In Allawi’s view, Saddam’s government “sponsored” the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. “The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam’s regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area,” he said.

So who do you believe, finch or the rest of the civilized world.

Wait until all of the Oil For Food documents get researched, then we find out who funded 9/11 (Saddam.)

By Midori

March 21, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Hey,

Chimpolini is going to speak live at 10.

This ought to be good.

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

finch,

I appreciate passion in someone’s argument and their beliefs, but your obsession with Iraq being pure as the wind driven snow borders on pathological.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Andy,

“at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”

So you have finally figured out that you can’t believe anything W says like the rest of the civilized world.

Welcome aboard, there is hope for you after all.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

It is getting ugly.

The Taliban, OBL and Omar are In Pakistan not Iraq.

There is your 9/11 connection.

Which part do you not understand?

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

finch,

Nice try, but just because you say it is so does not make it so. Why can’t you provide links that discredit her claims?

As I stated earlier, Schippers, Specter and Lehman thought that her story had enough merit to explore further. Do they need “psychological counseling”? What’s you next suggestion going to be - that I get “sensitivity training”?

I am not embarrassed in the least!

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Here’s one of many excellent points made at a National Review symposium:

We’re fighting pure evil in Iraq. How many Iraqi women and children have al Qaeda/the insurgents slaughtered?

I wonder who will argue with this?

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

RW,

I don’t know if you ever heard it, but The Glenn Beck/Jayna Davis interview is fascinating stuff and she does not sound like a moonbat to me.

This WSJ Op-Ed by Richard Miniter on the Iraq/Bin Laden connection by Richard Miniter is also a great read especially now with the luxury of hindsight.

This quote is noteworthy:

Bin Laden’s Feb. 23, 1998, call for jihad lists three grievances: that U.S. warplanes use bases in Saudi Arabia to patrol the skies of Iraq, that United Nations sanctions have caused grievous suffering in Iraq, and that America’s Iraq policy is designed to divert attention from Israel’s treatment of Muslims. In short, bin Laden’s call to arms reads as if it was issued from Baghdad

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

About Katrina .

Took it from The Third Battle of New Orleans

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

I like your logic, getalife et al, Saddam was working with Al Qaeda pre 9/11 but NOT THE AL QAEDA THAT BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, IT WAS A DIFFERENT AL QAEDA CAUSE I SAID SO, AHHHHHHHH!!!

By Jewish and Proud of It

March 21, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Saddam was working with Al Qaeda pre 9/11 but NOT THE AL QAEDA THAT BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, IT WAS A DIFFERENT AL QAEDA CAUSE I SAID SO

Yes, after all, you go to war with the Al-Qaeda you have, NOT the Al-Qaeda you want!

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

DavidU,

Here’s a Katrina story.

getalife, You should read that story too since you are always harping on not enough of the rest of the taxpayer’s money going into New Orleans. It looks like the Mayor of Chocolate City turned down 5 million dollars and getting all the junk cars out of the city in 15 weeks and decided to use his own plan which costs the city 23 million dollars and takes at least 6 months to get rid of them.

That’s a net turn around of $28,000,000.00, but it’s all Bush’s fault right?

By getalife

March 21, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Why do you not want to get the actual people involved and admitted to 9/11?

The press conferance should be about how they are going after the taliban, OBL, Al QAEDA, Omar and all the others in Pakistan.

They are planning to kill you Andy!

But you go ahead and keep fighting the libs and keep embarrassing yourself as a so called American.

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I’ll listen to the Beck/Davis interview when I get a chance later. I’ve seen her interviewed before and she didn’t come off as a lunatic, but I don’t know too much about her research.

I am surprised that finch is so over the top on this with zero backup. Normally he will give you any number of links, sometimes even to partially credible sources.

By RE

March 21, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Here

is why we abide by treaties and accords. This is why we do not scrap every treaty we have signed and decide we as a country are no longer bound to previous obligations.

We violated the NPT, and so we rendered it ineffective. We advocate the idea of justified pre-emptive war, and now other countries are expressing their rights as well. Kim Jong Il is pretty nutty, but on this hw is following GWB’s example

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

getalife: Let me get this straight, you are saying that Al is the people that hit the WTC and Qaeda are the ones we are fighting in Iraq. Is that right?

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Bush: ‘We’re Going to Succeed’

Which means the liberals will fail.

President cites Iraq progress. Bush says Iraqis do not want civil war, makes case to American people for supporting country.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

I wonder how many people like me, were screaming at the tv when Helen asked her question about why?

By RE

March 21, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Is there a transcipt of the press conference anywhere online?

By getalife

March 21, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Instead of reading wingnut opinions on Iraq, which has corrupted your mind in such bias, you consider American liberals the enemy. Try reading history in Iraq.

Once again, try to keep up please, it has been reported that the taliban, OBL (remember him, the guy who admitted to 9/11 and other “evil doers” are in Pakistan planning new missions in America.

He has warned they are coming. Now why, do you not want to go get these “evil doers”.

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

getalife,

We have special forces working in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan and almost certainly Pakistan. These are the proper forces to do this search and it’s an idiotic leftist argument to say that our military should get out of Iraq and head into this area. They would be killed in huge numbers doing that.

Do you propose a full scale invasion of Pakistan? While you are offering advice to Andy about reading history, maybe you should look at what happened when the Russians thought they could just bring large amounts of troops into these areas.

By Napo D

March 21, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Gosh! Everybody knows that Bin Laden and most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis. Who doesn’t know THAT? And everybody knows that the Bush family are pretty much best friends with the Saudis since like, forever! So everybody knows the reason Bush attacked Iraq and lied about it was so he wouldn’t have to attack his best friends! IDIOT!

Andy, give me some of your tots.

By Conservatives Swallow

March 21, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

You’re wasting your breath. Take heed of trying to argue with RW/Andy/Pinko’sWN=LS&L,etc.:

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

By Scooter

March 21, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Napo D, you are funny!

Dangit RW, why did you have to go bring up the mountain slaughter of Rusian troops?

By getalife

March 21, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, I have read the the Russian failure and was amazed the war in Afganistan went so well.

The reason it went so well, the taliban ran to Pakistan and regrouped. Nothing has changed but the country they are operating in.

Would you say, if we were not in Iraq, and used all resources available, would we eliminate the threat? Or should we just let them slide and concentrate on stopping civil war in Iraq?

By getalife

March 21, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Conservatives Swallow,

Good point, just venting after Helen’s why question to W?

In Iraq, they attacked a prison and freed 30 prisoners.

When the Iraqis stand up , we stand down. Meanwhile, we let OBL slide. It is crazy, madness, insane.

There, I feel better.

By Scooter

March 21, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

“But killing or capturing bin Laden and his top lieutenants is a job exclusively designated to a special task force, variously known as Task Force 121 or Task Force 626. No one else can do the deed. And the go order, this officer said, can be a long time coming.”

“When you get an actionable intelligence, then that intelligence has to be confirmed,” he said. “Once confirmed, then there is a planning cycle that’s entered into, three courses of action. Courses of action have to be approved at higher headquarters. Coordination with other elements has to be made. And then, of course, it has to be approved at the highest levels of our government. Well, in this world, people don’t stand still that long, particularly people who … know they’re being hunted.”

By Midori

March 21, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

I wonder how many people like me, were screaming at the tv when Helen asked her question about why?

Getalife: I was screaming along with you.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Midori,

I knew you would.

Very odd, the conservatives seem to have cut and run.

We did have a long thread to answer the question why? I believe the answer came up to be “oil” and not freedom.

I think I am about to get swift boated.

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Maybe if rather than spending time yelling at your TV’s you tried coming up with some substantive ideas and persuaded your fellow citizens of the value of your ideas, you could get someone elected once in a while.

Anger and demagoguery are not plans.

On another note, does anyone know why the moonbats are so fond of bird names like finch and swallow?

getalife,

I think we are eliminating far more threats by being in Iraq and I know it will be years before we agree on that.

By Scooter

March 21, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

“31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.”

“”Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”“ Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Golly, why indeed?

Should’ve left the noble UN in charge I guess.

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

RW,

Re Jayna/Beck, if nothing else you won’t be bored!

Great points about what happened to the Ruskies in Afghanistan. Bad idea to imitate that failed endeavor - talk about a “quagmire”!

Book recommendation: “Charlie Wilson’s War”.

Running out until much later…

Have fun everybody!

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

RW,

Re Jayna/Beck, if nothing else you won’t be bored!

Great points about what happened to the Ruskies in Afghanistan. Bad idea to imitate that failed endeavor - talk about a “quagmire”!

Book recommendation: “Charlie Wilson’s War”.

Running out until much later…

Have fun everybody!

By getalife

March 21, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

RW,

I agree we disagree.

Leaving OBL out there is a major mistake. His recruitment is up and people are looking up to him.

Have you seen the latest Taliban video were they killed for drinking?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Crocodile tears over Tillman?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

RW,

I agree with you about Iraq, but I bet we have totally different reasons. All that crap about evil dictators and weapons of mass destruction are the window dressing that the administration put on a preemptive attack to establish “a permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf.” There are sound geopolitical reasons for this, but we haven’t heard about any of them except from Wolfie. If this administration had openly stated these goals from the beginning, allowed a public debate, and left the planning of the war to the appropriate professionals, I would probably be arguing your side.

By candide

March 21, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

An hour press conference today shows how worried Bush is. He was even nice to Helen Thomas.It won’t work. Americans are waking up to the disaster Bush has given us.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

getalife: I thought the liberals were the enemy.

OBL is in a cave in Pakistan planning more attacks on America and you pinkos get your jollies at just the the thought of it all.

American troops are killing all of OBL’s followers in Iraq, pretty soon he won’t have any one left to carry out his new attack except the man in the mirror, and Conservatives get their jollies off at the thought of it all.

You don’t see any thing wrong with this scenario?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Suck,

I wish you were right, but for every insurgent (and most are not OBL’s men) we kill in Iraq, two crop up to take his place. You have your view, a little simplistic at times, but typically you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a pinko. Maybe you should try and listen to what other people are trying to tell you. They are not all “pinkos” and maybe, just maybe, their take on things is more realistic than yours.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Andy,

You don’t see any thing wrong with this scenario?

Yes, this part:

OBL is in a cave in Pakistan planning more attacks on America and you pinkos get your jollies at just the the thought of it all.

OBL planning his next attack is a major problem. The pinko crap is something you have to fight in your own mind.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Daytime TV tied to poorer mental scores in elderly By Amy Norton Mon Mar 20, 10:41 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Older women who say talk shows and soap operas are their favorite TV programs tend to score more poorly on tests of memory, attention and other cognitive skills, researchers reported Monday.

Oprah, Phil and Jerry make you stupid, go figure. All those moron liberal ideas destroy brain cells.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Actually, I think anyone who disagrees with me is Clueless like in Seattle.

I wish you were right, but for every insurgent (and most are not OBL’s men) we kill in Iraq, two crop up to take his place.

Man, if you can back this statement up with facts, I’ll call Bush myself and tell him to get the hell out of Iraq.

getalife: OBL would have hit us on 9/12/1001 if he could have. George Bush has prevented that from happening with no help at all from you pinkos.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Andy,

9/12/1001

Are you on any kind of meds?

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

WashingtonState,

If President Bush had said he wanted to invade Iraq just to set up a military base I would be dead set against it.

Napo D,

Nice catch

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Suck,

I have given up trying to prove anything to you. It just can’t be done. But maybe other readers can see the obvious.

” According to figures compiled by the Brookings Institution, in Washington, there were 75 attacks a day last month, compared with 54 on average a year earlier. The number of Iraqi civilians being killed in the conflict rose to 1,000 in February, from 750 in February 2005. There are now 232,000 Iraqi security personnel, up 90,000 over the past 12 months, but their ability to control the situation is a matter of dispute. Oil production, the mainstay of the economy, is in decline.

(BTW, there is another general who thinks that this administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq shows hopeless incompetence.)

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

2001 (-:

Here’s another anti American kook for you pinkos to cheer on:

N. Korea Warns U.S. of Pre-Emptive Strike Tuesday, March 21, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North’s official news agency.

And they think I’ve lost my mind…

By clark

March 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

I have a question for those who watch Fox News: I got stuck watching the show ‘DaySide’ and I was wondering if Mike Jerrick always makes sexual comments towards Juliet Huddy or was it just that I caught it on the wrong day. I was waiting for her to slap him or something.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Yet another example how your boy W has made us safer.

Well, it is a beautiful day here in south Louisiana. I think I will go lay by the pool.

Good day and good luck.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

RW,

It is a nice catch. I got a couple of 13 pounders when I was living in Georgia, but that one is in a whole different class.

Do you really think that that position paper from the Heritage Foundation (you know the one I am talking about) is full of crap? After all, it does seem to be the manifesto of the Bush administration foreign policy advisors. One of their big points was the need to establish a permanent military presence in the Persia Gulf area. Hussein was specifically singled out as a convenient pretext. Or are we dealing with a case of selective cherry picking? The points the rest of the position paper made are certainly in favor with the administration and indeed read like a template for the foreign policy positions of the administration. Why is the point about permanent bases in the Persian Gulf considered an aberration?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Suck,

Here’s another link to the problem of terrorism from the Army War College, that bastion of liberal thinking.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Clueless: You keep looking for and believing your Anti American, self loathing, self debasing unprovable facts that encourage our enemies making them believe they are winning against us and I’ll keep presenting the truth:

*Some Sunni Arabs turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a serious threat to the group *

Residents reported curious declarations hanging from mosque walls and market stalls recently in Ramadi, the Sunni Muslim insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. The fliers said Iraqi militants had turned on and were killing foreign al-Qaeda fighters, their one-time allies.

A local tribal leader and Iraq’s Defense Ministry have said followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, have begun fleeing Anbar province and Ramadi, its capital, to cities and mountain ranges near the Iranian border.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Clueless: What don’t you understand about the word “synopsis?”:

Synopsis:- n : a sketchy summary of the main points of an argument or theory

This monograph takes its title from President Hosni Mubarak’s prediction that American involvement in Iraq would give rise to a “hundred Osamas.” The author explores “the new jihad” and the regeneration of Islamist insurgencies and extremist movements in the context of religious and political movements throughout the Muslim world. It describes the contributions of various Islamist leaders to this discourse of extremism and how their strategies of recruitment, retention and engagement function. In contrast, various U.S. responses to extremists are critiqued, and new elements of a counterstrategy are proposed.

So Clueless has all of his eggs in Swami Mubarek’s, soothsayer of all there is to know, basket.

Anti American Bozo.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Suck,

As always, you jingoism contributes nothing to constructive dialogue. “Those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Suck,

Download the whole pdf. I told you nothing I posted would have any impact on your thinking. The Army War College is where they groom our future army leaders. Their intent is to get them to see the complexities of the situation rather than to take a simple minded approach. How many other examples would it take to get you to acknowledge the truth? I suspect that could never happen.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

jingoism n 1: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions

Versus cheering on a fanatical group of religious killers that want to enslave us under Islamic law.

Hhhmmm, what to do, what should I do? Am I too jingoistic, not wanting to be a dhimmi? What to do?

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Clueless: The Army War College is reacting to a scenario you clown, dimwit. It’s their job to be prepared if it ever does come true. You are taking a war game and saying that it has happened, you are a moron.

We practice invading China every year, idiot, do you think we are really at war with them?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Suck,

If anyone is cheering on the fanatical religious killers, it is you. By failing to recognize the failed policies of Wolfowitz as carried out by Rumsfeld, you allow the terrorists to continue to operate with relative impunity. By failing to even consider this possibility, you aid and abet the enemy. You would make a good soldier, but a lousy general.

jingoism:

belligerent nationalism: extreme patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility …

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Suck,

If it is not too taxing, read the whole pdf file and then come back and post something that makes sense. This monograph is not about a theoretical war, but about the real one we are engaged in now.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Suck,

I am done with this dialogue. I hope that others of your political stripe are not as obnoxious and close minded as you, or we are in for a world of hurt. Read back over this thread and see how many times you gratuitously insulted me. You are like a kid on a playground who doesn’t know how to get along with anyone. Like I told Midori, “Don’t feed the monkeys.”

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

WahingtonState,

I haven’t had time to go through much of anything here today so I probably gave too short an answer before, sorry. I don’t mind if a permanent base happened to be an outgrowth of the effort. I would prefer it to be an Iraqi base, paid for with Iraqi dollars and our status be technically that of guest.

I just said I would be against invading a country for the sole purpose of stealing some of their sovereignty and building our own base.

No matter what motivations you want to assign to the President, that scenario cannot apply to Iraq because there were so many other compelling reasons for our action. I choose to believe the motivations were pure, others don’t. I don’t think there are enough keyboards in the world to convince people that say either war for oil or war for imperialism that they are wrong.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

RW,

I have had this conversation with a more than a few conservatives and it seems to come down to their believing that Bush is sincere, but that perhaps he was manipulated. The more honest of them have come out and said that the whole position paper from The New American Century is a seminal work and but that it would have been a disaster to let on that there were geopolitcal reasons for the war that went far beyond the reasons given publicly. The point they made (and it is a valid one from the conservative view) is this: imagine what the liberals would have said: War for oil or some variation of that theme. So it is not just a liberal point of view, but a conservative one also.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

RW,

Of course, the conservatives I know are Army people, so that might account for their bellicose attitude :)

By RW-(the original)

March 21, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

WahingtonState,

imagine what the liberals would have said

Exactly what haven’t they said? Good Lord it’s been an illegal war to the oil. It’s been Bush starting his own Empire. It’s been avenging his father. and on and on and on….

If by not going along with the whole PNAC thing makes me a dishonest conservative in your eyes then that’s fine with me. I try to see things with the best possible information I can get and I filter out almost all conspiracy theories. Then I try to see what the long term outlook is. I think if we are allowed to finish our job in Iraq it gives us a foothold in the real war we are fighting and the real war is far more widespread than Iraq.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Does anybody else understand this like I do, or do I just not have enough hate for the U.S. to see the underlying message? Correct me, if I’m wrong, please. This is straight from Clueless’s link of the Army War College:

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.

A HUNDRED OSAMAS: ISLAMIST THREATS AND THE FUTURE OF COUNTERINSURGENCY

Islamist terror has not arisen from a vacuum, but has evolved over decades and requires more calibrated coordination and a different type of strategic planning than other types of conflicts.

Jihadist strategy has emerged in a polymorphous pattern over the last 30 years, but many Americans only became aware of the intensity of this problem post-September 11, 2001 (9/11), and through observation of the 2003- 05 insurgency in Iraq.

And this is just the first 3 pages. When does it get to the kook anti American part that Clueless is all excited about?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

RW,

Didn’t mean to imply that you were a dishonest conservative. Just that some of the more forthright people I have had this discussion with seem to end up agreeing with the conclusions of that particular position piece.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Suck,

There is no “kook anti American part” except in your paranoid imagination. It’s a good paper that lays out a complicated subject in a way you might be able to understand. Oop, broke my promise not to feed the monkies.

By buff

March 21, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

ml thinks that the Dems will regain Congress. Hmmm, what is their political agenda? Being anti-Bush is not a future policy agenda

Of course, the leftists are stuck with believing that if they lose cheating was involved

They have not had a fresh idea in 80 years

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Allow me to expand this even further:

Let’s say that we are creating terrorists by defending ourselves in Iraq, which is what we are doing, the war was preemptive. If you accept this theory, you have three options for action:

a- Withdraw from Iraq and start a policy of appeasement that does not further offend the Islamic world. It will be a gradual surrender of our human rights on the pretense that we are accomadating Islamic law so that we don’t “create” terrorism. Once the Muslims are on to this capitulation they will most certainly test the boundaries of our will.

b- Kill all of the potential Islamic terrorists. This must be indiscriminate as you can’t take any chances with the limited resources of the U.S. military. We will have to invade all of the Middle Eastern countries and kill their young men. If defending ourselves from terror creates terror, than this is the only real option.

c- Introduce a democratic form of government to the region, complete with it’s own armed forces. Instill a national pride by instituting the people’s will through the vote. Turn control of this country over to the new leaders and let them kill the terrorists, protecting their own citizens. Foster the seeds of democracy in the other neighboring countries, letting it be led by example.

I’m all for giving C. a try. I know for a fact that we did zero to offend these killers before 9/11 and that didn’t stop them from bringing death to us. What’s changed since then?

Do you want us to kill them all or would you seriously try option A? Or should we get behind Bush, show solidarity with our country and freedom?

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Suck,

Congratulations. An intelligent post without a single gratuitous insult. I am impressed. I am for option d) Replace the incompetent ones who are currently running the war and proceed with option c).

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Clueless, if you choose option C than you are discrediting the War College Synopsis, Hahahahaha. C won’t do any good by itself.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Suck,

I don’t follow your logic on that one. We have gotten ourselves into a mess and you are asking me which alternative I would pick. I would have picked avoiding the mess in the first place, but now that we are in, we don’t have a whole lot of choices. c) is quixotic, to say the least, but it is better than a) and b).

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Clueless: If you believe the nonsense that we are creating terrorists by defending ourselves then you either have to kill all of the terrorists or surrender and try not to offend them, there is no other permanent choices.

By choosing C you are giving a vote of confidence to the Bush Administration, as this was also their choice. I guess there is hope for you after all.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Suck,

Gotta go. Read the whole pdf. It is not anti-American. It does point out the complicated nature of the problem we all have (conservatives and liberals alike) and it does offer some good insights as to how we can improve our present efforts against terrorists.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

The thing to keep in mind is that the people who complain about how terrible the war is, or who take the weaselly position that they’re for the war but it’s all gone wrong because the Bush administration is irredeemably “incompetent,” are doing so for reasons that have little to do with the actual war. Some have always opposed it on ideological grounds. Others are seeking partisan advantage. Still others—and many of our fellow pundits fall into this category—are simply succumbing to peer pressure. They feel as though they have to gang up on President Bush because that’s what all the cool kids inside the Beltway are doing right now. Perhaps one day they will be mature enough to make up their own minds about things.

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Well, suck and lie, the “theory” that you propose is wrong. Attacking Iraq “preemptively” is a bit like Charles Manson attacking the Tate and LaBianca families “preemptively”. And, yes, we are defending ourselves, in much the same way that a man who spends a night trying to break into a lion’s cage at the zoo, finally succeeds and is then forced to defend himself against the p**-off lions. He may be in danger, but he’s an idiot to be in the cage to begin with.

Option A is wrong, for moral reasons. We screwed up that country, it is our duty to try to repair the harm we did. When Saddam was in power it was their problem, and we could help or not, but now it is OUR problem, so we have to stay. Option B is obviously out of the question. Option C is a pipe dream hatched by someone sitting on the couch in America. Democracy comes from within, not by imposition from without, people not ready for a democracy will not accept it. Instilling national pride via an invasion is a notion that is beyond ridiculous. The only national pride that will arise will be when Americans leave. I guarantee you that the day the last American soldier departs (if this day ever comes) will become a national holiday in Iraq. But fixing the problem will be very very hard. The only obvious first step is to get rid of Bush, since obviously no one either in Iraq or in America trusts him any more. A new administration will face many of the same problems, but at least they will not have to deal with the situation that everyone automatically assumes they are lying. A new leadership in America may show the Iraqis that we are trying to do what’s good for them, rather than what’s in our best interests. Rallying behind Bush is not an option any more, his administration has lied and failed dramatically far more often than any presidency in recent and not-so-recent history. Only a cleaning of the (White) house will do.

By Scooter

March 21, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Who said A.) doesn’t work?

CNN reported this morning that President Carter has played to type by announcing after his first three-hour meeting today with Kim Il Sung that it was important to “address some of the misunderstandings” that have arisen between the United States and North Korea and “[to] try to overcome them.” Mr. Carter also characteristically enthused about the Korean despot, noting his impressive grasp of the issues in dispute. “I found him to be completely aware of and thoroughly familiar with all of the major issues, including the details of reactor design and the comparison between the different reactors.”

By Scooter

March 21, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

That was a sarcastic post.

By mike d

March 21, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

rushcap: Well, he only has 2 more years. Then you have your ‘cleaning’

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Yeah, he has 2 more years. Unfortunately in this country starting a war which kills tens of thousands is a far less grievous offense than getting a b-job. Gotta love the neo-Puritan America: murder is OK, sex is dirty. If there weren’t so few Indians left in this country, the neocons would be out in force distributing smallpox-laden blankets to dem Injuns.

By George

March 21, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Hey Suck,

Well now we know what GWBs choice is. D, as in let the next president decide. He is just going to let us bleed in a war to a tune of $200 million a day till the next election and then let someone else take care of it.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

rushncap: What is it with you breaking into the cages of animals, can’t you control yourself? How’s Ingi?

That’s real nice of you to classify the Iraqi people as retards waiting for someone to feed and think for them, they should have felt lucky to be fed into those wood chippers, right? The simple carefree life?

When the World Trade Center was crumbling to the ground I thought that we had a problem and that was long before we invaded Iraq.

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

This is the last time I dignify your beastiality fetish with a commend, Andy. Get a life.

Since I never classified Iraqis as “retards” or as “waiting for someone to feed them and think for them” I can only assume the following 2 things: you’re an artless but vicious liar (a la GW), and you are projecting. This too is beneath me to comment upon. And your “wood chipper” comment marks you as a seriously disturbed little man.

When the WTC was crumbling to the ground, we did indeed have a problem. And the Cheney administration made it far far worse.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

rushncap: You’ve got all of the little punk as-s socialist slogans down pat. Did you join Code Pink?

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Did I touch a nerve, little man? If you have nothing to say, maybe you should keep your little mouth shut.

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

President Hosni Mubarak’s prediction that American involvement in Iraq would give rise to a “hundred Osamas.”

Waddya Know - here is an OSAMA that we could use a hundred of:

Stunned city residents turned on al-Qaeda, and (OSAMA) al-Jadaan, of the Karabila tribe, announced an agreement with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government to help with security.

The moves by (OSAMA)al-Jadaan’s men and Iraqi army units against al-Qaeda forced many of the foreign fighters to flee to central and eastern areas of Iraq – some to the mountains near Iran – that have large Sunni populations, al-Jadaan said.

That prompted tribes in the central city of Hawija, where some al-Qaeda fighters sought refuge, to issue a statement earlier this week openly declaring war on foreign al-Qaeda members.

Hat Tip: LS&L 2:49 post

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

rushncap: You accuse Bush of lying, look what you did, you little sissy socialist:

This is the last time I dignify your beastiality fetish with a commend, Andy. Get a life.

Liar.

By Empress of Elba

March 21, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

I am taking the “Clueless” eponym away from W.S. and giving it to you for this deserving statement:

Unfortunately in this country starting a war which kills tens of thousands is a far less grievous offense than getting a b-job. Gotta love the neo-Puritan America: murder is OK, sex is dirty

Moreover, I am bestowing The Ward Churchill Faux Scholarship Award on your sorry a*ss for this statement:

If there weren’t so few Indians left in this country, the neocons would be out in force distributing smallpox-laden blankets to dem Injuns.

You are banned from the kingdom until you get a real history book.

By nucular

March 21, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

The Imbecile spoke again today. More victories in Iraq! Success. It’ll be interesting to follow up on Naval Investigation’s analysis of the November slaughter of women & children in their houses. “Mission Accomplished!”

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

Where am I lying, little man?

Oh, and little one, you can stop copying me. If you don’t have enough imagination to come up with your own insults, that is your problem.

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Wow, Elba, I…. care so much what you think. And my grasp of history is far better than yours, thank you very much. Have a good day living in your faerie kingdom.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

rushncap: You said you wouldn’t comment to me anymore, duma-ss.

I’ll stop using the word that, I guess, you invented, “little.” From now on I will call you a “big” sissy.

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

WS,

Don’t think that just because I gave the “Clueless” name away means that I admire your thinking.

You were doing okay until 3:23 when you suddenly jumped over a cliff:

*By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Suck,

If anyone is cheering on the fanatical religious killers, it is you. By failing to recognize the failed policies of Wolfowitz as carried out by Rumsfeld, you allow the terrorists to continue to operate with relative impunity. By failing to even consider this possibility, you aid and abet the enemy

You need much better argument than that to accuse Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Andy of treason, so I’m going to call you, Censure at your own risk from now on.

By RE

March 21, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Hey if we are doing so well in Iraq, how come GWB said today that the troops would not be withdrawn until after he is out of office.

By Emperor of Elba

March 21, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

The only thing that you know how to grasp is your wanker. History has passed you by.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Please do not put my name next to Andy.

I am an American.

By getalife

March 21, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

Please do not put my name next to Andy.

I am an American.

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Andy, you need to learn to read a bit above 2nd grade level. I said I would not comment on your beastiality fetish, I said nothing about the rest of the garbage you type. You know, adult education classes could work wonders for you, little man.

By Buy Danish

March 21, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

LS&L, ever since you came over with your dog last night, I’ve erupted in blisters! I can’t pee without it burning.
What do you think it is??
I’ll never be able to go to the cross burning with this embarassing scratching that I can’t control!

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

For an “Empress” you sure do have a potty mouth, Elba. So if you think I should stop grasping my wanker, what is your usual fee to do that for me. What is it, $15-$20?

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

Gosh i’m lone-ly. i need sum good lovin- wer’s my dawg, Hilla-ry! Hilla-ry! roll over fur big dad-dy!

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

Beating up on France is an amusement that, while still immensely popular among young French Muslims, has lost its charm for most Americans. As the author of what I think is a first-rate bash of the French élite, I say this with tremendous sorrow. Yet I recognize that while there may be 50 million French jokes, we’ve heard them all. Besides, it takes more than one weasel to make an axis. We’ve moved on, as they say.

Parisians in America

That notion finds a certain sympathy on this side of the Atlantic. Government-as-provider is the default position of the disgruntled American left, for whom France often holds high the dim, plastic night-light of leftwing virtue. Betting on the French pony has caused the American left to pretzel itself around the obvious inanities of French political “thought” and to defend Yank-bashers in Paris with a tenacity unthinkable in defending, say, American GIs in Baghdad.

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

rushncap: You should look at your sentence structure as well as spelling, you big pus-sy.

This is the last time I dignify your beastiality fetish with a commend, Andy.

This could be taken either way. Your in college, aren’t you? I can tell because you are full of big sissy socialist slogans and you are illiterate, also.

You have some nerve lecturing me about learning, you silly bitc-h.

Why won’t you talk about bestiality, dude, there is nothing for you to be ashamed of. This is America, anything goes. Don’t be embarrassed, tell us all about your love for Ingi.

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

• This is the last time I dignify your beastiality fetish with a commend, Andy.

This could be taken either way *

No, it really can’t. It can only be taken one way, at least by those who speak English at or above 3rd grade level.

Your in college, aren’t you? I am, but I’m not sure which college takes people who don’t know the difference between “you’re” and “your”, so I have grave doubts about you telling even this little bit of truth.

You have some nerve lecturing me about learning, you silly bitc-h. I’m not lecturing you. When I lecture it’s with a hope that those I lecture to will understand me. You are far too dumb to understand any lecture I might give you. I’m merely mocking and ridiculing you.

By Midori

March 21, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

I really, really enjoy your thought provoking posts and your great sense of humor :)

By Liberals Suck And Lie

March 21, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this

rushncap: Oh, I can sense some frustration here. Your friend found out you were doing his dog, didn’t he? Man, I’ll bet that got ugly. I have no doubt he probably beat your a-ss pretty good.

Have you tried sneaking back in through the doggie door or do you just wank to a picture of her?

By rushncap

March 21, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

Thanks Midori! I enjoy your posts as well. Thanks for holding this place up.

By DavidU

March 21, 2006 07:25 PM | Link to this

New Cartoon.

By finch

March 21, 2006 07:45 PM | Link to this

RW,

I do not think Iraq is “as pure as the driven snow”. (Sorry for the delay in answering) I simply think there was no valid reason for a pre-emptive invasion. A waste of American time, money and lives. I said it then; and I’m saying it now.

Hearing President Bush say that it will be his successor who completes a withdrawl from Iraq does not make me happy. We were once told 2004… then 2005, ‘06, ‘07… and now 2009? The problem with the Iraq tarbaby is that we’re all stuck to it.

Midori, rushncap, DavidU, RE, WS… you should be ashamed of yourselves for working Suck into such a lather. Heh. heh. hehheh.

By Empress of Elba

March 21, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

Clueless Rushncap,

If you think that I am at all impressed by your scholarship, think again. What you don’t know could fill a library - and then some. Your “grasp” of history seems to be limited to Leftist propaganda 101

What is most irksome is your habit of borrowing other peoples phrases and claiming them as your own, followed by your prissy sanctimony.

Ignorance is bad enough, a lack of originality is unforgiveable.

By WashingtonState

March 21, 2006 09:32 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

So you think it is o.k. for Andy to accuse everyone he disagrees with of treason, but God forbid anyone should call him on it. I am not alone in thinking that Rumfeld has bungled this war from the beginning. Powell’s chief aide thinks so. [So does this guy.] Another former general.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1734902,00.html) I only wish Powell would break his silence and tell us what he thinks.