Atlanta Opinion

By getalife

April 13, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this

Nope, they will “stay the course”.

Good toon.

By RW-(the original)

April 13, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this

Only in the brainless world of a moonbat cartoonist would an overthrow of our government using nuclear weapons be considered a good thing.

By Robert

April 13, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

Now stick to topic people, this one is about something that is not very clear to me at the moment, but still stick to the topic or else you will anger other na-zi bloggers. You have been warned.

They are watching

By @@

April 13, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

Well at least ml realizes that there will never be what is deemed a conventional war. Kinda like the one we’re fighting in Iraq. It surprises and scares people. It just doesn’t go along with what they know war to be.

Let’s see, that’s one out of five military leaders. One looking for 15 seconds of fame addressing the media and the other four doing their job. I’ll go with it.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 13, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this

See, these bumbling idiots can’t get anything done without Rumsfeld.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 13, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this

Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France of 1936? So far, not evidently. According to the New York Times, “One of President Bush’s most senior foreign policy advisers” recently told a group of academics, “The problem is that our policy has been all carrots and no sticks. And the Iranians know it.”

Plus, our once proud media is overwhelmed with sissy liberals. And the Iranians know it.

By Lord Help Us

April 13, 2006 07:55 PM | Link to this

Man, even Dick Cheney didn’t have Generals asking for his resignation when he was Secretary of Defense.

Is there anything that will ever convince the narrow-minded shills how pitiful this administration actually is? Sadly, probably not…

It’s the Competence, Stupid!

By RE

April 13, 2006 08:30 PM | Link to this

“See, these bumbling idiots can’t get anything done without Rumsfeld”

Andy the America hater showing how he supports the troops. Are all these generals idiots? Why do you hate the troops so much. It’s comments like yours that embolden the enemy. Thier lifetime of survice is so easily dismissed by your ideas of political expediency. Pinko

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 13, 2006 08:40 PM | Link to this

By RE April 13, 2006 08:30 PM “See, these bumbling idiots can’t get anything done without Rumsfeld” Andy the America hater showing how he supports the troops. Are all these generals idiots? Why do you hate the troops so much. It’s comments like yours that embolden the enemy. Thier lifetime of survice is so easily dismissed by your ideas of political expediency. Pinko, EEeeeehhhh, Eeeeehhhhh, EEEEEeeehhh!

Man, if this is the best you’ve got for me you don’t need to be running with the big dogs, oh foolish one.

By N-GA

April 13, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

1 - “I think we need a fresh start” at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005” 2 - “We won’t get fooled again,” retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002…Newbold called for “replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach.” 3 - Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically.” Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that “Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.” 4 - “The problem is that we’ve wasted three years” in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he “absolutely” thinks Rumsfeld should resign. 5 - “A lot of them are hugely frustrated,” in part because Rumsfeld gave the impression that “military advice was neither required nor desired” in the planning for the Iraq war, said retired Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who until last year commanded Marine forces in the Pacific Theater. 6 - Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, said he believes that his peer group is “a pretty closemouthed bunch” but that, even so, his sense is “everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out.” …Riggs said… he believes Rumsfeld and his advisers have “made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict.”

Now, of course all the wing-nut chicken-hawks (most of whom have never served on active duty) will get apoplectic about all this. After all, this is Rummy-world!!

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 13, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

No wonder they didn’t move to Canada:

November 1, 2005- Psst - we don’t really need liberals By RACHEL MARSDEN

Recent events in American politics suggest liberals are clowns with zero sense of perspective. No wonder Americans don’t elect them anymore. Canadians need to wise up and get in on the joke.

It’s that brutal Canadian honesty, from a fine young lady at that. I admire her for her mind, really.

By N-GA

April 13, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this

Don’t worry, RE. Andy is really a liberal extremist. He is working undercover. The thought is that if he acts stupid enough, it will cause more people to move more to the left so that they will not be linked to him by association.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 13, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

Media liberals are generally so useless that they need to slope the playing field to score a win. Our own CBC does long interviews with conservatives and then hacks them up into five-second clips, surrounded by editorializing like, “This is Rachel. She hates health care.”

U.S. liberal radio host and author Al Franken has resorted to staging Jerry-Springer-style fights against fake conservative opponents. In a recent promotional video for his new book, he breaks a stool over the back of some actor hired to play a conservative critic, and then knees him in the bod-rod.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 13, 2006 08:54 PM | Link to this

Just to show you how old, stupid, lame and boring the libs are:

Cynthia Tucker 05.10.04’

Getting rid of Rumsfeld won’t change a thing in Iraq Defense secretary’s hubris is representative of reckless administration.

Yawn.

Because of the uproar provoked by the pictures, not just Democrats but also Republicans are beginning to suggest that Rumsfeld should be fired.

And generals too! Weeeeeee! Weeeeeeee!

By finch

April 13, 2006 09:03 PM | Link to this

Seems ml was inspired by the news of the day.

There’s CNN:

“WASHINGTON (CNN) — The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.”

And there’s the NY Times:

“WASHINGTON, April 13 — An expanding group of influential former military officers is calling for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation in a public rebellion that has become a significant challenge to the Pentagon’s civilian leadership.”

Even the MOONIE TIMES!!

“More flak for Rumsfeld from ex-generals”

“Apr. 13, 2006 at 7:49PM”

“Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr. Thursday joined a group of former U.S. military officers critical of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.”

But nothing yet on FAUX NEWS! So much for fair and balanced….

Let’s hear it for America’s real heroes. The ones who call the bluffs of armchair generals like Donald (Saddam was my friend!)Rumsfeld!

By RE

April 13, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

Your right, I can’t run with you. No matter how I feel about the policies of the administration, I would never disparage the lifetime of service the members of our armed forces have given. Just remember it is their sacrifice that allows you to make your idiotic america hating rants. You have been given that freedom through the bledshed of others. Perhaps you can go to one of the military funerals with your friends at Westboro church to mock their families loss.

By Clyde

April 13, 2006 09:45 PM | Link to this

Robert. Good facts re the Pentagon stats. Read some of that myself.

Seems truth upsets little Davidu. Pity.

By MikeIsABigot

April 13, 2006 09:49 PM | Link to this

It’s funny to see liberals championing the marginalization of civilian control of the military.

By Ricky

April 13, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

As a conservative and service member, I agree that Rusmfeld needs to go. He has been a failure in Iraq. If it weren’t for the extremely high quality of the military leaders on the ground in Iraq the situation would be much worse. I don’t have a problem with these generals critizing Rummy, I believe they think they are doind what is right to help the country they voluntarily served for so long. The only one is question is Nebould, who retired six months before the invasion of Iraq. I just wonder how much he actually knew and how much changed in the last six months prior to the invasion.

By Buy Danish

April 13, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

Finch,

Who’s this?

And this?

Or this?

Love makes the world go round.

By MikeIsABigot

April 13, 2006 09:55 PM | Link to this

RE -

Careful, some liberal hypocrite might call you a chicken hawk.

By N-GA

April 13, 2006 09:56 PM | Link to this

No, Mr Bigot…the liberals are supporting the ouster of an incompetent a*******hole (and a Neo-Fascist, to boot).

By N-GA

April 13, 2006 10:09 PM | Link to this

Many Military flag officers want Rumsfeld gone because he ignored their advice and it is hurting the troops.

This attitude is consistent throughout the entire administration.

They ignore REAL science when it comes to pollution, stem cells, etc.

They ignore basic economics when they cater to big business, increase the federal budget, and cut taxes causing the largest national debt in history.

They ignore the rights of the individual by castigating behaviors that run contrary to their ideology.

They ignore the plight of both the poor and the elderly when they fail to pass meaningful legislation on Medicare and Social Security.

They ignore the values upon which this nation was built…particularly INTEGRITY…by fostering a climate of corruption and a philosophy of “government for sale”.

They ignore America’s role in world affairs by imposing their will on the international community rather then using genuine diplomacy.

They ignore the collapse of the American dollar by failing to take any action to correct the trade imbalance because to do so would have a negative affect on many companies that source their products in Asia.

And they ignore all of these things at their peril.

By Buy Danish

April 13, 2006 10:14 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

You’re not a Neo-Fascist. You’re just a run of the mill, no neo needed, fascist.

You’re the real thing - only not nearly as refreshing as an ice cold Coca Cola.

RE,

I noticed that you objected to the “Social experimentation of Democracy in Iraq” earlier (I may be paraphrasing but that is the gist of it).

Can I count you in on the side that does not support the social engineering of nearly every aspect of our domestic lives?

By finch

April 13, 2006 10:19 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

At least the Clintons and Albright didn’t preside over the sale of weapons systems to N. Korea and the PLO!!

“Iraq, during much of the 1980’s and into the ’90s, was able acquire sophisticated U.S. technology, intelligence material, ingredients for chemical weapons, indeed, entire weapon-producing plants, with the knowledge, acquiescence and sometimes even the assistance of the U.S. Government.”

Thanks, Rummy! Nice pic!

By Ricky

April 13, 2006 10:21 PM | Link to this

NGA, if they ignored science on the economy why is it doing so well? Good job posting a talking points memo though

By RW-(the original)

April 13, 2006 10:28 PM | Link to this

finch,

No they just gave North Korea and the PLO billions of dollars to spend as they wished, as long as they …whisper,whisper,hush-hush…didn’t make anything nuclear.

China, on the other hand, Clinton sold guidance systems to so that they now can deliver a nuclear weapon to our shores. And oh by the way, he did it for campaign contributions, not like when we had to support Saddam as the lesser of two evils. We had a good reason to support Uncle Joe way back when too.

By Buy Danish

April 13, 2006 10:30 PM | Link to this

At least the Clintons and Albright didn’t preside over the sale of weapons systems to N. Korea and the PLO!!

finch,

They didn’t??? You may want to double check that - at least the North Korea part. Think NUCLEAR weapons. And they sure did preside over some pretty fancy shmancy technology to the Chinese.

I don’t know that any administration has sold weapons systems to the PLO other than the Iranians, Al Qaeda, and Iraq.

As for your Captain Obvious quote about Iraq - that was then and this is now. We used to support Iran too - remember? You know, until Jimmy Carter dumped on the Shah of Iran?

Alliances change.

What on earth is your point??

By Buy Danish

April 13, 2006 10:32 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

I have a book idea: Talking points for Dummies.

By RE

April 13, 2006 10:35 PM | Link to this

BD, I do not believe in government sponsered social engineering. It is intrusive and should not be the province of the government.

Social engineering I do not support:

Affirmative action

Defense of Marriage act

Restriction of gay couples adopting children

government money going to religious orginizations

Glad to find some common ground with you.

By Huge

April 13, 2006 10:38 PM | Link to this

Nixon referred to Rumsfeld as “one tough little bastard.” High praise from one d!ckhead to another.

By Buy Danish

April 13, 2006 10:40 PM | Link to this

Before I go to bed, I just want to spread some good tidings to the Democrats. Here -sweet dreams!

By RE

April 13, 2006 10:48 PM | Link to this

Dead link BD

By Midori

April 13, 2006 10:54 PM | Link to this

Andy, Mikey, Buy Danish, RW, and any other member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardist Brigade put up or shut the hell up

You are are so enlightented and combat ready - why not put your mind and bodies to good use?

Where it counts?

By Midori

April 13, 2006 10:56 PM | Link to this

Dead link BD

Links mirror BD’s brain.

By RW-(the original)

April 13, 2006 10:57 PM | Link to this

RE,

More about Buy Danish’s bedtime message for you and the rest of the Democrats. See you already have your nominee and he’s just the kind of leaker errrr….whistle blower you guys love.

By Dusty

April 13, 2006 11:02 PM | Link to this

Well, it is easy to see that liberals are once again celebrating because a small number of RETIRED American generals have decided to “slam” our military during wartime. Rumsfeld is their target but they splatter the military.

Tonight, on Lehrer News Hour, General Pace, who is Joint Chief of Staff, commented that these same generals had every opportunity to offer their opinions and advice while on ACTIVE Duty. Obviously they did not.

Now they want to tell everybody what SHOULD have been done and HE didn’t do it. Rumsfeld of course.

So, celebrate Liberals until this small blip blows over. Flip flop like RE. At 4:12 pm today RE declared that armies were only good for breaking things and killing people. At 9:09 tonight, RE declares the he/she would never disparage our troops. Oh, yes.

It isn’t Rumsfeld that needs to be removed. He was leading in Afghanistan when we won. He is leading now in Iraq even as we struggle over the hurdles of a new government there.

What needs to be replaced is the rotten attitude of liberal Americans who care more about their petty political aims than they care about our country and our troops.

Liberals better hang onto those poor old tired generals. They are just like you. Once they were active but now they have lost it.

By Ralph

April 13, 2006 11:58 PM | Link to this

Whoa. This guy davidU has lost his lid. Robert provides us with some good current military facts, from the military itself, and david becomes a crazed canary in search of a cage!

DavidU: slip into your baseball cap, your Shaq-size tee and drawers, snap on your cellphone, hop into your p/u truck. Now drive around the block a couple of times or maybe to a mall. A mall is a place with lots of different stores, David. Then feast your beady eyes on the mass of bathless humanity before you. Figure the percentage of unkempt, prideless, obese slobs of every persuasion. You might just learn something. Meanwhile, try to get a grip. Reality is… reality. And skip the patriotic excuse crud.

By Stan

April 14, 2006 12:07 AM | Link to this

NGA- all very good posts. I don’t dwell here but your stuff was AOK and right on it.

Geesuss! Isn’t this DUSTY dumber than dirt??!

By Lucy Liberal

April 14, 2006 12:33 AM | Link to this

Gee, looks like the 4 letter frat boys stopped by again. They are either Ralph ing or Stan dig in the corner.

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 12:33 AM | Link to this

No, Stan, I am not “dumber than dirt”. IF I WERE THAT DUMB, I WOULD BE A LIBERAL.

By Bill

April 14, 2006 12:36 AM | Link to this

Midori. Love to see you shoving broom handles up these little guys. No one, but no one in that group you named, plus most of the rest here, ever served in anything but a cheap beer dive. Some of the best people I ever met I met in the military. Some of the worst people I ever met I met in the military. The military is always forced to take in a helluva lot of lowlifes and make the best of it. And it usually does. In all, serving in the mil is rarely a big deal. It’s a chunk outta your life which may be good or bad. It absolutely gives you no special credibility re politics or any other subject on earth. It’s a tiny, closed little world where even newspapers are rarely read. In any event, the list of semi-literate phonies you named would not have been acceptable to any branch of the mil at any time, current or past. They are social misfits, drawn to one another like magnets. You have friends here - shame they don’t speak up. But then the average poster here is pretty damned embarrassing, eh? They are the intellectual cesspool that America has become. Nite.

By Steve

April 14, 2006 12:45 AM | Link to this

LUCY. I’m up (so to speak) all night. But maybe I’m sleepy. What is it that I’m not quite getting from your usual good post?

By Lucy Liberal

April 14, 2006 12:46 AM | Link to this

Bill,
You are FOS! Midori, town idiot. Laughable at best, nausea ad nauseum.

By RE

April 14, 2006 01:21 AM | Link to this

Dusty:

“The military traditionally is supposed to go out there and kill people and break things.”

Address by General Anthony Zinni, U.S. Marine Corps

I guess you hate our troops just like Andy

By RE

April 14, 2006 01:29 AM | Link to this

Dusty at the beach

By Bill

April 14, 2006 02:11 AM | Link to this

Oh DUSTY. You are dirt, no more no less. And you will never, ever be anything other than dirt. It shows in everything you say & do. I have no more time for dropouts like you - I skim right past you. You are at the bottom of the gene pool.

You really MUST take hold of yourself and remain in your proper place in our society. You will always and forever be subservient and of the lower class. You MUST force yourself to always remember that you were both conceived and birthed in a urinal.

“We humbly thank you, oh Gracious God, for the constant reminders that you do indeed oft times make mistakes in your hurried assembly line of life, and beseech thee to continue providing us with sordid, repugnant, grotesque examples of such dreadful miscalculations in the form of freak-creatures such as DUSTY and his ilk. Amen” Let us …prey.

By God

April 14, 2006 02:14 AM | Link to this

We have a Lucy Liberal imposter with us tonight.

By Glenn

April 14, 2006 02:56 AM | Link to this

Bill: Beautiful! Just beautiful.

By God

April 14, 2006 03:02 AM | Link to this

LORD: No, nothing will do it. It is as you say - they are all too stupid to learn.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 04:46 AM | Link to this

By Bill April 14, 2006 12:36 AM Midori. Love to see you shoving broom handles up these little guys.

Need I say more?

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 05:00 AM | Link to this

The March recruiting and retention numbers out this week suggest that the Army has overcome many of the manpower woes it suffered in fiscal 2005. This puts aspin those media heads acclimated to bad news.

The Army exceeded its March target of 5,200 recruits by nearly 200, following a successful February (6,114 recruits against a goal of 6,000), following similar results for January, all traditionally lean months for military recruiting. The Reserves netted 89 percent and seem likely to report further shortfalls, but their February numbers (97 percent) coupled with the National Guard’s clear success (102 percent in March, 101 in February) make this less dire.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 05:13 AM | Link to this

Another liberal lie laid bare for the world to see:

Curiously, on June 7, 2003, the New York Times had already described three teams looking over the trailers in Iraq. Two of the teams were in agreement that the trailers were WMD labs, but the third, more senior team was not at all “unequivocal,” but “divided sharply over the functions of the trailers.” Given that the dissenting experts with “direct access to the evidence” whom the Times quotes were both British and American experts, and the Post also describes the secret team as being made up of “nine civilian U.S. and British experts,”

Conservatives-31, pinkos-0.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 05:17 AM | Link to this

This is just wonderful:

And how about this. While eyes and ears are focused on organizations that translate what Arab-speaking terrorists are saying, here’s a peek at what’s being said right here at home. These inciteful words are courtesy of the March 30 “We have got to eliminate the gringos” piece in NewsWithViews.com: “The words above were spoken by Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party. His full comment was: ‘We have an aging white America … They are dying … We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.’”

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 05:20 AM | Link to this

This is just wonderful:

Yesterday Moussaoui declared that “You [Americans] have to be subdued. We [Muslims] have to be above you.”

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 06:01 AM | Link to this

Chicago —- Six employees at a seafood restaurant in Houston were fired this week after skipping work to take part in a pro-immigration march. In Detroit, 21 immigrants lost their jobs as meat cutters after attending a similar protest last month.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaha

Maybe if cheap labor wasn’t so plentiful the boss wouldn’t have to fire them, no?

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 06:45 AM | Link to this

David Ignacious, Washington Post, which has apparently croosed over to the Conservative side:

But that isn’t the reason he should be replaced. Military officers often dislike the civilians they work for, but in our system strong civilian control is essential. On some of the issues over which he has tangled with the military brass, Rumsfeld has been right. The Pentagon is a hidebound place, and it has needed the “transformation” ethic Rumsfeld brought to his job. I’m dubious about the Pentagon conventional wisdom that we needed 500,000 American troops in Iraq. More troops were necessary, but they should have been Iraqi troops from an army that wasn’t disbanded.

Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front.

So it’s all about politics. I see. It doesn’t matter if Rumsfeld is one of the most successful architects of war in history, “we” need to get a Bushie.

And “we” care about the troops?

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 07:26 AM | Link to this

Further proof that RE is an ignorant dil-do, clinging to the lies that the pinko media feeds him and the rest of you mental paeans:

“We Have Got to Kill Him” Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez- “We have an aging white America … They are dying …We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

Why do you libs always find these things out from me? Why isn’t this prominently displayed or at least made mention of all over the lib media? If some right wing kook said this you pinkos would be doing Frontline documentaries on it. Why the silence now?

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this

Andy…Professor Gutierrez IS a right wing fascist kook (just like YOU).

As far as the US Army meeting recruitment goals, did you miss the article published last week that mentioned that the Navy and Air Force were taking thousands of their volunteer troops and making them augmentees? That’s right…these service branches were “lending” these augmentees to the Army (or Marines) to serve on the front lines since there weren’t enough personnel to meet the needs. In point of fact, the Navy was assigning 10,000 personnel to this program. But of course, the media should only report “good” news. You spin so fast your brain rolls around in your head like the ball on a roulette wheel.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 08:02 AM | Link to this

Oh, O.K. on Professor Gutierrez, I suppose Cindy Sheehan is a right wing religious bigot too, right?

Goal, 6000, actual enlistment, 6112, ummm, failure. Got it.

Anything else you want to show your vast pinko (fake) knowledge on?

By AntiRadical

April 14, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

What’s even funnier than this toon is the notion that “this war will be fought by the Generals on the ground” as the President has said. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I wonder how all the die-hard Bush supporters view the idea of Generals running the war now that so many are starting to come out critical. The hazard of using military commanders as a buffer to insulate politicians from criticism should be much more apparent, now.

Wars should be coordinated and managed by the line officers on the ground with the troops but the ultimate authority and RESPONSIBILITY must always lie in the oval office! Wars should be fought from there, even if it does make the President RESPONSIBLE for his decisions.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

Latest McCain quote: “Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor,” said the former Navy man. “We risk not our base voting Democratic, but what I worry about is there being disillusions with us and (voters) staying home.”

Don’t worry Senator McCain. They’ll still vote…for the party that represents REAL Americans. Then the Republicans can go home with their devilish tails between their legs.

Andy, you little bed wetter. You broke your promise. I thought you weren’t speaking to me. You flip-flop as much as McCain!

By candide

April 14, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

Those generals are like Prussian generals who opposed Hitler in private but did his murderous bidding in public.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Well Dusty’s 11:02 post proves once again that stupid is as stupid does.

Obviously Dusty never served our country. Anyone who HAS served knows that military personnel are not allowed to publicly express their opinions to the media relative to politics. In point of fact, flag officers are routinely fired for publicly expressing their views (unless you are a general who relates the war on terror to a Christian crusade against muslims).

During the Viet Nam war, we were constantly reminded that we would be “disciplined” if we spoke to the media and expressed opposition to the war, or criticized government officials about the conduct of the war.

Dusty…..THAT is why soldiers, then and now, wait until they are civilians before they openly criticize the people responsible for conducting any war.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

Yup, Candide…you ARE this blog’s military expert. If you knew even a little bit about history, you would know that many Prussian generals retired rather than do Hitler’s bidding, and other officers tried to assassinate Hitler.

Even the famous “Desert Fox” was allowed to commit suicide rather than face public trial for his role in the plot.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

But Candide, I must add that I really enjoyed your post. It is not every day that a right wing fascist ninny likens George W. Bush to Hitler. You have my gratitude.

By Souldrift

April 14, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Great toon! The Generals are speaking up that Mr. Civilian Leader Rumsfeld isn’t doing much Leading.

By Eric

April 14, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

You’re a star, Mike!

By Lord Help Us

April 14, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

George Bush - 6/10/05: ‘GOD Told Me To Invade IRAQ’

By Lord Help Us

April 14, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

It’s the Competence, Stupid

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Well, good morning. Just read Bill’s contributions in the very early morning(2 AM). Glad to see that he is saying prayers before going to bed. I think “Now I lay me down to sleep” is a little better than his rendering of a fractious vocabulary. But who knows. That is the best the poor guy can do.

And RE, still quoting every bad thing to be found about the military. But still claiming full support of the troops. Strange way to do it. But that is the liberal way.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

1-2-3-4, What are you fighting for?

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! IMPEACH BUSH!!!

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

BD,

You are really fortunate. God doesn’t let fools like you realize that they are fools. But then again, in this country even the village idiot is allowed to express herself.

Why don’t you just go over to Andy’s house and wash out his yellow underwear.

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

Just read your military informational. Were you a general?

You seem to know more than the Joint Chief of Staff. I was only quoting what he said. Too bad you were not allowed to give all that advice. Just think. We might have won the entire Middle East in a few days. C’est la guerre.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

AntiR,

Ha Ha Ha? Not very Buddha like of you, and completely beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse.

ML’s cartoon is acceptable. Your delight in our perceived failures is not. And as Dusty pointed out, just like Wesley “bomb from 50,000 feet” Clark, these are retired Generals.

No one is laughing louder than the Islamofascists when they see Americans turn Bush and Rumsfeld into the target. For all the urgent claims that Iraq was a mistake, and that what we really need to do is get Bin Laden, you sure are doing a fine job of helping keep the likes of Bin Laden in power.

For all the pretenses of being strong on National Defense, all I see from the “Liberals” is National Suicide.

NGA, and others - you too^^.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Yup Dusty….when you have nothing intelligent to say, just resort to inane sarcasm. When you open your mouth to speak, nothing comes out, you little chicken hawk. You too have blood on your hands…and you don’t even care.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

BD…Bush and Rumsfeld made themselves targets when they acted stupidly and committed our country to an illegal war.

GWB invaded Iraq on the “suspicion” that there were WMD’s. Now, I suppose he will have to invade North Korea because they DEFINITELY have WMD’s and have threatened to use them on America. That is, unless he really invaded Iraq for other reasons. I’m sure you will be the first to volunteer.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

Just because YOU say it is an “illegal war” does not make it so, but it does give a big boost to the enemy.

Why don’t you try to get your facts straight about why we invaded Iraq, instead of relying on Leftist mythology. WMDs were ONE reason. There were NUMEROUS reasons.

Maybe RE (The UN Rules!) can help point you in the right direction by helping you find all the decades of UN resolutions against Iraq.

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Oh yes, N-GA,

General Pace (Joint Chief of Staff) always answers questions with inane sarcasm. Then I quote him in a frenzy of—well, truthfulness. What a way to go!

By the way, N-GA, do you work in one of those poultry plants at Gainesville? With all that unnecessary talk about chickens and blood on the hands, just made me wonder. Don’t be ashamed. It is honest labor.

By finch

April 14, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Joseph Galloway gets it right. And its there on page A11 of today’s AJC for all to see. US military leaders who dare buck the Bush company line on Iraq are shown the door.

“Currently serving officers have only to recall what befell the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, when he first opposed Rumsfeld’s plan to cut Army strength by two more divisions, and the Army National Guard by four divisions, in August 2001, and then in February 2003 told a senator at a hearing that he thought it would require “several hundred thousand” American troops to successfully occupy and pacify Iraq.”

“But that estimate ran counter to Rumsfeld’s idea, and Shinseki became an “un-person” in the Pentagon. He may have been chief of the Army, but Rumsfeld and others disparaged his estimate as wildly off the mark, and Pentagon officials leaked to the press that the vice chief would be his replacement…”

“Everyone who wore stars got the message. Don’t open your mouth around Rumsfeld except to say “Yes, sir!””

By finch

April 14, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

More enlightenment from Joseph Galloway:

Army General Harold Johnson privately disagreed with LBJ’s plans to fight the Vietnam War on the cheap. He decided to stay quiet. And regretted it until the day he died.

” Not long before he died, in the fall of 1983, Harold Johnson sat beside an old friend at a West Point Alumni Association officers meeting. He recounted that day and told his friend: ‘I count that as the greatest moral failure of my life. I should have resigned and fought the decision.’”

“So should some others.”

Not only are the White House and Donald Rumsfeld incapable of defining WHY the US is in Iraq, they’re at a complete loss about how to win it.

Rummie, don’t bother shutting the door on your way out!

By SoGA Vet

April 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

All the decrying of the Generals is really pitiful.

I served with or beside a number of them…there is no finer Marine than LTG Newbold. He was publically demeaned by Rumsfeld, however this isn’t recrimination on his part, its stone cold facts. They are speaking out now from retirement because they were ignored and silenced while in uniform. Not one of them would trade civilian control of the military…but they ARE civilians now and have every right to speak out…and are doing so from a position of experience.

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Well, finch,

seems you and N-GA both know more about the military than the Joint Chief of staff. What a loss of talent. Both of you available and nobody asks.

And what happened to Barny Franks, long time general in charge in Iraq? He doesn’t seem to be sitting around sqawking and complaining. He is retired also and never mentions any great revelations about what MIGHT have been done.

Let these other retired generals loose on the golf course. They can whack it out on the greens.

Liberals will take care of all the disparagement of the military, Rumsfeld and President Bush. That’s their shot at patriotism.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Does anybody else think it is kind of bizarre to have an infatuation about other men and urine? Especially if your a wanker? Is this some fa-g deal, are we thinking about gay golden showers or what? Hoping someone pis-ses in your mouth, are you?

Here, let’s do a little exercise for you gimp mental midget pinkos:

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan.- says Retired General Anthony Zinni (CBS)

I’m not going to assume the following, my target audience is liberal, so a slow, simple explanation is owed them. To a man, the disenfranchised generals, each one looking out for his legacy and covering for his mistakes, is saying the generic phrase, “more troops,” either now or at the invasion. More troops equals more money.

“The Iraq Quagmire” is the most comprehensive accounting of the mounting costs and consequences of the Iraq War on the United States, Iraq, and the world. Among its major findings are stark figures that quantify the continuing of costs since the Iraqi elections, a period that the Bush administration claimed would be characterized by a reduction in the human and economic costs.

So which one is it, pinko?

By Conservatives Molest America's Children

April 14, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Just a few days ago responding to me LPASISS writes By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet April 8, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this Groupie: I’m not mocking you, I’m seriously concerned for your mental well being. The good Christian in me believes…

Today the same good Christian responding to someone else writes

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet April 14, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this Does anybody else think it is kind of bizarre to have an infatuation about other men and urine? Especially if your a wanker? Is this some fa-g deal, are we thinking about gay golden showers or what? Hoping someone pis-ses in your mouth, are you?

I repeat. everything I need to know about “good Christians”, I read in this blog.

By BLSaiken

April 14, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

The former commanding general in Iraq is Tommy Franks, not “Barny Franks”. Easy name for us to remember because he and my wife are alumni of the University of Texas at Arlington.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

finch,

The headline on your Galloway story is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever read. The clear implication is that the thousands of Generals that agree with the administration policy are spineless just because they don’t agree with your author and apparently with you.

Maybe if the wild-eyed leftists would present their case in a straight forward manner I would pay more attention, but any article that starts with that premise is not going to have me reading it without some trepidation if I bother to go beyond that inflammatory headline at all.

By Conservatives Molest America's Children

April 14, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Commenting on the ‘toon, it’s a good one. There’s, in my opinion besides Mr. Rumsfeld, only one other civilian who’s tried to micromanage a war and failed so badly, Lyndon Johnson.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Conservatives Molest America’s Children: I’m happy for you that you have found another excuse.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Barney Frank would be a much better commander because he could deal with the soft underbelly of our opponents in a much more effective manner. I have repliccas of John Kerrys medals taped to my Barney Frank blow up doll.

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

SoGA Vet,

The retired generals have every right to speak. So do we.

I question their motives and their timing of these post-service revelations. Did each general think that he would originate the plans for his particular group of soldiers? Did they not expect some disagreements from those in higher authority? Was EVERY general totally aware of ALL military objectives and the cost in men and money?

If these retired Generals go to work in a large civilian complex, they will find the same agreements and disagreements. If they can’t cut it and can’t adjust, they won’t last long.

The generals gave great contributions to this country. But I question their belated whining about the military and the Defense Secretary while we are still fighting in Iraq. It will only harm out efforts and give the enemy a great incentive to carry on.

By Thomas

April 14, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

I’m just waiting for the White House spin doctors to make out these War Veteran Generals to be “America Hating Comunist that Support Terrorism by weakening the country and violating Bush’s newly re-written constitution known as the “Bush Manifesto for a Government Controlled and Watched Free people”.

Yah where there is smoke there is fire, and 8 generals and former generals of the US Military saying Rummy is incompetent, well thats a lot of smoke to ignore before we let the US house burn down.

If you truly support our troops, then you would listen to the generals in the field and their advice rather than the incompetent office workers in Washington.

Nuf’ said!

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Henry Kissinger nows the deal:

Had Churchill’s early warning been heeded, the Nazi plague could have been destroyed at relatively little cost. A decade later, tens of millions of dead paid the price for the quest for certainty.

By RE

April 14, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Dusty, BD, Andy and some other america haters out there love to throw around crazy ideas but always miss the part about motive. Could any of you come up with a motive as to why 8 different generals would come out against Rumsfeld. What could any of them gain? I guess your conclusion is that each of these generals is somehow making up this whole “Rumsfeld is incompetent” thing, why would they do that.

There is no reason why they would say this if it were not true. I am fairly certain they do not hate this country, in fact I am pretty sure they are trying to protect it from further damage.

By Daniel

April 14, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

The American Generals are patriots. They love the truth and troops more than money and power. Officers who spoke out while in service were demoted, transferred or ousted. The Bush crowd only wants “yes-men”. Everyone has done the USA a great service. So too, John Murtha, Chuck Hagel, Tammy Duckworth, John Kerry, Paul Hackett, John McCain, Max Cleland…

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

N-GA,

I can’t make heads or tails out of your post on Barny Franks(aka known as Tommy Franks. Thank you Mr.Saiken.)

Did Kerry send you the replicas of his purple hearts? Or did you pick them up after he threw them over the fence as the White House?

By whynot

April 14, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

At least Kerry had some to throw I mean its all the guy has got going for him now so be nice

If you really support our troops BRING THEM HOME

By getalife

April 14, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Exactly, you speak out and end up getting smeared like Joe Wilson.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Barny Frank is a gay congressman from Massachusetts, so I guess N-GA is trying to be funny. The problem is that a 12 year old turnip has a better sense of humor than N-GA.

By Jed

April 14, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

DUSTY. You should have just stopped with “heads or tails.” as your head is surely inserted in your rectum. Like Angel, you puke out nothing but nonsense and go absolutely crazed at those w the talent to write/express well. All you little chickenhawk military experts. In your case Hitler would clearly have eliminated you. With just cause. Just ask General Barney Frank. He resides in Florida. Now, back under mommy’s rock with you. I believe the truth about you being conceived and born in a urinal came out a couple days ago. It’s good to know these truths, tho they do seem quite self-evident. If nothing else, you white trash are becoming more visible. Bye.

By Thomas

April 14, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Sadly —

We can’t just bring the troops home — as much as I wish we could.

I’m a die hard Democrat (except that gun thing) and I know we put our troops in a position that we can’t extract them from easily. Your basic political and diplomatic quagmire.

heck — I may even vote republican next time because why should we Democrats clean up their mess again?

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

RE

Why don’t you tell us about the motives of these few retired generals? I am not a mind reader.

But I do know that no one has mentioned “lying” in connection with these generals. You are the only one who mentioned such a thought.

With free speech in mind, I also wonder about something else. Just because many of us disagree with you,RE, how does that make us hate America? Your faulty judgments make your posts irrelevant.

By finch

April 14, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

“To a man, the disenfranchised generals, each one looking out for his legacy and covering for his mistakes, is saying the generic phrase, “more troops,” either now or at the invasion. More troops equals more money.”

Wrong again, suck. The Generals are saying that IF we had sent more troops (and spent more money) into Iraq to begin with, we wouldn’t be wasting money and troops there now! We would have saved both lives and cash!!

They are NOT addressing the strategy behind the invasion. They’re not saying the US should or shouldn’t have! They are saying that once the decision was made, Rumsfeld ignored expert advice and tried to do it on the cheap. Which is turning out to be the most expensive way of all. He’s incompetent, and should go.

Gawd, you’re so dense.

RW,

If you don’t like the headline write a letter to Knight Ridder. Or Galloway, who probably knows more about the US military that everyone here put together. Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.

By Daniel

April 14, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

There is another encouraging development, google: westpointgradsagainstthewar. Those willing to fight for the truth are the real patriots. There is deep dissension within the military due to incompetent leadership. America owes these great men and women a debt of gratitude.

By finch

April 14, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

RW,

THOUSANDS of Generals?????

I think not.

By Daniel

April 14, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

finch: The generals are also saying what we have seen and known for some time. Cowardly right-wing headcases mask incompetence with arrogance. When caught they whine loudly about the media and liberals. One thing is certain: They have not served, they never wil serve the nation. They are greedy selfabsorbed p**-ants. It is all about the inevitability of Bush, money and power. It is never about us or the nation. They do not understand patriotism. This too, will pass.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

finch,

You are the one holding up this story as an unbiased bastion of truth. The headline begs otherwise and I don’t really care if that’s the way they want to present their “news”. It saves me the time of bothering to read their slanted story. So I actually appreciate the fact that they wear their bias on their sleeve so to speak, leaving me to simply wonder why you think this is unvarnished reality.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

finch,

I wondered how thousands slipped by the first time you responded.

By Conservatives Molest America's Children

April 14, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

.From the general, and last good Republican President, many historians agree won the second world war “”When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.” (2) “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. War settles nothing.” (3) “Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.” (4) “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.” (5) Dwight D. Eisenhower 34th President of the United States (1953-1961) With thanks to West Point Graduates for reminding me

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Could any of you come up with a motive as to why 8 different generals would come out against Rumsfeld.

RE,

Because they’re backbiting Democrats??

I also love all this hindsight about how we should have spent more money and sent in more troops. Can you show me when in recent history the Dems have supported that sort of initiative?

P.S. Moveon.Org endorsed Fired Retired General Wesley Clark, which gives one a clue that some Generals are no match for Rumsfeld - unless you want to lose.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

finch,

This is for you

By RE

April 14, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Your stupidity is astounding BD.

So now they are all democrats, and now they have put loyalty to a party ahead of loyalty to their country.

Stunningly ignorant

Just please, be silent for a while, you are not helping yourself

By Daniel

April 14, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

CMAC: Thanks for a great post! I served under “Ike”. We are descended from “…revolutionists and rebels”; sadly we are now lead by cowards and name-callers. The brown-nosers see only Bush. None are in service. Cowards send others to fight their battles while coveting their deferments. Komputer-Kommandoes! The 82nd Delusional Brigade!

By Dusty

April 14, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Thanks, RW,

Now I remember Barny Franks.Yep! Sorry I mixed the name with the distinguished Tommy Franks.

Well, that is straightened out. I have also read the sterling words on “white trash” by gentleman Jed. Poor guy. No distinguishable “class”!

The hour cometh. I am off to lunch and an afternoon of frivolity. Au revoir, mon ami!

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Great link on Clinton giving Iran nuke plans. Let’s see what happens to James Risen’s reputation now.

But..but..he was delusional when he wrote that chapter the rest is true for sure

finch,

Actually the Pentagon says there are currently over 9000 ex-generals, so right now you have about .0009 %.

By finch

April 14, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

BD,

The Newsmax link contends that Clinton gave reactor plans to Iran that had been doctored to be worthless. Only they weren’t doctored enough. Sloppy? If true, yes.

But under Reagan/Rumsfeld, the US knowingly supplied Saddam with weapons and weapons technology. Big difference.

Try again.

By getalife

April 14, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Some people here support their party more than their country.

It is a sickness with the right wingnuts. They are in denial and blinded by the demons in their heads.

They think the demons are the liberals and liberals are the enemy. The demons are the dead in Iraq but they will not accept any responsibility for Iraq.

They will blame the libs because they do not want to face the demons and need to seek help for their mental illness.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Daniel,

Some people here support their party more than their country.

It is a sickness with the left wing moonbats. They are in denial and blinded by the demons in their heads.

They think the demons are the conservatives and Republicans are the enemy. The demons are the dead in Iraq but they will not accept any responsibility for Iraq.

They will blame the Reps because they do not want to face the demons and need to seek help for their mental illness.

hattip:getalife

By BushWhacker

April 14, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” —Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) commenting on President Clinton’s committment of troops to Bosnia.

The most intelliget thing that Bush has said in a decade!

By getalife

April 14, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

That would be a flip flop.

By rushncap

April 14, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

RW — how’s this for a “straight-forward manner”: Iraq is a disaster; it’s teetering on the brink of civil war, American soldiers are being killed almost daily, there is no government to speak of, the country is crawling with what we term as “terrorists”, both foreign and domestic, there is no exit strategy or timeline, and there is an obvious and growing disconnect between administration’s and independent observers’ take on the situation.

Now, obviously someone screwed the pooch here. Hell, someone obviously screwed a whole pound of them. If its not Rummy, then who? If things went terribly wrong, whose fault is it? It has to be someone’s. In the real world, when things go this badly, someone gets blamed. And don’t get started on the politically correct “it’s no one’s fault, really” game. It IS someone’s fault, and, as far as I can see, Rummy is one of the main people who has to shoulder the blame for this fiasco. The Cheney administration has to shoulder the blame for getting us into this place, and Rummy has to shoulder a lion’s share of the blame for grossly mishandling what was a bad idea to begin with.

By getalife

April 14, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

It is good for your mental health to not support blindly either political party.

Very liberating!

By rushncap

April 14, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Of course neither RW nor Danish bothered to read the original description of the operation, as written by Risen himself. Since honesty is not in their playbook, let me post, verbatim, a quote from Risen’s book, via [The Guardian newspaper online] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html)

Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It’s not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist’s fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states.

So, yes, the operation was first approved by Clinton. Then by Bush. Was it a good idea? In hindsight, no, but both administrations were taken by it. And while it pains me to see the Clinton administration being as dumb as the Bush one, it’s not as bad as the other option.

By BushWhacker

April 14, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Great Job Rummie!

Great Job Brownie!

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

finch,

Do you have any understanding of changing alliances?

Do I have to go back and list all the countries that have been allies and then the enemy and back again?

By finch

April 14, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

BD,

Sure I understand how alliances shift!

But it’s one thing to make nice with fair weather friends. Quite another to give them the means to kill you.

BD,

Speaking only for myself, I know that the US can’t withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or maybe next year. The Pottery Barn rule.

But instead of defending and even rewarding the incompetents who got the US into this mess, we should be discrediting them and banishing them from any leadership roles, and safeguard should be put in place so this never happens again.

We were suckered. I don’t like being suckered.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

I’ve been away for the last several hours & just caught up. For the record, the 11:22 post attributed to me must have been one of those wing-nuts who always complain about highjackers. It’s anyone’s guess who the real poster was.

Dusty, No….I don’t work in a chicken plant, but I wouldn’t be ashamed to say so if I did. But I suspect I’ve paid more income tax in 1 year than you’ve earned in your entire life.

BD (AKA: bare-naked-Kathy-Bates)…At least I was paying attention when the Iraq war started. Every administration official cited UN resolution 1441 (Iraq’s failure to comply). When there were no WMD’s, Bush the reluctant Reservist claimed he was bringing democracy to the Middle East (before Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc.).

BD….are you paying attention this time? You’ll be tested on this.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Finch….perhaps Rumsfeld should get a presidential freedom medal on his way out? And a presidential pardon, too (along with many others who will need one).

By getalife

April 14, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Here is how our leaders operate.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Hey ML,

Maybe you can get the AJC to have a contest where readers can submit 10 names of people they think will get a presidential pardon. Run the contest in much the same way as the NCAA Final Four. The winner would get a genuine ML-signed original cartoon drawing. Worth a try?

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Didn’t 50 million people just vote in Afghanistan and Iraq? What do you call that?

Here’s a story from a reporter just back from Iraq who talks about how upset the Iraqis are by the U.S. media coverage.

finch ^^this is for you too.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

The debriefing report made no mention of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, then a covert CIA officer, or any role she may have played in her husband’s selection by the CIA to go to Niger, according to two people who have read the report

Getalife,

Did you skip that paragraph?

Do you want to know how Joe Wilson operates? He lies his butt of in an OP Ed in the Times in an attempt to get Kerry elected.

Later, a BI-PARTISAN Senate intelligence panel and the 9/11 Commission found that Iraq WAS seeking out uranium from Niger by Wilson’s own testimony, and that he lied in the op-ed.

Meanwhile, Fitzgerald (like his best pal Comey who went after Martha Stewart) does not charge Libby with outing the non-NOC Plame, and indeed he has not shown that she could have been outed in the first place.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

How many international fugitives do you think President Bush will pardon? Care to speculate on the number of crack dealers he will put back on the streets?

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

BD/Miss Bates,

Afghanistan Mission - GOOD! (except for missing OBL) Broad support throughout the US AND the rest of the planet

Iraq - BAD! Attacked a sovereign nation without provocation. Alienated MOST of the world. Spent 100% of any goodwill capital earned. Spent $billions more than the administration estimated. US Military now an occupying force. Lied to the American people repeatedly.

But you will believe what you want to believe.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Hey RW….Me thinks you want to beat a dead horse…Many of Clinton’s pardons were pathetic…but we are in the here and now. I would hope that GWB would take a higher road, but there is really not much likelihood of that, now is there?

But you must admit, such a contest would really be fun!! Hell….you might even win, although I want to know what you would do with the signed cartoon.

By RE

April 14, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

RW:

GWB pardons

A couple coke and pot dealers back on the street, a few gun runners, lots of mortgage and mail fraud. It’s his base

By getalife

April 14, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Its funny to read about people lying about the leak.

Clinton is laughing his a-ss off.

By Kevin

April 14, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Maybe the retired military officers speaking out only know how to fight a conventional war. Hell, even ml calls it an unconventional war.

Only the special operations community—Army Special Forces in particular—are cognizant of the critical importance of CAOs, FAOs and PSYOPS in turning the local ideological tide in the US’s favour. But they are a minority within the US military command structure and are often ignored in favour of more conventional, combat-focused approaches—often with disastrous or counter-productive results.

Meanwhile, the will of the US home front to continue military campaigns with no discernable end and no significant shift in support by the locals supposedly being helped by the US military presence will inevitably erode. With US electoral cycles upcoming in 2006 and 2008, this spells trouble for the success of its military and political projects in both Afghanistan and Iraq, to say nothing of the prospects for it being able to launch further military campaigns against other “evil-doers” around the world. If ever there was a bottom line in the field of civil affairs and psychological operations, it is that the subject is very much a double-edged sword both at home and abroad. For all those who champion the virtues of using foreign armed forces in post-war peacekeeping and nation building in so-called failed or rogue states, it would be wise to be cognizant of that fact.

When we tried to use it, the MSM raked the administration over the coals and the liberals jumped all over it.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, but I think the MSM has made great strides to contribute towards Iraq’s failure and the liberals have bought into it hook, line & sinker.

And that includes pandering politicians.

By getalife

April 14, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Talk about a target

What a waste of money. It just keeps getting better. Hillarious.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

RE…I noticed a half dozen moonshiners and a lot of loan fraud, as well. But I suspect that the pardons he issues as a lame duck will make all others pale in comparison.

Can you imagine Randy Cunningham, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Jonathan Pollard (look him up), Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby….well the numbers are simply too big to be all inclusive.

By getalife

April 14, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Yep, very dangerous indeed

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

*Iraq - BAD! Attacked a sovereign nation without provocation

N-GA,

Suuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrre. You have ZERO credibility with that astounding statement.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

You want to paint GWB as the worst President ever and then you don’t allow a comparison. Typical liberal. here’s your boys list for ONE day.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Let’s see - We Rush Limbaugh whom you fantasize about; you have real life FALN terrorists.

Go ahead and crow about it!

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

There goes BD again…opening here mouth with nothing to say. It amuses me to think that I have no credibility with her…she whose soul is condemned to an eternity of hell servicing Saddam Hussein.

What an empty head!!

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

BD….Was that last post a complete sentence?

RW….I guess you think that if one of your ancesters owned slaves, than it is okay for you to own slaves, too. Go ahead and compare. It really is meaningless, but if that’s all you’ve got…….

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Gotta love those Pro-Palestinian conferences.

Are you a Pro or a Con with the Palestinians, and were you in favor of handing out suicide belts like candy during Saddam Hussein’s (no connection to terrorists) regime?

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

So BD, you’ve had Rush Limbaugh…big deal…so have many other women. Some of them were his wives. You’ve got nothing on them except you’re bigger.

Rush is just another drug-abusing hypocrite who doesn’t want the truth to come out about his shopping for doctors to write his prescriptions. I can see why you admire him.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Amazing. Dude, you’re the one servicing Saddam Hussein AND Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and all the rest of them.

P.S. Whatever you do, don’t sell any condos to Jews or you may end up brutally tortured and then dead.

Getalife - Are you paying attention?^^^

Know thine enemy.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

I learned something today from the pinko libs!

They have never been concerned about the level of spending in Iraq until just recently. Honest injun. They never blew a gasket about what the war would cost when we invaded, no siree, they told Bush to empty the Federal Treasury, if necessary.

These generals are putzes of the highest order, topped only by finch. It’s great to have some Monday morning quarterbacks, hell, let’s just say that if the soldiers had swam across the ocean, Iraq would have surrendered from amazement. Or if we could have just gotten some Martians to go in with us. Or if we would have tunneled from China through the center of the Earth, we would have surprised the sh-it out of Saddam.

These generals were the ones on the ground, in charge of the troops. Any mistakes made, like, gosh, Abu Grhaib, goes straight to their account. History will remember that they were silent when it was their duty to tell the higher ups at the time they saw something wrong. Not after you endanger a soldier’s life with your silence.

And what do you moron libs think they acheived now, coming out after the fact? You think Bush is going to surrender Rumsfeld to a bunch of second guessers and the Drive By Media (TM-Rushbo)? Good job pinkos, Rumsfeld will be the SECDEF well into Condi’s first term.

Dunce liberals.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Tell me, what is there to admire about you?

From your criticism of Rush’s private life, I am left to assume that you are on the road to Sainthood.

That would be quite a feat for a nasty, ignorant MoFo like you.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

Danish: Maybe that’s where wanker N-GA got his golden shower kick, from OBL and Saddam.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Hey N-GA,

Give John Conyers a call. He’s a modern day Congresssional Democrat slave-trader and needs a houseboy.

I can already guess his defense: Reparations.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

There goes BD with her Christian potty mouth. She must spend an inordinate amount of time with this blog’s chronic bed wetter. They are the yin-yang of wing-nut trash. No room in heaven for them. Not an original though between them.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I know you wish Bill Clinton was ancient history, but he was the immediate predecessor of President Bush. You know, the one that kicked every single problem he saw on to the next guy in line.

For somebody who plays off as a rich wiz kid you are the most ignorant bastard I have have ever had the displeasure of encountering. At least you have the arrogance part down.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

I’d say that N-GA is a Pi*sser, and he’s not even the least bit funny. Just like Saddam, Uday and K Quesay -

Kings of the golden Showers in the Golden Palaces in the golden rape rooms with the golden shredders.

What a gas they were, huh? What an inspiration for N-GA!

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Potty mouth calling the kettle black?

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I was right! You do think you’re on the path to Sainthood. You think your dream of taking over for St. Peter at the gate is realistic and deciding who does or does not get into heaven is realistic!

Why not run for President first, and then you take over Heaven’s gate later.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Obviously, if we had it to do over again, we would send more troops in the hopes that sheer numbers would head off our problems. But to think that higher troop levels would have been a magic bullet is to indulge a very American faith in the power of mass to overcome anything. In Iraq, we have faced a delicate political and cultural problem that requires finesse above all — finesse dependent on a fine-tuned understanding of an alien society.

Exactly. More troops equals more targets equals more dead soldiers equals more enraged Iraqi citizens equals more Iraqi soldiers counting on the US to protect their country instead of doing it themselves. It’s too complicated for a pinko.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 06:16 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Has anyone ever told you what a figjam you are?

There, I just did.

By finch

April 14, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

“History will remember that they were silent when it was their duty to tell the higher ups at the time they saw something wrong.”

Darn revisionists!

History will remember that they spoke up. Generals told Rummy more troops were needed.

He didn’t listen.

History will also note that the US ignored Iran’s nuclear threat for far too long. Too busy swatting flies in Iraq.

And history will also remember that Congress was sold a bill of goods about Iraq’s links to Osama, 9/11, and WMDs. Was it CIA? State? The White House? WHO sold the US the Iraq bill of goods?

Inquiring voter minds hunger to know… why?

History will tell them.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

I challenge anyone to provide a link to anyone of these eight second guessing monday morning quarterbacks with them telling anyone that more troops were needed.

We’ll see who’s revising history.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

finch,

Honestly, I do think that the White House is capable of multi-tasking.

And for any liberals to complain about Iran makes me want to ralph. The Ayatollahs were nothing until Jimmy Carter came along with dreams of social justice and divesity.

By Buy Danish

April 14, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

BTW Finch,

What about the Bill of Goods that Albright, Clinton, Berger, Cohen sold us? And that was before 9/11.

I’m really getting more than irritated by the way you compartmentalize history, as if there were no past that got us to the present.

By rushncap

April 14, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

Danish, what, exactly, did the Clinton administration “sell” us? Other than b***** in the White House, there was not a single major issue where we know of them lying to the public. And they certainly did not invade random countries, like the Cheney imperialists.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this

Let me show you how easy it is to out these liberals and their lies:

General Batiste in November, 2004-

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 15, 2004 — “I’m confident because we’ve got some great Iraqi security forces. We’ve got great Iraqis who are patriots, committed to a free and democratic Iraq,” said Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division. “Our recent experience in places like Samarra is that these units, well-led and well- equipped, did a very good job. I expect them to continue to do so.” Batiste said more people in the U.S. would also feel optimistic about the situation in Iraq if they knew about “the work we’re doing with security and governance and in improving the quality of life and the infrastructure of this country.”

And Batiste Today-

“You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense,” Batiste said “But when decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we’re bound to make mistakes.”

What a bunch of clowns. These libs can’t even keep track of the years. Their hatred of this country clouds the perception of time. Morons.

By rushncap

April 14, 2006 07:16 PM | Link to this

I’m tired of typing. Anyone care to explain to andy why someone might not say anything bad about his boss until after he retires?

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

One of the very few things I agreed with the Clinton administration on was intervention in the Balkans, but even there they lied through their teeth over the mass graves that never turned up.

How about Clinton going on television saying that he could now assure the children of America that for the first time in decades they could go to bed knowing there were no nuclear weapons anywhere in the world that threatened them? What a complete crock that was.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

I already understand that rushncap, I know there are wormy people in the world like you, who would remain silent allowing soldiers to die because you didn’t have the courage to correct a bad situation, if in fact you aren’t lying now. You only grow a pair of balls when it is safe to and then ankle bite your former bosses hiding behind the drive by media.

By rushncap

April 14, 2006 07:44 PM | Link to this

Wait, what? There were no mass graves in the Balkans? RW, seriously, dude, if you want to be taken seriously you should at least use Google once in a blue moon! This is one of the very first things to appear when doing a Google search on “+mass graves +balkans”: here

And when Clinton assured the children that there were no nukes in the world that threatened them… he was right! Even if he was not, it’s a minor rhetorical point (he didn’t, after all, follow that with “And to prove my point I’m going to invade Papua New Guinea just because!”), but he was. The USSR was no longer a threat, obviously France, Britain and Israel were our allies, and China had never threatened the U.S. with nukes. The only 2 other countries which possibly had nukes at the time of the speech (since you never provide references I don’t know what year this alleged speech was made) were India and Pakistan, neither of which had ICBMs capable of hitting the U.S. even assuming they were to threaten us. So, yes, during the Clinton administration there was almost no nuclear threat. The closest to it was the theoretical threat of USSR selling off its nukes to terrorists, but there is no reason to believe that ever happened.

So you see, RW, you’re wrong. Twice. Again.

By rushncap

April 14, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

Trust me, andy, if you ever had a job in your life (or, rather, if someone was dumb enough to hire you) you’d know that you do not criticize the top of the food chain, because your head would roll. That’s why so few people dared to take on Ken Lay and Skilling.

By getalife

April 14, 2006 07:48 PM | Link to this

Joe Wilson.

End of story!

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

Want to hear what sends shivers down the spine of a Con?:

What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.

Virgin Time for the Mad Mullahs!

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this

rushncap: So you advocate that all of our military leaders should not correct problems when they see them, they should just let soldiers get killed and wait until they are safely retired before they speak out?

Wanna compare 1040s, oh highly employable one?

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this

I wonder if retired generals still carry the all knowing wisdom that they did earlier today?:

President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel “off the map,” with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with
Iraq suggests there’s little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) served as assistant vice chief of staff of the United States Air Force.

According to that sap rushncap, this McInerney dude should get all of his troops killed and then blame Bush for it after he retires. Nice.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 08:11 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Your link is to a few bodies. As tragic as that may be Clinton said there would be hundreds of thousands of bodies so it is you, once again, that is wrong. What a shock!

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 08:15 PM | Link to this

I know you spineless liberals have no idea what this is all about:

Bush voices strong support for Rumsfeld Remarks come after six ex-generals call for defense secretary to resign

Updated: 7:27 p.m. ET April 14, 2006 WASHINGTON - Brushing aside an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation, President Bush said Friday that his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld’s leadership of the Pentagon was “exactly what is needed at this critical period.”

It’s called standing behind your principles and not deserting your men. This is the part where you pinkos would have bailed, leaving the women and children to fend for themselves.

By Like It Really Is

April 14, 2006 08:48 PM | Link to this

How humorous to see the Republican spin-meisters try to pin Iran on Carter. They seem to forget the fact that the Shah of Iran ever existed or that he was such a good friend and supported so vigorously by Richard Nixon. This was a despot on par with Saddam Hussein except for the fact that the US government supported him throughout his entire tenure and the allies installed him into power.

The Shah’s father was deposed by allied forces during WWII (Nazi sympathizer) and his son was installed in order to placate the local traditions of succession while still allowing the allies defacto control of the country (the Shah was quite grateful to have Papa out of the way).

In 1975 he eliminated the multi-party system in Iran so that he could rule under a one party government without opposition. This was during the tenure of Pres. Ford (appointed by Nixon before he was driven from office, later pardoned Nixon for all his illegal Watergate activity). The Shah created his secret police force, SAVAK, while Nixon turned a blind eye. SAVAK “disappeared” thousands of dissidents to the Shah’s empirial rule.

Public outrage over SAVAK revelations fueled criticism of the Shah’s pro-western stance and was responsible for the subsequent revolution in 1979 embodied by the Ayatollah Khomeini who had been imprisoned for criticizing the Shah in 1963. According to Alexandre de Marenches (then head of the French secret services), France suggested to the Shah that they could “arrange for Khomeini to have a fatal accident”; the Shah declined the assassination offer, arguing that this would make him a martyr (Khomeini was living in exile in France at the time).

Like Hussein, the Shah was tolerated and supported by many US administrations. Islamic fundamentalism was mostly made possible by US support of the despotic rulers that it installed for its’ own interests.

The current situation in Iraq is little better. Iraqi elections were not open and free. For instance, Hussein or his loyalists were not allowed on the ballots. In the eyes of Iraqi nationalists and Arabs in general the “free” and “unbiased” nature of the Iraqi elections remains questionable at best. This leaves the perception of America as an imperialist overlord quite intact!

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi- Shah of Iran

Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini

By finch

April 14, 2006 08:55 PM | Link to this

“The Ayatollahs were nothing until Jimmy Carter came along with dreams of social justice and divesity.”

Horsefeathers.

The seeds for Shah Reza Pahlevi’s overthrow by the Ayatollahs were sown long before Carter ever took office.

And since the Shah was overthrown, there have been 3 GOP Presidents with a combined 18 years in office. Outside of an illegal deal supplying weapons to right wing guerillas in Nicaragua, these 3 Presidents IGNORED Iran.

Until now.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this

I go away for a few hours and look at what Big Love (Andy, RW, & Buy Danish) do while I’m gone. I have never seen RW go off the deep end like that. I must have struck a nerve.

I know. They can’t stand the truth. They are faced with it every day, and it irritates them to no end…watching this fascist administration crumble before their very eyes. To know that they were complicit in the most egregious screwing of the United States (& the rest of the world) in the history of the democratic form of government…and they are all cowards who send someone else’s sons and daughters off to fight and die for their fascist leader.

There is absolutely no excuse for their criminally foolish support of this administration.

By finch

April 14, 2006 09:03 PM | Link to this

Shades of shock and awe!!!

“What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft (blah blah blah) and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.”

So the idiots at the Weekly Standard think that will make 80 MILLION IRANIANS cower and surrender to Uncle Sam??

Shock and awe didn’t work for 25 million Iraqis, did it??

I’m all for separating Iran from it’s nuclear potential. France has already said it will nuke any nation found responsible for a terrorist attack on French interests.

Yes, FRANCE!

If the US can form a REAL “coalition of the willing” to play hardball with Iran, more power to it. But go it alone? And expect Iran to just surrender?? You guys have been watching too many “Rambo” movies…

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:08 PM | Link to this

finch,

Rambo movies are the closest any of them will ever come to demonstrating their belief that violence is the solution to all problems. You won’t see them putting their butts on the line…EVER!!!

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 09:10 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I responded to your ignorance three that’s 3 minutes after one of your attacks on Buy Danish. I don’t think in the real world that counts as hours.

The next time you give any truth will be the first time, clown.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

In an earlier post I observed that GWB invaded Iraq based upon a suspicion that Hussein had WMD’s. I asked if we could expect him to invade N.Korea now that we KNOW FOR CERTAIN they have nuclear bombs and long range missiles. Then what about Iran since the UN confirmed that Iran has enriched uranium? None of the wing-nuts responded. What could they say?

Of course we should leave India, Pakistan and Israel alone with their nuclear weapons because they are our “allies du jour”.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 09:21 PM | Link to this

Shock and awe didn’t work for 25 million Iraqis, did it??

Well, let’s see here, Baghdad fell as soon as the 3rd ID got to the outskirts of it. That was a hell of a battle, for thirty minutes, anyway.

(Are these libs for real? Do they think we are morons like they are? That we can’t remember that every single prediction that they have ever made has turned out to be false? Is it drugs? Mental?)

Maybe I’m off base, but these Iranians are like third world, y’all, I’m talking T55 main battle tanks, rubber band artillery guns and maybe one prop plane that will haul a* to Pakistan at the first sound of jet engines. It’ll take, maybe a day or two to occupy Teheran.

Freaking goofy bas-tards.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:21 PM | Link to this

RW…these must be difficult times for you and your comrades. I try to understand your distress, but I fail to see how you can continue to support a corrupt and evil administration unless you fully support him and his cohorts. In that event, you deserve nothing but contempt.

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 09:25 PM | Link to this

Wanker: I’m sure North Korea will come after Iran, first things first, you dild-o.

Freaking pinkos, first they don’t want to invade, then they ask you why you haven’t invaded. Perverts.

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 09:30 PM | Link to this

As a public service to blog readers that don’t want to track back and find where N-GA decided to offer up his question to all that might want to respond and now claims that all the “wingnuts” don’t possess the intellectual capacity to entertain his enlightened question, here it is:

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

BD…Bush and Rumsfeld made themselves targets when they acted stupidly and committed our country to an illegal war.

GWB invaded Iraq on the “suspicion” that there were WMD’s. Now, I suppose he will have to invade North Korea because they DEFINITELY have WMD’s and have threatened to use them on America. That is, unless he really invaded Iraq for other reasons. I’m sure you will be the first to volunteer.

Somehow that looks much more like a few personal attacks and a very odd observation. Notice how N-GA puts the word suspicion in scare quotes “suspicion”. That would indicate that he doesn’t believe there was any suspicion, this is further confirmed when he ends this observation with his conspiratorial comments about the real reasons for invasion.

Never will you find the question that this fool now claims isn’t being answered.

By Like It Really Is

April 14, 2006 09:36 PM | Link to this

It’ll take, maybe a day or two to occupy Teheran.… and a thousand years of occupation won’t keep it from regressing to it’s pre-occupation beliefs in American imperialism. The sweet smell of “victory”?

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:38 PM | Link to this

Andy, The bed wetter….still talking to me after swearing he wouldn’t…what a flip-flopper. Just like a landed trout. Just can’t resist, can you.

Why not have someone read my post to you, dummy. Then have them explain it to you at least twice. I don’t wonder why GWB hasn’t invaded…I asked if we can expect him to invade. Why don’t you call Rummy and ask?

With OBL, Iran and North Korea out there, you are probably p** your pants in fear the whole night. That’s probably why they wouldn’t let you enlist (either that, or the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy).

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:41 PM | Link to this

RW…..I don’t support GWB or his administration. You do. I think that makes YOU the fool!

By Little Pinko Angels, So Innocent, So Sweet

April 14, 2006 09:47 PM | Link to this

Wanker: Oh, yea, Iran frightens me, can’t you tell from my earlier posts?

Is this post just a reason for you to bring up urine again, wanker? Is this like a hobby for you, reveling in excretia? Do these thoughts get your party started?

Hey, check this out, I don’t even freaking care what theory you’ve hatched in your polluted pinko mind, you dild=o. So why don’t you stop inviting me over to your paranoia party?

By RW-(the original)

April 14, 2006 09:51 PM | Link to this

Whatever, dude. There’s a new toon, feel free to stay here and talk to yourself.

By N-GA

April 14, 2006 09:56 PM | Link to this

Wow! Now the bed wetter and I are actually having a conversation. Andy…if you have medical insurance, perhaps you should see if they will pay for a catheter for you. It will save you money in laundry bills.

I’m not paranoid…just a realist. If GWB had been a realist, we would not be at war in Iraq and our deficit would not be quite so high. But he would have figured out some way of making sure that his buddies in the oil industry were taken care of at the expense of the American people.

How’s it feel to be in the minority, bed wetter?

By DavidU

April 14, 2006 10:01 PM | Link to this

Not sure if anyone already linked to this. but Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) had a great speech about Iran and Iraq, just a week ago.

Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored. Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq….

By Sal

April 14, 2006 10:41 PM | Link to this

Knock off the childish “dude” talk. You wanta be black? Have the guts to do it.

By finch

April 14, 2006 11:05 PM | Link to this

David U… by golly Ron Paul makes sense! A true Republican, not one of those neocons! A realist who knows that Iraq was a failure, and Iran would be an even bigger one.

Everybody should read it.

“It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.”

“Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.”

Give that man a cigar!

By Buy Danish

April 15, 2006 07:26 AM | Link to this

ruhncap,

Couldn’t get back to you til this morning.

My point was that EVERY single person that I mentioned in the Clinton Administration said the exact same things about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that Bush has said.

EXACTLY the same things. So if Bush sold you a “bill of goods” then the Clinton Administration did too.

By Buy Danish

April 15, 2006 07:33 AM | Link to this

The current situation in Iraq is little better. Iraqi elections were not open and free. For instance, Hussein or his loyalists were not allowed on the ballots

LIRI,

You must be joking! If only Hitler had lived, maybe he could have been on the ballots after WWII.

By Buy Danish

April 15, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

France has already said it will nuke any nation found responsible for a terrorist attack on French interests.

Finch,

That’s just great. I’m like so impressed by France’s leadership. What a great example they are setting for the Israelis. After they’ve been blown off the map (that they’re not even on in most of these Arab countries), THEN France will strike back. Maybe they’ll throw some eggs at the Iranians.

By Buy Danish

April 15, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this

finch

Let me correct one thing: Maybe they’ll throw some eggs at the Iranian regime.

By DavidU

April 15, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Finch- I thought he was dead on, in his assessment of the situation in the Middle East. It’s a shame his remarks have not gotten any press. But it’s probably for the better since he’ll be crucified by his own party for not sucking up to Bush, instead he’s looking out for Americas best interest, and that seems to anger some. :)

He has a really conservative voting record in Congress, but once this gets press it will be as if he was having an affair with Sen. Clinton while reading the NY Times, he will be taken out back and shot.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

April 15, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Army report on al-Qaida accuses Rumsfeld

Julian Borger in Washington Saturday April 15, 2006

Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld was directly linked to prisoner abuse for the first time yesterday, when it emerged he had been “personally involved” in a Guantánamo Bay interrogation found by military investigators to have been “degrading and abusive”. Human Rights Watch last night called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate whether the defence secretary could be criminally liable for the treatment of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi al-Qaida suspect forced to wear women’s underwear, stand naked in front of a woman interrogator, and to perform “dog tricks” on a leash, in late 2002 and early 2003. The US rights group said it had obtained a copy of the interrogation log, which showed he was also subjected to sleep deprivation and forced to maintain “stress” positions; it concluded that the treatment “amounted to torture”.

However, military investigators decided the interrogation did not amount to torture but was “abusive and degrading”. Those conclusions were made public last year but this is the first time Mr Rumsfeld’s own involvement has emerged.

According to a December report by the army inspector general, obtained by Salon.com online magazine, the investigators did not accuse the defence secretary of specifically prescribing “creative” techniques, but they said he regularly monitored the progress of the al-Kahtani interrogation by telephone, and they argued he had helped create the conditions that allowed abuse to take place.

“Where is the throttle on this stuff?” asked Lt Gen Schmidt, an air force officer who said in sworn testimony to the inspector general that he had concerns about the duration and repetition of harsh interrogation techniques. He said that in his view: “There were no limits.”

The revelation comes at a critical time for Mr Rumsfeld. He is under unprecedented scrutiny for his management of the Iraq war, after six former generals in quick succession called for his resignation.

The questions reached such a pitch by the end of the week that George Bush took the unusual step of issuing a personal note from Camp David in Mr Rumsfeld’s defence. “I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions,” the president wrote. “Secretary Rumsfeld’s energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation.”

And, responding to the generals, Mr Rumsfeld said in an al-Arabiya TV interview yesterday: “If every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defence, it would be like a merry-go-round.” However, in the wake of the inspector general’s report, Human Rights Watch said: “The question at this point is not whether secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it’s whether he should be indicted. General Schmidt’s sworn statement suggests Rumsfeld may have been perfectly aware of the abuses inflicted on Mr al-Qahtani.”

The Pentagon also issued a statement in response to publication of the report. A spokeswoman said: “We’ve gone over this countless times, and yet some still choose to print fiction versus fact. Twelve reviews, to include one done by an independent panel, all confirm the department of defence did not have a policy that encouraged or condoned abuse. To suggest otherwise is simply false.”

So far, only junior US officers have been charged and convicted for a string of prisoner abuse scandals since the Bush administration launched its “global war on terror”, but rights activists have accused the administration of opening the way for the use of torture in 2002 by relaxing the constraints of the Geneva conventions.

Gen Bantz Craddock, head of Southern Command, overruled the investigators’ recommendation that Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller, who ran the Guantánamo camp in 2002, be admonished for the techniques employed. Gen Miller was transferred to Abu Ghraib prison, and took with him his aggressive approach to interrogations.

The investigators found Mr Rumsfeld was “talking weekly” with Gen Miller about the al-Qahtani interrogation. In December 2002, the defence secretary approved 16 harsh interrogation techniques for use on Mr al-Qahtani, including forced nudity, and “stress positions”. However approval was revoked in 2003.

Gen Miller insisted he was unaware of details of the interrogation, but Gen Schmidt said he found that”hard to believe” in view of Mr Rumsfeld’s evident interest in its progress. Gen James Hill, former head of Southern Command, recalled Gen Miller recommending continuation of the interrogation, saying “We think we’re right on the verge of making a breakthrough.” Gen Hill then passed on the request to Mr Rumsfeld. “The secretary said, ‘Fine,’” Gen Hill remembered.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

April 15, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this