Mike Luckovich

By George

January 11, 2007 08:03 AM | Link to this

Sorry but true!

Bush just doesn’t have the mental capacity for the job. It is time to get rid of him and Cheney and get dome grownups in as President and Vice President.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 11, 2007 08:04 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. President,

Thanks for your address to the nation. It’s good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November.

Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain’t gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We’ve already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean… bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this — BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!

You’ve got to show some courage, dude! You’ve got to win this one! C’mon, you got Saddam! You hung ‘im high! I loved watching the video of that — just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!

Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you’re in. As Ricky Bobby said, “If you’re not first, you’re last.” And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.

Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you’re out of combat-ready soldiers — so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million — Iraq — is to send in at least 28 million! Here’s how it would work:

The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.

Now, I know you’re saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:

More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don’t believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them — while they hide here in America.

Start a “Kill an Iraqi” Meet-Up group in cities acros

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 11, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Start a “Kill an Iraqi” Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I’m sure you’ll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.

Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war — and many of them are already trained from having been “embedded!” If that doesn’t bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.

Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don’t be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!

We promise to write. Go get ‘em W!

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 08:08 AM | Link to this

Will all of those who make America the “Paper Tiger” and embolden our enemies please show themselves again today, thanks.

Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom? And yes, there are many Iraqis who have made that choice been ignored by our “objective media” and will be left hanging in the wind like the Kurds or the Vietnamese who trusted our willingness to support them. Paper Tigers be proud, meowwwww!

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

Excellent and sobering cartoon, reminding us that behind all the political screeching and howling are real, human lives. Lives that will be wasted for Bush’s pride.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 08:10 AM | Link to this

And before Dusty points it out: thanks for another pro-American cartoon, Mr. Luckovich. You are a true patriot, willing to stand up against your government when they’re in the wrong.

By LuckoDull

January 11, 2007 08:11 AM | Link to this

Huh, I never knew that Islamic Fascists had crosses in their cemeteries.

And to think I once said the AJC would never teach me anything.

Surely that isn’t an American cemetery that Mikey drew, after all, Bush is just doing what you liberals have been hammering on him to do:

REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It’s very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground. General…

We all know you idiots didn’t really mean, you say alot of things that you can’t remember a few weeks down the road.

Which is why I like having Bush as our leader, when he says he is going to win in Iraq, he actually means it.

He’s not a spineless surrender monkey, part time war mongers when it’s safe, “support the troops” until you can stab them in the back, like you pacifists are.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Local Recruiter

January 11, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

Be an Army of One!

Yes, you George, YOU.

Grab an M-16 and have yourself dropped into Baghdad. (Outside the Emerald City)

You and Moktada - mano e mano.

Maybe, just maybe, some of your supporters will actually enlist and come to your aid.

Maybe they drive their kids to my office.

Then again, maybe not.

By MB

January 11, 2007 08:14 AM | Link to this

Powerful commentary Mike. Good stuff.

By Gil

January 11, 2007 08:14 AM | Link to this

The glee that Luckovich and most staffers at the AJCfeel over the death of American troops is understandable. What’s a soldier’s life if his death gives them a chance to take a slap at the President.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 11, 2007 08:18 AM | Link to this

Great Toon Mike, but so very sad.

While the murder monkeys call us surrender monkeys, while the administration continues to ignore most of the good advice, real people are being killed.

As the last of the neo-cons stand for escalation and call opponents terrorist supporters, fine young Americans are being maimed.

My heart breaks.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 11, 2007 08:20 AM | Link to this

I see the horse beaters are out again today. Have they got a GPS unit that helps them stay the course?

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 11, 2007 08:23 AM | Link to this

Bush has already admitted mistakes in Iraq. His mistake now is in not changing course (except rhetorically) after the earlier admissions of mistakes. The reason why admitting mistakes is considered a good thing to do is the assumption that you’ll stop making them — or at least stop making the same ones. But Bush is even incompetent at admitting his own incompetence. It’s like an alcoholic admitting he’s started drinking again, then announcing he plans to get back on the wagon by drinking even more. You should not get credit for admitting mistakes unless the admission is accompanied by an effort to stop making them.

By hewhoasks

January 11, 2007 08:31 AM | Link to this

No, don’t have Bush grab a gun and go to Iraq. Have Joe Lieberman do that. You know who he is: the only member of Congress who agrees with Bush, so Bush consulted him before making his speech. That was back when Bush was seeking ideas and opinions. Everybody does understand what that means, right?

By w00t

January 11, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this

Mr. Bush, just admit that you have created 80% of the countries problems. From the insurgency, the power vacuum that has allowed Iran to influence its power, the civil war, the breeding grown for terrorist. All of it was thanks to you and your failed plan. Just say, “I made a mistake.” That’s all you have to do. It takes more of a man to admit a mistake than one that doesn’t. You might even get more support if you did.

I know last night’s speech was a half-assed attempted to admit some mistakes, but you did it in a way so some could not see it. Why the troop surge now? Why not a year and a half ago when there were more troops in the country? Why do you get rid of your commanders that oppose the surge? Also, why has it taken you this long to stand up to the Iraqi government and say “we’re not going to play this game anymore”. This is something that should have been done when the new government was elected in.

Also, do we really need to be threatening Iran in the speech? Especially when our troops are spread thin and tired from multiple tours of duty. I think that the new carrier group and the troop surge may be a precursor to a greater conflict, one that involves a war with Iran. Why do you feel that it is the United State’s responsibility to police the world and start conflicts were we see fit?

I can only hope that we do not start a war with Iran, as I fear it could start a much larger conflict in the region. I feel that America is losing what it stands for, and is quickly becoming the Soviet Union of the 21st century. In that we are a giant war machine hell bent on controlling natural resources and spreading our form of government on the very edge of bankruptcy. Only time will tell what kind of president you were and what the rest of the world will think of the United States of America.

By Shawny

January 11, 2007 08:36 AM | Link to this

That S.O.B. Lucko….how dare you draw this cartoon! The ACLU should be swooping down on your butt, what with all the crosses and all!

Don’t be mixing in religious symbols into this secular paper.

By Shawny

January 11, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

Here are a couple of good ideas, should you happen to run out:

Round body….big fat head dude (Teddy K) in a split screen toon. On the left side, complaining about the high costs of the Republican expansion of medicare. Right side, proposing expansion of medicare to more people.

Or this one….

Again, split screen toon: Left side, Steny Hoyer talking about leading by example in the congress, announcing a 5 day work week. Right side, “….uhm, maybe later, there is a football game on tonight”. Maybe even add, and Monday after the Superbowl, we take off. Then perhaps the entire month of the NBA finals, because we all know BB goes on forever.

By @@

January 11, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

Only one Star of David ml? I think you would find a lot more than one in a military cemetery.

Are you an anti-semite?

It was brought to my attention last night that Democrats were calling for more troops in Iraq just a couple of months ago. What happened?

Oh, I know…Bush said more troops, so they were forced to flop on their flip.

If Bush says yes, they’ve just gotta say no.

Politically correct? Sacrificing our national security in the interest of politics?

Sure looks that way. They haven’t changed their game plan in 35 years. They’re still a great disappointment.

I’ll wait to see what their plan in Iraq is, or if they even have one. So far, it’s not looking like they do.

By Shawny

January 11, 2007 08:46 AM | Link to this

Here is another suggestion… Again, big fat head dude, Teddy (hic) Kennedy. Left side, complaining that we aren’t protecting our troops with adequate armor on their humvees.

Right side, proposing a bill to deny funds to troops about to be deployed.

By w00t

January 11, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this

This is a good read:

“We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers. As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never ‘stay the course’,The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists. The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.”

By reebok

January 11, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this

Fantastic cartoon…gallows humor is all that’s left to us now. Dubya looked scared last night…that will certainly inspire confidence. I hope the faces of the young Americans Dubya has sent to their deaths will haunt him the rest of his lfe. Of course, for that to happen, he would have to possess some ability for introspection, which appears not to be the case.

By NakedEmperor

January 11, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

100% accurate, Mike. Sad but true.

Now watch the real carnage in Iraq begin. I pity those poor GI Joes and Janes that will be landing in the heart of darkness.

And Bush still believes that ‘every sperm is sacred’ and loves life - just not our soldiers lives, or folks he disagrees with.

By Tired of "Them vs Us" mentality

January 11, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Striking toon. Maybe Mike should also show the cemetery on the other side of the road, you know, the one that will hold all the casualties from the slaughter that will come, or the one that hold all the American targets of terrorist attacks, once we run home. We owe it to the brave Americans who have already sacrificed their life to give it one final major push (with our support) in order to salvage the situation. If our troops can’t succeed, it won’t be for their lack of trying, it will be for lack of a political support, from both sides of the aisle, as was the case in Nam. If nothing is learned from this issue, maybe it will be that we should never, ever, enter another crisis, without total, long term support, and I don’t mean support by having a ribbon decal on your car.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

Wow @@, Now everyone knows you are mathematically challenged. Also, apparently you’ve never been to American cemeteries in Arlington, Normandy, etc. Besides, when you say that you would find more than one Star of David in a cemetery, you are implying that ML’s toon is depicting the entire cemetery. What a dunce you are.

ML’s ratio of crosses to Stars of David appears about right, if anything perhaps a bit low. Of course, when you tire of calling ML a traitor, you call him anti-Semitic.

One more observation. You posted: “I think you would find a lot more….”. Correction…You don’t think, at all.

By Mike

January 11, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this

Cartoon is so sad but so true.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

Look up the quotes from liberals about the tens of thousands of bodies that would be coming back in bags in the first week of Afghanistan, Iraq, New Orleans, Iraq again…and tell me when they have ever been right.

By @@

January 11, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this

reebok:

Bush looked “humbled” last night during his speech. He accepted responsibility for his mistakes.

He pointed out, very clearly, the demands he had put on the Iraqi government. Hell, he even acknowledged you, “the American people”. Said your patience was limited and would not allow them (the Iraqi government) to fail in their pursuit of democracy.

He stated his objectives. A no holds barred approach.

What are your objectives again…and again…and again?

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Pfc. Ming Sun, 20, of Cathedral City, Calif., died Jan. 9 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire during combat patrol operations. Sun was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Spc. Raymond N. Mitchell, III, 21, of West Memphis, Ark., died Jan 6 in Baghdad, Iraq of wounds sustained during route security operations. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.

By Rudy

January 11, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull,

Nice job trying to pull that quote from Nancy Pelosi, but the article was dated May 30th! In case you haven’t noticed a lot has changed since then. For starters that was before the Iraq study group made their recomendations and before an election that was a resounding defeat for Little Bush’s war. The Democrats got into office largely because the American people are tired of this senseless war and the Democrats offer a different approach. If they just kept doing the same things as the Republicans idiots they replaced they wouldn’t be serving their constituency.

Pelosi may have made that comment 7 months ago, but with all the new information available and the results of the elections she is entitled to change her views. To not change her views, in the face of all the new information, would be like being a Republican.

By The Watcher

January 11, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this

Shawny, do your homework on the day off. you need to quit accepting 1/2 the story. drudge likes that

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Spc. Eric T. Caldwell, 22, of Salisbury, Md., died Jan 7 in Iraq of wounds sustained when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

By @@

January 11, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

N-GA:

Go back up and read again.

By: N-GA

(((if anything perhaps a bit low.)))

That’s what I said.

Have you cleared the “crusty boogers” from your eyes this morning?

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Sgt. James M. Wosika Jr., 24, of St. Paul, Minn., died Jan. 9 in Fallujah, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit while on combat patrol. Wosika was assigned to the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry, Crookston, Minn.

By The Watcher

January 11, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

Bush said mistakes were made NOT I made mistakes. REAL BIG DIFFERENCE. (The buck stops over there somewhere)

He did not look humble, he looked stiff and scared.

Wow, defend Bush by attacking others. What strategy!

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

Some American writers have published articles under the title ‘On what basis are we fighting?’ These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah’s reward, seeking success and support from Him.

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

@@,

Here is what you posted: “Only one Star of David ml? I think you would find a lot more than one in a military cemetery.”

Here is what I posted: “ML’s ratio of crosses to Stars of David appears about right, if anything perhaps a bit low.”

Now then (you really need to pay me for this math lesson), the ratio of crosses to Stars of David means the number of crosses is the numerator and the number of Stars of David is the denominator. Got that, so far?

It appears there are approximately 26 crosses and 1 Star of David in the toon. That would be a ratio of 26 to 1. When I said that might be a bit low, I was saying that there should be more crosses. You were saying there should be more Stars of David.

Oh it’s hopeless…you are simply too stupid for words.

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

GENERAL: Now, Field Marshal Hague has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: Ah, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy, sir?

CAPTAIN DARLING: How could you possibly know that Blackadder, it’s classified information?

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: It’s the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.

GENERAL: Ex… ex… ex… actly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing precisely what we’ve done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they’ll expect us to do this time!

There is, however, one small problem.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: That everyone always gets slaughtered in the first ten seconds?

GENERAL: That’s right. And Field Marshal Hague is worried that this may be depressing the men a tad. So, he’s looking to find a way to cheer them up.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious.

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

The Dems RULE!

Anti-terror legislation sailed through the House on Tuesday, the first in a string of measures designed to fulfill campaign promises made by Democrats last fall.

Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

The vote was a bipartisan 299-128, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the speaker’s rostrum to announce the passage of the first legislation to clear under the new Democratic majority.

Of course, Bush opposes it. Let’s see him dare veto the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It would be nice for Democrats to have both the White House and the Congress in 2 years.

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

I see some of you are attempting to reason with those who are among the 26% who still support Bush and his Iraq folly. First of all, the fact that they still support him proves that they have very little cerebral function so reasoning with them is an exercise in futility.

Give them a break. They don’t have the ammunition needed to debate you on a rational level.

By @@ is FAT FAT

January 11, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

No, N-GA, @@ is too fat-fat for words, that’s why she’s only a puncuation mark on the road to the all you can eat buffet. Sneeze gaurds is the enemy, sir. They slow her down.

@@ is only one oversized plate away from nirvanna.

By @@

January 11, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

Watcher:

From the transcript.

“Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”

Do you read that as “where”, “when”, or “somebody else”?

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

Watcher,

The other half of the day off story is just as ridiculous. I’m pretty sure their families could have flown home on their own. Instead we get to pay for the Democrat Congress to escort their families home and then fly back Tuesday morning all on our dime of course. Hell even Jon Stewart was making fun of them. Good thing they can only fly on planes licensed by the Federal government from now on since they fixed that ethics thing. It’ll really cut down on travel since the Federal government doesn’t license planes.

NGA, (Don’t want to risk the racist hyphen so I’ll stick to goat if I respond again today)

Do you realize that the families of dead troops often google their loved ones names? Do you really want to have them end up reading the leftist drivel about what a waste their lives were that you guys are always writing here?

By Goldie

January 11, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Great commentary, Lucko, to follow-up with this toon after the “Bush’s Ego” toon earlier this week… Bush is willing to sacrifice more American lives, as long as it doesn’t involve anyone in his own family. This “surge” is only a last attempt at saving his so-called legacy and his inflated ego.

By @@ is FAT FAT

January 11, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

I read that as a mouthful, @@, try chewing, girlfriend…..ew!

By Nomad

January 11, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

This cartoon is pure crap but what can you expect from a left wing nutbag like ML.

Bush laid out the plan, acknowledged the mistakes and took responsibility. You would have never heard that coming from Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, or Reid.

The president is a man of character no matter how much the liberal cowards on this board want to trash him. All you do is go off on the president did this or that. What you do not do and what the democratic leadership does not do is offer a solution. For those that say getting out of Iraq is a solution, I am sorry to say that is no solution. There is still a job to be done. This is not just a fight for democracy in Iraq. This is a fight in the war on ISLAMIC TERRORISM. Try to keep that in mind.

I think the democratic leadership is sure of one thing. Bush has them by the gonads. He will send the troops and they will be forced to fund it. If they don’t, then it will reflect badly for them in 2008.

By @@

January 11, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

N-GA:

I’ve seen horses who could supposedly count by pawing the ground with their front legs, but I’ve never seen a goat do it.

Can you show me again?

Turn around though, I’m tired of looking at your a$$.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this

Somebody, ANYBODY…PLEASE tell me that I did not hear THIS last night:

Did I hear that the Iraqi gov’t demanded and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION allowed SAFE HAVENS in BAGHDAD!!!!!

AND, did I also hear that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION AGREED to THIS!!!!

PLEASE tell me that DID NOT happen!!!

SO, two of the reasons that we WILL be successful THIS TIME are that…

WE WILL NO LONGER AGREE TO SAFE HAVENS IN BAGHDAD

and

INSTEAD OF CLEARING AREAS AND LEAVING, WE WILL NOW CLEAR AREAS AND S T A Y…

STAY…as in how long exactly…

Our brave service men and women deserve much more.

I have been outraged by the incompetence and arrogance of this administration and its pathetic enablers on many occasions, but this administration has now reached a dangerous new low.

INCOMPETENCE should be an impeachable offense!

By @@ is FAT FAT

January 11, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

Today’s cartoon wasn’t meant to be funny. Instead, it serves as a one finger salute to Bush’s speech about a new strategy.

Luckovich is bitter today, and angry, and rightfully so.

By getalife

January 11, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

This will be strike three and w will be out.

It is all about the oil and he is sacrificing more Americans for it.

Since w is a complete failure, it would not surprise me if Iraq keeps its oil with help from Iran.

By @@ is FAT FAT

January 11, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

RW(the oravaginal) is a moron.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this

RW (the Real Wanker) aka Lying Andy (the Bed Wetter),

Save your compassion for the families in Iraq who are mourning their dead. Americans are too far removed from the realities of what Bush has created. They are not allowed to see coffins, they are isolated from the stark reality of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dying each year in a war that was started by an EGO!!

And then there are some soldiers (just a few, I hope) who are torturing and raping and murdering Iraqi citizens. Talk about spreading Democracy.

And every American soldier who dies in Iraq DESERVES to be remembered by all of us if it only serves to remind us that we shouldn’t follow a leader who is more interested in serving his military-industrial complex masters.

People need to be reminded of the real reasons their sons and daughters are sacrificing life and limb.

By @@ is FAT FAT

January 11, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this

RW’s self-basting turkey talk serves as the perfect foil for talk-turkey-loving @@, whose coy ploy-by-ploy commentary about imaginary intrigues on this blog is a real chew.

You’ve heard of talk radio? Well @@, who is fat-fat, loves 2 talk turkey.

Did I mention that RW is a moron?

By candide

January 11, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

This morning Bush is giving a medal of honor to the family of a dead marine. When this medal is offered I would hope families who have needlessly lost a son or daughter would tell the president to shove the medal up his a/////s.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

@@’s 9:47 is a hoot. I’m LMFAO. She shows her utter stupidity in an earlier post, gets called on it with a “see-spot-run” math lesson, and all she can do is act the monkey and throw feces through the bars of her cage.

Too funny….and pathetic. One can only hope she didn’t pass on those defective genes.

By @@

January 11, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Good morning Political Foreskin a/k/a @@iFF.

Doubling up today?

Two slimy cukes?

Scooter:

I enjoyed reading your 9:25.

Maybe we are fighting them over here. It sounds very familiar. Now where have I heard Bin Laden’s accusations before?

Oh yea! Right here at ml’s.

By EMERGENCY FACT CHECK

January 11, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Considering how very little work Congress did in 2005 and 2006, I was a little surprised to see so many people raise a fuss about the House not working yesterday. The official reason the chamber was in recess was that freshman lawmakers needed more time to return from an orientation retreat. The real reason was that the Ohio State vs. University of Florida national championship game was last night.

In some circles, this sparked some pretty loud howls. What about the 100-hour agenda? What about the laborious five-day work weeks we were promised? Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) complained, “We all know the big national championship game is on Monday night at 8 p.m., but taking an entire day to watch the game isn’t what we should spend part of our five-day workweek doing.”

As it turns out, this is what happens when the Dem leadership does something nice for the GOP leadership.

[T]he real reason [the House was not in session] was that some lawmakers, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other members of the delegations from Ohio and Florida, wanted to travel to Arizona to watch tonight’s college football championship between Ohio State and the University of Florida. […]

Democratic congressional sources claim that their leadership wanted a normal Monday in session, but that when Boehner’s office requested the day off due to the football game, it relented in the interest of keeping the peace. (The Senate was in session today.) Members of the House typically arrive late Monday evening to vote on noncontroversial suspension bills, such as naming a post office.

“He did in fact request that votes not commence this week until tomorrow” because of the football game, Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy told ABCNews.com, calling the brouhaha “much ado about nothing.”

That’s probably true, just so long as Republicans stop blaming Pelosi and Hoyer. Boehner asked for a favor, and as a gesture of good will, Dems consented to give lawmakers a day off.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

@@ is FAT FAT,

Too much…I’ve always pictured @@ as the character in About Schmidt played by Kathy Bates…remember the hot tub scene? Or have I insulted Miss Bates?

By @@

January 11, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

N-GA:

You really were making much ado about nothing with your 9:07. It was a comment, not a math lesson.

Please continue.

By Steve

January 11, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Great cartoon Mike! I hate Bush, Republicans, Christians, Israel and America too!

By Shawny

January 11, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Good will would be to allow them in with committees, not allowing the “delay of game”.

Good will would be working with them to find ways of making increases to the minimum wage not so painful for small businesses that work on razor thin margins, not simply shoving it down their throats.

Personally, I agree that the day off was essentially a non-event and not newsworthy, since those jokers are always off (and will be next Monday, while most of us will be working). I just find the hypocrisy of leading by example rather humorous, and cartoon worthy. That is all. I think Boehner should have been smacked for even bringing it up. However, if you are kicked out of committees, what else is there to do until they get done with their 100 hours?

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Actually there is a new issue. Yesterday’s speech was the first time that W pronounced a military mission for our troops in Iraq: Clear and hold.

Yes, it’s a tactical mission, not really a strategic one, but, it’s also not a civics mission, like “Establish a government in Iraq that can sustain and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror.”

So finally, after four years, we have a commander in chief who actually gave a military order based on a military mission.

Clear and hold. That’s means go in tough, fight house to house, room to room, and when our troops secure a neighborhood, leave troops behind to make sure that the enemy doesn’t reinfect the area.

I think that tactic will work. It’s called counter-insurgency technique and it has historically worked.

It takes patience and time to work. We’ll progress very well till we get to Sadr City…..SADR CITY!… slowly we’ll turn the tide, step by step, inch by inch…..and we’ll stomp them and beat them and blow them to smithereens……

We will win the Iraq War by fighting in sadr city…SADR CITY!!!…slowly we’ll turn the tide…step by step…inch by inch..and we’ll crush them and stomp them and blow them to smithereens…..

Yes, make no mistake about it, we can win the Iraq War, but only if we win in sadr city…SADR CITY!!…slowly we’ll turn the tide, step by step…inch by inch…and we’ll shoot them and crush them and blow them to smithereens……

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

This cartoon is totally offensive.

Luckovich has taken a place we should be quietly honoring and made it into a hoot and holler yay,yay cartoon.

There is no respect. There is no honor. Just a total disrespect for those who died for our American way of life. Just a finger pointing political cartoon in a national cemetery.

Our fallen soldiers should not be used for political propaganda. But actions speak louder than words and we see Luckovich’s actions.

We read the blood thirsty comments of posters wanting to kill all Iraqis even as we fight for them just as we fight for ourselves.

We see the catcalls and the insults thrown at the President as he leads us against terrorism.

There are two kinds of death to be pictured here today. The first is the deaths of those who lose their lives fighting for us.

The second is the death of the American spirit as shown by most posters here. No support. No honor. No patriotism. Luckovich has shown it only too well.

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Two of Bush’s best cheerleaders agree that the sorry speech last night was nothing to crow about…

“It is probably past the point now where it makes much difference politically if the President delivers his speech in a scintillating way or whether it’s a particularly well written speech or not a particularly well written speech—what matters it seems to me is likely to prove the plan itself…” -Brit Hume

“In the past, I’ve often said that President Bush has been more effective in televised speeches than he has been given credit for. Not tonight. I thought he came across as stiff, nervous, and anxious to get it over with. The importance of the issue seemed to overwhelm the President’s ability to communicate. I suspect that only a few listeners absorbed more than a general impression of what the new strategy is all about.” - Hinderaker

By Shawny

January 11, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Sad…today’s toon sucks. BUT THIS ONE DOESN’T!!!

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/ChuckAsay/2007/01/2

By @@

January 11, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

N-GA:

Didn’t you just post that 10:23 over at Wooten’s?

You sure did.

But why post under “@@ is Fat Fat?”

And were you talking to yourself at ^^^ 10:08?

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

“Our fallen soldiers should not be used for political propaganda.” -Dusty

Then why don’t you call your president on it for doing the same? While you’re at it why don’t you ask him if 3,000+ American lives are really worth letting Big Oil get a 30 year contract in Iraq.

We’ve said all along that this war was for oil. It’s nice to be proven correct but not at the cost of American lives.

Steve - your 10:17 comment shows a huge lack of intelligence. Please go away.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Wow! I got jacked at 10:23. Wonder who?

By AntiRadical

January 11, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Good toon ML, effective but tasteless.

It was nice to see a more humble GWB last night. It is too bad that he did not abandon the “tough talk” he has said he regreted a little sooner. I’m afraid at this point that public confidence in the President is unrecoverable.

There are a lot of opinons flying around but the one that most resonates for me is the original estimate of the number of troops that would be needed to pacify Iraq- 200K+. With the 20K that the President is proposing, the US forces will have 150K (50K short). So it appears that the President is, once more, trying to cheap it out in the execution of this war. It may make some difference that these are targeted troops almost entirely embedded in Iraqi units as training advisors.

That said, I must still support the deployment of the 20K because units on the ground have specifically requested these reinforcements and regardless of partisanship we must never allow ourselves to stop giving these young men and women the supplies and support they require. Many of them do not even support the wars’ premise (same as many of us) but they are there doing their duty, regardless. Damn the partisanship, give the troops the reinforcements they have pleaded for. In the end, I believe the Dems will do exactly that.

So, it appears that the number of troops that should be sent should actually be 75K. The Dems would certainly gain enormous political advantage over the Reps should they authorize that level of deployment, instead of the 20K requested. This would also serve to quell the ‘Nam era’d war hawk shrill, “We had it won but they wouldn’t let us finish the job”. While an amusing thought, the chances of that happening are, of course, about as likely as Brittney Spears acquiring finesse’.

But since we are coming to a consensus that our armed forces troop strength must be dramatically increased (probably past the limit of volunteer acquisition), why shouldn’t Dems and Reps reach a compromise. Dems should give the Reps the 75K more troops that appear to be actually needed with substantial increases in permanent standing troop strength, and in return secure Rep support in reinstating the military draft system with exemptions allowed only in the most dire of circumstances, and a duty assignment system that is automated and immune to any political or monetary influence. Deal?

By Truthman

January 11, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

In a related development, Insurgenents have promised an “insurge” of more terrorists into Iraq as the U.S. Troop numbers expand.

When asked about the U.S. Troop surge, Malik Mohammed, spokesman for Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, was quoted as saying “Bring ‘em on!! If we do not fight them here in Iraq, we may have fight them on our own soil in Saudi Arabia!!”

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Dusty, you are too stupid to see past the BS bumper sticker SLOGANS this administration and its echo chambers stuff down your throat.

It takes absolute ignorance to interpret EVERY denunciation of this administration as ‘lacking respect’ or ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘lacking honor.’

Those retorts are the bastion of ignorant stooges that do not have facts or logic (or morals) on their side.

THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS ALLOWED THE GOV’T OF IRAQ TO DESIGNATE SAFE HAVENS.

HOW MANY OF OUR TROOPS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF THIS STUPIDITY?!?!?

Do you think we should have allowed safe havens in Baghdad?

Do you think US service men and women should be dying to prop up a gov’t that is partnered with Muqtada Al Sadr?!?!?

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Nice job getting caught wanking goat boy, plagiarism too! You’re on a roll this morning.

Why it brings back memories of finch and seeker. How deranged does someone have to be to make up a second persona and talk to himself on a public blog? At least finch checked into rehab and came out as bon sybil.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

ATTENTION AJC ADMIN:

If you can show proof that the 10:23 was the goat being nick jacked I’ll apologize to him and never post here again.

By @@

January 11, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

N-GA:

To save you the trouble of scrolling down at Wooten’s:

(((By @@ is FAT FAT)))

(((January 11, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this)))

(((Actually there is a new issue. Yesterday’s speech was the first time that W pronounced a military mission for our troops in Iraq: Clear and hold.)))

(((Yes, it’s a tactical mission, not really a strategic one, but, it’s also not a civics mission, like “Establish a government in Iraq that can sustain and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror.”)))

It sounds a lot like something PoliFore would write.

Very funny, but in an odd sort of way.

Is Midori gonna come in and tell you how much you “rawk”?

Give her a wink for me. O.K.?

By Paul

January 11, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

I’m regularly amazed by the mantra of casualty counts. I’m a bit of the opinion that the concern isn’t with the killed/wounded but more of a concern to attack others (war, Pres, take your pick). The possibility of death or injury goes with the calling - troops recognize it and accept it. Of course, the leadership’s responisibility is to make sure the mission is right - even given that, and the acknowledgement that this war has not been conducted properly, the troops themselves are overwhelmingly supportive - many of their negative comments are directed at the conduct, not the principle. Ever heard interviews of those wounded? Many want to return.

So, before I get ready for the auto-invective and lack of rational blowback, just for the sake of discussion, I’ll grant we should be fixated on casualty counts, especially in increments of one. Given that, I’d invite discussion on a recurring topic. Recurring as none of the “we care about suffering/injustice/oppression” folks have addressed it: Dharfur/Somalia. Murder, slavery, rape, torture on a massive scale. UN has stopped short of calling it “genocide.” So, concerned peoples, do we intervene? If we do, care to state up front how many casualties we should accept? None? One? And if the limit is more than zero and reached, do we then pack up and go home, to let the slaughter resume?

I recognize in advance that invective, crudity and personal attacks are merely the byproduct of a weak mind trying to express itself.

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Anyone who uses a poisonous snake for an ID should be treated as such.

The president’s speech was a report of what he has planned for the war in Iraq. We needed to hear that.

Do YOU know how to run an oil company? NO! Oil companies usually run oil resources. Just whom did you want? Chefs and dietitians?

Are YOU a general in the military? NO! But you think you know how to run the military.

Have YOU ever been elected to a big job in this country? Probably not. The president was elected to run this country. You couldn’t run a hot dog stand from the sound of your posts.

A show of support for your country might improve the general outlook of your pitiful posts.

By getalife

January 11, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

w still is not telling the truth about his Iraq disaster

By @@

January 11, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

AntiR:

I was thinking the same thing last night as I watched his speech.

Do the military leaders want more than 20K?

The reason for not initially putting more in Iraq was to avoiding the appearance of occupation. Since that made no profound difference, then let’s get “er done.

Maybe it’ll be up for discussion.

Gotta leave for now.

By Peter

January 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Duh-bya will get my attention when Jen and Barb are Marines in Fallujah. (I’m not saying he will ever get my support.)

By Paul

January 11, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

@@,

Not getting into what Gen Shinseki was referring to, but the question initially of “how many” was based upon - to do what? A number of blunders were made - turning out the Iraqi officer corps, not anticipating the magnet effect re. Al Qeda, not anticipating Iranian interests in Iraqi turmoil, not recognizing the tribal supremacy in minds of many Iraqis, to name a few. Militay was never up for political reconstruction and nation building - still aren’t. State Dept was remiss - I’m not aware of any input they had that could have turned things around, let alone averted many of the mistakes.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Wow RW (the Real Wanker) aka Lying Andy (the Bed Wetter), Is that really you?

I hereby authorize the AJC to disclose whether or not I authored the 10:23 post. Now I understand that you will not tell us who the REAL author is, but at least RW will go the way of all losers since he promised to apologize to me, then never post here again.

By w00t

January 11, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Brainless Dusty,

Can you please explain to the majority here just why we should support the president?

How exactly is that going to improve the train wreck in Iraq? Maybe if we all hold hands and think real hard we can cause a flux in the quantum field and turn Iraq in to Disney land?

It’s funny that several republicans are against this plan, and feel that it may not work. You can support YOUR president and YOUR administration, but I will support MY country, and what I feel is best for it.

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Reading your 11:10 post addressed to @@, I hope you don’t get upset if I intrude into your discussion.

It seems to me that you are saying that the U.S. military is not to blame for the Iraq fiasco. If that is what you meant to say, then I strongly agree with you.

Now then, should Congress hold hearings on who is to blame for this debacle? What about the WMD’s? Who is to blame for not finding them? And who is to blame for not introducing Democracy to our Middle Eastern allies like Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt or Kuwait? Perhaps if we had practiced on those countries first, then liberating Iraq might have been a little easier.

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Well stated w00t. Dusty still resides in that defective part of his brain that equates supporting Duhbya with supporting the troops. I support my country but I don’t subscribe to the “right or wrong” idealism. When we’re wrong, which are in Iraq, I will support whoever can make it right. Duhbya ain’t that guy.

By Paul

January 11, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

N-GA

Not at all.

I’ll partially agree with you - by saying I think the military could have done a better job in the planning. The post-combat ops planning - even with more troops - would not, I think, have prevented what we saw. There coulda/shoulda been more coordination with State in this situation, as a stated goal was removal of Saddam. Take out the government, then what? Relying on the military to usher in a new government - one with which the subject country had now experience - was unrealistic.

Regarding your last comment, my thought is many in Congress who call for hearings are less interested in “find out what happened so we can fix the process” than in “keep the embarassing spotlight on the administration and get ready for ‘08.” WMD hearings? Only if they call in the heads of French Intelligence, German Intelligence, Russian Intelligence - you see my point. Also call in the Iraqi senior leadership for Baghdad - who have already stated they were relying on chem agents for their defense.

Regarding your second very good question - we’re not going to do a thing with the Saudis as long as we want to keep guzzling their petroleum - Wahabist terrorist support notwithstanding.

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Woot,

It is not surprising that you do not know why we should support the president.

First, he was elected (upheld by law) to lead this country.

Second, he is the Commander in chief of our armed forces.

Third, although some of his directives may not be successful, some were and none have been proved to be illegal or dishonest. His successes are 9/11 recovery, Afghanistan, tsunami relief for the world and no further attacks on America.

Fourth, he has the foresight to see that Iraq, once led by brutal and terrorist sympathizer Saddam, could become the center for terrorism, not only for the Middle East but for the world.

Americans have sacrificed for freedom before and we are doing it again. It is heart breaking.

If you let narrow vision confine you to insulting our President and all Republicans, you dishonor this country. I will not be a part of it.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Dusty, most of your points also would apply to President Clinton.

Did you support the Clinton Administration the way you support the Bush Administration OR are you a pitiful, superficial hypocrite?

By Blackadder

January 11, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Lord Help Us - You took the words right out of my mouth. I’ve always wondered where Dusty and his ilk sttod when Clinton was being persecuted for a bl0w job. Wasn’t he also elected to lead our country? Didn’t he also deserve the same respect that Dusty demands of Duhbya?

By made as hell

January 11, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Thanks! I get it! Now I understand why this stupid war goes on and on… some (most) of you “convervatives” are just as thickheaded and as egocentric as George… to not get the point that more young Americans are going to die - mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons- because of the most stupid blunder ever made by this country (okay, if not, please tell what tops this fiasco!)! This cartoon is expressing the tragedy of this”new” effort to win the war of Georgie Boy. The tradedy of the loss of life. No you are right it is not funny—well at least you get some of it—STUPID!

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Wanna guess whether Dusty responds to the “Did you support Clinton when HE was president?” question?

Place your bets, folks! Me, I think Dusty’s a bit confused on the relationship between citizens and the Prez. He’s not our “leader” in the sense of our commander and god-king… rather, he’s our employee.

And as his boss, I can’t say I’m too pleased with his performance on the job.

By w00t

January 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Yes he was voted in, but it has been contested. Actually the courts decided he was the president. Still doesn’t mean I need to support him.

While he may be the “commander in chief”, he has little in the way of “experience” in the field. He is better served listening to the generals on the ground in Iraq. Instead he kicked those out that did not believe in his new policy. It also doesn’t mean people have to support him.

I would say some of those were successful, though some where not. I would defiantly not call Afghanistan a “success”, especially when you hear the Taliban is attacking again, and we did not capture most of the Al-Qeuda Command Structure, most notably Osama.

Dusty, Saddam was not a terrorist Sympathizer. He hated Al-Queda and terrorist in his country. Maybe that is why the county was able to run without being overrun by terrorist. Osama did not like Saddam and wanted him out of the country. So in effect, we did Osama a favor. The country has now fallen into complete disarray because of this as various parties fight for power and control within the country due to the vacuum we left behind. Even if we have some sort of symbolic “victory”, it will only be a matter of time before the country falls apart and Iran flexes its regional power and takes over with a puppet government. At least with Saddam in power this would not have happened.

In reality, we never had the right to be in Iraq. There were no WMD’s, there were no links to Terrorist, and it had NOTHING to do with 9/11. If all we got out of it was hanging a dictator that we once support, was it worth all the death on ANY side? Whether it is US troops, or several thousand Iraqis? You have to understand that the US has cause most of the problems in Iraq.

Judging from your responses, you have fallen for every Bush lie out there.

By Thomas

January 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

First to:

AntiRadical (January 11, 2007 10:44 AM)

-= and =-

@@ (January 11, 2007 10:59 AM)

Great Post! And actually good thinking. It really is an issue now of what do the troops need at this point. I also believe that what they need, we should give them. No matter why we are in this mess, we need to start thinking strategically and troop strength is very important whether you stay or withdraw. Not deploying enough forces in the first place is partially to blame for the mess in Iraq. I guess the biggest question now, is can we deploy more than 20k’ at this point. Also how many fronts in the middle east can we hold securely. Securing borders is impossible.

Next:

I see Dusty is still worshipping at the feet of Dubya’ rather seeking to do what is right and appropriate for the good of the Country. I guess she thinks all us Democrats and Liberals are traitors to the country, even those (Hannity) “Great American” Democrats and Liberals that are in uniform being made targets in the middle east.

Dusty - Your rants that Democrats voted for the war yesterday, show just how lost in neo-con land you really are.

So tell me! - exactly how many Democrats (What percentage of them) voted for “The Military Option” for military action should Iraq not comply with disarming itself of “Weapons of Mass Distruction”. Then I want you to compare the democrat percentaged vote to the percentage of Republicans that voted for that same issue? I think you will find more Democrats were against this measure than Republicans. No matter how you look at it this was a republican “proposed” and “forced through congress” issue.

And why are we even in Iraq, if Iraq had no WMD’s as specified by the intent of that very same voted upon measure? The letter and spirit of the agreement was violated by Dubya’ as soon as he could. This was Dubya’s, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rove, Libby, and the whole PNAC Rat-Pack’s intention all along before Bush was even put in office. Invade Iraq! Secure the Oil!. It was written about by this same crew 7 years before bush became President! How Blind you are to the truth! And they love it!

Silly war! and for what? but then again most wars are silly!

Thomas

By SSDD

January 11, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Dusty… you cannot be serious.

I’d like to break down your (talking) points. Cuz it’ll be just gee-golly fun to do so. :P

First, he was elected (upheld by law) to lead this country. O….K then. uh-huh. I liked how you HAD to add “upheld by law”, because you KNOW what a BS sham the 2000 elections were. And AGAIN half of the U.S. says “no. we DONT want ‘Four More Wars! (years…)’”. but whatever. You say potato, I say “he’s a blundering idiot”.

Second, he is the Commander in chief of our armed forces. Riiiiiiiiight. Again. OK. Thats pretty much what ALL presidents are, right? (laying on the sarcasm PRETTY thick here)

Third, although some of his directives may not be successful, some were and none have been proved to be illegal or dishonest. His successes are 9/11 recovery, Afghanistan, tsunami relief for the world and no further attacks on America.

“Some” arent successful EH? “none have been PROVED to be illegal or dishonest”. YET, Dusty. Y-E-T. This country is embarrassed enough on a daily basis. In case you haven’t caught on, the ‘court of opinion’ would disagree with you.

“His successes are 9/11 recovery, Afghanistan, tsunami relief for the world and no further attacks on America”…… that silence is crickets chirping. You’ve managed to stun all and sundry into silence with THAT little gem. You are delusional. I’m now telling you, you have rose-colored glasses on if you TRULY believe ANY of that nonsense you just spewed. I am ashamed of you as usual. I actually made a “TSK”-ing sound when I read that crap.

You TRULY believe that these are successes?? I’ll have to disagree with you. 9/11 recovery (WHERE’S OBL?), Afghanistan (WHAT exactly are we still doing there if we’ve SUCCEEDED? HMM?), tsunami relief for the world (yet, New Orleans drowned and you and your kind could give a —— less. CLASSIC) and no further attacks on America (aren’t you and yours always spouting off that “the NEXT attack can happen at any second!”??)

God you’re pathetic. To blindly support the “administration” because the “majority” voted (ahem…riiiiight) him and his into office??? Seriously? You think THAT is more American than standing up for what I believe is RIGHT

By getalife

January 11, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

“Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever…” — Liar in Chief, June 2005

Going all in on Malarki is ignorant. He is a Shiite Iranian supporter stupid.

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us & Blackadder,

I support the office of the president of the United States. If the president dishonors his office, he will be removed by legal methods, not by the jeers of a mob.

Clinton had charisma but no ethics. He disgraced the country by unethical and immoral behavior (by my standards}. Lying before a Grand Jury is not ethical presidental behavior.

As to his military abilities, when terrorists bombed our embassies and our ship The Cole, Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and a vacant training camp in Afghanistan. All presidents can make military misjudgments. I have no respect for Clinton becaus of his lack of integrity.

Nixon was another one who lied and was dispatched from the Presidency. It was done by legal methods with obvious evidence.

I support the office of the president. I do not support Presidents who lie. Bush tells the truth.

By The Watcher

January 11, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

“If you let narrow vision confine you to insulting our President and all Republicans, you dishonor this country. I will not be a part of it. “

Hurrah! Dusty won’t be posting here anymore!

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Ouch!

Looks like Dusty has called the wrath of the blog upon herself.

By getalife

January 11, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

“Bush tells the truth.”

Hilarious.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Freaking idiot wOOt,

It’s not surprising you believe in the Global Warming fairy tale. Did the courts decide the 2004 Presidential election, you dunce?

And here’s little factoid for you:

If the courts had not decided it the way the did in 2000, eventually the Republican majority Florida Legislature would have decided it with the same outcome - it just would have taken longer and left the Ship of State adrift at sea all the longer.

As it was, the Bush administration lost months that are always available to new incoming administrations to prepare, which left them at a serious disadvantage, which certainly did not help our national security.

Moreover, when outfits like the Miami Herald have conducted their own recounts, Bush won every, single time.

By Paul

January 11, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Dusty

Some just can’t accept that two people can have a difference of opinion without one of them being evil. Some can’t separate their antipathy for Pres Bush from any policy discussion. Oh, well.

On another note, I’ve read a few references today and yesterday to the US Supreme Court “giving” - voting for - handing - the Presidency to Bush. You do know it’s the fault of all these right-wing, neocon justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, don’t you? They’ll put aside all matters of law, precedent or justice to make sure their candidate wins, won’t they?

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Paul, against the backdrop of vicious personal attacks that have become ml’s blog, your post are refreshing. It is nice to read someone who believes the world is fluid and imperfect, but; can also realize all of that is not the fault of George W. Bush. Carry on sir!

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

Great Dusty, absolutely pointless…

I do not know that I have ever seen a denunciation of the ‘Office of the President’ on this blog.

The only ones I have seen are critical of the current occupant and his demonstrated incompetence.

Please go back and apologize to those who, just like you with Clinton, have their own reasons for disliking Bush, but have never disparaged the office of the President.

That is, unless you weren’t sincere…

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 01:04 PM | Link to this

Scooty,

In my unappreciated efforts to point out blatant hypocrisy, I took the liberty of making one minor change to your post to Paul.

—Paul, against the backdrop of vicious personal attacks that have become ml’s blog, your post are refreshing. It is nice to read someone who believes the world is fluid and imperfect, but; can also realize all of that is not the fault of —LIBERALS —. Carry on sir!

Please let me know if you agree…

By Dr. R

January 11, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this

I’m an independent, yet card-carrying, Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, supported the war initially and believed that “cut and run” was the wrong way to go. I’m not anti-Bush, anti-GOP or pro-Democrat on pretty much anything. Yet I still don’t see why we’re sending more troops in to fight a lost cause between warring factions in a country with no real government and no real desire to unite behind one. If I thought we could accomplish something, I’d be all for it. Even most generals are against it. I think GWB is desperate to bail this thing out and is, in gambling terms, playing with the rent money. It’s been a long time since I agreed with his critics after one of his speeches, but that was the case last night. Call me a yellow-backed liberal if you want, but this hawk has had enough. We should fight like hell when we have a chance to win, but I don’t see it here. Somebody convince me.

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

Well, folks,

I am withdrawing from the “discussion” here but don’t rejoice too much. I need an emission sticker on my car and a joyful shopping trip to use the many gift certificates from my cheerful children.

In the meantime, try to find out who in Congress voted for the war in Iraq ,what “legal” means and

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry, my last post got cut off. Oh well, I shall save my great words of wisdom for later. Don’t want to disappoint those liberals who don’t know the difference between rational opinions and accusations. Ahhh later…

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

Man, Crusty, you can obfuscate like all good Bush supporters, but you can’t even ‘cut and run’ without screwing up.

No wonder you support Bush…

By Better Check This Out

January 11, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

“As it was, the Bush administration lost months that are always available to new incoming administrations to prepare, which left them at a serious disadvantage, which certainly did not help our national security.”

Somebody teach it to read a calender

By Better Check This Out

January 11, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

On another note, I’ve read a few references today and yesterday to the US Supreme Court “giving” - voting for - handing - the Presidency to Bush. You do know it’s the fault of all these right-wing, neocon justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, don’t you? They’ll put aside all matters of law, precedent or justice to make sure their candidate wins, won’t they?

It was sandra day o’connor, numb nuttz

By regulator

January 11, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

A few stats you repugs might appreciate since most of you have no God except the almighty dollar. Cost of the war so far$357,000,000,000, enough to build 35 thousand schools, but I guess keeping the oil lobby and the war industry happy is more important,we want even mention the dead soldiers.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this

“It’s not surprising you believe in the Global Warming fairy tale…”

I know it is completely useless to try and enlighten the densest among us, and I won’t bother trying, but the following info is for those readers here who still use their capacity for reasoning:

The effects of global warming are being felt around the world and unless international efforts are launched within the next 10 years species will disappear and the earth will be a vastly less habitable planet by the end of the century, according to NASA scientist James E. Hansen.

“Global warming is already starting, and there’s going to be more of it. I think there is still time to deal with global warming, but we need to act soon. Humans now control global climate, for better or worse,” Hansen said Tuesday at an annual gathering of meteorologists.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Science/Global_Warming.html

By RE

January 11, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Good to hear from you again, you may notice the blog has been a little toned down since the loss of Andy, no one has been called a jack-leg pinko in quite a while.

I think you are right on this, it is no longer an issue of political affiliation. We have let ourselves become enmeshed in shooting war where no american action can directly achive the victory conditions we set forth. The victory condition has been stated as being a free democratic Iraq able to stand on it’s own and is an ally of the US. All of those conditions are for the Iraqis to achive, and may never occur no matter what we do. Nation building does not work, certainly not with military action.

My fear now is the threat put out last night that he may expand this war into Iran. Again with no strategy or mission objectives. GWB has nothing to lose anymore and is terribly dangerous to this country and the world

By Huge

January 11, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

From todays @issue section of the AJC:

Administration admits toll of global warming

On Dec. 27, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act because of the loss of its sea ice habitat from GLOBAL WARMING. This proposal marks the first legally binding admission by the Bush administration of the REALITY of GLOBAL WARMING.

Predictably, opponents of emission cuts are doing what they have always done: claim a scientific dispute where NONE exists and urge that NO action be taken until the science is “conclusive”.

Hooray for the otherwise intransigent Bush administration! The list of “fairy tale believers” just keeps growing and growing and growing and growing…

And the dwindling list of science-hating fools just keeps looking dumber and dumber and dumber and dumber…

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

I still want to know how many of you devout supporters of this incompetent administration were aware that…

the Iraqi gov’t DEMANDED and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION allowed SAFE HAVENS in BAGHDAD!!!!!

SO, two of the reasons that we WILL be successful THIS TIME are that…

WE WILL NO LONGER AGREE TO SAFE HAVENS IN BAGHDAD

and

INSTEAD OF CLEARING AREAS AND LEAVING, WE WILL NOW CLEAR AREAS AND S T A Y…

STAY…as in how long exactly…

C’Mon you chickenshiitehawks! Tell me why we would ALLOW SAFE HAVENS and do you think that any of our service men and women died because of this absolute stupidity?!?!?

They are dying so that an Iraqi gov’t that is partnered with Muqtada al Sadr can solidify its power…(do you remember how many of our service men and women were killed by Sadr’s Mahdi Army?)

By Huge

January 11, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Also from the @issue section, there is a funny cartoon from Mike Peters of the Dayton Daily News. It shows a very haggard looking LBJ-like president on TV saying “I’m sending in more troops”. The wife turns to the husband and says “Bush has aged in office”.

Unfortunately for the Country though, and unlike Johnson, Bush will apparently serve two entire terms, giving him even more time to get even more Americans needlessly KIA…

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 11, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

Some Great Babylon-5 TV quotes that seem somewhat appropriate today.

Galin “When the time comes to choose your target be sure to choose the right one because you will only get one shot”

“The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.” G’Kar, Survivors

“Why does any advanced civilization seek to destroy less advanced one? Because the land is strategically valuable, because there are resources that can be cultivated and exploited, but most of all, simply because they can.” G’Kar, And Now For a Word

“I thought the purpose of filing these reports was to provide accurate intelligence.” “Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics.” Vir and Londo, Point of No Return

“And how are things at the royal court?” “You know, collusion, politicking, scheming, innuendo, gossip. The same old thing.” Londo and Vir, Sic Transit Vir

“Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiot would fight a war on twelve fronts.” “We can handle it. Our resources are greater than you think.” “Case in point! Heir to the throne!” Londo and Lord Refa, Ceremonies of Light and Dark

“You can get more with a kind word and a 2 x 4 than you can get with a kind word alone.” (Marcus)

By RobDunwoody

January 11, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

Mike, you hit the nail on the head. This surge has no chance of winning a war we lost about four weeks in.

Despite a lot of evidence to doubt Bush’s ability in 2000, he was chosen as president. Despite a mountain of evidence to rival Mt. Everest in size at how poorly Bush was performing and how incompetently the civilian leadership behaved leading up to and following the Iraq invasion, he was reelected in 2004. I don’t so much blame him as I do all you losers with the W stickers on your vehicles. You are the folks who got us into this mess and kept us there. I don’t know how any of you can sleep at night knowing the harm you have done to America. We will be years, if ever, recovering from this.

By Dr. R

January 11, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

Can’t believe you remember me; I’ve been gone awhile. I’m honored. Frankly we got a little too juvenile in our debates, though we had a few serious thinkers in here.

I no longer see the WWII metaphors working with Iraq (i.e., “would you just let Hitler go free?”) It’s more like sending the cops in to quiet your neighbors’ domestic dispute. You might calm them down for awhile, but as soon as the cops leave the lamps will start flying again. Iraqis are more aligned with their mullahs, their militias and their tribal allegiances than with any sense of national unity. It is a barbaric, primitive land that isn’t ready for democracy, however much we’d like to install it for them. When you remove a brutal dictator from power over a land divided by religious or ethnic splits, the old factions take hold (see Yugoslavia and the Balkans for an example) and what was one country is no longer. Iraq needed another strong hand in the transition to democracy to keep it from breaking apart, but we didn’t see that in time. Now it’s likely too late. We’re not going to avoid a civil war there. We can join it or leave it, but we ain’t gonna stop it.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Huge Gasbag,

Does that report say that Farting livestock caused those icebergs to melt, or could it have had something to do with natural cycles of the the sun, the Earth’s orbit, and other natural occurrences?

That’s the what the argument is about you snivelling moron, nobody is claiming that the climate doesn’t get warmer or…colder…in cycles, and that we have been in a warming cycle.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

First, Kingston b*** about having to work more than a few hours every week and now Gingrey saying that a recent discovery of findings on amniotic stem cells provides 11th-hour evidence that using human embryos for promising stem cell research is unnecessary.

Even though the author of the study has already cautioned Congress that his group’s discovery is NOT intended to replace research on embryonic stem cells!!!

And Gingrey is an obstetrician! But his credentials could be seriously doubted as he is from Cobb County (cheap shot, I know!) and his allegiance to party and neo-con ideology is apparently more important than supporting research to radically improve and save lives.

Will you knuckleheads here in Georgia quit electing such embarrassing representatives?!

By Huge

January 11, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

“Farting livestock”…”the Earth’s orbit”

Like I said before, fools that just keep looking dumber and dumber and dumber and dumber…

And dumber and dumber…OK, you get the idea.

By Paul

January 11, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us at 1:04

Yup - there’s plenty to go around! It’s neither all one or all the other. Same goes for the concept of shared responsibility across administrations.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Huge Embryo,

My guess is that that guy who said the stem cells could be found in amniotic fluid got a Huge Phonecall from people with Huge Wallets and told him to STFU.

The best way to keep abortion unrestricted is to pretend that it has a noble purpose in providing stem cells to cure illnesses.

That’s all folks.

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us, my screen name is not Scooty. I do not take offense to it, as this is a blog. But, it shows a level of smart a$$ I choose not to confer with.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Sorry Scooty Pooty,

Guess that narrows the list of people you will ‘confer’ with substantially? Please don’t give me the opportunity to show your hypocrisy on this issue too!

In the meantime…Lighten up Francis

By rushncap

January 11, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

Muffin, why are you so militantly opposed to the fairly obvious idea that we’re changing this planet? I mean, it’s not in the Bible, so unless it’s blind parroting of Shrubby, I don’t see why you are so insistent on ignoring the obvious.

By Goldie

January 11, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

“Bush tells the truth.”

That’s even funnier than yesterday when Dusty-brain was preaching to us that “Zell was honest”… ROFLMAO!!!

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

Huge Doomsayer,

Farting livestock is not a vast right wing conspiracy theory. It’s what the UN Report says.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

They say its URGENT. Whatcha gonna do about it? Deny it like those flat-Earth types, or stand with science and save the world?

Choose or lose Blowhard.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

“My guess is that that guy who said the stem cells could be found in amniotic fluid…”

My guess is that her guess is yet more evidence of mental retardation.

Speaking of neo-cons falsely accusing others of doing what they in fact do, like trying to squelch opposing voices, this, as it relates to my post on the administration’s much-delayed admission that greenhouse gas emission cuts will reduce global warming:

This is a rare case of science actually triumphing over politics, not the other way around. From burying the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the United States to trying to gag top NASA climate scientist James Hansen, the Bush administration has systematically attempted to suppress science on global warming.

Oh the humanity. Oh the hypocrisy. Oh the stupidity…

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

In response, let’s just say that the preceding post to Huge Doomsayer could be for you too.

BTW,

What was that fantasy you posted last night about Paul ignoring me? Since I didn’t post a single thing to him yesterday, it was not a very “scientific” conclusion on your part, Professor Rushncap.

How can you moonbats expect us to take any of you seriously???

By Paul

January 11, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

Better Check this out at 1:22

“It was sandra day o’connor, numb nuttz”

Aha, so most would think. I was referring to the first decision - denial - Bush vs Palm Beach County. Unsigned - a typical smokescreen to obfuscate one’s true intent. Ginsburg dissented in Bush v Gore - but for the purpose of “legitimately” throwing the election to Bush. Her objections were not so much on Constitutional grounds but were cloaked in reference to deferring to states’ rights - a right-wing, neocon buzz phrase if ever there was one. She had it on good authority (borne out by post-election recounts) that if there were a statewide recount with uniform standards then Bush would win. Not wishing to publicly trumpet her true motive, she, when it became obvious there was already a majority opinion, swung to the dissenters, knowing Bush had already won.

And stop obsessing about my body parts and the state of blood flow and nerve connectivity. It’s rather creepy.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Yet another local buffoon:

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) claims to have been operating a “truth squad” for the past two years in the US House. Apparently is was designed to ensure tht the Dems keep their promises!

Talk about the ultimate definition of the word oxymoron, not to mention unmitigated gall!

This from a neo-con who supports W’s, Rove’s and every other GOP deceit!

It reminds me of Dusty protesting, “Worry about your patriotism, I’ll worry about mine!”

No wonder there are still plenty of hyper-hypocritical idiots still running around!

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

One would think that since you need some idea of what’s going on in the world and the ability to form words and thoughts that the maturity level get below the level of an eight year old. Then LHU comes along with his 2:25 response to Scooter and you realize their is no floor to a liberal’s immaturity.

By the way Bozo, if someone comes here to give and receive information that helps them form their views and add to the views of others, as Scooter always does, then he is conferring.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

“How can you moonbats expect us to take any of you seriously?”

Us?

Is there a mouse in the bigot’s pocket?

Or does she count the multitude of frightening little voices in her head?!

Goldie,

Some of Dusty’s and the bigot’s statements are so utterly bizarre that you just have to shake your head and go WTF?!!

By Huge

January 11, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this

Earlier I noted that that neo-con from Marietta, Phil Gingrey is an obstetrican.

It reminds me of one of the all-time great W malapropisms:

“Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love, with women all across the country.”

And this dork is “leading” us in an invasion. Sigh…

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this

James Hansen muzzled? Do tell.

It’s amazing how well you libs fit into the Joseph Goebbels theory of telling a lie often enough to make it accepted as truth. NASA asked to screen Hansen’s speeches and papers so they would not infer his personal positions were official NASA positions.

By Goldie

January 11, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

Thank God there are a few Senators who are actually “conservative” and know that our occupation of Iraq is a catastrophe:

Hagel told Rice, “Madame secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control.” She disputed that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war. To that, Hagel said, “To sit there and say that, that’s just not true.”

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

{{{By Better Check This Out

January 11, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

“As it was, the Bush administration lost months that are always available to new incoming administrations to prepare, which left them at a serious disadvantage, which certainly did not help our national security.”

Somebody teach it to read a calender (sic)}}}

Somebody teach it to make a point.

Better Check This Out,

What are you trying to say? Please share your “point” with us.

By LuckoDull

January 11, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” disputed Bush’s notion that sufficient troops are in place. “I’m going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq,” the Delaware Democrat said. “There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency.”

Huh.

It’s an idea Biden made clear that he deplores, setting the stage for a bitter political battle between the new Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House over the proposal. “I totally oppose the surging of additional American troops,” he said. “I think is the absolute wrong strategy.”

There we go, that’s the Joe Biden I remember, that first Joe Biden scared me.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

RW-(the moralizer), cry me a river you pitiful hypocrite.

Show me some evidence that backs up your BS…

‘someone comes here to give and receive information that helps them form their views and add to the views of others, as Scooter always does…’

And don’t forget the, oh so important, ‘ALWAYS’ portion of your rant.

And, for crying out loud, would you like someone to point out some of your more ‘mature’ posts. Pot calling kettle…come in kettle…

Man, don’t you bushbots ever get tired of having your butts handed to to?

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

Huge Joke,

What’s it going to be Hugo? Side with “science” or continue to side step the conclusions of the UN Report?

btw, you are using the word “bigot” in response to issues like Global Warming and Embryonic Stem Cell research.

Can you explain for the rest of us how my opinions on these issues reflect “bigotry” on my part?

rushncap,

I neglected to mention that I don’t base my views on Global Warming on The Bible, so you can drop that tired old refrain. Unless you want to keep sounding like a fool, in which case, please carry on!

By regulator

January 11, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

357 billion and growing, enough money for everyboby in the U.S. to have free gas for a year. Lets keep appointing Republicans oops, I mean electing.

By Political Foreskin

January 11, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

Buy, I think I can handle that question. The point he was trying to make was to point out and remind all participants in this blog what an easily manipulated tweedle-dum you truly are.

Man you swing at everything.

Man oh manachewitz

By Huge

January 11, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

“…you realize their is no floor to a liberal’s immaturity.

By the way Bozo,…”

Wow. So few words, so many problems…

By RE

January 11, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Nice job Lucko, pulling out a statement from June 2005.

GWB never believes he is wrong and resists anyone who tells him he is. Iraqi is already lost to a civil war we have no control over. Iran comes out as the biggest winner.

Now the problem is if this fool takes into another war without any strategy or objective to meet, this time in Iran.

War without end, that is the only goal of the administration at this point. Shove the responsibility onto the next president

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

LHU,

The oh so important, to you anyway, “ALWAYS” refers to Scooter. Would you like to point out where and when that was inaccurate?

By w00t

January 11, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

You guys hear that we stormed some Iranian compound in Iraq? Maybe the “I ordered a carrier group to the gulf and an additional 20,000 to Iraq” was really code for, “we’re going to war with Iran”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/11/iraq.main/index.html

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

Andrew, since none of you cajones-challenged obfuscators (that includes you, RW) will answer my questions about..

WHY WE ALLOWED THE IRAQI GOV’T TO ESTABLISH SAFE HAVENS IN BAGHDAD?

And

WHY ARE OUR SOLDIERS DYING TO HELP SOLIDIFY A GOV’T PARTNERED WITH MOQTADA AL SADR?

I guess I’ll have to conclude that you are as impotent as I always suspected…

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

RE,

You’ve outdone yourself this time. Now you’re saying that a statement made in 2005 doesn’t count!

Using moonbat logic, I guess that means that anything Bush said then or prior to June 2005 can be erased from history too.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

Geez RW,

Is this an example of, ‘someone (who) comes here to give and receive information that helps them form their views and add to the views of others, as Scooter always does…’

Clean up! Aisle 4!!!

By Huge

January 11, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

Will all of those who make America the “Paper Tiger” and embolden our enemies please show themselves again today, thanks.

Which is why I like having Bush as our leader, when he says he is going to win in Iraq, he actually means it.

What’s a soldier’s life if his death gives them a chance to take a slap at the President.

The ACLU should be swooping down on your butt, what with all the crosses and all!

We owe it to the brave Americans who have already sacrificed their life to give it one final major push

Look up the quotes from liberals about the tens of thousands of bodies that would be coming back in bags

AND YOU SEND THEM TO THEIR DEATH, WITH YOUR EVERY LYING BREATH

LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By disgusted

January 11, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish - of course anything can be erased from Bush’s history. Just look at his military service record. Ooops it must have been erased.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this

LHU,

I would say that definitely is a shining example of someone coming here giving information and commenting on what information they have received form here.

It even includes a link to last night’s speech which you very obviously ought to read so that you will realize the President said that what you keep squawking about was a mistake.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

If a Democratic president and Congress had done the same things that this administration has done in the past four years - cook the books to start an invasion and then totally botch it - I would be clamoring for their heads.

JUST LIKE YOU NEO-CONS WOULD!

Your gutless hypocrisy makes me sick.

I am more determined than ever to see the demise of your immorality.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

Wow.

Huge is falling off the deep end of the flat Earth. Someone grab him and give him a chill-pill quick!

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this

OOPS! “FROM” here.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

LHU,

I’m looking in vain for what requires a “clean up in Aisle 4”.

Is it the “meowwwwww!” in Scooter’s post that you’re referring to?

Allergic to cats?

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator), you never disappoint you mangy little trained monkey…

According to your revised (obfuscated) version of what you wrote (as opposed to what you actually wrote), then, congratulations, Scooty-Pooty is no different than almost everyone else on this blog.

I am starting to understand the depths of self deceipt required to be a ‘good’ Bushbot…sad…

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I was just going to mention that. If there’s a bridge jumper out there named Huge somebody tell him rushncap is wrong and gravity really does exist.

Huge screaming bridge jumper,

Let go of the keyboard and jump already, it’s nearly rush hour.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

BD,

Thanks for the faux concern, but no chill-pill is going to work.

STOP THE WAR!

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

LHU,

I try to use a variety of methods of communicating with you in the hopes that one day something will pierce through that concrete slab of a skull you sport. Scooter’s post today, as they always do, fits either description I’ve used so far.

Your inability to discern that two different sentences may well say essentially the same thing is a testament to your ignorance. If I wanted to sound like a liberal parrot, like you, I would just shout exactly the same thing over and over, moron.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

Huge Hysteric,

Please advise where Bush “botched the invasion”.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this

All of this childish bantering back and forth for months with these craven chickenhawks, and now this idiotic plan to send even more men to get killed is enough.

I’m done mincing words with you keyboard cowards.

Let me repeat: Your gutless hypocrisy makes me sick.

STOP THE WAR!

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

I hope I’m wrong, but maybe Huge is being jacked. Somebody find OV’s hands.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Please advise where Bush “botched the invasion”.

Go F yourself.

RW,

See above.

STOP THE WAR!

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Huge Tantrum,

If a crime-ridden city increases the size of its police force, does that put the policemen in more or less danger?

By rushncap

January 11, 2007 04:36 PM | Link to this

Muffin, OK, well good. In your 2:46 you agree that humans are indeed at least in part responsible for global warming. That’s a first step. Maybe we can work through your other issues in time.

Re: Paul. You did post to him, telling him to ignore me. He failed to do so. Getting senile much?

By Huge Is Gone?

January 11, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

Really?

Na, na, na,

Na, na, na,

Hey hey heyyy,

goodbye!

Na, na, na,

Na, na, na,

Hey hey heyyy,

goodbye!

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

Sure RW-(the obfuscator),

Scooty’s 8:08 was obviously an exercise in ‘coming here to give and receive information to help him form his views.’

It was OBVIOUSLY NOT someone that already had formed their view on the subject matter.

As I said, the self deceipt necessary to be a good little Bushbot is saddening…

By RE

January 11, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

You hateful little dunce, BD I hope you get to look at the faces of some of the kids heading out to Iraq some time. It kills me when I see them in the airport at Hartsfield shipping off or coming back. Kids with pimples on thier faces who look like they should be going to the prom more than to war. These are the people you are sending off to get killed and maimed.

FOR WHAT?

Not freedom, not liberty. None of those idealistic notions. For one man’s ego. So he can shove responsibility off on the next president. They are not going off to Iraq to defend the US, Iraq is half a world away. Wake up, quit your nasty mindless spewing and realize what reality is.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that President Bush really touched a nerve with you fever swamp dwelling liberals last night. Are you scared it might be a success? That would be your worst nightmare, wouldn’t it?

You guys control the purse strings so instead of acting like the hysterical whiners you are and yelling at us, go yell at your Congress people.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

Rushcnap baby,

I didn’t expect a response from that post. It was just something I mentioned in passing and forgot all about it until I looked for it just now. Stuck in your craw though!

{{By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Don’t depress rushncap. He only wants to hear bad news from Iraq.}}

You poor boy - You think that^^was me telling Paul to “ignore” you.

And you’re so HAPPY that he didn’t. You have a friend!!! And you are guarding him jealously.

RE,

What’s the cause for YOUR latest tirade? You and your friends are really losing it.

I asked you how you could claim that something that Biden said in 2005 didn’t matter, and you respond with an account of the soldiers at Hartsfield Airport.

By Abe

January 11, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

My, my. The neocon insects are busy here today. The rancid masses speak.

By RE

January 11, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

Two terms rarely seen in the same paragraph, President Bush and success

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

RW-(the dipwad),

He definitely touched a nerve with me when he revealed that the Iraq gov’t demanded and we allowed safe havens in Baghdad that obviously affected our efforts (and probably cost the lives of some of our soldiers).

I am wondering if this bothered you?? Or does it bother you that American lives are being lost so that we can help a gov’t partnered with Moqtada al Sadr solidify its power.

Nah, that probably doesn’t bother a complete sh!thead like you…

By LuckoDull

January 11, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this

Your (Jimmy Carter) use of the word “Apartheid,” regardless of your disclaimers, has already energized white supremacist groups who thrive on asserting Jewish control of government and foreign policy, an insinuation you made in your OPED to the LA Times on December 8, 2006: “For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts.” According to Web site monitoring by the Anti-Defamation League, U.S. white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced your suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as and the inherently “evil” nature of Jews. If you doubt the support you are giving and receiving, please refer to [this link.] From there you can get to the postings of four different White Supremacist organizations that both support and make use of the contents of your book and what you have said in public.

Reckon we’ll ever get a big eared, naked Jimmy Carter cartoon?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RE

January 11, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this

I am about sick of hearing from you BD. There are others like you, but few as ignorant. You talk about high ideals like patriotism and sacrifice but would never do anything yourself. I am trying to get you to realize your hateful stubborn ignorance has consequences. Of course not to you or anyone you know, you will be safe at your keyboard ready to complain about whatever trivial matter crosses that atrophied mind of yours.

What have you sacrificed. You are the perfect Bush supporter, just like him. Dodge responsibility, hide behind the flag and scream when the bill comes.

Pathetic wretch

By LuckoDull

January 11, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this

By RE January 11, 2007 04:45 PM They are not going off to Iraq to defend the US, Iraq is half a world away.

RE: The same could be said of Europe in the early forties except that Roosevelt sent 280,000 pimple faced kids to die freeing those people from tyranny, not 3,000.

Bush is the freaking Man!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By @@

January 11, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

OMG, what’s going on over here.

LHU? RE? HUGE?

Lord Help Us:

I’ve known Scooter for some 20 years. I’ve seen him have only civil conversations here with AntiR, Rushncap, Huge, N-GA, RE, maybe quite a few others.

His degree is in environmental economics. He’s an agnostic, and the closest thing to a liberal you may ever see from our side.

He not only supports, but encourages diversity. Has no use for legislating morality.

Has very little use for government intervention on the part of Democrats or Republicans. He supports environmental concerns, but doesn’t support government intervention. He feels that it is best left to private business.

The last time I spoke to him on the phone, he expressed his frustration with trying to come here for any kind of decent debate.

I can certainly see why now.

Some of you guys are off target today. More so than usual.

By Huge

January 11, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

By Huge Is Gone?

January 11, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

Really?

andy,

You moronic piece of neo-con trash. Are you so utterly craven now that you still hide behind a bevy of aliases and won’t even use your “new” dull name?

You’ll be rotting in hades with a picture of your blessed savior held against your chest before I stop exposing you and your ilk as the misguided, contemptible faketriot cowards that you are.

STOP THE WAR!

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 05:28 PM | Link to this

That’s right Andrew…Bush is the MAN making sure that an Iraqi gov’t partnered with Moqtada al Sadr solidifies its power.

Aren’t you proud that this is what our soldiers are dying for?

And aren’t you proud we allowed the Iraq gov’t to set up SAFE HAVENS in Baghdad so our troops efforts would be marginalized?

By N-GA

January 11, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

The most esteemed President Jimmy Carter has a complete grasp of the facts in Israel.

Most of you don’t know there is a large movement in Israel to seek genuine co-existence with the Palestinian people. However, they are routinely muzzled by the Israeli government. Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza strip.

Despite repeated demands by the United Nations, Israel refuses to return these lands. Instead over 2 million Palestinians live in refugee camps, most were born in those camps.

Israel has recently returned most of the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile these 2+ million displaced Palestinians do not have the right to vote…they have no representation whatsoever (citizens withing the Gaza Strip were allowed to vote last year).

The pressure on Israel prior to the 1967 War was from the surrounding Arab states, not from the Palestinians. Yet it is the Palestinians who continue to suffer.

The United States has vetoed virtually every UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for ANYTHING.

The Palestinians (and now the rest of the Arab and Muslim world) believe the United States Government treats them differently than the Israelis…and they are correct…and so is Jimmy Carter.

There will never be peace in the Middle East until the Palestinian issue is resolved…and no administration (Democrat or Republican) has done what it takes to address the problem because the Jewish lobby is too strong. Denying that fact is like denying the Holocaust.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 05:30 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Anybody that’s been following the war already knew there were areas of Baghdad that were off limits. They have pledged to change that and disarm the militias like the Mahdi Army.

If they had gone door to door mosque to mosque kicking a-ss a long time ago things would be much better, but f’ups like you would be demanding that every soldier in our military be brought up on murder charges. It’s you leftists and your politically correct way of fighting a war with a lawyer in every soldiers backpack that gets our troops killed.

Save your ignorant whining for the idiot leftists you hang out with. You would complain about any policy and any development. You don’t give a damn about anything but your political party so save your sanctimony you sniveling hypocrite.

By RE

January 11, 2007 05:32 PM | Link to this

If you feel that way then sign up to serve in his army you freak.

Oh yeah, we were actually attcked by Japan in that war, shortly afterward Germany declared war on us. Germany attacked our shipping in the atlantic as well

WWII was the last time we fought to defend the US. After that we have had 2 types of wars, ones where we go in to defeat an invading force (Gulf War, Grenada) and ones where we get caught in the middle of a civil war (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq today). How is our track record in the latter type of war?

You do not send an army to promote an ideaology, it does not work and I have no idea why this is forgotten so often

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

‘It’s you leftists and your politically correct way of fighting a war with a lawyer in every soldiers backpack that gets our troops killed.’

Care to provide any evidence to back that up?

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 05:44 PM | Link to this

LHU,

There isn’t LITERALLY a lawyer in each backpack. Better?

I’ll try to get back before 7:00 to see what other nugget of brilliance you can muster.

By LuckoDull

January 11, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

By RE January 11, 2007 05:32 PM Germany attacked our shipping in the atlantic as well

Shipping that was supplying armaments to Great Britian which were used against Germany. This was not an attack on the homeland by any measure.

Iraq attacked a former US president and you libs scoff about it and probably lament the fact that he missed, whining little hypocrite.

shortly afterward Germany declared war on us.

When Saddam Hussein was chanting “death to America” and launching missiles at our planes enforcing the Kurdish protection zone, WTF do you call that? A “declaration of peace?”

Wanker.

Roosevelt and you slobbering political dullards sat on your hands while Germany plundered Europe and Japan raped the Far East. 50,000,000 people died because of it.

If Bush whacks one mass murdering dictator by accident, a dictator that was attempting to procure nuclear weapons, a dictator that ADMITTED slaughtering his own people, HOW IN THE H-ELL CAN IT SADDEN YOU?

Are you some kind of carnival sideshow?

Ten times more soldiers were killed defending Europe BY ACCIDENT then have been killed in all of the war on terror.

P** off.

By Midori

January 11, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this

{{{Is Midori gonna come in and tell you how much you “rawk”?))))

didn’t think I needed your permission to do that, o’ retarded one, however N-GA does indeed, “rawk”.

He certainly called your on your stupidity and put your dumb rear in check.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you did that name-jacking: that’s all your side knows when backed into a corner by the truth.

Great toon, Mike. Most excellent.

Bush looked like he crapped his pants last night. He KNOWS the jig is up. Perhaps he should pass the word on to his gaggle here AKA the 12 percenters.

I’ll bet @@ is their mascot.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 05:54 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

One of your best (translated: most spineless) obfuscations yet. Congratulations!

Looks like another mess…Clean up! Aisle 5!!

By RE

January 11, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

So you are not going to sign up to serve in Iraq then? Just sit back and call names?

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

RE,

You know, recently I was in a global warming discussion with wOOt and you showed up with your usual petulant demands for information from me, which were quite frankly off-topic and tedious. I tried to accommodate you, when it would have been easier and wiser just to ignore you.

Now you and Huge are having tantrums and screaming at RW, myself, and others and blaming us for all that ails the world.

The difference between me and you is that I realize that the world is a very dangerous place and there are very evil people out there who wish to do us and others harm. I am willing to identify who these evil people are, where they reside, and what their intentions are.

I realize how important it is that we unify as a nation and confront these evils which threaten us here at home, and threaten Western Civilization as we know it. Apparently you are not willing to take those steps.

Our President is doing what he can, with noble intentions, to secure our safety and confront the perils that face us. All you useless whiners can do is hide your heads in the sand, deny that evil exists, call someone a bigot for using words like “Islamofascism” , and paint Bush and conservatives in general as the real face of evil.

I find no joy in the fact that we are at war, and I am in awe of the sacrifices that our military makes. I try to live my days with as much humor as possible despite the very real dangers we face, which as the mother of a young boy, concern me greatly as it is his future that is at stake, and he may be called upon at some point in time to defend this country.

I just pray that if that day comes, we will be unified as a nation, instead of having one side work to defeat our efforts here at home, which weakens us as a nation and puts our military men and women at greater risk.

If I were the parent of someone who was currently fighting in Iraq, I’d be very frightened by the fact that people like you are trying to break our will and end up encouraging the enemy to fight harder and longer. It is their will that we need to break, not the will of the American people.

Try channeling your rage and fury where it belongs. There are plenty of targets that need to be destroyed. I’m not one of them.

By Political Stiltskin

January 11, 2007 06:07 PM | Link to this

Rw: take a break.

By Paul

January 11, 2007 06:11 PM | Link to this

@@ -

The next time you speak with Scooter (if he is no longer perusing these comments), pls have him hang in. Some of us enjoy his viewpoints. I’m especially interested in hearing his views on other topics, given his background. It is possible to have a bit of fun here!

By LuckoDull

January 11, 2007 06:20 PM | Link to this

RE, Dullard: I stood on the line for America and that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I risked my life for a country where ALL 300,000,000 citizens have an equal say in how we should defend ourselves.

You may be far too stupid to understand this but here it goes: All of our lives are on the line.

I know what kind of country you libs are “fighting” for, siding up every day with Al Qaeda, a country where only YOU have a say.

P-iss on that.

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 06:22 PM | Link to this

I will provide an example for RW.

War Crime Caught On Tape: An NBC cameraman caught on tape video of a US Marine executing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah. We speak with Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

In case you didn’t hear it on NPR, the objective source of information (sarc). I sat hear while the hooplah was going on about this and thought, darn those soldiers are in a land where people blow themselves up to kill Americans and the “media” is crucifying this poor Marine.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 06:22 PM | Link to this

RW,

Thank you for this message to LHU.

You are 100% right.

RE,

How old are you, a*******hat? Still of age to serve? Do you realize that not everyone who posts here is eligible to enlist in the military? Do you realize what an idiot you sound like with your “chickenhawk” squawks directed at people you know nothing about?

FACTS! Here are the maxiumum ages for people with non-prior military service.

Wake up. Grow up. Shut up.

Hey - That kinda sounds like a Bob Marley song! Put a little reggae beat to that.

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 06:27 PM | Link to this

Thanks Paul. I peruse the blog nearly everyday, But…

By RE

January 11, 2007 06:29 PM | Link to this

BD

There is no military solution to Iraq

Every person we send there has the sole purpose of delaying a civil war. The only way around this is to have an extended occupation, on the scale of 10-20 years.

I cannot stand the plattitudes and bumper sticker slogans that pass as arguement for bush supporters.

The US will not win in Iraq because of a lack of national will, a lack of supply, media coverage or any other excuse you may like to believe. The US will lose in Iraq because there is no action it can take to achive the victory conditions set forth. How many tanks, airstrikes, artillery support is required to bring together two secatrian factions who have been feuding for 1200 years.

A civil war in Iraq will NOT endanger the US. Iran will become a more powerful nation because of our actions in the region, and the lack of diplomatic effort from the administration has made Iran more anti-american than before. Remember that Iran did help the US in the invasion of afghanistan when we were going after the taliban and Al Queda.

This war cannot be won because it never had a winnable goal. I cannot understand how you can continue to support failure at the expense of real american lives.

By @@

January 11, 2007 06:34 PM | Link to this

Midori:

Did N-GA give you a wink with those “crusty eye boogers” obscuring his vision. You most certainly don’t need my permission. I can’t see anywhere in my post that I indicated you do.

I could have made a comment like:

“ml: Where is that cemetery? Can you tell me how many acres it encompasses? I need to do some mathematical calculations here.”

“N-GA will be giving math lessons and I really would like to impress him with my skills.”

“Oh, BTW, your cartoon sucks ml.”

Better?

Do I “rawk” too Midori?

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

BD, you’re as dumb as RW and Andrew…

Yes, we allowed the Iraqi gov’t to establish safe havens.

The QUESTION is WHY???

It is logical that some of our soldiers died because of this stupidity. Don’t you think that in terms of counter insurgency tactics this was about as dumb as it gets?

RW blamed it all on liberals (of course), but I don’t recall any liberals saying it was okay to have safe havens in Baghdad, do you?)

The other question is WHY are our soliders dying to help solidify a gov’t aligned with Moqtada al Sadr?

Again, RW seems to think that liberals are calling for this al Sadr alignment, but as usual, cannot find any evidence.

Why don’t YOU answer?

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

@@,

You RAWK!

Buy Danish,

Great message to REbot @ 6:01, too bad it went right over his head.

RE,

Why do you support the Democrats that voted for this war if you’ve known all along that there was never any possible means of victory there? It seems to me if you had any intellectual honesty you would want them out too. I’m pretty sure President Bush didn’t use the Haitian man from Heroes to wipe out their memories of this 1200 year old and still ongoing war you’re telling us about, so that excuse is off the table.

LHU,

At least you agree you’re a sniveling hypocrite, I guess that’s good enough for one day.

By Scooter

January 11, 2007 06:50 PM | Link to this

Before the blog shuts down would someone provide a link to these safe havens demanded by Iraq and agreed to by us. I have been wondering what LHU has been typing about, maybe it is true, but I need more evidence than LHU said so.

By RE

January 11, 2007 06:51 PM | Link to this

I would not support anyone who is in favor of continuing this occupation, nor would I support anyone who voted for it in the begining. The problem now is that Bush is still in office making horrible decisions.

Just a little question, seeing that you do support this policy, when do you see a victory date in Iraq.

Please no trite little references to our troops still being in S Korea or Germany. They do not get killed in those places.

By Raymond

January 11, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

The gutless checkenhawks are especially active here today. Their Exalted Cyclops made a humiliating fool of himself in his little speech last nite and their answer is as always - blind anger and goose-stepping conformity to their politics of hate and ignorance. They live in a constant, losing rage within themselves. (See RW,BD, Scootie, Dustbrain,@@, et al.)

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Google the Mahdi Army, moron.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

RE,

Iraq is not in a Civil War. It’s more like the Crips and the Bloods fighting it out in Compton (but in this case it’s Bagdhad) with people coming from other locations to join the fight.

Kosovo was a Civil War and I don’t hear anyone complaining when we got involved there. Dittoes for Darfur, where many of you want us to intercede.

Your side was bit*ching the day we invaded Iraq, before there was the sectarian violence that we see now. What was your excuse then?

The fact is that when Iraq was a Constitutional Monarchy before Saddam Hussein took power the Shiites and Sunnis were not running around killing each other so your defeatist “1500 years blah blah blah argument” doesn’t exactly hold up to scrutiny.

This current conflict really began with the Samara Mosque, and is worsened because Iran is sending a proxy army over to fight with that disgusting POS Al Sadr, who admittedly we should have wacked a long time ago.

Iran will not end up being more powerful in the end, because we are now free to deal with the Mahdi Army MoFos. They are no match for the U.S. military.

We have no choice but to meet our objectives in Iraq. With this new strategy, and the new terms of engagement, we can finalize the mission.

By Lord Help Us

January 11, 2007 06:57 PM | Link to this

The RW-(the obfuscator) modus operandi:

If things aren’t going your way, just make sh!t up.

By @@

January 11, 2007 06:57 PM | Link to this

Alright RW, I’m going to give you something that I’ve only given one other person, Getalife.

HA HA HA HA! I don’t need to “RAWK”, but it”s funny when you do it.

Buy Danish:

That really was a very heartfelt and moving response at 6:01.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Is this the real reason why you’re so irrational and angry today?

{{We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours.}}

G.W.B. January 10, 2006

Scooter,

Thanks for the sanity and the links to reality.

By RE

January 11, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

BD so you think we will win.

When?

1 year?

5 years?

Anyone, and why isn’t anyone talking about this

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 07:08 PM | Link to this

Of course!!!

Now RE admits he was against it the whole time, and is calling it an “occupation”. He must be a Dennis Kuchinic type of Lefty loser.

And like the jaw-droppingly stupid useful idiot that he is, he doesn’t know about about all the men who died in Korea and Europe during the war that preceded our military presence there.

Amazing and frightening ignorance.

Raymond,

Rage? Wouldn’t that be what HUGE SHOUTER and RE and other’s (not me) are afflicted with?

P.S. Say hi to Bill, Abe, Bob and the boyz that all live in your skull.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 07:12 PM | Link to this

{{Please no trite little references to our troops still being in S Korea or Germany. They do not get killed in those places.}}

^^^^^The stupidest words that anyone on this blog has ever spoken.

The alltime dunce award goes to REbot who has never heard of the Korean War and WWII but thinks he’s qualified to squawk about Iraq.

Try knitting RE.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 07:12 PM | Link to this

LHU,

I support the new strategy in Iraq so I would say things are going my just fine, thank you very much. Have you figured out the Mahdi Army is al Sadr’s gang yet, dumbass?

Scooter,

I second (or third or fourth) the pleas that you continue to post. It’s gotten to a point where I sometimes get caught up in the game of whacking moonbats and it’s nice when you offer information that puts me back on track to take a serious look at things.

The rabid squawking of LHU is a little overstated. There were areas that we weren’t allowed to go because of our very own rules of engagement. We wanted to put an Iraqi face on most of the Baghdad patrols and there were areas they wouldn’t go. It was a foolish agreement to let Malaki not deal with Sadr, but that is supposed to be over. With the troop level force that we’ll have if we really get the numbers of Iraqi forces that we’re supposed to we should be able to clear and hold, which we never could before. That’s another reason we didn’t go after certain areas as there was no way to hold them.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

RE,

Iraq is only a battle, the war will be won years from now or lost when you surrender.

By CDR G. E. Brown, Jr., USCG (Ret)

January 15, 2007 09:48 AM | Link to this

Your cartoon was cruel to the parents, siblings and children of those who have been lost in this or any war. We have lost 4,000 in Iraq - what about the 1,300,000 babies killed in America by abortion as a way of recreational birth control - those babies did not volunteer and get paid for serving, they got no judicial review, they got no justice. I understand you might be against the war in Iraq; but you at least ought to give credence to those who have paid the price for your fat rear-end approach to life. I do not understand why any newspaper would continue to give you space and let alone give you recompense for your inconsiderate, ill-timed and life demeaning cartoons. I am 73 years old and would like the opportunity to box your pubescent ears! Like your father should have done.