Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 08:07 AM | Link to this

Only a pinko would care more about their “legacy” then doing what’s right; that’s why this cartoon doesn’t even apply to George Bush.

And only a pinko would see being given an award by a biased, partisan panel of liberal hacks as being a “vindication” of anything.

Kinda like getting a pulitzer prize.

It don’t mean squat.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Peter

February 14, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

I enjoyed the recent Chicks concert here in Atlanta. They won’t let me into Duh-bya’s venues.

By Scooter

February 14, 2007 08:13 AM | Link to this

Is vindication when a bunch of like minded people in your industry get together and give you an award? Or, is that how the axons fire in a cartoonist’s head? Oh yeah, Pulitzers.

That is about as valid as using polls of people informed by the “media” to reinforce the position the “media” has been promoting.

ALLAH ACHBAR! click, bang!

By Eric

February 14, 2007 08:15 AM | Link to this

The correct word is than, not then, you moron.

By gttim

February 14, 2007 08:16 AM | Link to this

The Dixie Chicks rule!

Let the 30% dead enders begin with the hate fest in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1……

By @@

February 14, 2007 08:18 AM | Link to this

ml and his “peeps”. The spongy marshmallow treats.

Good likeness of Rove.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 08:25 AM | Link to this

LD,

John McCain is definitely not on my list of terrific 2008 candidates, and I’d be curious who is supporting him, because I don’t know a soul who is. I can’t find it on line, but apparently he has co-authored a WSJ op-ed with Joe Lieberman claiming that the global warming debate is over.

The debate is over? What arrogance. There are scientists who would disagree with that Gore-esque statement.

Who are you going to believe? McCain/Lieberman or men like this:

Henrik Svensmark is Director of Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre. Nigel Calder has spent a lifetime spotting and explaining the big discoveries in all branches of science. He served his apprenticeship as a science writer on the original staff of the magazine New Scientist, andbecame its editor, 1962-66. Since then he has worked as an independent author and TV scriptwriter. He won the UNESCO Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science for his work for the BBC in a long succession of `science specials’, with accompanying books. His most recent book is Magic Universe (OUP, 2003), a comprehensive guide to modern science, which was shortlisted for the Aventis Prize for Science Books.

By Dan Fielding

February 14, 2007 08:27 AM | Link to this

Those are some mighty sour grapes, spitting on every national and international award that doesn’t favor the Bushdrones….

But I guess they’re ALL anti-American, irrational Bush-haters, huh? And besides, who wants THEIR awards? We’ll just create our own awards ceremonies and they’ll be just as good! Yeah, that’ll show ‘em…

I can’t wait to hear about the neocons’ new clubhouse with No Gurlz Aloud.

By Mike

February 14, 2007 08:28 AM | Link to this

Whooppee the Dixie Chicks are rewarded by the Bush-hating music industry. Wow, that’s some vindication.

The truth is that the Dixie Chicks are despised by their core country audience, they have cancellled many shows over the past year, and have been outsold by country acts that aren’t rude and ignorant. A token Grammy that is a reward from wacko libs for sharing their narrow and hateful views is no vindication.

By Mike

February 14, 2007 08:31 AM | Link to this

I guess if Bush got an award from a bunch of fundamentalist Christians, he would be “vindicated” too.

See how easy it is to be “vindicated”? Just get an award from a bunch highly partisan people who share your views. So simple.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 08:31 AM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this

Mike you don’t get it. The Chicks were not vilified because they spoke out. They were vilified because they did it overseas and then when they got upset that people were upset with them, they sounded like the ignorant twits they are. Freedom of speech works both ways. No one censored them. They cannot figure it out until this day!

By SW

February 14, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this

Cute toon but why do I feel as if all you cartoons are like summer reruns, been there before. Don’t lose focus of an excellent slow moving target you should have in your scope by now, one Mr. Obama. Why is the press so afraid to touch Mr. Obama who glides about as if he is sprayed with teflon? Alas, that will end soon when the heavy artillery of Ms. Clinton comes out full force, he’ll be blown away….scattered all about in the wind. He can stand in front of his hand picked Oprah audience basking in the sunshine of an early honeymoon, Hollywood dollars abound, all the while sitting and waiting for the H(illary)bomb to reign down any day now.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 08:36 AM | Link to this

By Eric February 14, 2007 08:15 AM The correct word is than, not then, you moron.

Up yours, “Teach:”

then –adverb 8. since that is so; as it appears; therefore: You have, then, found the mistake? You are leaving tonight then.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

If the intel is correct about Sadr cutting and running to Iran, then the Iraq War is over. All that’s left is the mopping up. Sadr doesn’t trust his own constituency? He doesn’t think he can defend his own turf? It means that the Iraqi Parliament has finally found common ground between the diverse sectarian theo-politics and it’s “hey, gang, lets put on a country!” from here on out.

If the intel is correct, this is the turning point, and W’s incredible gamble has paid off, and he will go down as one of this country’s greatest prez’s if the criteria is securing freedom for the future of all mankind like what lincoln and washington done did, no lie, fact jack, and put your hands together for W in the house, show the love, Remember that Lincoln was equally awkward in person as our dear W is, but what a man he turned out to be, and When I think of the team of Laura and George Bush, I’m getting real patriotic goose bumps, and I think the world has turned a corner, we may be finally awakening from the very disappointing final episode of Seinfeld which sent us all into a funk, and when Kramer turned out to be a scalawag, we all had to rethink our position about Bush, because Bush is a creature of television too. The media. It makes us crazy. We were wrong about W. He’s a great president……IF the intel about Sadr fleeing to Iran is correct.

If.

Oh, what a small word is IF, but if true, then a small word can make a big diff, if.

If.

If only.

As if.

Make a diff. with if.

By Sarah

February 14, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

A Grammy…yawn? Big deal, thirteen million more people watched the brain dead Amercian Idol than they did the Grammy Awards, that tells you what an influence a Grammy has today. It’s all about record sales and concert revenue which are both down drastically for the Chicks. And she still looked fat.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 08:40 AM | Link to this

Dan Fielding,

The people who vote for the Grammys are all music industry insiders. This has nothing to do with what the peeps think of the Chicks.

As for the Pulitzers, between Mike “Pot to Kettle” Lucovich and Walter Duranty, it’s a pretty sorry bunch, but you go right ahead and stand with the Stalin apologists.

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 14, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

-=-

Mike

Dixie chicks were outsold? Duh!

And that would be because radio stations “CENSORED” them, and they were not getting the same airplay as the other major acts.

But they obviously did extremly well in sales without airplay, far better I think than anyone else did that didn’t get much airplay.

As they Say Mike: “Here’s your sign!”

-=-

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

I hereby award Danish with the “Outstanding Pinko Ridiculer” award and with that she has been vindicated from all the slander that you libs have ever accused her of.

So sayeth Me.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 08:50 AM | Link to this

Of course a report like Sadr fleeing to Iran would demoralize the Shia resistance, and may force Sadr out into the open to show that he didn’t flee, but rather has fleas, like Mitch Miller in the fifties, and when Sadr does come out to show his shadow, we gonna have one hell of a ground hog day. Sadr does look a little like a woodchuck, now that I think of it.

If this intel is correct, then I am declaring the IRaq war over and won by the USA. Some sort of deal was finally struck in the Iraqi parliament. It took a village though, and I’m sure Saudi threats of intervention helped. Not to mention all that cool cash.

“Cool Cash?”

I told you not to mention that.

By ROTFL

February 14, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

Funny how all the liberal “pink necks” come out of the closet when the dixie chicks are mentioned.

ROTFL!

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

{{Why is the press so afraid to touch Mr. Obama who glides about as if he is sprayed with teflon? Alas, that will end soon when the heavy artillery of Ms. Clinton comes out full force, he’ll be blown away….}}

Wow, SW— sounds like you’ve been losing sleep over Senator Obama’s momentum… take a chill-pill! We’ve got a long way to go before the first primary vote in ‘08 — anything can happen at this point, and it may not be Hillary who comes out ahead!

By Mike

February 14, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

The Peoples for a Nuked’ Amerika’ Century~! -

You have no idea what censorship is. Stop wasting yur time finding new ways to hate “Amerika” and educate yourself.

The ignorance of the liberals on this board is heartining. If I actually agreed with such ininformed and silly people, I would be have cause for concern.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this

If the Dixie Chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

{{So sayeth Me.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.}}

You are absolutely correct, Andy-Dull — you bring ZZZZZZZ’s to the blog here everyday!

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

Someone please explain to me why it matters where the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed of W. That’s right. They said they were embarrassed. Gee how harsh.

So what? It was in England. It’s not like it was said at a command performance for Saddam.

Their British audience agreed with them just like the majority of Americans.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

Looks like the pinkos aren’t the only ones cutting and running:

Washington —- Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and President Bush’s announced influx of 21,500 U.S. troops, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.-Urinal

Or is Sadr just another pinko?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Y’all still don’t get it. Privately owned radio stations refused to play the Chicks’ music. No government body in the United States censored them. There is a bid difference between public and private censorship. We as individuals practice it all of the time. Please try to understand this. You have a right to censor as much as you have a right to listen. You just cannot tread on the rights of others to do the same.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

I remember when Buckley was a authority amongst you pinkos, all because he wet his pants about Iraq:

Bill Clinton is perhaps the most effective politician in the history of the United States, but he is certainly the most reprehensible. He swore untruths, deceived Congress, the courts, the public, and however many ladies he left unattended. His contributions to statecraft are unrecorded because there weren’t any. The economy rose and fell and rose, as did threats of foreign disruptions. No detoxified area of the world owes its survival to an initiative of Bill Clinton, who presided over a foreign policy that permitted Osama bin Laden to gather strength undisturbed by any interference from the U.S. Marines or the Red Cross.

So what do we think of him today?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

Some great comments today from some newcomers like SW, Sarah, mike and others. Welcome! What a refreshing change from the “Bush Sucks!” parrot squawk.

LD,

Thanks for the award - I am honored and will treasure it always!

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

I smell convenient misinformation campaign. Here’s how the US hopes it plays out:

US claims to have intelligence, that they don’t show anyone, supposedly “proving” that al-Sadr is in Iran.

This makes al-Sadr look like a wimp, I mean, the guy fled in fear from us.

This also makes Iran look like they’re harboring terrorists or insurgents or whatever the word du jour is for “bad guys,” and that helps bolster Bush’s case for war against Iran (I mean, they’re helping the enemy!). So it’s a win-win for us.

In order to prove he’s not a wimp, al-Sadr is forced to stick his head up and say “I didn’t run” - then we get a clue as to where he really is, and maybe our forces can catch him. And if al-Sadr doesn’t stick his head up, we still get to tag him with the “wimp” label.

In order to not give the US more cause to attack Iran, Iran is spurred to help us find al-Sadr in Iraq, to prove that he’s not in Iran, or Iran is spurred to turn him over to us, if he really is in Iran. And if Iran doesn’t help prove that al-Sadr is not in Iran, we still get to claim Iran is helping the bad guys and it buildds Bush’s case for war with Iran.

Perhaps al-Sadr really is in Iran, and perhaps the Bush administration is telling us the truth. But considering that Bush and the Pentagon anonymous briefers have yet to tell us the truth about much of anything to do with Iraq or Iran, I’m going to wager that we’re being lied to, yet again.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 14, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

I think Mike’s cartoon is actually a dream sequence…..

History will not vindicate Mr. Bush.

History will eviscerate Mr. Bush.

By Jesus

February 14, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:12 AM | Link to this

When the Deeksy Cheeks say bad thing ‘bout Bush, they were wearing diapers!

You see, zee Deeksy Cheeks were squeeky clean till dey zay mean things ‘bout Bush!

Eats not nice to zay meen theengs ‘bout Bush!

Bad Deeksy Cheeks.

BAD!

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this

I must be the most influential writer since Hemmingway.

Man what a rush.

Everyone. Everyone? EVERYONE!

By The Peoples for a Nuked' Amerika' Century~!

February 14, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

-=-

Mike, I am sorry, but I have always been a strong advocate of “Diversity in Media”.

The passage of the “1996 Telecommunications Act” did great harm to “Diversity”, and “Local Content”.

The passage of that one “Act” allowed monopolies of stations and subsequently “station content” in most major American cities.

In recent Radio Broadcast content, there has has been a clear indication of content censorship between two primary culprits, Clear Channel, and Cumulus Broadcasting. They have both used their upper corporate power to control what is aired in all controlled local markets. Program Directors (if there is even one at their local station) are told what is allowed in their playlist and what is to be banned.

Dixie Chicks were censored at the upper corporate level, despite what local stations public thought.

This also affects Freedom of Press issues, and definitly is bad for issues at the local level of the public.

This is a good article about this very issue:

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/17.html

But hey, I’m sure your fine with total control of Info, News, and Media. It lets them tell you exactly how to think! (or not think!)

Thomas/PNAC

By Shawny

February 14, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

“Pentagon sources have been saying for several years that Iranian-style munitions have been appearing in Iraq”

The main culprit is a specially made roadside bomb the Army calls an EFP, or “explosively formed penetrator.”

“the EFP is shaped to penetrate armor and hence effective against harder targets than Humvees. “

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009662

That is “Iran” on the bomb, not “Iron” (sorry, a day late, I know).

Consecutive cartoons that suck, thus todays toon that doesn’t suck:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2007/02/3

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

Like it or not, you can’t write history in advance. The look of the Middle East thirty years from now will exonerate or excoriate President Bush. The only given is that if it turns out to be a peaceful and prosperous region you’ll try to make up stories of how it was going to happen on it’s own anyway or you’ll decide that some as yet unnamed sheik was responsible.

For reference material, see USSR.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Lucko-stuckonstupid,

In case you care to know the FACTS about what the American people think of President Clinton 6 years after leaving office, take a look here…WARNING: if you support Bush and/or dislike Clinton, these facts may be harmful to your mental state…

Hint: one of my favorites is the ranking of the Shrub in the category of ‘Best Presidents since WWII.’

El Bushbo comes in BEHIND that great President we call ‘Other.’

History will not be kind to this President…

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

Astronaut lawyer’s summary to jury: “If the diaper dont fit, you must acquit”!

Will the prosecution ask the defendant to try on the diaper?

Will the defense attorney put the diaper on his head and say, “Who Am I? This is no disquise..”

OJ cocked his thumb so that the bloody glove wouldn’t fit in front of the jury. What will the astronaut do to make it appear that the diaper dont fit?

The trial of the century is upon us.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 09:34 AM | Link to this

PNAC,

Whine away. The radio stations stopped playing the Chicks because the Peeps spoke. Period.

GOAT!

If you’re out there, I was rushed last night and did not have time to make it clear that this was the point I wanted to make about Clinton’s budget:

With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the Clinton budget is expected to carry far more weight in that process than in the years of divided government.

Who’s the ignorant idiot who doesn’t even know the years of Clinton’s Presidency and who controlled Congress at that time?

Why that would be GOAT N-GA! Go suck a wine cork.

Gotta run…

CUL8R

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

WRONG! History is made as it is observed. If Sadr cut and run, wearing the diaper on his head and on his bum, then the Iraq War is over. We have won.

The only thing we have to fear are the diapers themselves, because if the diapers somehow manage to get their hands on a nuke, then history will take a different turn, my cuckolded friend, (that what his wife said last night).

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

I wonder who invented the diaper? Is it prehistoric, like did the neanderthals have diapers for their little bitty babies who cry all night and drive everyone crazy?

The diaper throughout history is ubiquitous and moot. Moot because of the poot. Ubiquitous because of the base two numerical system of the diaper load. You see, mathematically there can only be a 1 or a 2, so, in actuality the diaper is the first computer, little bits of zeroes and ones, and or gates, on off switches, or number one and number two.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, i give you the world’s first computer: PFFTHHHH!

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

Does the ‘stuckonstupid’ dittohead nation realize that the vast MAJORITY of Americans have determined that the current President is a total failure and that President Clinton was a success?

Here is one of the polls done about six months (in my previous link) ago re: President Clinton:

{{Based on what you remember from President Clinton’s administration, do you approve or disapprove of the job Bill Clinton did in handling his job as president?”

Approve: 70% Disapprove: 27%

It seems the further into the Bush administration we go, the more the MAJORITY of Americans appreciate Clinton’s Presidency.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this

Edwin,

You really should listen to government bean counter PNAC because when he’s in his Thomas mode he’s a famous Hollywood mogul which means he knows everything about everything.

Private industry should be forced to offer product that their customer base doesn’t want even if it undercuts their ability to make a profit. You see profits are EVIL.

Of course their are some voices that should be censored.

Anyone that points out that the globe has been warming and cooling in cycles for millions of years MUST BE CENSORED!

Anyone that points out there isn’t one shred of evidence in the fossil record to support Darwin MUST BE CENSORED!

Anyone that points out that there isn’t a single innocent person that was ever harmed by Joe McCarthy MUST BE CENSORED!

And so it goes…..

By gt engineer

February 14, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

history will give this “president” his rightful place as criminal and murderer. IMPEACH!!!

heres a beautiful yard sign to put up… http://www.impeachbushyardsigns.org/

i ordered 5, had one destroyed… haha…now i have a web cam trained onit to catch the republican criminal trying to stamp out free speach.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

I see there was a bit of “oh yeah? Define this! Oh yeah? Define that!” going on last evening. Seems another uberleft tactic to avoid facts. But help me out here - we have a new Congress, Dems going on with the nonbinding resolution (I’m sure that’s just what the voters expected, yeah, right) while they go on about “support the troops.” Have any of these folks ever defined what they mean when they say “we support the troops!” Or is it another hollow sound bite?

You can skip the part about the irony of Dems who now, by default of any original thought, end up as supporters of the Bush Iraq strategy before the shift to the surge -

By Paul

February 14, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

Edwin

That was a nice little exchange yesterday - you expressed the view you’d like some control over your earnings and you were assailed for being selfish.

You missed the exchange a few months ago regarding the Syracuse prof’s book demonstrating religious, conservative people were more generous with donations than - oh, bluestaters. Typical firestorm erupted, not much centered on data. Data showed it pretty much cut across all income levels, even among the working poor (who were contrasted with those receiving an equivalent amount in public assistance).

But the most telling was the observation as to why wealthy libs give so little - essentially, they view income redistribution as government’s role, not the individual’s, so until government takes what they have they’re content to keep it and wait.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 14, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

RW

And a pleasant good morning to you too!

I agree you cannot write history in advance. I also know that sometimes history written after the fact is still somewhat less than accurate.

Your accusation that I would make up stories about the Middle East 30 years down the road “of how it was going to happen on it’s own anyway or you’ll decide that some as yet unnamed sheik was responsible.” is complete fiction. You should not do that, it affects your overall credibility.

If you believe that history will portray Mr. Bush and his administration as the heroes of Peace and Democracy in the Middle East, why would you not simply say so rather than fabricating how I might think or feel when I’m in my 80’s? I’m hoping by that time to just kick back and enjoy my Jack and Ensure.

Please tell us what YOU think the future holds for the Bush legacy.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

RW - thanks for the good word. I just wish that people would think about what they are writing when they bloviate. It gets soooo tiring to hear the same talking points over and over again!

By Paul

February 14, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla

“Jack and Ensure?!!!?” Good one!

But I do wish you a better retirement than that - something tropical with a little umbrella on the rim, possibly?

By gt engineer

February 14, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this

we support the troops in that we value their lives! and would like their lives to be on the line only for winnable and noble causes… like the central front against ‘terror’ in afghanistan! afghanistan doesn’t seem to matter to president (sic) bush

our troops nor any other countries troops should be asked to die in the iraqi civil war! and it seems like the protection of bush’s ego is the biggest concern with his decisions.

why should any other americans be asked to die for bushes selfish decision to start a voluntary war?

By Midori

February 14, 2007 09:59 AM | Link to this

Perfect theme for this toon

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Paul you are exactly right. Every individual should have the right to decide, otherwise it means nothing when the government just forces charity upon us. It also relieves people of the obligation to do for others. They come to believe that it is someone else’s responsiblity.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

gt engineer

Okay, nice sentiment. Especially the part about “and would like their lives to be on the line only for winnable and noble causes… “

So why does that definition (I’m sure there are others) cause the new Democratic Congress such paralysis of meaningful action?

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

If the Iraq War didn’t exist, it would be necessary for man to invent it.

We need the Iraq War, but the reason is too complicated to explain in a way that the bloggers here can understand, so I’m not even going to bother, besides, it’s material, and I’m sick of giving it away.

Blog on with your empty objections to reality and your hollow sense of your own personages and thingies.

By nuff-said

February 14, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Bush needs war. The knuckleheads need war. War justifies the right-wingers. As long as they don’t have to go. Cowards, they will send someone else. They’re way too busy grabbing cash. Let someone else put a gun to the back of the head of an innocent child.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Mrs G.,

When I say “You” would make those revisions of history it doesn’t mean “you Mrs. G” it means “you on the left,” sorry for the confusion. I thought the USSR reference would have made that clear, but apparently not.

As for what I think the Bush legacy will be I also thought I made that perfectly clear when I said it would all depend on the eventual outcome in the Middle East. Have you been sampling the Jack already this morning?

By WhileZORROslept

February 14, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Blah blah blah blah, blah blah….blah blah…….blah blah nil, blah nothing, blah blah nada, blah blah pinko!!!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzZzzzzzzz

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 14, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Thanks for the kind thought.

My children already have planned my retirement. Short version - wheelchair parked in basement, Nana Godzilla strapped in, toss down a sack of krystals and some oreos every now and again.

I suspect there is still some resentment left over from their teen years.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G

They’ll get over it when they have their own teens!

When my kids used to ask me what they should be when they grew up, I usually replied “anything that makes enough money for you to support me in the manner in which I’d like to become accustomed.” Which now means, I suppose, a weekly supply of krystals and oreos…

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Good toon Mike. You’re right. The Dixies have been completely vindicated, though not by the Grammies. More and more people are embarrassed by our Chimpster. Not that getting some recognition for standing up to abuse of power is all that bad.

Bush, on the other hand, will never be vindicated. He will certainly go down in history as one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had. The thing with Bush is that other terrible Presidents had redeeming successes. Even Nixon managed to extricate us from Vietnam and open relations with China. All Bush has is the Afghan war. There is not a single other success, foreign or domestic, that he can point to. He has 2 years left to do something positive. Let’s see if he manages to.

By SW

February 14, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

If only I held the copyright on the phrase A Vote for Obama is a vote for Osama. Would I be rich or what?

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I’m not sure I have any idea what your 9:46 means. Mrs. G may have spiked my coffee.

Edwin,

Thanks for understanding the sarcasm. Unfortunately the scourge of hearing the same talking points over and over won’t go away, you’ll just see a name change with the same message. See: Blackadder

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 14, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

RW

Thanks for your gracious clarification.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Paul,

You are treading on dangerous ground to mention”I support the troops.” This follows so often when Bush is vilified in the usual liberal manner or a useless Iraq war resolution is in the liberal works.

If the thought is mentioned that the enemy might feel more encouraged than the troops, then someone declares “You are questioning my patriotism and Thomas Jefferson said that dissent was great” and on and on. Then they repeat “I support the troops!”

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

Just so you know, I am still waiting on some evidence of how Clinton ‘lied’ the US, UN and NATO into the the War in Kosovo.

This could help you gain some credibility…

Ahm rootin’ fer ya!

By Paul

February 14, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

Let me try it this way:

Dems assail Pres B on Iraq, say it’s time for change

People toss out lots of Republicans (variety of reasons) and Dems are in control of Congress. Many who voted based upon Iraq expected swift, effective action to terminate operations.

Pelosi and Reed send Pres B a very stern letter. Very stern.

People aren’t happy (see Hillary’s encounter with Party activists) and demand action. Party says, “uh, we support the troops! Can’t cut off funding or do much, ‘cause… we support the troops.”

Pres B announces changes in strategy, appoints a general who made his name with modern counter-insurgency operations. Dems assail the new strategy.

Dems propose new action - a “nonbinding resolution.” Rather like another stern letter. They support the troops. And stay with the “failed” Bush strategy which existed before the “surge.”

So, has anyone (other than gt engineer) explained what that little phrase means, aside from “we’re in power and we don’t have a clue what to do, and if we do we don’t have the guts to do it, so we’re going to repeat “we support the troops!”).

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Envelope please: And this year’s Andemy Award winner for the “Best Thrashing Of rushncrap” goes to……drum roll…..RW!

This means that you are Vindicated! RW, and that you rock!

End of debate, RW has spoken!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

LHU,

I gave you that yesterday moron. Clinton said we had to go to war because hundreds of thousands were being placed in mass graves due to ethnic cleansing. We later found about 4 to 5 thousand bodies.

Sorry you’re so dense.

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Yesterday Blivet posted: “It was the Republican Congress and the Contract with American that had a balanced budget as their priority. Clinton gets the credit for actions they initiated.

Two: Clinton cut defense spending…”

I pointed out the idiocy of her giving Republicans (Congress) credit for a balanced budget, yet blaming Clinton for cutting defense spending.

Today Blivet (I hope she finally googled “blivet”) posted about the same subject using an article from 1993 (Clinton served from 1993-2001).

The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and kept control throughout Clinton’s presidency.

What doesn’t Blivet understand about the GOP controlling (approving) every budget (including military spending) from 1994 thru 2001?

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Bloviating is what the Dems do best. It helps them cover up the damage they are doing when they raise taxes, socialize medicine and generally wreak havoc on society and the economy with their outdated and disproven policies!

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

On the subject of the Chicks: they were censored for their political opinions. That much is obvious. Good for them. They suffered (financially) for the truth. Most people would sell their souls and their parents for an extra buck. The Dixie Chicks didn’t. Good for them. I don’t listen to them, but I’m proud of anyone who is willing to stand up to the establishment and declare “This is what I believe and I don’t care if you don’t like it”.

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

BTW Blivet…you’ll understand this: Go suck a screwtop!!!

By Gypsy

February 14, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

RW couldn’t beat Rushncap even with an hour’s head start.

RW’s rocks are all in his head.

By Gypsy

February 14, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Edwin Williams must be RW’s and Buy Danish’s alter ego.

They get all of their talking points from the same place - out of their hineys.

By Midori

February 14, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Hey everyone:

the President is supposed to have a press conference on Iraq at 11.

Just FYI.

By Bush is okay.

February 14, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

CNN just flashed this news: A toddler, wearing diapers, stalked a nursing mother at a daycare center, and was shot to death by police when he pointed the diaper at the surrounding cops. One K9 dog was killed in the melee that followed. Where will it all end?

Sadr flees Iraq! Bush is about to announce a victory.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Face it. The Dixie Chicks love publicity just like other entertainers. I had never heard of them until they got into liberal politics promotion. I don’t care for “country music” and I don’t like their politics.

I doubt that they lost money on account of their statements. They just seem “dumb” to me, going to foreign countries and making derogatory statements about the President. We usually leave such behavior to our enemies.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

No RW-(the obfuscator), you gave me a statement from a known liar (you) with nothing to back it up as usual.

Please, help me help you…

I am diligently working to help you gain some dignity, self respect and (hey, a guy can dream) some credibility.

You said that Clinton ‘lied’ us into the War in Kosovo and I am trying to see if this is just another lie of yours or if you have anything other than your completely discredited word to back it up.

Since Clinton also was able to secure a real international coalition including NATO in the war in Kosovo I am assuming you consider it another example of his competence.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Thanks Midori!

LHU,

I don’t think turning our troops over to foreign control in a sign of competence and you are really shining a spotlight on your stupidity on this topic. Even rushncap admits the body count lie and he worships Clinton.

By Blackadder

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

The House Republicans are a pathetic bunch. No wonder they can’t come up with a strategy to fight the Iraq war. They can’t even figure out why they’re fighting against the anti-escalation resolution. But, to defend George Bush, those GOPers are vigorously opposing the resolution. Based on Dana Milbank’s profile of the GOP’s leader, Adam Putnam (R-FL), it’s clear they really have no idea why:

There was good reason for this anxiety. As head of the House Republican Conference, the 32-year-old redhead is leading his caucus into a public-opinion meat grinder: supporting President Bush’s increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, against the wishes of more than 60 percent of Americans. Worse, he is leading them with a pair of somewhat contradictory arguments: (a) that the Democrats’ resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq buildup is a meaningless gesture, and (b) that the Democrats’ resolution will cause the end of civilization as we know it.

“This is a rather toothless 97 words,” Putnam began in his floor speech, calling the proposal “a narrow nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture.” Minutes later, he changed his view. “The majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California.”

So which one is it: toothless or catastrophic?”

Actually, the GOP’s response to the Iraq war for the past four years has been toothless and catastrophic.

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Dusty — first of all your side has spent a couple of days gloating that the Dixie Chicks had a bunch of concerts cancelled due to their position. So even your side agrees that they lost money. Second of all you are not really a marker of modern music. Anyone who knows anything about modern music knew who the Dixie Chicks are prior to this brouhaha. I don’t even listen to country, and I certainly knew them. And criticizing a President is not what enemies do. It’s what people in a democracy do. You really would feel much better living in a totalitarian society. You should consider that.

By Peter

February 14, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Mike - Your slide show was missed last evening (not that we didn’t have a delightful forum). Keep up the excellent work.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

And it appears the Democratic Congress is following suit. Resolutions and letters do not a meaningful action make. If this continues, and if the situation in ‘08 appears stable, it could be highly problematic for the Democratic candidate. He or she will have to be a lot more specific about the action that will be taken - all the while taking hits for two years of relative inaction.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

Now, you are KILLING me again.

Don’t you know we currently have about 12,000 US troops under NATO command in Afghanistan RIGHT NOW!!

Can I assume you are completely against the war in Afghanistan as a result??

I can’t wait to hear this…

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Paul - I honestly believe that the actions of the GOP over the last 6 years up to now will not bode well for them in ‘08. Even if the Dems were to sit on their hands and do nothing for the next two years.

At least the Dems trying something. They are taking the necessary baby-steps that will only become more substantial as time goes on.

Anything is better than what we’ve been dealing with under Republican control.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

I bet one would be hard pressed to find these two days of gloating over canceled Dixie Chick concerts, but why let the facts get in the way of myth when you’re a good little Democrat.

From memory I remember one and possibly two comments that even mentioned cancelled concerts in the last two days, not counting this one or the 11:10.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

It seems to me much nearer to approaching “critical mass.” Things go along, go along, there’s a change of power - and it doesn’t seem to me many of the party activists are all that pleased with baby steps. The pitch I recall is people want change, they want it now, we’re the ones who will change things - and now we have same old, same old.

I don’t believe the strategy of saying “one can’t expect us to clean up six years of ineptitude in 2 years” will prove effective. It could backfire, prodding many voters into taking a more considered look at the Republican candidate.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

The Chicks may have had a few concerts cancelled but they are still in the limelight which they enjoy. To call them “modern” seems like a stretch of the imagination. But I haven’t heard them and don’t plan to. That’s called free choice.

Silly rushncap. Our enemies say bad things about our President just like liberals. With us it is called “free speech”. With our enemies, it is called “hate” and propaganda. I don’t want people to have to guess which category I fall under. I am for free speech but not hate and propaganda.

Now, don’t start calling me names and mention outhouses because you disagree.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Blackadder - please tell me what stragegy the Democrats have come up with to win the war? They just want to surrender! They must be the same “copperheads” who were around during the Civil War!

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Anyone learning about the “plight” of the Dixie Chicks for the first time and listening to rushncrap whine and moan about it, who could blame them if they thought that the Chicks had been beaten and imprisoned by some horrible censorship police?

The truth of the matter is, the short, fat Chick said something stupid, probably something she could barely even comprehend, in front of a bunch of foreigners.

And because of that, people CHOSE not to listen to them, buy their albums or attend their concerts.

Whatever harm befell them was due to the ignorant CHOICE made by the short fat Chick to criticize the leader of the free world.

Period.

They received an award from a biased panel of partisan hacks for an album that was SIXTEENTH in total sales for the year, with the majority of those sales made by Bush Haters that would rather choke than listen to country music.

Think about it, the elites in the record industry hate rednekkks and red state Christians with a purple foaming passion, pray tell, what exactly did the Chicks do to overcome this barrier?

Gee, I wonder.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

I seem to remember one of those bin Laden videos where he mentioned being embarrassed because of Bush. And to think that the Dixie Chicks used the exact same word. That’s just treasonous!

I’m out for lunch. You all play nice.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

LHU-child,

We have about 12,000 troops as part of the NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. The war fighting troops are a different group and those 8,000 or so remain under US control. Kosovo never had such a distinction.

Now to recap, I was never against the war in Kosovo and after finding out we had been lied to about the reasons for the war I looked into it and it appears to me that we did more good than harm, albeit slightly, and it was most certainly an unnecessary preemptive war of choice.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

{{For reference material, see USSR.}}

Great analogy, RW— the USSR was ultimately destroyed by their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the 80’s… your guy Dubya just doesn’t understand anything about history.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

{{It gets soooo tiring to hear the same talking points over and over again!}}

It would be great if you were to take your own advice here on the blog, Edwin! I recall you posting on and on yesterday about “those liberals” and how evil they are…

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

The reason the democrats have not come up with a strategy to win the war is because this war cannot be won strategically.

Imagine, if you will, the biggest school bully attacking a weak kid in class. The bully, at gunpoint, has stolen his lunch money, and his seat. The weaker kid then turns into a violent rage and brings a gun to school and begins to shoot other students. What you are asking of the democrats is to find a way for the bully to save the school from the danger of this weak kid. It aint gonna happen.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator),

PLEASE help me distinguish between the mission in Afghanistan (where you say it is just peachy for our troops to be under NATO command) from Iraq, or Kosovo for that matter?

Under the new arrangements, as many as 12,000 additional American troops will be put under foreign battlefield command, a number that U.S. officials said could be the most since World War II.

NATO-led troops took command of the southern portion of Afghanistan just two months ago and have been struggling to stem the escalating violence there. This plan would extend their control to the eastern section — which U.S. troops now command.

Once again, you appear to be babbling with no idea of what you are talking about…

By Paul

February 14, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Devastator 11:51

Are you implying Democrats running for Congress in 2006 used the argument “Vote for me. The President’s policies in Iraq are failed policies. The war cannot be won strategically. So vote for me. Nothing will change, but vote for me.”?

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

That’s exactly why we aren’t sending tens of thousands of soldiers into the Hindu Kush mountains to find one guy hiding in a cave.

Plus you get bonus points for proving my point about revisionism!

By The Watcher

February 14, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

The Watcher wonders if Edwin is RW/BD’s grandparent?

A member of the “greatest generation” maybe?

Edwin, did you serve your country in Korea or WWII? Just curious.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Not to infringe on the remark addressed to Edwin, but if the bully just shoots the other kid it pretty much puts an end to the problem of the other kid. You’re right Devastator, that’s beyond the comprehension of a liberal Democrat.

On another note, there’s a high speed chase going on in Florida with a U-Haul truck. How much you want to bet it’s Al Gore with a truck load of dangling chads?

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I’m implying that the reason that they have not given a strategy to win this ridiculous war is because there isn’t one. They want to withdraw the troops, which is the only sensible thing to do at this point.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Sure RW-(the obfuscator) at 12:06…

We won’t send soldiers after the peole responsible for 9/11 (Bin Laden, Zawahiri or Omar) in those nasty mountains in Pakistan…

But, we will send them to die in a civil war in Iraq to help solidify a gov’t aligned with Iran…

Nice…

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

LHU,

At least you’ve finally figured out I was right about the lie Clinton told to get us into war.

I’ll go very slowly now so please try to follow along.

I d-o-n’-t t-h-i-n-k i-t i-s a g-o-o-d i-d-e-a t-o h-a-v-e o-u-r t-r-o-o-p-s u-n-d-e-r f-o-r-e-i-g-n c-o-n-t-r-o-l.

T-h-a-t d-o-e-s n-o-t m-e-a-n I s-a-i-d i-t n-e-v-e-r h-a-p-p-e-n-s o-r t-h-a-t I d-o-n’-t s-u-p-p-o-r-t a-n-y m-i-s-s-i-o-n o-n-c-e t-h-a-t h-a-p-p-e-n-s.

In a ceremony earlier today in Kabul , command of international military security operations in eastern Afghanistan was formally handed over to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), effectively placing responsibility for security operations throughout Afghanistan under NATO command. As a result of this decision, nearly 12,000 U.S. troops have joined their NATO counterparts in the International Security Assistance Force under NATO Regional Command East, bringing the total numbers of NATO’s ISAF force to roughly 33,000 troops from 37 nations, including 23 Provisional Reconstructions Teams throughout the country. We note that ———->8,000 U.S. troops will remain under U.S. command<———— to continue counterterrorism operations and the provision of support to reconstruction, training and equipping of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original),

The bully goes to jail if he does that. Both for originally terrorizing the kid and for shooting him. The bully is the original cause of the whole problem.

P.S. Don’t you dare say 911 is the original problem. What’s going on right now has nothing to do with September 11,2001. Those bullies are still free.

By Which is it?

February 14, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Mike, in March 2003 at a concert in London, Natalie Maines said - “Just so you know,” says singer Natalie Maines, “we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” It gets the audience cheering — at a time when country stars are rushing to release pro-war anthems, this is practically punk rock.”

Immediately following that statement she tried to justify her comment with this statement - “Maines further stated, “I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view.”

That didn’t work. Americans were outraged and voiced their own opinions, boycotting the Dixie Chicks.

Maines then offers an apology - “As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect.”

In May, 2006 Maines withdrew her apology - “I don’t feel that way anymore,” she told Time magazine for its issue hitting newsstands Monday. “I don’t feel he is owed any respect whatsoever.”

What is it with you liberals? Is a lack of convictions what you admire?

By Paul

February 14, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Devastator

Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I do think that’s the basis on which many were elected. So far, there’s been absolutely no meaningful action towards that end - just posturing. It’s causing a lot of frustration among Party activists, which could put Democratic candidates in the very difficult position of going ever farther to the “out now” area (as with Edwards) to get the nomination - which could cost support in the general election.

So I see it as a lot of stalling until the election - by those who were sent to Congress by their constituents to effect quick, effective change.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

To The Watcher - I said I am MIDDLE AGED, not ancient! I was born in 1960, so I was not old enough to serve in any of the major conflicts. I did attempt to join the armed forces but was rejected for medical reasons in 1985 when I graduated from law school. However, many of my older friends and relatives did serve. One was a very abused prisoner of the Chinese during the Korean War.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

Who cares if the bullies that have been attacking and killing Americans for at least 28 years including on Sept. 11, 2001 go to jail or worse?

I would never be naive enough to think the problem started on 9/11/2001.

Remember the hostages that made Jimmah look like a stooge?

Remember the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon, where the great Ronald Reagan made the one mistake all others should have learned from by pulling out?

Remember Somalia, where obviously Billy Jeff didn’t learn from Reagan?

Remember the first World Trade Center bombing that Clinton never even visited?

Remember the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania?

Remember the USS Cole?

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Got it, RW-(the obfuscator),

You were against our troops being under NATO control when Clinton was President, but you are fine with it now that Bush is President - just peachy!

BTW: You can’t wiggle out of your lie about ‘how Clinton lied us into the War in Kosovo’ by writing a (another…sigh) lie that I agreed with it somewhere.

I’ll give you the advice you gave someone the other day:

STOP DIGGING!!

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Devestator - You obviously think that surrender is always the only option. I do remember people saying the same things during the Cold War. I also have read the same argument you just made about why we had no business entering WWII, at that time being made by pacifists and crazy right wingers like Lindbergh.

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original),

Thanks for the history lesson. Now will you please tell me why we should keep allowing our troops to die under circumstances that don’t concern us?

While your pontificating that dilemna, you can also give me an update on the capture of the one responsible for most horrific attack. You know the one. The one right here on american soil that spearheaded the excuse for what is going on now. How’s that going?

By Swiftvoter

February 14, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Nothing demonstrates providing “Aid & Comfort to the enemy” like chasing the terrorists & Osama bin Laden to Bora Bora and then letting them go free so that we can prosecute an oil war in Iraq.

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Dusty — you’re the one bring up outhouses. So if you want to stop, go for it.

I understand, you would much rather live in a totalitarian regime, where those who disagree with the rulers of the country are put to death. It’s ok, to each their own. The majority of us, however, are glad to be living in a country where we believe in free speech and — gasp! — practice it.

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Edwin,

First of all, I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I made no reference to WWII.

Secondly, don’t think of it as surrender because we’re not fighting a war per se. We’ve simply stirred up a hornet’s nest that has grown out of control and we have no business dying trying to stop it.

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

The news conference was interesting. Most telling was the question about troop morale. The questioner made the observation that he had spoken to troops who were on their 3rd or 4th tour, and that they were questioning whether or not they were doing any good. Even I was surprised at Bush’s inability to articulate an answer. His bottom line response finally was that the morale problem is within the families of those serving, not within the troops themselves. How does he know that? He said the generals told him.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Go read up on Kosovo dumbass. I figured you agreed since you finally quit squawking out the same question over and over. It’s a fact child, even Wiki gets it.

If you could read you would see that I never withdrew my support for our troops in any conflict and I don’t like foreign control in any conflict. The name of the Commander in Chief doesn’t enter into my support.

By Shawny

February 14, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

All publicity is good publicity, if you are in show business. Take the album review here at Billboard:

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?aid=772530&pid=28586

” …hailstorm of publicity,”

They (except for the momentary retraction) held to their beliefs…I admire the sticktuitiveness, not necessarily the position. They alienated some country fans, but didn’t (generally) waver…good for them. But don’t forget for a moment that they got a ton of press over all this.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

LHU

Well, regardless of how we got in, you may want to check out “how Clinton lied to America” (sarcastic reference to rhetoric against Pres Bush) by checking the Administration claims for destroyed Serbian armor from the air campaign, contrasted with what was later found to be true (by DoD internal reviews) and suppressed.

Remember, the President approves every single facet of a military campaign and is responsible for absolutely everything anyone does.

I’m off to lunch -

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Devestator - that is exactly the attitude I am talking about. Nuts like Lindbergh and Senator Borah constantly said that nothing that was going on in Europe or Asia was any of our concern. How about the fact that we, like it or not, are dependent upon petroleum products from that region? What about our ally Israel?

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

By the way, did you folks hear the comments by the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who stated that the only people who believe that gobal warming is caused by man are nuts and crazies like Al Gore?

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

Sure thing! Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is in American custody at Club Gitmo. His financier is hiding out somewhere and is capable of attacking us with a video tape about every year or so.

His followers are pouring into Iraq where the US military is killing them left and right.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

By the way Devestator, we never caught Hitler either. But we still beat him!

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Poor baby!! I practice free speech every day. Sorry you didn’t notice. But then a freshman in college has a lot to learn. Hang in there, buddy. They will let you graduate one of these days.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

{{I also have read the same argument you just made about why we had no business entering WWII, at that time being made by pacifists and crazy right wingers like Lindbergh.}}

Edwin— please let you know how you came to believe that our occupation of Iraq is comparable to WWII, a war that America entered after being attacked at Pearl Harbor… and using “pacifists” as your excuse for an argument for war is asinine, seeing as how pacifists do not support any war at all. So you can drop your attempt to argue about what pacifists thought about WWII… the discussion these days is about the American occupation of Iraq — almost 4 years we’ve occupied that country now.

By Shawny

February 14, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this

Dixie Chicks wannabees:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GlennMcCoy/2007/02/1

By Shawny

February 14, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

Yep, Goldie…we had to be dragged into WWII kicking and screaming. If Japan had not bombed us, no telling if we would ever have joined in the European conflict.

Think hydrogen bombs carried by V2 rockets and we could be speaking German today.

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Dusty, you get all pis-sy any time anyone criticizes the President. You do not dispute the facts, you’re just upset by the concept that someone would do that. That is a clear mark that you would prefer to live under a totalitarian regime. As someone who has lived under both I appreciate America. You, clearly, don’t. Oh, and I graduated, thank you very much. Don’t get too jealous…

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

{{{By Devastator

February 14, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I’m implying that the reason that they have not given a strategy to win this ridiculous war is because there isn’t one. They want to withdraw the troops, which is the only sensible thing to do at this point.}}}

Devastator,

General Petreus appeared before Congress as part of his nominating process. At that time he laid out his “surge” strategy in great detail. He was subsequently approved UNANIMOUSLY.

If these Leftists insurgents in Congress didn’t agree with his plans then why did they approve him unanimously to take on the job to do exactly what he told them he planned to do?

GOAT!

D’UH. Clinton’s 1993 budget cut the military. DU’H. There was a democrat majority in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives at that time. D’UH. The Republicans didn’t win their majority until 1994.

Go suck a moldy wine cork. I’m a wine drinker too, and you will find no screw tops in my household. I’m just not a pompous a* who brags about it in a pitiful attempt to impress people.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

I used the term “pacificists” because that is what so many are. They are always opposed to any war we engage in as a nation. Maybe I should have used the term “defeatists” or “appeasers”. At any rate, any and all of the terms apply here.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

Thanks Paul,

I agree with what you say that the CIC ‘is responsible for absolutely everything anyone does…’

Now, please join me is reprimanding Bush for:

-3,100 dead soliders

-10’s of thousands grievously wounded US soldiers

-100’s of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians

-Abu Ghraib

-Billions lost to corruption and graft in Iraq

-$2 trillion of our tax dollars that is estimated to be spent over the course of the war in iraq

-Iraqi Unemployment Rate has gone from 27 to 60%

-Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 25% in May 2006

-Iraqis Displaced by Iraq War, as of Nov 2006 - 650,000

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

-Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000, now 22,000

-Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000

-Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 8.0 (22 before 2003)

-Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 4.4 (21 before 2003)

AND THERE’s LOTS MORE (but I am out of room)!

Bush has a lot of splainin’ to do…

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The democrats are playng politics. Voting this new guy in is just a way of making the necessary changes that, hopefully, will lead to the end of this war. My main point in this discussion is that we cannot win because there is nothing to win. We need to either negotiate or get out.

Did you call me a goat?

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this

Who knew the mayor of San Diego was a totalitarian dictator?

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Yeah, you right-wing loonies just love to read the Drudge Report, with its praise for Mr. Klaus and some other jack-booted dictators — you should be so proud of your criminal heroes!

The historian Timothy Garton Ash, who has written extensively on the Czech Republic, describes Mr Klaus as one of the rudest men he has ever known.

Anything spoken by this man about Al Gore should be ridiculed by all sane Americans!

By Dr.Doom

February 14, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

Devastator,

Buy Danish is a filthy w*******!! I’ve seen her spew her bile on Jim Wooten’s blogs. Don’t even waste your time dealing with her.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Congrats!! You completed high school!! Yayyy!

By the way, I thought we were talking about the Dixie Chicks rogue routine in foreign countries.

Please tell us about your experiences under a totalitarian regime. Russia? I am glad you appreciate America. To tell the truth, I wasn’t quite sure about that. You never seem to like anything American except the Dixie Chicks.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

Goldie - It’s funny - you libs will call Klaus, a ceremonial president with little power a jack booted dictator, but defend a real dictator like Hugo Chavez because he has thrown a bone to a few people? Give me a break, please! Also Dr. Ash was one of the many in macadamia who decried the fall of the Soviet Union. His opinion about Mr. Klaus counts for squat!

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

I thought that Rudy G. is supposed to be the the front-runner for ‘08 from the Repugnant Party? If so, small wonder y’all are having nightmares about Senator Obama:

In an echo of Giuliani’s current quandary — that his support for abortion and gay rights may alienate many conservative voters — the 1993 memo declared: “He doesn’t really fit in with the Republicans. Too liberal.” Giuliani’s aides were also concerned that, as a former Democrat, he would be painted as a flip-flopper, and that his tenure as an official in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department was an albatross for a liberal city. “There is not a minute to waste in inoculating against the Reagan Republican moniker,” the memo said, adding that the candidate should emphasize his “independence from traditional national Republican policies.” Giuliani was deemed “vulnerable to charges of insensitivity toward racial minorities,” the memo said, in urging him to soften his image. “Rudy Giuliani can — and should — be redefined for all voters, but especially minority voters.” Giuliani had strained relations with black leaders and communities during his two terms as mayor. Although some opponents painted him as “antigay,” the report said, “gay marriage really is the only issue where Giuliani opposes the gay agenda.”

So, who’s the bigger flip-flopper of the Repugnants: Rudy G., Bush-kisser McCain, or Mr. Mormon-from-Mass Romney?

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Blackadder - please tell me what stragegy the Democrats have come up with to win the war?

I don’t usually answer a question with a question but isn’t your question rather silly since the Republicans have had no plan from day 1? Since that is the case I suggest you go first and fill me in on the Republican plan.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

Hey BD,

Lookee, lookee…

“After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By xxxx we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.”

Can you guess who said this?

Oooh, here’s another nugget:

“Overall, since I’ve been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That’s the peace dividend. … And now we’re adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.”

And - hehehe, same guy

“Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You’ve directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.”

Care to play - NAME THAT HYPOCRITE?

By Devastator

February 14, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

To respond to your last comment to me on Wooten’s blog: Diversity will be an issue in terms of the significance of having a woman president,or at least the possibility. I say Obama is going to win with Biden as his running mate to cover his experience gap.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this

Obama/Biden HA!! Now there’s a ticket without enough feet and mouths to go around. I can see the campaign plane now.

2008 NONSTOP APOLOGY EXPRESS

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

I’m not afraid of Hillary or Barak. Both will expose themselves as the vacuous liberals they are. Giuliani on the other hand, is a complex man with many flaws who will make a great president on the order of the Roosevelts, Jefferson, Eisenhower and Reagan. I don’t compare anyone to Lincoln and Washington.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Blackadder - The last I saw, the Republicans do have a plan. Your Democrat leadership is voting against it right now.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

{{{By Devastator

February 14, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The democrats are playng politics}}}

Devastator,

No kidding. With our men and women in uniform to.

Who do you suggest we “negotiate” with? The Al Sadr terrorists or the Al Qaeda terrorists?

Goldie,

What is it with you pitiful leftists shooting the messenger all the time? Did Drudge write that story or just make it available for us to read? Damn you hate free speech.

RW,

Do you think that Dmitry suffered under the totalitarian reign of Roger Hedgecock?

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

Aw Devastator…

You didn’t name BIDEN, did you? With a straight face? Honest?? Obama could never overcome such a severe attachment of foot-n-mouth disease even with tons of charisma and money. I’m afraid you can’t turn water into wine or Biden into a real candidate for anything.

By Swiftvoter

February 14, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

At the risk of stealing the thunder from the Administration, I suggest that the strategy to end the war is to take the President at his word as demonstrated through his proclamation: ‘MISSION ACOMPLISHED’.

Live with & learn from your mistakes wingnuts!

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

{{Maybe I should have used the term “defeatists” or “appeasers”. At any rate, any and all of the terms apply here.}}

Edwin, you must have really been ticked off when Al-Maliki, the Iraqi PM, stated that Bush has “emboldened the terrorists” because of his failed war policies — not enough equipment and armor provided for the troops, not enough manpower to provide security or protect the borders… and how do you feel about the majority of Iraqi voters in their election thinking it’s a good idea to kill the American troops? Really makes you feel like an “Appeaser”, huh Edwin?

That’s what the Repugnant Party is now — chock full of terrorist-appeasers!

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Blackadder - The last I saw, the Republicans do have a plan. Your Democrat leadership is voting against it right now.

So you call adding more fuel to the fire a plan? What was the plan prior to that?

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Do you have a copy of the Iraqi ballot handy? The one that shows that Iraqis VOTED that it’s a good idea to kill Americans.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I doubt Dmitry was out of diapers when Roger Hedgecock was mayor. Perhaps it was the totalitarian reign of Maureen O’Conner which would also explain is bizarre hatred for women.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

I guess it is adding fuel to the fire, just like Reagan sending the Pershing II missiles to Europe in the 1980s. The Russians really womped up on us for that one didn’t they? But seriously folks, the way to win a war to quote a certain American Civil War general is to get there firstest with the mostest. You cannot half fight a war. We learned that in Vietnam.

By Dusty

February 14, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Go back and read your Democratic Party notes again. Our Republican President has led the war against terrorists since the day he took office.

You overlook Afghanistan and hope Iraq will be defeated but it won’t. Democrats have shown about as little support as possible in this Iraq war. They continue to do so by back stabbing the troops with non-supportive resolutions.

You might be more believable if you didn’t tell so many lies.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

{{The last I saw, the Republicans do have a plan. Your Democrat leadership is voting against it right now.}}

Yeah, Edwin— it’s the same “plan” they tried a year ago in Iraq and the civil war escalated from there! Great plan, huh? And we all know what the deifinition of insanity is, doing the same thing over & over…

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Goldie - I guess that’s why you liberals keep advocating universal health care and other socialist policies. They failed, so you keep trying them over and over again. So by your definition you folks are insane. We escalated WWII and WWI and Korea, and we won. We descalated in Vietnam and we lost.

By Scooter

February 14, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Excuse me. I think I left a cogent thought in this sandbox. Has anyone seen anything resembling a cogent thought?

When reading and I see demoncat, democrap, etc… I stop reading and go to the next post. Same goes for when I read repugnant, fascist, chickenhawk, etc.. Someone should do a study showing the number of times such a descriptor is used against conservatives and against democrats.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

I know I’m getting off topic here but:

“We celebrate sex,” they write, “as unifying, beautiful, and joyful when shared in its proper context: that of marriage between a man and a woman.” If experienced outside the marital setting, however, sex loses its value and “ultimately reduces the participants to mere instruments serving an incomplete end—be it the desire for emotional intimacy, physical pleasure, or personal security.”

I’m just trying to figure out where rushncrap, Rosey and the handy computer screen full of meat fits into this context.

Does the computer screen feel cheap and used?

Does the hand feel empty, er, well, oh never mind.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Edwins's Teacher

February 14, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this

To whoever asked about Eddy serving in those nasty and dangerous Armed Forces, shame on you! His extraordinarily high IQ disqualified him! Thankfully that means he can stay home safe and warm and defend the homeland by blogging!

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this

Goldie - I will make is simple for you. Read “The Art of War” and read Winston Churchill’s History of World War II - there are six volumes, but a brilliant scholar like you will fly through it.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 02:32 PM | Link to this

RW— the Iraqi opinion polls have been reported for years, if you’d only pay attention and stop drinking that bad Kool-Aid! And this is an early news report, so the PR problem has only grown bigger now. So sad…

“I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance,” says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. “At the beginning … there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people.”

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 02:32 PM | Link to this

Come on Edwin - what was the plan prior to Bush’s new plan? Don’t change the subject.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

EW(e),

We escalated over and over and over and over again in Vietnam…a lot of brave soldiers died as a result of these politically motivated escalations. The escalations were a mistake.

Iraq now only offers degrees of losing, much like Vietnam did.

Do you think our soldiers should be dying to help solidify an Iraqi gov’t aligned with Moqtada al Sadr and Iran?

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

Lots of info out there for you, RW— but you choose to remain in your ignorance instead:

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

The fact is there never has been a plan and now a few years into it the neocons are saying the surge is the plan.

What are our objectives? Why did we go into Iraq in the first place? These ar questions that never seem to get straight answers.

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

There are good news in politics: Al Franken is gonna run for Senate. Doubt he’ll win, but MAN would that be awesome!

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

Goldie dear,

Thanks for clearing up your lie about the Iraqis VOTING to kill Americans.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

Not only does Dubya not listen to Americans, he doesn’t care to listen to Iraqis either:

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

And this one’s from the State Dept. itself! You Bush-appeasers should feel so proud of yourselves…

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

Yes Dusty, I graduated high school. Among several other things.

I love America. That’s why I want to protect it from the likes of you, li’l andy, Stalk, and Bush. And yes, we were talking about Dixie Chicks. It actually is quite embarrassing talking to Europeans about Bush. Thankfully, most of them understand that half of America did not vote for him.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Cheney.

What’s “hypocritical” about not wanting to buy specific defense items that are obsolete or that we already have in abundance?

There is no way you can argue that Cheney wanted to weaken the military. Sadly the same thing cannot be said about Billy Jeff:

In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore’s purported “reinvention” of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.

The statistics for America’s defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Comedian Al Franken said Wednesday he will run for U.S. Senate in 2008

May as well, it ain’t like he’s been successful on the radio or anything.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

rushncap - if Al runs against Norm Coleman he’ll be a shoe-in. That was Paul Wellstone’s district and he was hugely popular. As I understand it he and Al were pretty good friends.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Rushncap -most French people I know (I live with one) are embarassed by their government right now. And they will be more embarassed if the Socialist Segolene Royal wins. That is not an argument against an American President. Many in Europe disliked Reagan, yet he won the Cold War for them. Many in Eastern Europe do like Bush. They remember the horror before.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

rushncap - do you remember the HUGE headline in the European newspaper after the November elections? I believe it may have been a British paper.

THANK YOU AMERICA!

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

You’re the liar here, RW— you know that our occupation of Iraq was based on lies to begin with, and you’re only emboldening terrorists by keeping our troops in that civil war! But, just go back to hiding your head in the sand — you’re obviously very happy to be ignorant.

By regulator

February 14, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

You made one mistake rushcap, in the first election OVER half didn’t vote for him, Edwin I’m older than you served 13 months in Vietnam and just when did we de-escalate?

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Adder — if he’s running for Senate, there are no districts, he’ll have to win state-wide. So we’ll see. But I guess hope is the last thing to die, no?

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

BD,

I KNOW you can read, so I am forced to conclude that you choose to remain willfully ignorant.

Cutting defense spending across the board was a high priority for Bush 41 and Dead-eye-Dick in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

It’s just a fact that you can either hide from or face.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

Edwin - I hate to keep beating a dead horse but you never filled me in on what the Republican plan was prior to the surge.

You were sure quick to say that the Dems had no plan.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

What part of “it dont matter how we got into Iraq, we are right to be there” dont you git?

By accident of history we are in the right place at the right time to ensure our grandchildren’s freedom. That’s just a fact. It may be a convienient truth for the Bush Adminstration but it is the truth.

Express yourself. Dont be shy. Dont let no one tell you shut down, girl. You go. You blog. You say say say!!!!

Da diddle fiddle piddle poo!! (copyright 2007)

hacks.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

Goldie - you are only emboldening the terrorists by pulling out. Bin Laden attacked us precisely because we turned tail and ran in Somalia and we did nothing about the bombings in east Africa or the USS Cole. Please don’t use that argument that if we just make nice with these kooks they will leave us alone.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

{{{By regulator

February 14, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

You made one mistake rushcap, in the first election OVER half didn’t vote for him}}}

Regulator,

Uh, Clinton received 43% of the popular vote in 1992. Is that a majority?

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

“Rushncap -most French people I know (I live with one) are embarassed by their government right now.” -Edwin

What a coincidence! Most American people (whether I know them or not) are embarrassed by their government right now as well.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

Edwin— sounds like you need to go back and do some more reading. I doubt seriously that Churchill advocated invading an unarmed country, or getting involved in an occupation and war without having help from world allies —- hence the term “World WarII”… you’re pretty hilarious trying to equate what Dubya has done in the Middle East with WWII, and I would be laughing if it were truly funny. You’re another sick Kool-Aid drinker, Edwin.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

rushncap - thanks for correcting me. I meant seat, not district. Slip of the keyboard.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

So, let’s see— the theme today from the loonies is: “war is GOOD and will solve any kind of ailment! And we’ll tell any kind of lie to anybody to promote that propaganda!”

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

You won a moot point. You trolls argue absolutely absoletely.

I wonder what it feels like to be that stupid and brain challenged. I wonder if you can feel stupidity in your body. That’s another thesis I could persue on my way to my doctorate in Abnormal Psychology.

I guess I could start mining data now. Here’s an irresistable test for the stupid:

Pick one answer to the following question: How many gods do you see when you close your eyes and hit yourself in the head with a hammer?

A. one

B. Two

C. None, I had a helmet on.

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Edwin - the “horror” in Eastern Europe before Shrub Jr.? Errrr, ok, whatever you say. By the way, Reagan did not “win the Cold War for them”. He may have helped somewhat, but do you remember Reagan standing in front of the White House in August of ‘91? Do you remember him leading the Baltic states away from Russia. He may have accelerated the collapse by a couple of years, but he certainly did not single-handedly win the Cold War.

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

“it dont matter how we got into Iraq, we are right to be there”

That’s a moronic statement

“By accident of history we are in the right place at the right time to ensure our grandchildren’s freedom.”

It was no accident. It had been planned by the neocons for years. And what are we ensuring our grandchildren’s freedom from? The Iraqi people? When were they ever a threat?

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Goldie - the insults are just too childish to even reply to. Please try to do the “liberal” thing and at least pretend to tolerate the opinions of others. And Churchill did advocate just that - the English invaded Norway at the beginning of the war but had to pull out because of the fall of France. Think again, Goldie. You must be a real blond.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

LHU,

I’m not sure that you actually can read. One more time, you cited obsolete items or items we had in surplus.

Rumsfeld proposed cuts too, but his cuts were part of a plan to modernize, not just cuts for cuts sake so we could fund more useless social welfare programs.

Do U C the difference?

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this

Adder — haha, I vaguely remember that headline, yes. It was in the Guardian.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

Okay, new blog rule: no more “koolaid” references. Why not? You wouldn’t understand the technical explanation, but I think you’ll get this one: Remember the people who used the phrase “far out” way past it’s prime?

That’s why.

It’s gonna happen big time for you soon. (now that you know)

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

Goldie - I’m talking about the horror before the fall of Communism, which all of you folks opposed. And, no war is not good, but when forced upon you, then you must win. And wars do settle things. World War II settled a lot of things. The Civil War settled a lot of things. Such arguments decrying the futility of war are really sophomoric and simplistic and juvenile.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

Wrong again. Reagan and the Reagan Era did win the Cold War because reagan’s industry friendly policy sped up global warming and that was the end of the Cold War.

Singlehandedly? Hey, dont get personal. (did I just give something away?)

By Brad

February 14, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Dixie Chicks are crap!

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

What DO you like/love about America?

Edwin,

Who really cares what the Socialist, appeasing, oil-for-food bribing French think anyway? Also of note, in their neighboring U.K. the most popular baby name is Mohammed right now. I wonder what effect that has on popular opinion.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

The Guardian in a far left rag that is opposed to almost anything American - always knee-jerk or just plain jerky. It’s like listening to the pronouncements of the Flat Earth Society!

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

Muffin, I like most everything about America. You and your ilk is one of the few things I don’t like.

Edwin, by your logic of “war is not good, but when forced upon you, then you must win” the insurgents in Iraq must win their war against the U.S. forces. Not too “patriotic”, that.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

Okay, you Field Generals need some guidance. The term “invasion” is a generic one. Was D-day really the “invasion of normandy”? No. it was a strategic offensive against hitler’s left flank. The invasion of norway was a similar offensive campaign.

A true invasion is always a peacetime preemptive strike, not a defensive campaign aimed at ending a war or gaining an advantage of a war already in progress.

It’s an important distinction and it’s very illustrative of just how blog-simple you trolls truly are, and why nobody reads the silt that you deposit from the stream of undiciplined and random thoughts you let slide off your backside onto this site.

I liked that one. You?

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

If the dixie chicks dont (have a) fit, then W musta’ quit!

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

If they will elect Franken over Coleman just because they loved Wellstone, why didn’t Mondale win in 2002?

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this

A memo to the Republicans in Congress has been leaked, and we can all see that Republicans are not interested in doing what is best for our country, or even debate the issues. The memo is written by GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra tells their audience that they should first of all avoid debate. We “…urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution, …” they write. They go on to say, “Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President’s new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.”

Well, of course they can’t do that, they would lose. But, the problem is that the resolution offered says these exact things. The point of the Iraq resolution is to get everyone on the same page in agreement that the president’s policy is a failure and the surge is not likely to succeed.

But, the “brave” Republican “warriors” are afraid to debate the issue at hand, and instead they would rather avoid the issue. They are choosing to “cut and run” on this debate. They would rather “stay the course” with Bush’s failure of a plan in Iraq.

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Flat earth? I hate to tell you this, Edwin, but in reality, the earth is flat. In reality the earth appears round because mass warps space time. The moon is not circling the earth, you know, it’s going in a straight line through the warp in space time that earth itself creates just by being earth.

Einstein had a son he told nobody about. (ahem)

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

BD,

I guess Bush 41 was lying through his teeth about his defense budget when he said, ‘…we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.’

And Cheney was lying when he said, ‘since I’ve been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That’s the peace dividend.’

I guess you know a liar when you see one…

By Good Question

February 14, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Someone blogged that the civil war settled alot of things. WRONG! WW2 settled alot of things? WRONG!

both wars created more problems than they solved. First, the civil war’s influence is still being felt and nothing has been settled. Second, WW2 started when Heetler invaded Poland, and ended when the soviets invaded poland.

Settled? ZIP!

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

RW - the fact that Wellstone was very popular is but one reason Al could win. The fact that Coleman has been a Bush apologist until very recently (can you say flip flop?) will be another reason.

Mondale was brought in at the 11th hour when Wellstone died in a plane crash. Mondale was never very well liked and is seen as old school and is tarnished by his failure to win the presidency.

Wellstone would have trounced Coleman and everybody knows it. Al will do the same.

By Huh

February 14, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

useless social welfare programs

ready for a bloody revolution are you?

By Blackadder

February 14, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

I’m off to enjoy Valentine’s Day with Mrs. Blackadder.

I hope each and every one of you has a wonderful evening with your significant other.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

As far as I can tell you like the ski slopes, internet forums, and Al Franken.

I have never heard you say a positive word about this country, and you arrogantly demean everyone who defends it and its time-honored institutions.

By Troop Moral Czar

February 14, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

The surge will work. It already worked. Sadr fled. The war is all but over, and Bush was right. Now peace and prosperity will reign all over the middle east and the war on terror will be won.

Thank you Mr. Bush.

W has commissioned me as Troop Moral Czar

Anyone gotz anything to say ‘bout Iraq War now? I thought not.

Mission and Fate Accomplis

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

{{And, no war is not good, but when forced upon you, then you must win.}}

Edwin— tell us again your wisdom about how Iraq was “forced” upon America?

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

Because apparently ski slopes, Al Franken and the internet are all non-American…

By Troop Moral Czar

February 14, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

A war that is fought into itself is a war fought unto its conclusion which warrants a warring factional warfare war, which is what we have in Iraq.

If such a war, fought wire to wire, were to wear thin where war once wore thin as it were, then war would work.

but it dont

Now war is not a just war unless good is achieved by the winners. We shall do good in Iraq and justice will be served and good things served to one and all, too. (rejected lines from Churchill’s Iraq War speech in 1922)

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

{{We escalated WWII and WWI and Korea, and we won.}}

Edwin— so now you’re advocating that we reinstitute the draft in America, as occurred during the World Wars? That was the only way we had the numbers to “escalate” as you call it… please tell us your wise plan for “escalating”…

By Midori

February 14, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

“Money Trumps Peace”

Huh?

By Troop Moral Czar

February 14, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

We will have to draft americans to fight for freedom in Iraq eventually, because we aint never gonna get out of Iraq, nor should we.

We are there for the common good. Know it. Believe it.

A just war is just war.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

rushcap,

I knew you couldn’t come up with anything else, but I forgot to add poker tables.

Btw, my “ilk” were here from the very beginning framing this country with the “Shining City on a Hill”, as colonial governors, signers to the Declaration of Independence, soldiers in the Revolutionary War and so on, so if you don’t like that ilk then I really do wonder why you’re here.

LHU,

Once again, the reasons for Clinton’s cuts and Cheney/Bush I cuts were entirely different.

This is from an article in Harpers that could only be described coming from the Left of center -

Before the Plan was about domination it was about money. It took shape in late 1989, when the Soviet threat was clearly on the decline, and, with it, public support for a large military establishment. Cheney seemed unable to come to terms with either new reality. He remained deeply suspicious of the Soviets and strongly resisted all efforts to reduce military spending. Democrats in Congress jeered his lack of strategic vision, and a few within the Bush Administration were whispering that Cheney had become an irrelevant factor in structuring a response to the revolutionary changes taking place in the world.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

Parrot,

Let’s show everyone the full quote which you took out of context at 4:11 that has left you flummoxed:

(((U.S. President George Bush Wednesday admitted business interests may stand in the way of negotiations with Iran over its uranium enrichment program.

Bush told a White House news conference the challenge is to convince nations “what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish.”

Bush said he would not finger any countries in particular, but “money trumps peace sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue is convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it’s in the world’s interest that they forgo their own financial interests.”}}

Is that too tough for you to understand?

Oh, and I’ll be happy to be impolitic and name a country Bush won’t: Russia.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

Catch the Imbecile’s latest press conference today. Is it possible for a human being to look/be more idiotic than Shrub?

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this

Muffin, you’re right. Your ilk has been here since the beginning. You were defeated during the Revolutionary War, and have been gradually pushed back ever since. And you’re retreating again. You always resist progress, and you will continue to retreat.

I love a lot of things about America. Our current government isn’t one of them. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you and America are synonymous.

By Troop Moral Czar

February 14, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Yes, W does look and sound and act like an imbecile, but that’s just awkward personal style, like Lincoln.

His policy about Iraq turned out to be very very fortuitous.

By Lord Help Us

February 14, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Sure BD-(the obfuscator),

(sarc on) The ‘reasons’ were different therefore the results of Bush41/Cheney cuts in defense spending were okay but the cuts in defense spending during Clinton’s administration were completely unacceptable (sarc off).

You had a hilarious link yesterday about the demands made by Congress to Clinton to bomb Iraq.

Do you think you can find another from the Reps in Congress during Clinton’s administration calling for increases in defense spending?

Thanks in advance…

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Blivet,

You are absolutely the dumbest asexual to ever post on a blog. At 10:37 today I posted: “Today Blivet (I hope she finally googled “blivet”) posted about the same subject using an article from 1993 (Clinton served from 1993-2001). The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and kept control throughout Clinton’s presidency.

What doesn’t Blivet understand about the GOP controlling (approving) every budget (including military spending) from 1994 thru 2001?”

Then at 12:18 Blivet posts the following: “D’UH. Clinton’s 1993 budget cut the military. DU’H. There was a democrat majority in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives at that time. D’UH. The Republicans didn’t win their majority until 1994.”

I would ask the question “Why do you repeat the same facts as my post almost two hours later?”. But then I realize your head is so far up your butt that you must have been completely unaware of my post.

So once again I say: Clinton was President from 1993-2001. The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 through 2001. For 7 of the 8 years of Clinton’s terms, the GOP Congress voted on and approved the Budget, including all defense cuts. Either give Clinton credit for balancing the budget, or blame the GOP Congress for cutting military spending!

Blivet…you are slapped down.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 04:36 PM | Link to this

{{{You were defeated during the Revolutionary War}}}

rushncap,

Uh, no. They fought against the Brits. And there was not then, nor is there now, any “retreat” (despite your best efforts to erase and re-write history).

But your commie-pinko side is really shining through today with that “resist progress” comment. Don’t resist the revolution! Viva Che’.

By Goldie

February 14, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

{{Think again, Goldie. You must be a real blond.}}

Edwin— you think your comments are not insulting????? You need to come down off your high horse, Terrorist-Appeaser.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

By Paul February 14, 2007 04:24 PM Catch the Imbecile’s latest press conference today. Is it possible for a human being to look/be more idiotic than Shrub?

The president’s press conference was clear, concise and he didn’t “accidentally” call anyone unclean or a waste.

Plus it wasn’t at all ignorant like your post was.

So to answer your question, yes, you are far more idiotic.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 04:44 PM | Link to this

N-GA

If I may make an observation - it seems as if many (liberal) Democrats judge a program’s success by how much was spent. Similarly, when it comes to Defense, many (conservative) Republicans sound like New Deal Democrats.

Many have made the argument the cuts did not go far enough after the implosion of the Soviet Union, nor did the structural changes - again, one of Rumsfeld’s objectives, which nearly cost him his post before 9/11.

BTW - “Amarone” is one of the few words whose very sound so accurately evokes the taste and sensations it embodies. You are indeed fortunate to have such a wonderful “hobby” - especially one you can enjoy to such a degree on a Monday night - 1998, no less!

BlackAdder - if you’re not off to an early Valentines - you asked “Come on Edwin - what was the plan prior to Bush’s new plan?” I’ll hazard a guess - I believe it’s the one now embraced by many Democrats in Congress. Irony can be quite entertaining -

By Midori

February 14, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

this is a funny representation of Black Adder’s back-and-forth with Edwin Williams

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

No, Muffin, the Revolutionary War was not just “against the Brits”. There were a whole lot of American loyalists (to the throne). You know, those people who felt that criticizing the government was wrong and un-patriotic. The ones who did not question the status quo but simply did as they were told by the rulers. The ones who thought revolutions were for radical fringes. You know, 18th century versions of you.

Why do I have to keep teaching you history? I should really get paid for this…

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

SW…your 8:34 post sounds as if you could be related to James Earl Ray…

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

The Republicans were elected in 1994 and took office in 1995, the FY95 budget was already approved by the Democrat Congress so the first budget the Republicans had control over was the FY96 budget. Remember all the “shutting down the government” temper tantrums Clinton threw from there on out? Would you like to apologize to Buy Danish now?

By Swiftvoter

February 14, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

Dixie Chicks RULE!

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

Paul,

That’s the thing I find hysterical about the Democrat position right now. Since they want to pass a non-binding resolution against changing tactics and they won’t vote to defund the war, they really are promoting “stay the course.”

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 05:07 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I prefer not to stereotype either group because to do so really serves no purpose. Personally I measure a program’s success solely by pre-established metrics. Some others on this blog suggest, no swear that if liberals had their way the USA would have stayed out of WWII but for Pearl Harbor. What a ridiculous statement not borne out by facts. I could counter with American big business was opposed to going to war because they were already making obscene money as profiteers. But even that is unfair to say.

I think you (and everyone else) would agree that most Americans are opposed to war unless there is a damn good reason for it. At the same time we have to rely on our elected officials to act with moral certainty when sending American troops to fight.

Our American society is so far from perfect, yet we seem bound and determined to let the rest of the world know we are the best (at what?). As a society we could certainly use a little more humility (a virtue?), tolerance (another virtue), empathy (with the Palestinians)…you get my picture.

2 b continued…..

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

Actually, Stalk, (the U.S. military spending continued to decrease under the Republican Congress)[http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php] (at least as a fraction of GDP). Wanna apologize to N-GA now?

By Paul

February 14, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

“Hysterical” is a great word for it. Many have asked the question - today and other days - as to just what the American voters got for “a new way” in Iraq after the election - the answer seems quite simple: we got Pres Bush’s old strategy - the one the Democrats campaigned against and the one Pres Bush changed!

Time to reread “Alice in Wonderland?”

By Huge

February 14, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

Today’s menu of “interesting” quotes.

(Unless you define weaken as getting 3,100+ Americans needlessly KIA, 23,000+ Americans needlessly and devastatingly wounded, in many cases losing arms, legs and eyes, and needlessly creating an untold number of emotional and mental-health disorders/PTSDs for returning American vets).

(Of course nary a single example to backup that dubious sound bite. And one would think there must be many!)

(Sure, and I’m perfectly capable of running a 9.5 100 meters. But it’ll never happen. Face it blivet, intellectually you can’t carry Edwin’s jock. See next quote.)

(Nice use of special characters, which certainly qualifies as an example of super-intelligence!)

(Based on his writings, I find him taking umbrage at that assessment, rather odd. But just for a teaser I’ll give the guy one of the hallmarks of being a neo-con. DO NOT serve in the United States military. Too old, too young, too busy with other priorities like that awful veep of ours. True conservatives by and large have a MUCH higher and more respectable percentage. And don’t worry, neo-cons, I have lots of fun facts to support this assertion).

There are many, many other specific neo-con doctrines relating to bigger, more intrusive government, abrogation of individual liberties and an almost maniacal desire to unify Christianity and our government that I can share with you neo-cons as we go along.

So, coming up with examples to support one’s claim of being a “conservative” isn’t that difficult if one isn’t afraid to say what it is that they really believe in.

I hope it’s not true, as the nation desperately needs some of it, but I fear that real conservatism has gone the way of the dodo.

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this

RW….using your dates, then the 1993 budget wasn’t Clinton’s. It was Bush #1’s. So Clinton had 2 years of budgets where he has a congressional majority. That’s 2 years out of 8.

Blivet was boasting about the GOP Congress being responsible for balancing the budget, yet blaming Clinton for cutting military expenses. She can’t have it both ways, and neither can you.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

N-GA

If one considers “stereotype” as always perjorative, I’ll modify and say, “my impression with listening to many people from these groups is…” For example, many military folks I’ve spoken with take a much more jaundiced view of costs/expenses and program outlays that some conservative commentators - Sean Hannity’s inclusion of the “Peacekeeper” missile cancellation as demonstrative of Sen Kerry’s “antidefense” stance - that system was a monster, not wanted at that time by the Pentagon.

So, reducing Defense obligations in light of changing threat assessments is not “antidefense.”

Similarly, it seems whenever there’s an effort to reduce a domestic program - even in the outyears - howls of protest begin, couched in terms of “it’s a reduction, it’s bad.” To be fair, if the proposal affects a Republican Congressman’s district, they’ll join in the objections.

Difficulty is, many “programs” never, ever end. Care to guess how many federal employees have as a significant part of their duties, responsibility for promoting “energy conservation?” Made sense when Pres Carter began it - of dubious import, now.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I agree with you that the FY93 budget wasn’t Clinton’s, but it was still the budget of a Democrat Congress which was your logic in the first place.

Dmitry,

If you’re talking to me, please find anywhere where I said the military budget wasn’t going down once Republicans took over Congress. Are you sure you graduated from anywhere? Damn social promotions are going to be the death of us as a nation.

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I find Amarone interesting not only for its sensory characteristics, but also in the way that it is produced. The grapes are allowed to air-dry for upwards of 60 days resulting in water evaporation and a concentration of the juice. The result is a big, complex wine (not for white zinfandel drinkers). The loss through evaporation reduces total production by more than 60%, typically. Thus Amarones are more costly.

BTW, my dad is staying with us (retired WWII P-51 pilot - 50 missions in Europe including 6 over Ploesti). So it’s steak night & I can’t decide between an 2000 Isosceles or a 1997 Spottswoode. Your opinion?

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 05:38 PM | Link to this

I apologize, Stalk. You didn’t say the Republican Congress did not cut military spending. But since you did not say it, your post was entirely devoid of any point. I’m sorry, I sort of assumed you were actually saying something useful (albeit wrong).

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this

RW…my logic really wasn’t about democratic-controlled versus republican-controlled congresses. It was about someone (Blivet) giving credit to the GOP controlled congress (during Clinton’s terms) for balancing the budget. She then, in the same post, blamed Clinton for cutting military spending. My ONLY point is credit/blame (if it needs to be assigned at all) should go entirely to congress, or entirely to Clinton. Since the budget and military expenditures are part of the same set (using set theory), then to take the “good” and credit one party, then take the “bad” and blame another party is disingenuous at best and stupid, at worst.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

N-GA Just a test post to see if my response came thru - I’m not sure I hit “Post” before I went on to something else -

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 05:54 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You expressed your point about military expenses/programs so eloquently that I had to read it twice. Too well written for this blog. (do not read any sarcasm into those last 2 lines)

Yes, all too often the support of a program is directly proportional to how many of a congressman’s (-woman’s) constituents are employed by defense contractors involved in that program.

When I was on active duty (1969-75), at one point I had a CO who ordered us to spend funds (at year end) for materials for which we had no need. When questioned he insisted that if we failed to spend all budgeted funds then the unit budget would be reduced by that amount for the following fiscal year. This attitude was rampant at the time. My closest friend (still is) was an Academy graduate. When he separated from the service the defense contractors hounded him with job offers (part of his responsibilities had been to develop contract specifications and performance metrics). He turned them all down.

BTW, the wife opted for the 2000 Isosceles. It’s breathing now. 78% cabernet sauvignon, 19% cabernet franc, & 3% merlot.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 06:03 PM | Link to this

Maybe this is why Bush hasn’t been worried about bin Laden:

Second, as Allahpundit muses, one could infer from this that Osama is no longer around, which I have believed for some time. After all, we haven’t seen a video of The Tall One for more than two years. I rather suspect that al Qaeda ceased to exist after we liberated Afghanistan, and that, ever since, these unsavory characters have been under more or less effective control by their Iranian hosts.

Seems as though Al Qaeda’s “religious” leader has been “converted” to a corpse.

May he rot in hell.

Don’t you pinkos get all ate up with grief now.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Pete H

February 14, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

I’ve been checking in on your blog from time to time, but I usually never comment. But, what’s with this Luckodull? He’s the first post every day. Does he (or she) have nothing better to do? He must stay up all night slugging Jolt cola.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Congress gives great deference to the Executive Branch in matters of defense spending, so it isn’t so cut and dried. Buy Danish’s point is well stated as the Republicans deferred to the White House in the defense spending cuts and cut away at his domestic spending proposals. Of course one of the main reasons the budget was balanced didn’t have much to do with Clinton or Congress, it was the technology boom.

Not to put words in her keyboard, but I think she agrees that the Republican Congress shouldn’t have allowed Clinton’s defense cuts and we’re paying to build them back up in this decade.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Short recap (I was at a travel site):

Please pass along my thanks and congratulations to your father. Those were great aircraft - my mother was the final engine inspector for P-47 Thunderbolts. That was a different time - young people had far more responsibility thrust upon them than many do nowadays.

I took my son to Boise, ID some years back - well worth the trip - there was a fly-in of 15 Mustangs. They were in the air constantly, mock dogfights - all in all a great trip.

What do you do - own a wine store? :) My brother - a very quiet, dedicated oenophile - is the one to ask. Most of what I know and enjoy rubs off from him - Christmas is a wine taster’s delight - but really, what does your Dad like? If he’s fine with whatever you pick, then pick! Isn’t the Isosceles a bit - what’s the word - heavier? If grilling ribeyes as opposed to a lighter cut, such as a fillet, well, that may or may not matter to you or to him. I’m sure he’d taste either and be pleased.

Again, my best to your father. Ask him if he ever catchs “Dogfights” on the History Channel. Superb recreations of some great encounters - and interviews with some of the participants.

By Edwin Williams

February 14, 2007 06:10 PM | Link to this

Goldie - you ARE the terrorist appeaser. I have not been arrogant, you have. You are a twit to say the least. You insult, call names and then scream bloody murder when called on the carpet. The only terrorist appeasers are those who want to abandon our missions overseas and try to make nice with crazies. Please take a look in the mirror before you call me or any other Republican that again. You and your ilk would have let the USSR just take over during the Cold War because you were scared of your shaddows, just like the appeasers before WWII. And you are just doing the same thing again. Please try to act like a lady with some decent upbringing rather than a common fishwife!

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 06:12 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I don’t think criticizing the government is unpatriotic as long as it is done in good faith and the person who is doing it is a patriot who is not aiding and abetting the enemy, and parroting their words to use against our Commander in Chief at a time of war. If the critic wishes defeat for our country then I would not call them patriotic, no matter how they try to spin it.

My “ILK” fought in the American Revolution against the crown. I guarantee you I know more about their history then you do.

I would also remind you that all revolutions are not alike, despite your Utopian glamorizing of revolution for revolution’s sake, and your desire for a new revolution here in the U.S.

RW,

I don’t know what to do with the Goat except recommend shock treatment. It won’t help the dunce factor but it might wake him up.

GOAT!

Do you think that the only way to balance a budget is to cut defense? How is it “having it both ways” if congress chooses to cut spending on wasteful social programs?

btw, Didn’t you say you hate this sort of thing that happened in 1993?

The White House, in turn, used the budget presentation to step up its attacks on Republicans for holding up what Panetta and Laura D’Andrea Tyson, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, called ——->a key element of the plan, the quick spending meant to stimulate the economy and provide jobs.<——-

Republicans believe in tax cuts and letting the American people stimulate the economy through their own spending.

Vive la difference!

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 06:12 PM | Link to this

This dude is serious, isn’t he?

By Pete H February 14, 2007 06:04 PM I’ve been checking in on your blog from time to time, but I usually never comment. But, what’s with this Luckodull? He’s the first post every day. Does he (or she) have nothing better to do? He must stay up all night slugging Jolt cola.

This may come as a surprise to you pinkos but it is possible to get out of bed before 10 o’clock in the morning.

Not that you would ever try it, haha.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Barney H

February 14, 2007 06:13 PM | Link to this

I don’t post here much either, but reading this blog makes me wish the two gay wine stewards would get a room.

By God

February 14, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

Hang Bush now!

By N-GA

February 14, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

Wow! Paul, this is where I tend to regress. The post of 6:13 is too much.

Barney…some people post on topic here, but segue into other topics in order to help keep the dialog civil. From the tenor of your post it can be deduced that by tossing a “gay” slam at us you announce yourself as a bigot.

The fact that you don’t post here often is a blessing…thank you for that.

By Pete H

February 14, 2007 06:32 PM | Link to this

Hey Luckodull,,

Why are you assuming I’m a liberal? I didn’t mention any affiliation either way. I could be a hard-core conservative and just think you’re an idiot with way too much time on his hands.

By Paul

February 14, 2007 06:42 PM | Link to this

N-GA

And with that, have a good evening with your wife and dad. BTW - my mom had saved my dad’s WWII insignia, awards and decs. (One can also get copies online after getting the records from the service’s personnel center). They’re going into a display box - hopefully with a flag flown over the Capitol if my Congressman ever responds - for an appropriate family presentation. Just a thought -

G’night, all.

By Curly's mom

February 14, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

Because a* wants to blog here so badly all day long, I’ve taped his favorite show “Mail Call” so he can watch it later. You should see him, he puts on his cub scout shorts (they still fit!) and sits down right in front of the TV with a big glass of milk and yells oorah everytime R. Lee Ermey does. It is just adorable.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 06:49 PM | Link to this

By Pete H February 14, 2007 06:32 PM Hey Luckodull,, Why are you assuming I’m a liberal? I didn’t mention any affiliation either way. I could be a hard-core conservative and just think you’re an idiot with way too much time on his hands.

Hey Dullard: The very definition of being a pinko is to worry over what your fellow humans are doing.

Pinko.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 06:50 PM | Link to this

Pete H.

What business is it of yours what other people do with their lives? None?

Unless you’re a liberal and think you’re so much better than everyone else and are therefore qualified to tell them how to live their lives.

LuckoDull,

Thanks for all the great posts today. I enjoy the entertaining commentary and informative links you provide.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

“Barney H” is probably just another of Polly Prepuce’s monikers, but if you don’t read you and Paul’s food and wine exchanges carefully it’s easy to get mislead by them.

Then again I love a good wine tasting, but I always wind up getting dirty looks when I burst out laughing at what the other tasters are saying.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

I misspoke. The very definition of being a preacher is to worry over what your fellow humans are doing.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 06:57 PM | Link to this

RW,

If Barney H is Polly then that is the one and only time where I enjoyed one of his posts.

By LuckoDull

February 14, 2007 07:00 PM | Link to this

By LuckoDull February 14, 2007 06:54 PM I misspoke. The very definition of being a preacher is to worry over what your fellow humans are doing.

Hi Huge, er, Monkey Man: You mad at the whole world again?

Glad I could help.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 07:02 PM | Link to this

So yes, Muffin, you don’t think criticizing the government is ever acceptable. Unless, of course, you do it. In which case it’s “free speech”. Sorry honey, it don’t work that way here.

I have no desire for a revolution right now. I will settle for an impeachment. And as for your “knowledge” of history, well, I’ll attribute that to your special sense of humor and pretend to smile and nod.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 07:12 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Once every couple of months Polly makes an amusing comments. So I guess it’s one every seven or eight thousand.

What do you think rushncap bought his hand for Valentine’s Day?

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 07:29 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Nice job twisting my words like a good little commissar.

You do understand what “good faith” means, don’t you, munchkin?

As for American history, since it is my “ilk” who are in the history books, I have an above average interest in the subject, just as you no doubt know more about the Russian Revolution (although you seem to be in denial about the scourge of Communism).

By rushncap

February 14, 2007 08:15 PM | Link to this

Muffin, honey, I’m not twisting your words. Your words are simply twisted. You hate democracy, it shines through in every post of yours. You’d feel right at home in the USSR, you’d join up the Party like a good little lemming and report your neighbors if they so much as looked anti-Communist. You have that exact character. I don’t know or care how long your ancestors lived in America. It matters not a jot. You are not them, they are not you, and you happen to hate freedom. I happen to love it because I’ve seen the other side, and it’s not pretty. So you can mouth off all you want about Communism, or Democrats or whatever, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You may even know facts of history (which I doubt) but that does not matter either — you don’t understand them. It is people like you that the Constitution was designed to keep in check — those who long for a despot because they are too weak or too stupid or too unprincipled to live freely. Thankfully our Founding Fathers were smart and knew your type. Because otherwise you’d already call the KGB on me and Huge and others and smile self-congratulatorily while we rotted in jail.

Sorry pumpkin, no dice. Sucks to be you.

Stalker boy, go sit on a picket fence.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 14, 2007 10:19 PM | Link to this

{{{Thankfully our Founding Fathers were smart and knew your type. Because otherwise you’d already call the KGB on me and Huge and others and smile self-congratulatorily while we rotted in jail. }}

munchkin,

That is the single most paranoid statement I have heard yet. Maybe finch can recommend a nice sanitarium for you.

What was I going to throw you in jail for? Playing Texas hold em?

Time to grow up munchkin - after you get your head on straight with a little professional help.

By RW-(the original)

February 14, 2007 10:47 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

I’m telling you San Diego was not run by communist dictators. Shake yourself boy!! Oh wait…I guess that was what you were doing with your “date” when you came in here to whine at 8:15. I bet as much experience as you have you’re ambidextrous by now.

So Cap’n Freedom, what do you think of the part in the Hillarycare plan that will throw you in jail if you go around the government health care system to find your own services? Oh the Doc goes too.

As pleasant as the thought of you and Blowhard rotting away together is, it will never happen because of any restriction on your freedom that I support. The reason you two, and several others like you, will rot away is because you are simply miserable human beings and the rotting away process was put in motion years ago.

By the way, Stalker Boy is what I call One Voice, can’t you come up with anything on your own? I mean except for your “productivity” breaks.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 08:29 AM | Link to this

After Pennsylvania’s freshman Democratic Representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraqi war vet, delivered his amazing floor speech Tuesday night, the GOP’s “war room” launched an attack. And, of course, the GOP’s attack came via the Moonie paper.

Funny how the GOP uses a “war room” in the very safe and protected confines of the Capitol building to criticize a member of Congress who actually served in the war that the House is debating. Murphy’s office responded:

“Congressman Murphy is absolutely proud of his service and the work done by the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq. The right wing’s go-to move is to try and smear veterans. Fortunately, Pennsylvanians understand that it’s no contradiction that Congressman Murphy is both proud of his service and opposed to the Bush administration’s wrong-headed policies in Iraq.”

Of course, the GOP can’t figure that out. They don’t know that it’s possible to oppose Bush’s mis-guided war while still supporting the troops — even when members, like Patrick Murphy, who served in Iraq — explain it to them.

I’m sure the GOP doesn’t see any irony in their use of the term “war room” to attack a real war vet. But they’re messing with the wrong guy. This is all a political game for the GOP. For soldiers like Murphy, it is life and death.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

rushncap Munchkin,

Just checking in to see if you made it through the night without having a complete breakdown.

One good thing about being you is that you get to save a lot of money on Valentine’s Day on dinner, jewelry, champagne and flowers, so that’s a happy thought I’ll send your way.

After you take a chill pill, maybe you could quote something I said that proves your paranoid delusion that I hate Democracy (although Representative Republic is a better term) and would actually imprison you and your blowhard comrades if I could.

With that it mind, feel free to Google or use the archives to back up your psychotic speech from last night.

Blackadder,

Geraldo Rivera is on the ground in Iraq right now, and he reported last night that the word from local Iraqis is that General Petreus’ surge strategy is working. It’s not too late to save yourself the embarrassment of supporting resolutions that oppose his efforts.

Later ….

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

Geraldo Rivera!? He has about the same credibility as Rush Limbaugh these days.

I wonder how hard he had to look to find someone who is in the minority over there.

I believe the percentage of Iraqis who want us there is lower, per capita, than the percentage of Americans who want us there.

Geraldo? What a laugh. He must be over there looking for Saddam’s vault like he did Capone’s vault.