Mike Luckovich

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

As bad as the astroloony appears to be, it’s not near as bad as the democrat members of the House Of Representatives look in their diapers:

Democrats made clear the nonbinding resolution was the beginning of a longer campaign to bring the Iraq war to an end. “A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation, which will be coming to the House floor,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.

Plus, the astronaut’s diaper doesn’t stink near as bad as the democrats does.

That’s the problem with big a-ss crying babies, you clean it out and they fill it right back up, guaranteed.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By George

February 15, 2007 08:50 AM | Link to this

Andy, don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

By Brian Curtis

February 15, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Okay, the cartoon links two current news stories that have very little importance and received overwhelming coverage.

But other than that, it’s not particularly funny. Missed on this one, Luckovich.

By Mrs. Godzilla

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

But what about Britney and Paris?

By Shawny

February 15, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

Gotta disagree Brian…this toon is making light of sadness of the average American… and what is really important in the overall scheme of things…

Wacko astronaut…sad, but not that important…

Wacky celebrity…definitely sad, sad situation…but it is difficult to understand why the typical American if fixated on her affairs…

One think Mikey could have added to this toon to make it complete is some reference to at least 5 people claiming to be the baby’s father…and we care, why?

Funny toon….sad, but funny.

By Shawny

February 15, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

Here is another sad, but funny toon:

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

Bank of “America”, offering ultra-high interest credit to non-Americans. Sad.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

HA HA — “still dead”!

American TV media is consumed with Rupert Murdoch tabloidism…

By candide

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

The interest in Anna Nicole Smith demonstrates what has long been obvious. Americans are incredibly vulgar.

By Deidre

February 15, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

Good job Sir!…Seriously, enough already with the ANS coverage!

By Shawny

February 15, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this

Same Americans that can’t miss Entertainment Tonight or American Idol.

sad

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

THANKS MIKE. I GOT YOUR BACK TOO.

DID ANY BODY SEE THIS IN THE NEWS?

A new report from the U.N. Children’s Fund says the United States and Britain are the worst countries in the industrialized world in which to be a child. UNICEF says an examination of 40 factors, such as poverty, deprivation, happiness, relationships, and risky or bad behavior puts the United States and Britain at the bottom of a list of 21 economically developed nations.

The UNICEF report sought to assess children’s well-being in developed countries by measuring a number of factors, including health, education, poverty, family relationships, and bad or risky behavior. Children were also asked to say whether they were happy.

In the overall table of children’s well-being, the Netherlands comes out on top, followed closely by the Scandinavian countries, which also have highly developed welfare systems. At the bottom are the United States at No. 20, and Britain at No. 21.

It’s not that developed welfare states necessarily have happier children, says David Parker of UNICEF.

“I think what we know from history in the U.S.,” Parker says, “is that it’s not necessarily how the welfare is provided but the nature of the support. One of the key things is that the role of government is important, but the entire society must have at its heart the idea of improving child well-being.”

The United States fared worst of all 21 countries in health and safety, measured by rates of infant mortality and accidents and injuries.

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

Once again Mike, the toon is in really poor taste. It’s just too much piling on. The situation is tragic, not least of all because she was so little deserving of fame in life and so lacking in dignity. Please just give her some in death.

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

I would not just take a UNICEF report at face value. I would like to see the methodology they used to reach their conlcusions, especially since Britain has the much vaunted “universal health care” which is supposed to be literally a panacea for all of the world’s ills!

By @@

February 15, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

Two sad individuals ml. Why must you perpetuate? Are you a boob?……..man.

I’ve been watching the rise of your anti-war leftists’ hero “Hugo”. Many of them right here on your blog.

Controlling dissidents.

Nationalizing food sales.

Promoting tourism for other countries.

And the leftists here in the U.S. thought he was one of “the good guys”.

It’s a slippery slope when you open the door to someone like Hugo. But then leftists are such tolerant people.

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

Edwina,

You ask for a methodology before you believe the U.N. report, yet you denigrate the UK’s health care system with a generalized “…which is supposed to be a panacea for all the world’s ills.”.

Why don’t you post a legitimate source for that last snide remark!

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

EDWIN -

WE WILL EXPECT YOUR REPORT BY THE END OF THE WEEK.

DO THE WORK AND LET US KNOW.

WE ARE SURE YOU ARE A CONCERNED ENOUGH AMERICAN, TO TAKE A DEEPER LOOK AT THE METHODOLOGY YOU HAVE QUESTIONED AND GIVE US THE STRAIGHT STORY.

WE ARE SURE YOU ARE MAN ENOUGH NOT TO JUST SHOOT BLINDLY, BUT TO DIG INTO THE DETAILS, CHECK THE SOURCES AND LET THE REST OF US KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE. WE AWAIT YOUR WISDOM.

SO DO THE CHILDREN OF THIS COUNTRY.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Hopefully both topics will soon be well and truly dead.

candide 9:14

Bad Americans! Naughty, naughty Americans!

In the News 9:25

What is always the case with such stories is not the report but the assumptions upon which the report is based. In this case, it’s an assumption that the more government (read: taxes from other citizens) support in areas such as child care (read: you have children, someone else pays for their care) the better. It also defines poverty base as $35k for a family of four, while the US bases it at $20k. Given the median US household income is just over $40k, well, about half of US households are just above poverty, right? Just more fun with numbers to “prove” a point.

G’morning, N-GA. Still looking for consistency?

By @@

February 15, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

About the Unicef report.

Blind feminism has hurt our children

I’ve been supporting this theory for a long time.

Kids need their parents love and care. Not material possessions.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

NPR/Diane Rehm show’s discussing the N Korea deal. It’s amazing how silent are those who castigated the Administration for pressing for a multiparty approach (China, Japan, etc.) rather than one-on-one and sang the praises of the Pres Clinton/Carter model. Future events are to be predicted and judged failures, present successes are to be… well, let’s just all be silent.

By Huge

February 15, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Rock Chalk Jayhawk!

Another repudiation of one of the cornerstones of neo-con philosophy!

Yes, Kansas has welcomed Darwin back with open arms, and has properly thrown out the psycho-babble of intelligent design from public schools.

The school board voted to remove “ID” from the curriculum. And science teachers will no longer have to say that the central ideas of evolution are controversial in scientific circles. Because they aren’t!

The explanation of the “nature of science” has also been reworded. It is now described as the pursuit of RATIONAL explanations for things that happen in the Universe. Imagine that!

“Today the Kansas Board of Education returned its curriculum standards to mainstream science,” said board chairman, Dr Bill Wagnon. “This assures that Kansas children are appropriately educated for the 21st century.”

Would someone please inform these dullards that there was this thing called the Enlightenment a few centuries ago? And that it replaced their irrationality, superstition, tyranny and mythology with liberty, reason, ethics and logic!

I know you cave-men hate the idea of our children learning anything more modern that what people knew in the 11th century, but I say, Amen!

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

I originally posted this before ML updated the site but it bears repeating:

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 Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Another day and still no response from Edwin on what the Republican plan was before the surge.

He just regurgitates the tired old “Dems have no plan” mantra.

My apologies if you responded after 4:00 yesterday when left.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

I missed it - just how did Congressman Murphy discuss “oppose the war” while “supporting the troops”?

Did he ever define that elusive concept of “support the troops?”

By Shawny

February 15, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

We need more of these folks:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110009670

Unfortunate that the two predominate parties hold so much power, money, and sway.

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Great toon, Mike! I’m impressed you tied the 2 stories together. Well done!

Huge — Kansas keeps doing this. There is no guarantee that this time Enlightenment will take there.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Conservatism - so easy even a cave man can do it.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Paul - here’s the video, see for yourself

By Paul

February 15, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Shawny

Excellent link. Thank you. That’s one I’ll save. Some years back the Libertarian Party became so ideological it became divorced from reality - rather like those econ and polisci profs we remember so fondly. A reservation I still hold is the idea that with sheer willpower and personal effort it’s possible to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” Life and nature deal some people lousy hands - and, I think, a proper role of government is to provide methods by which such can improve their condition, if that is what they desire.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Hey Blackadder— good one at 10:28!

By Huge

February 15, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Good stuff in that 10:18. These despicable, never-served, Rove-led neo-cons have trashed dozens of combat veterans in the past few years. It is what the gutless chickenhawks do best.

And of course the house gopers don’t want to talk about Iraq!

A letter from republican power brokers advising their colleagues to avoid talking about Iraq said, The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or WHETHER WE CAN, OR CANNOT, WIN MILITARILY.

For these cowards and their foul supporters, the invasion of Iraq is merely a political issue. People don’t matter to them and they don’t give a flying fvck about the marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen who are or have been there, unless of course, they can use them to endorse Bush’s insane policies…

rushncap,

True enough about Kansas. And the vote was only 6 to 4. That’s why it is important that people of conscience and intelligence need to keep constantly speaking out against religious bigotry and backwardness of ALL kinds in this country.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Thanks Goldie but I have to give credit to Huge for the idea.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Quote of the day:

“Money trumps peace sometimes heh heh” -George W. Bush

Yes he actually chuckled after saying it.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

Thanks for the link to Congressman Murphy’s remarks. I did not hear anything about “support the troops” - so that’s still a rather elusive concept. I did hear him imply what we’re seeing is simply an increase in troop levels with no other changes - rather as with VietNam. That characterization is incorrect.

He did state we must tell the Iraqi gov’t we “won’t be there forever” - is my memory faulty, or is that what Pres Bush has been saying since the Baghdad plan was announced?

Be that as it may, he is one of the few (along with Sen Obama) to propose something different - a timeline for withdrawal.

A couple things about that bother me. First, why isn’t that thing sailing through? (Future accountablity, likely). Second, if the policy is a failure, if remaining with the current policy (we’ll let ride if it’s the same as before the plan) - then what justification is there for a “timetable” that will just get more troops killed while we conduct an phased, drawn-out withdrawal? If he believes we’re in the midst of a failure and nothing will change, then to do anything other than to pull the forces out now puts him in the same camp as those he opposes - getting troops killed for a political agenda.

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

By Huge February 15, 2007 10:16 AM Yes, Kansas has welcomed Darwin back with open arms, and has properly thrown out the psycho-babble of intelligent design from public schools. The school board voted to remove “ID” from the curriculum.

Monkey Man: What was the vote from the general population of Kansas on this issue?

Surely their voice matters, doesn’t it?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Blackadder 10:48

{{Money trumps peace sometimes heh heh” -George W. Bush

Yes he actually chuckled after saying it.}}

When referring to the Russians and European countries with economic interests in Iran who are opposing sanctions.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Bush is currently delivering a speech at the American Enterprise Institute ostensibly about Afghanistan and the war on terror. This sounds like one of those old anti-terror speeches circa 2002. It is devoid of the current reality. He’s still really trying hard to link the war in Iraq to the war on terror. Of course, Bush’s war in Iraq has completely distracted us from the war on terror. Bush still hasn’t captured Bin Laden who actually attacked our country. In fact, Bush’s war in Iraq has been a recruiting boon for terror networks according to US intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, the Taliban is undergoing a resurgence. But, have no fear. Bush is on the case. And, he loves a speech like this because he gets to keep saying “September the 11th.”

The American Enterprise Institute, where Lynne Cheney is a Senior Fellow, is one of the few places where Bush could deliver this speech.

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Paul. I won’t be around much until later this afternoon. I hope you engage someone interesting today. Let’s see…perhaps the PRK deal will evolve into something substantive. I truly hope so.

It is interesting that GWB and Bolton disagree on the deal. In his news conference yesterday, GWB was vehement in his observation that the deal was good and Bolton was wrong. Refreshing candor for this administration.

Some in Japan are having a fit about the deal. The PM won’t participate until the PYK comes clean on the abductions of Japanese citizens. The opposition party is spinning that position by saying that the PM’s party is willing to accept nuclear weapons in the region (I guess they forgot about the PRC).

Me…I’m holding back on any strong opinion because, as it stands it can go either way. However, I wonder how different the deal is from the old Clinton deal (food & oil to keep out weapons-grade nuclear technology). I think the old deal allowed nuclear technology for energy - but that technology didn’t produce weapons-grade material?).

Back in a few hours….

By Huge

February 15, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Have you noticed that W laughs inappropriately all the time?!

If anyone was that nervous about looking like a blooming idiot to the entire world, they’d probably try to laugh it off too.

He’s like a white Dr. Hibbard from The Simpsons!

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Look how eager the miserable Leftists are to herald the results of this ludicruous Unicef report. America sucks!! Britain sucks!! Socialism is the key to happiness!!

Edwin,

Excellent point about U.K. universal healthcare.

@@,

I agree that babies and young children should not be in daycare and that fathers need to hve an active role with their chilren, but what I don’t get about that story is how it can be blamed on “Thatcherism”.

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

N-GA - I have live in Europe and been a victim of “universal” health care. I was also a victim of it in Canada while visiting at age 16 and temporarily lost the use of my right hand. I’ve got first hand experience. Obviously you do not. The remark was not snide, it was sarcastic!

By gadem

February 15, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Edwin, I am going to help you out on the plan that the Repugs had when the war started…and feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think the plan I remember being drilled in my head by the neocons was “When the people of Iraq stands up, we will stand down.” Is that right? What did I win?

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

“He’s like a white Dr. Hibbard from The Simpsons!” -Huge

LOL!

Edwin - I keep seeing your posts and I keep hoping you’ll answer my question. I’ll take it that you don’t have an answer and leave it at that.

Can’t say I’m surprised.

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish - at the risk of sounding like Bartle’s and James - thank you for your support!

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

It’s really hard to sort through the lies and fabrications from the Bush Administration about Iran in just the past week. An analysis in today’s Washington Post takes a crack at it.

Enough already. Note to the media: The Bush Administration is lying to you — AGAIN.

It’s time for the reporters in Baghdad to out the speakers at that now infamous Sunday briefing. Reporters in the traditional media know the back story here. They need to share it.

By Huge

February 15, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Caveman curly,

I’ll not bother trying to educate you on how this republic and our representative governments work. It’s a shame that leeches like you have lived in this great nation for so long and still have not a clue on how our democracy functions. It’s obvious that you’re too old and dense to learn anything new.

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Edwin….I lived in Europe for 7 years. But that doesn’t qualify me (or you) as experts.

You choose to express a personal opinion, yet demand details on a U.N. study. That smells of hypocrisy.

Personally I would also welcome more details about the U.N. study. From what I’ve read so far, the study doesn’t impress me. Be that as it may, you shouldn’t play both sides of the fence.

BTW, a close friend’s father (he’s British) just had gallbladder surgery. He had to wait a little more than a year because the surgery was classified as “elective”. The medical program they have there uses a triage-like basis for prioritizing healthcare. However, if you have the money then private healthcare is available (much like private schooling). He had the money, but chose not to spend it.

By rushncap

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

So what you’re telling us, Edwin, is that it’s perfectly fine that millions of people are uninsured because they can’t afford to be. So if a kid in a poor family gets sick, or needs an operation… whatevs, shoulda been born to a wealthier mother.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

Are you in “fire and forget” mode this morning?

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

That’s still the plan. You get the d’uh prize. The PM of Iraq still wants us there. What does that tell you. The head militant has also fled the country. Obviously we ar making progress. I guess you want us to leave before the job is done? What about Afghanistan? Should we go to Darfour as well? George Cluny thinks so!

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Paul - I don’t get your point. Did I fail to answer a question of yours? I’d hate to pull an “Edwin” on you.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Jackass* N-GA,

What is “snide” about this comment from Edwin:

{{I would like to see the methodology they used to reach their conlcusions, especially since Britain has the much vaunted “universal health care” which is supposed to be literally a panacea for all of the world’s ills!}}

*You’ve been demoted or promoted from Goat. I’ll let you decide which one it is.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

“I guess you want us to leave before the job is done?” -Edwin

Just what is the “job” Edwin? Maybe you can answer that one. Is it the same “job” from when we first invaded? It seems there have been many “jobs” and none have a chance in hell of getting done.

By gadem

February 15, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Edwina, that is not a plan…that is a slogan. No benchmarks were set until recently. Edwina, how can you be against abortion and healthcare for kids that were not aborted? That sounds like the thinking of an insane person.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

“Should we go to Darfour as well?” -Edwin

That would have been a better choice than Iraq. We should have been in Darfur about 70,000 deaths ago.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder

Well, I didn’t really phrase both as a direct question -

I’ve not yet heard any explanation (gt engineer did, no politicians have) of what that phrase “support the troops” means, particularly in the context of Iraq. It strike me as a “cover phrase” to forestall direct, immediate action and avoid accountability.

The second “question” was - in reference to Congressman Murphy’s speech, is if the majority believe we’re in the midst of a failure in Iraq and nothing will change, then to do anything other than to pull the forces out now (not stretch it out with a “phased timetable”) puts them in the same camp as they describe the Administration - getting troops killed for a political agenda. That strikes me as even more reprehensible.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Jackass update!!

Now N-GA is saying it is “hypocritical” of Edwin to want to see the methodology of the U.N. report(HORRORS!) because he expessed a “personal opinion” when he noted the irony that accoridng to the U.N. Britain’s children are suffering terribly despite their universal healthcare program.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

How can you Bush-appeasers stand for this?

How do you explain to the thousands of American troops now being poured into Baghdad that they will have to wait until the summer for the protective armor that could easily mean the difference between life and death?

Support our troops — bring ‘em home!

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

gadem - who said that I was for or against abortion. YOu are making assumptions which you should not make. Also, stop calling me Edwina, you sarcastic, rude twit.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Paul - Support the troops is a broad term. In my mind supporting the troops means supplying them with the equipment necessary to make them safe. This administration has been woefully negligent in that regard.

It also means to support them when they are wounded. Many of our troops have been neglected in that a well. Some dying before treatment is rendered in the states. Not to mention that funds are being cut as I mentioned yesterday.

Ultimately supporting the troops means only utilizing them to protect our country and citizens. The entire Iraq fiasco goes against this premise. meanwhile Afghanistan - our real front in the war on terror - is slipping back into Taliban control due to our lack of attention.

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Change “FAUX NEWS” to “The Anna Nicole Smith 24-Hour Update Channel” and there you have it.

I liked (in a sick way) this one I found:

“Anna Nicole Smith Dead, Thousands of U.S. Soldiers and Iraqis to Soon Join Her.”

In the FAUX case, I guess when you’re wrong All THE TIME concerning world everts, it’s best to stick to “yellow journalism,’ mcukraking and sensationalism

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

HERES ANOTHER ONE FOR Y’ALL TO GO NUTS OVER.

SEEN THIS IN THE NEWS?

Iraqi Insurgents Offer Peace for U.S. Concessions

By Robert Fisk, The Independent UK. Posted February 10, 2007.

For the first time, Sunni insurgents disclose their conditions for ceasefire in Iraq. The ball is now in Bush’s court.

For the first time, one of Iraq’s principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.

The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet — but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Blackadder - I did answer you. You just either didn’t read it or didn’t get it.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Edwin - I believe I read every post looking for a response. Would you be so kind as to repeat it?

What was the plan before the surge?

By Paul

February 15, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Hello Goldie

Let me take a stab at this - dovetails with the NYT editorial - one reason we didn’t have more private-sector production capability and funding for these “low-tech” products, is because with the fall of the Soviet Union, the first Bush presidency, followed by the Clinton Presidency, kept pretty much “status quo” and poured billions into the weapons systems the editorial cites. SecDef Rumsfeld was stymied in is first two years in his efforts to “transform the military” (including postponing acquisition of these weapons) and shifting funds to just these sorts of programs.

And thank you for a definition of “support the troops” - or was that a slogan. Aren’t you just a tad miffed at the Congressional leadership for its inaction in what you called for (bring’em home), thus sentencing scores more servicemen to death?

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Gadem,

I’m sorry, but I can’t find any remarks by Edwin about abortion.

Can you cite your source for us (if it isn’t too “snide” and “hypocritical” of me to ask for evidence and not be foolish enough to rely on your statement).

Next, please prove your sanity by explaining how being opposed to Universal government healthcare translates to not wanting children to have healthcare at all.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

BlackAdder 11:40

Fair enough. The equipment issue is rather narrow - applies to some segments of the Army and Marine Corps.

Your last criteria is pretty much (Pres Reagan) SecDef Weinberger’s criteria - which will rule out many future interventions - Darfur was mentioned today. That’ll cause some backtracking.

There is no inconsistency with accepting your definitions and pressing the Democratic leadership (and rank and file) to stop their stalling and get on with an immediate withdrawal. Their citing “support the troops” as a smokescreen for inaction is highly deceptive, in my opinion.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Truthman,

ABC News via Entertainment Tonight has been covering this story nonstop too, so you can’t blame it all on Fox.

I had the misfortune of flipping through the channel when they were showing us her C Section, which has to go down as one of the most grotesque journalistice episodes I’ve ever witnessed and brings reality tv to a dimension I’d prefer we not explore.

They also seem to be on a “Will the baby be kidnapped??” angle, which is really bizarre.

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

You are correct. All news organizations (are there really any these days?) have devoted WAY too much time to that poor, drug-addled girl.

It’s America’s fixation on the little blonde girl in distress (look at the Holloway case. Nancy Grace is still beating that horse).

Now, how many plain looking girls have been murdered since the Holloway murder? How many minority girls?

It if were Kathy Bates or Rosie O’Donnell, would the “media” devote as much time. Plus, most news directors are men and they love to look at strippers with big boobs!!

Sad to say!

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

{{Aren’t you just a tad miffed at the Congressional leadership for its inaction in what you called for (bring’em home), thus sentencing scores more servicemen to death?}}

Patience, Uber-P, patience… it will certainly happen because of the Dems and not due to anything the Repugnants have done to bring ‘em home.

By RE

February 15, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

When looking at who supports the troops, lets take a look at where the representitives are coming down on the idea of a surge. I took a look at North Carolina, I am familiar with the area and looked specifically at NC districts 1,2,3 and 7. These districts are where camp lejune (USMC), Ft Bragg (airborne), Cherry Pointe (MCAS), Pope (USAF) and Seymor Johnson (USAF) are located.

US reps McIntyre, Butterfield, Etheridge and Jones represent these districts. 2 dems, 2 gop. All are against the surge.

Support the troops, bring them home.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Truthman,

But only Anna has half a dozen men claiming to be the father, therefore the Rosie comparison does not work.

Above and beyond the dumb blonde syndrome this story does have aspects that make it interesting, like the Howard Stern factor. Was he supplying the methadone to her and her son? Is he the father or just a golddigger? What about the faux prince who is married to 90 year old Eva Gabor and wanted to adopt Anna? Did she sleep with the Bahamian Immigration bigwig to help her residency status? Those are questions any curious person might ask, and surely if someone wrote a fictional book or screenplay with this plot it would be a page turner.

I also think some of the interest also has to do with genuine concern over what will happen to the child.

All that being said, it does not deserve 24/7 coverage.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Looks like Oxycontin Limbaugh still feels the need to “carry the water” for the Repugnants:

Limbaugh: Obama Should ‘Renounce’ His Race And Just ‘Become White’

Obama’s just the typical GOP nightmare on the campaign trail…

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

To: Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)

As a fellow federal worker, you must know it is ILLEGAL to smoke in federal buildings.

Also, it was NOT Rep. Ellison who called the Capitol Police on your stupid A**, it was one of Ellison’s staffers.

Let’s try to be “fair and balanced,” Tom!

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

AND NOW FOW SOMETHING MORE SALACIOUS

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s daughter was arrested this week and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and child endangerment, officials said Wednesday. Ann Banaszewski was arrested after driving with an undisclosed blood alcohol level. Three children were in her van.

By Dr.Doom

February 15, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

I love the Anna Nicole coverage. Big titted babes is the only reason to even watch TV these days.

How big are yours Buy Danish?

By Shawny

February 15, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

So, what is the real purpose for this House resolution? It is very calculated, and not what you probably believe, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Now in power, here is a disguised chance to get everyone on record regarding the conflict. Dems have nothing to lose. Voting for it does nothing. It confirms what everyone already knows, that they want to bail. No real reason to get themselves on record…they are already on record…every single day.

Here is where the sneakiness comes in. The Republicans are in a quandry. If they vote for it, they could lose their next re-election bid, as they are venturing from the party and away from pure conservatism. If they vote for against it, then they can be associated with the “30%” minority. Either way, they lose.

Let’s look at some of the ‘defectors’:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washington/15cong.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

“Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina said that Iraqis had their chance at freedom, but chose civil war.” The insurgency comes from without, not within. Ask the servicemen there…it is well documented. Dem talking point, not general fact. Sensationalized in the media as a civil war..

“Representative Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio argued that troop buildup was a tactic that had already failed.” Just a general dumb-a$$ statement. Attempting energy conservation failed, so we should not attempt it again. How about we do it better, and not the same…probably more reasonable.

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

To Truthman - congressmen are exempted from that regulation. The Democrats did that years ago when they were in control before.

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

To Buy Danish,

Make that seven men!

I am the father of Anna’s baby!

By Paul

February 15, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Goldie 12:21

It’s this “patience” thing I can’t fathom. I heard all sorts of outrage before the election. Lots of emphasis on body counts, waste, change needed. Now all there is is talk of “nonbinding theatrical resolutions” and “no surge - let’s just keep things the way they were.” “It will happen because of the Dems”?!!? Not if their lack of action since January is any indication.

And I find it astounding that you would so blithely say “patience, patience” - do you not realize that every day you urge “patience” and let the Democratic Congress off the hook (because the Administration sure isn’t going to withdraw) you are condemning more soldiers to death or a life of living with horrid injuries?

Patience?!!?

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

AND THEN THERE”S SOME GOOD NEWS

In June, we learned that network chief Roger Ailes was “on the warpath,” putting his employees on notice after following a 22 percent drop in the core 25-54 demo and an 8 percent drop among total viewers in the second quarter. Now, Linda Moss of Multichannel News (via TVNewser) reports that ratings at Fox News Channel are down even bigger this summer.

ESPN, Fox News Channel, Nick at Nite and Hallmark Channel all tied with a 1.3 rating. ESPN and Hallmark were each up 18% versus last summer, while Fox News and Nick at Nite were both down 24%. [emphasis added]

In a separate post, Brian at TVNewser reports that ratings at Fox News in August were down 7 percent all day and 28 percent in primetime from the previous August at the same time that both CNN and MSNBC showed significant gains in viewership.

I don’t want to overstate these numbers. Fox News still receives more viewers, both all day and during primetime, than CNN and MSNBC — comined. However, at the same time last year, Fox News had almost twice as many viewers as CNN and MSNBC combined, so they have not only seen their numbers but also an even larger drop in their lead over their competition.

So the era of Fox News’ domination of cable news may be coming to an end. And I don’t think I’m going to get any arguments from this crowd that that’s not a good thing.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Goldie 12:21

Maybe you could go to a serviceman’s funeral a year from now and say to the parents “Patience, mom and dad, patience. We’ll get around to bringing the others home. Someday. Maybe. Patience.”

By Devastator

February 15, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Fox News is going down because people are tired of being lied to.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

rushncap alert! The Chicks are still being “censored”!

Dixie Chicks still don’t fly on local radio…

Here’s the Methodology*:

Kicks polled 2,349 listeners and found that 67 percent didn’t want to hear the Dixie Chicks, and 76 percent of Eagle respondents agreed…Asked specifically if the group’s Grammy success had any impact on their desire to hear them again, almost 82 percent of Kicks listeners said no. At Eagle, the number was more than 88 percent.

Here’s the analysis:

The continued unwillingness of some country fans to re-embrace the Chicks is no surprise to R.J. Curtis, the country editor for Radio & Records magazine. “You’ve got two sides here that are digging in their heels and unwilling to compromise,” Curtis says. “You’ve got the Dixie Chicks, who continually stretch the boundaries of defiance. And then core country fans, who react to that defiance with defiance of their own.”

Well said! The Peeps speak and it has nothing to do with Big Clear Channel Radio Conspiracies or Bush censorship.

*an inconvenient truth for N-GA

By RE

February 15, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

For Georgia, BEnning, McPherson, Stuart.

Represented by districts 1,2,5,8,11,13

1-Kingston R for the surge, against the resolution

2- Bishop D Against the sruge for the resolution

5- Lewis D Against surge, for resolution

8- Marshall D Against surge, against resolution

11- Gingrey R for surge, against resolution

13- Scott D Against surge, for resolution.

Marshall is an interesting case. I have heard several GOP reps be against the surge but also be against the resolution, he is the first dem I have heard coming down that way.

4 against surge, 2 for surge.

3 for resolution, 3 against

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

Devestator - Please be specific (I’m always telling this to my students). Don’t just say something. Give me an example of what Fox has lied about. I would ask the same if someone says that MSNBC or CNN lied. Arnot is no longer at CNN because he did. Drudge lost his show years ago at Fox because he made unsubstantiatable claims. Please just name an instance where Fox has lied!

By Dr.Doom

February 15, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Is there an answer to my question @12:44?

By Republican 'Robust' Economy

February 15, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Republicans keep lying to us that the economy is peachy keen, but the american people aren’t that stupid. They well understand that they haven’t been able to save for their kids’ futures after paying the monthly bills under a Republican supply side economy.

As usual, Republicans get it bass-ackwards! They want us to believe that if they give big businesses corporate welfare breaks that those businesses will prosper and that prosperity will ‘trickle down’. What happens though is that those big businesses just take their unearned legislated profits and invest in some third world shiitehole where they can make the most money. Big business doesn’t care anymore for America than it does for its’ citizens whose jobs it is moving overseas, big business only cares about profit. The central premise of Republican economic thought is completely divorced from the reality of doing business in a global economy.

Today’s Republican economic ‘success’ stories:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Hershey Co. will cut 1,500 jobs, or about 11 percent of its work force, and reduce the number of production lines it operates by more than a third

WASHINGTON - The slump in housing deepened in the final three months of last year with sales falling in 40 states and median home prices declining in nearly half of the metropolitan areas surveyed, a real estate trade group reported Thursday.

WASHINGTON - Industrial output fell in January by the largest amount in 17 months.

Now when Republicans can’t even run a good industrial sector in a time of war, you don’t need a PhD in economics to know that they ain’t got a clue. Republicans planned their economic strategy with the same sort of accumen and thoughtfulness that they planned their post-engagement occupation of Iraq!

By Devastator

February 15, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

I can’t remember right now Edwin because its been so long since I watched. I will say this,however, their reporting is slanted to the right meaning that the way in which they report on the war is always with an optimistic attitude that is not based on reality. This type of reporting seeks to condition us to be supportive of the war. They also tend to sugar coat things associated with President Bush, which is indicative in the manner that they analyze him.

By Bush Revives Cold War

February 15, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

MOSCOW - A top Russian general said Thursday that Moscow may unilaterally drop out of a key Soviet-era arms reduction treaty with the United States that banned medium-range nuclear missiles, Russian news agencies reported.

Putin has said he does not trust Bush claims that the planned European missile defense system was intended to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia would take retaliatory measures.

Ronald Reagan dances a tight rope to end the cold war. George Bush swaggers in and p** it all away.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

BD 12:55

So a majority only matters if it concerns a musical act. Not when it concerns the lives of our troops.

There is a clear majority in our country who want an end to this war but you think only the minority’s opinion is worthy.

By Huge

February 15, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this

Shawny,

I agree with most of your analysis at 12:45. The Dems and GOP are treating this invasion like a political football. While the nation and especially the military and their families most definitely lose.

But there is one question I just cannot get a straight answer to from ANYONE I’ve asked on the so-called right. And that is simply how do you define “pure conservatism”?

The ONLY thing I can get so far is slogans like smaller government, peace through strength, etc…

Those are not definitions, they are sound bites and trite slogans. I’ve asked repeatedly but cannot get even one cogent response or example. Not one.

And based on what I’ve seen in the past 12 years or so, it is my contention that true American conservatism is virtually dead in this country. And that the vast majority of those who call themselves conservatives, haven’t an inkling what it is, much less support it’s principles. Help me out here.

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

OK, What do you think the average education level is attained by the average Kicks or Eagle listener?

Do you believe more than 50 percent of them are college-educated? More than 25 percent? More than 10 percent?

Yes, I am implying that education is a factor in music appreciation.

Not many G.E.D’ers listen to NPR or classical or jazz. And not many people with a college education listen to Kicks or Eagle (not as many as listen to other forms of music or talk).

P.S. I love Willie Nelson, Buck Owens and Patsy Cline, but “new” country isn’t anything more than pop-rock with a fiddle and steel guitar and a few hats!

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this

{{Not if their lack of action since January is any indication.}}

UberP— Dems have been in Washington for 1 month now, and don’t make me list all of the things they’ve accomplished, compared to what the Repugnants have done for 6 years — which is NADA, NADA, NADA… no hearings, no accountability for war spending, no debates about war policy, etc. Like I said, any movement at all to bring our troops home will be BECAUSE of the Dems — the legacy for the Repugnants is their appeasement of a war-mongering president.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

{{Maybe you could go to a serviceman’s funeral a year from now and say to the parents “Patience, mom and dad, patience. We’ll get around to bringing the others home. Someday. Maybe. Patience.”}}

UberP— your fake outrage and fake sympathy for military families is very touching…

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

Edwina,

You asked that same Fox question the other day. I answered it, but you keep asking for more.

John Gibson aired, then repeated that now-debunked claim that Barrack Obama attended a Madrassa school in Indonesia.

He repeated it even when all other media sources were reporting that it was a false story. Has Fox fired him yet?

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

Devestator— remember the “memo” that was revealed to have been written by the VP of news at Fox, urging his newscasters to mention that the terrorists “were celebrating in the streets” after the Dems swept through in November… that’s just the most recent instance where they’ve been caught manufacturing their “news”…

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

By Anti Radical February 15, 2007 01:11 PM Today’s Republican economic ‘success’ stories: CHICAGO (Reuters) - Hershey Co. will cut 1,500 jobs, or about 11 percent of its work force, and reduce the number of production lines it operates by more than a third

Spammie: I thought American’s were too “obese?”

Wouldn’t the closing of a chocolate factory normally cause great celebration in the land of the pinko?

WASHINGTON - The slump in housing deepened in the final three months of last year with sales falling in 40 states and median home prices declining in nearly half of the metropolitan areas surveyed, a real estate trade group reported Thursday.

Let’s see, what happened during the final 3 months of last year, hmmmm, geee, the democrats took over Congress?

Duh.

WASHINGTON - Industrial output fell in January by the largest amount in 17 months.

And left out of Spammie’s hysterical cut and paste from the exact same article:

Many analysts believe the Fed is on the verge of achieving its hoped-for soft landing in which growth slows enough to lower inflation pressures without triggering a recession.

Boo Hoo Hoo Spammie.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

Words, Goldie, all words. I will predict the Democratic leadership and the rank and file will talk, talk, talk, while soldiers die, die, die. I’d love to be wrong, here, but I’ll bet this’ll continue on right until ‘08 as the Democratic Party is more concerned with winning the White House than they are about ending our soldiers’ deaths.

I’m not much interested in the domestic accomplishments of the Democratic Party (and there have been some long overdue ones, however flawed) in this context. “Movement” to bring home the troops? Can you say “snail’s pace”? Hearings, debates are all just talk. You keep citing “6 years vs n months” - what’re you going to do - keep citing that until it’s even?

From where I sit, Speaker Pelosi, et al aren’t all that different from Pres Bush, et al. The Congress has the power. The majority is Democratic. The excuses continue while the soldiers die. Nice going.

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this

By Anti Radical February 15, 2007 01:20 PM MOSCOW - A top Russian general said Thursday that Moscow may unilaterally drop out of a key Soviet-era arms reduction treaty with the United States that banned medium-range nuclear missiles, Russian news agencies reported.

Taken fron the same article as Spammie’s:

“We shall see what {{{{{{{{{{{{our American partners}}}}}}}}}}}} do,” Baluyevsky was quoted by Interfax, ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti as saying. “Their actions to deploy missile defense sites in Europe are inexplicable.” Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that the planned European missile defense system was intended to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia would take retaliatory measures.

Spammie: This is called “Russia voicing it’s concerns over military measures” not “p** away the post cold war peace,” you hysterical little freak.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this

Goldie 1:37

“Fake outrage and sympathy”

You’re still on the same tactic of flipping back to personal characterizations rather than sticking to the topic (Democrats’ failure to take any meaningful action to “bring the troops home now” - a statement that has appeared on this board several times today).

It sounds a lot like conservative Republican’s defense of Pres Bush and Iraq. Same arguments, different names.

By RE

February 15, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

NY 23rd, John Mchugh R:

Like all of us here tonight, I want this war to conclude. I represent the 10th Mountain Division, the most deployed division in the United States Army. I was there 3 weeks ago. I know the pain. I know the suffering. And like all of you, I am frustrated by the path we have traveled to this point, and I am troubled by the course that apparently lies ahead.

Voting against the resolution, but is troubled with the surge.

By Huge

February 15, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I found your comments at 12:48 to be some of the most disingenuous, awful stuff I have ever read here.

You have the temerity to chastise Goldie for her suggestion that some patience in trying to resolve a terrible situation caused by generally impatient and unreasonable men who cooked the books to justify this invasion is dangerous or deadly?

And why?

I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, But I very much suspect that there is no way in hell you support our military coming home today, is there?

IF you don’t, then I find it just disgusting that you would use their deaths and horrific injuries as a reason to not bring them home immediately but not use it to keep them there indefinitely.

IF you really do want them to stay the course, let me quote, “you are condemning more soldiers to death or a life of living with horrid injuries.”

And your 12:51 is just plain repulsive for the same reason.

By RE

February 15, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

Paul,

GWB had a state of the union outlining a new plan, much like the old plan, in mid january.

Senate debate was shut down by the GOP soon after.

Pelosi took it up in the house and debate is proceeding. The first debates that have occured in 4 years since authorization. Getting an issue this big to the house floor in less than 2 weeks is pretty good from where I sit.

They have been in session for a little over 5 weeks and have passed the 100 hours agenda and are debating the Iraq war. How fast would you like them to work?

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

AND MAKE MINE A DOUBLE

Even though “remarkable progress” has been achieved, President Bush called for a “surge” of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday. The president said that he was “asking Congress for $11.8 billion over the next two years to help this young democracy survive.”

“As we implement a new strategy in Iraq, we’re also taking new steps to defeat the terrorists and extremists in Afghanistan,” Bush said. “My administration has just completed a top-to-bottom review of our strategy in that country. And today I want to talk to you about the progress we have made in Afghanistan, the challenges we face in Afghanistan, and the strategy we’re pursuing to defeat the enemies of freedom in Afghanistan.”

By Republican 'Robust' Economy

February 15, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

By LuckoDull February 15, 2007 01:41 PM- Many analysts believe the Fed is on the verge of achieving its hoped-for soft landing in which growth slows enough to lower inflation pressures without triggering a recession.

LMAOA. This would be how a Republican defines economic success. America MIGHT be able to make a hoped for soft landing and avoid recession. If this is how Republicans define a ‘robust’ economy, talk about a culture of low expectations!

By Midori

February 15, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Fox News, have any of you seen their version of The Daily Show?

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 15, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

To Huge and RE

Excellent!

Well written and deeply felt.

Thanks for all you do!

By Shawny

February 15, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Extremely wealthy people making money, tax-free. This should pi$$ off libs and conservatives alike.

Did someone say something good earlier about the Netherlands?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2874992&page=1

Flattaxflattaxflattax

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

OK folks, here’s a little lesson in government.

Even though we Dems (Congress) want to get out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan, the President, as commander in chief (I can’t believe I have to write those words when speaking of the Chimperor), has broad discretionary powers during wartime (declared or not). The Dems CANNOT withdraw the troops. Only the executive branch has that power. Congress can shut off the money flow (I wish they would), but even that is very difficult.

So yes, we progressives WILL talk, talk, talk until we regain the WH Nov. 4, 2008. It’s about all the good guys can do at this time.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

{{{By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

BD 12:55

So a majority only matters if it concerns a musical act. Not when it concerns the lives of our troops.

There is a clear majority in our country who want an end to this war but you think only the minority’s opinion is worthy.}}

G-D you’re an ignorant moron. This is a Representative Republic we live in, nt a direct Democracy (thank G-D!).

Secondly, do you want Entertainment Tonight or the like to take over military strategy?

Third, if the American people are so opposed to the war and particularly the “surge” then why don’t the Dems have a real resolution instead of a fake non-binding one on the issue?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Truthiman,

I see - Country music fans who are fed up with that idiot Natalie Maines are stupid and uneducated hicks, while you are an effete academic snoot. Why should we care?

What about people who listen to Rap? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Do you see where your bigotry takes you?

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 15, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this

Midori

They use a laugh track…says it all.

By THE WATCHER

February 15, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

WILL SOMEBODY TRY ONE MORE TIME AND EXPLAIN TO CUPCAKE THE IDIOCY OF THIS REMARK. IVE LOST MY PATIENCE WITH IT.

Third, if the American people are so opposed to the war and particularly the “surge” then why don’t the Dems have a real resolution instead of a fake non-binding one on the issue?

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

Huge Phony Blowhard spews:

{{{By Huge

February 15, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

…These despicable, never-served, Rove-led neo-cons have trashed dozens of combat veterans in the past few years. It is what the gutless chickenhawks do best…

For these cowards and their foul supporters, the invasion of Iraq is merely a political issue. People don’t matter to them and they don’t give a flying fvck about the marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen who are or have been there, unless of course, they can use them to endorse Bush’s insane policies…}}}

Now listen to this Huge Hypocritical Freak scold Paul:

{{{By Huge

February 15, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I found your comments at 12:48 to be some of the most disingenuous, awful stuff I have ever read here.

You have the temerity to chastise Goldie Blah Blah Blah Boo Hoo Hoo?}}}

Unfreaking believable.

Maybe rushncap will lend you his mirror.

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

February 15, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

To Lucko dull Andy Absolutely no one reads your post. We just scroll through it and ignore. That was alot of scrolling these last few days with you being off school. Little baby. Why don’t you come back when you have learned something about the world and actually have something worthwhile to offer ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

BD - even tough you lash out angrily just remember I still love you. I must show compassion to those in your situation. You have our pity.

By getalife

February 15, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

That wingnut show sux.

Wingnuts are not funny, just pathetic.

Geez.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

Watcher,

Why are you shouting, weirdo? If it’s so obvious, then why don’t you explain it - okey dokey genius?

Is the answer because they are playing politics? Is it because if Petreus’ plan works and they vote against it they’ll look like surrender monkeys? Is it because they’re all talk and no action except when it comes to raising taxes and expanding social programs? Is it because they want us to lose but can’t come right out and say it?

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

BD - The point was you were citing a majority of country listeners as a good reason to continue to ban the Dixie Chicks.

That is inconsistent when you ignore the majority that wants us out of Iraq.

I merely pointed out your hypocrisy. No wonder you went off the deep end. Have you ever considered anger management?

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

Mr. Godzilla - I noticed the canned laughter too. At least Jon Stewart gets real laughs from a real audience.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

Huge

I’ve heard nothing from you as to what “support the troops” means. I’ve gathered you’re in favor of shutting down operations - but nothing regarding how. The opposition Party has Congress - yet has done nothing but talk and offer excuses by saying “we can’t do much because the Administration’s been so bad for so long.” Take a look at Congress at the end of VietNam if you want to see what can be done.

One does not need to embrace a viewpoint to discuss it. Raising an issue is not advocacy.

I have read for months the condemnation of the Administration, its members and the situation in Iraq. I read the body counts, with the soldiers’ names and units. (Haven’t you posted a few of those? If you did, then where is the outrage over Congress failing to exercise its Constitutional powers). I read over and over of conspiracies, sellouts to corporate interests, lies and such. I heard of the great change that would come in when the Democrats took Congress.

Now I see the Party in power doing - theatrics. The issue wasn’t about “what I believe” - so much here devolves into a personal “feeling” argument. It is about mission and overarching strategy. Just so you know, I think the Administration and the military leadership were way too slow in recognizing changing situations, geopolitical realities and adapting to them. There was not a clear definition of mission. “Lessons learned” and doctrinal changes came slowly and were not disseminated effectively.

So after witnessing all this, I was pretty surprised at the excuses tolerated by those who demanded withdrawal, who wanted to “bring our troops home” - the fact is, Congress has the power to stop this. Whether or not I think it’s a wise course is irrelevant (I’m willing to give the Baghdad Plan a shot, give background warnings to the Iraqi government, and if it doesn’t work, then leave - rather like Sen Obama’s idea - but I’d rather see it take place quietly, executive to executive).

I’d have thought you would have recognized what was occuring - asking for accountability from those who have power for not exercising it. And questioning those who condemn the Administration but make excused for Congress - using the same phrases they’ve used.

The first time I ever heard Goldie counsel &#

By I thought we were supposed to care about each other?

February 15, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

To Mind Diseased Danish

It can’t be won. Sending more troops (obviously) not your kids will not get us a victory. The GOP (Greed Over People) want the money whatever it takes. At least Dems help people. I do not know how you live with yourself.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Your point was no less idiotic when you repeated it a second time.

There is no hypocrisy in saying that a Dixie Chicks poll is not the same thing as deciding foreign policy and national security through phone polls, and you are a complete boob to think the two situations are comparable.

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

I postulate this:

Most people who listen to Rap do not support George’s adventure in Iraq.

Most people who listen to Kicks and Eagle support George’s adventure in Iraq.

That’s not elitist or bigoted, it’s just a fact.

I also opine that people who listen to Kicks or Eagle support George and his adventure into Iraq more than those who listen to ANY OTHER genre of music.

There is a reason you only hear pro-war songs on country music stations. The PDs know that’s what appeals to their less-educated audience who rarely look at nuance in a situation (e.g. Natalie Maines said bad things about Bush [never mind that she is accorded the same free speech rights as you and I], I like Bush because he says he talks to God! I don’t like Natalie Maines because she does not talk to God).

“No brag, just fact!” (William Brennan from “The Guns of Will Sonnett).

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 15, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Anybody read Anna Quindlen in this weeks Newsweek?

By Dusty

February 15, 2007 03:03 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Glad to see that you are questioning liberals on their continued canticle “But I support the troops.” This comment usually follows dismal, unsupportive accusations about the Commander-in-Chief and the war with the usual litany about “free speech”.

“Cut-n-run” is considered meaningful not cowardly. A namby, pamby useless resolution against any try of advancement in Iraq is presented as a badge of honor while our enemies are greatly encouraged by it’s lack of support for our own forces. Makes one wonder just WHAT troops are being supported by these proud perceptors of American freedom.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Huge - continued -

The first time I ever heard Goldie counsel “patience” was today - in response to Democrats. There was no such toleration for the Administration. Not that there should have been - but this is just another example of partisanship.

I did not mean to come across as strident. I just see many of the leaders as rank hypocrites who put career above principle. I may not agree with their positions but I do not agree with letting actions to implement those positions slide for political gain. Some candidates (Hillary and Sen Obama) are experiencing the wrath of Party members who never believed talk would replace action. Some here came across pre-Nov as passionately, sometimes extremely, anti-anything Iraq. Now their elected leaders have power to act and don’t. I was not kidding or using a cheap argumentative ploy when I said I think, for them, it’s more about ‘08 than anything. Hillary saying “If we’re still in Iraq when I’m President” shows a willingness to let the war continue.

RE 1:59 I agree - with para 1 - but wasn’t that before the elections? Democratic leadership has proved itself effective in shutting off debate and demanding an up or down vote with no amendments on domestic issues. They could do the same with this Iraq situation.

I agree debate under Speaker Pelosi is proceeding - that is the theatrics I was referring to. “Non binding” is like a parent telling a kid “you better stop that. I’m really unhappy. Don’t make me tell you again, hear me?”

True, only the Executive can order a redeployment of forces, but Congress can pass legislation to cease funding for any offensive operations. This would in no way affect individual soldiers’ pay, food, housing, ammunition, transport, etc. That is a major point. Congress has the power of the purse. They can refuse supplemental appropriations. They can refuse authorizations for more funds to support “xyz.” But they haven’t.

So if someone wants to say “I don’t care for Republicans, Pres Bush, the war” - fine and dandy. But when they take the tack that “when we have power it will be different” - then they get the power and do not take meaningful action - well, frankly, that’s when I see them in much the same light in which they described the Administration - opportunists goo

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

I neglected to mention the most important point:

I cited the Dixie Chicks radio poll because your side claims there is a vast right wing conspiracy that is “censoring” the Chicklets.

Radio stations rely on ratings, and they are not going to play music their audience doesn’t want to hear because their advertisers would dump them.

Obviously foreign policy doesn’t run that way.

Truthiman,

YOU brought up the intelligence and sophistication of the listeners and patted yourself on the back for being a jazz aficianado to impress us with your superior education.

Using YOUR “logic” I deduce that people who listen to rap are generally less educated than any group, and since they don’t support Bush that means- - - - - - - ??????????????

By Paul

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

Buy Danish 2:29

Often when I listen to an argument or debate I simply substitute the opposing sides’ nouns and some adjectives and see if anything much changes. Doing that, here, though, sure brings out a lot of anger. Especially when the arguments (or accusations) coming at them are the same ones they’ve hurled.

Truthman, at least, said “Congress can shut off the money flow (I wish they would), but even that is very difficult.” No excuses, there - but an admission of what Congress can do, but won’t.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

BD - does it hurt your legs to back pedal like that? Just curious.

It’s sad that you feel the need to call names to make yourself feel superior.

I have a co-worker who had to go to anger management classes. Would you like the number? It worked for him.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

{{The excuses continue while the soldiers die. Nice going.}}

UberP— sounds like you’re congratulating yourself for supporting your war-mongering prez all these 6 years!

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

AND HOW DOES THIS MAKE YOU FEEL?

Sen. Reid (D-NV) calls their bluff …

REID: THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON IRAQ THIS SATURDAY Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement, announcing that the Senate will vote this Saturday on whether to move forward to debate the President’s escalation of the war in Iraq.

“For nearly four years, the Republican-controlled Senate stood silent on the President’s flawed Iraq policies and watched as the situation deteriorated into a civil war. The American people have chosen to change course. Democrats have chosen to change course. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have chosen obstruction. Almost every Republican who expressed concern about the escalation chose to block the Senate from debating the issue.

“Today, Democrats offered Republicans another chance for compromise, suggesting the Senate debate one resolution in favor of escalation and one resolution opposed to escalation. Once again, Senate Republicans refused.

“Democrats are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve, so the Senate will have another Iraq vote this Saturday. We will move for a clear up or down vote on the House resolution which simply calls on Congress to support the troops and opposes the escalation.

“Those Republicans who have expressed their concern over the Senate’s failure to debate the war in Iraq will have another opportunity to let their actions speak louder than their words.”

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

OR THIS

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

Devestator The “rumor” about the madrassa was started by the Clinton campaign and it is technically accurate because he admitted that he did go to a Muslim religious school in Indonesia when he was a child. Therefore, Gibson did not lie. I actually read the passage about the schooling on line. It is accurate, sorry.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

While the military is busy trying to swell the ranks of the boots on the ground with ex-cons they are also busy trying to discharge a woman for posing nude in Playboy.

Does anybody find the hypocrisy in this? Show your flesh, discharged! Sleep with someone of the same sex, discharged! Commit a crime against humanity, you’re the type of person we’re looking for! This gives a whole new meaning to Selective Service.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

Uber-Paul can’t help but BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH — it’s some kind of illness, I guess. He keeps getting truncated— because all he does is BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, ad nauseum. You poor thing!

By Midori

February 15, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

A Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues

By Truthman

February 15, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

Hey, I listen to Dwight Yoakum and Hank Williams and Marty Robbins.

I am talking specifically about listeners of Kicks and Eagle.

My listening to Jazz doesn’t make me cool or smart any more than listening to reggae makes me a Rastafarian.

My kids are very smart, and they listen to rap and hip-hop. There’s even some of that I like (Ludacris, Fergie, L’il John).

Thanks, Paul (I think?)

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry - I meant to address my last comment to N-GA. I still haven’t been given an example of an out an out lie by any news agency, only complaints about slant.

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

EDWIN IT IS A LIE.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

YOUR SOURCES ARE LIARS.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Goldie 3:18

You do like to make up positions for people, don’t you? I believe that’s a variation on what’s called the “strawman argument.” I’ll admit, it does make it easier to “score points” when you tell your opponent at the outset what he believes.

From you I’ll just accept: Bush bad. Democrats good. Republicans don’t act: evil. Democrats don’t act: they’re helpless.

You should read the link posted earlier today on Libertarianism. You may have to use a shotgun to shoot at more targets than Republicans.

‘Nuther subject - let’s see how liberal you really are - are you in favor of a national education system, where children from Mississippi or Louisiana have the same chance of a good education as someone from Nob Hill - or do you support continued local control, economic deprivation, and shortchanging children because of their parents’ shortcomings or where they happen to live?

At least it won’t be recycled Iraq arguments (maybe not - I see another personal characterization coming).

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

{{The “rumor” about the madrassa was started by the Clinton campaign}}

Edwin— that’s another lie! You and UberP just can’t help but cite your lies from the Fox News anchors, can you? And you have a great set of initials, by the way — reminds me of EWWW!

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Not only is that new FOX “comedy” show not an original idea, it doesn’t even have an original title.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

BlackAdder

The sergeant’s actions were a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The decision to discharge wasn’t exactly optional.

Better watch it - Huge just accused me of - what - using soldiers’ deaths to make a political statement - or something like that. You just said you’re looking for people who want to commit crimes against humanity to enlist. Better duck!

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

THEY DONT CALL FOX NEWS FAUX NEWS FOR NOTHING BUCKOS!

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

Sorry Edwin, you’re entirely wrong. Obama neither went to a madrassa nor was this rumor started by the Clinton campaign. I know you dearly want to believe this lie, but, unfortunately for you, it’s all BS.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

Goldie 3:26

Thank you for so well illustrating a cogent, reasoned, consistent and erudite Liberal partisan.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

Truthman

You’re welcome! I thought it was a pretty entertaining and original thesis.

By Dusty

February 15, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this

Blackadder @ 3:24,

Why are you always passing on what seems oddly obnoxious and totally irrelevant information about our American military?

Is this yet another way of “I support the troops.”?

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

I didn’t backpedal on anything, Snake. I made an additional point that did nothing to diminish anything I had said previously.

And please, spare me the lectures about my “namecalling”. Compared to your comrades I’m Emily Post.

Edwin,

Thanks for providing the facts about the Obama Madrassa story.

Goldie,

Speaking of Obama, if he decided to go with his white half as Limbuagh satirically suggested, do you think he’d have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected?

Paul,

They can dish it out but they cannot take it.

Gotta run…later…

By Edwin Williams

February 15, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

Blackadder you are disgusting. You paint with the same hate America first last and always groups that have been around since Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. Please try to have some respect for the vast majority of people in the military. And in fact, all of these people who have committed any crimes in Iraq and elsewhere have been tried and convicted, so show me how the military is a haven for neo-nazis.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

No Paul, don’t twist my words. I didn’t say I was looking for people who want to commit crimes against humanity to enlist.

The military, after tweaking their own rules, is already signing these people up. Did you miss that story?

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

The “madrassa school” lies were started by Insight Magazine, which is another publication by the Moonies at the Washington Times… and EWWWW’s favorite news shows kept spreading the lies about their “source” being Hillary’s campaign:

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by “researchers connected to Senator Clinton.” A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim. He called the story “an obvious right-wing hit job.” Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this

Ed - I have lots of respect for the vast majority of our troops. I will not blindly support every soldier as you seem to. Just like the rest of society, there is an unsavory element in the military too. Do you support EVERY soldier? No matter what they do? Not too bright are ya Ed?

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

“show me how the military is a haven for neo-nazis.” -Edwin

Show me where I claimed that the military is a haven for neo-nazis.

By Huge

February 15, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Bignose bigot,

Other than the fact that your moronic response to something Paul and I were discussing MAKES NO SENSE whatsoever, why don’t you stick to topics you know best.

Like blathering on endlessly about Dixie Chicks record sales/air play or whatever the fvck you waste your time writing about these days.

Your disgusting neo-con opinions on getting American servicemen needlessly killed just so you can feel good about waving your Bush banners around, is well known and despised.

So go back to your cave, you immoral troll. And take that useless chickenhawk lover, crusty with you.

Paul,

That was a nice long dance about political maneuverings in Washington. But I don’t give a good g0ddam about whether some weak-spined Democrats and tehy’re even more craven GOP cohorts can’t stand up to the Rove-controlled and Nixon-like Bush thugs at the moment.

My point doesn’t have anything to do with how long or how quickly it’s going to take the non neo-cons to resolve this clusterfvck. And you know it.

I asked you to explain your despicable comments once and you did not. So again I’ll ask you that same question you dodged earlier.

Are you for or against bringing our servicemen home immediately?

If not, how can you possibly square your comments to Goldie with your statement that more Americans are going to get killed if not?

And I want everybody reading this to be crystal clear that, in my opinion, that 12:51 was more than repugnant.

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

Watchdog Group: More Neo-Nazis in Military

By GARRY MITCHELL The Associated Press

MOBILE, Ala. — The number of neo-Nazis and skinheads in the armed forces is increasing, according to a watchdog group that claims the military is relaxing standards amid pressure to sign up recruits during the Iraq war. OR THIS Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts By JOHN KIFNER A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed “large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists” to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

WHY DO I BOTHER,

EDWIN WHO ACCEPTS FOX NEWS AS SCRIPTURE WILL QUESTION THE METHODOLGY>

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

EWWW— more info for you about your preferred news “sources”:

Clinton campaign officials were relieved that what they regard as an absurd allegation was not picked up more widely. “It’s an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time,” says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. Insight, like the Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. No one answered the phone at Insight’s office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

If you need proof of more lies coming from Fox, you can start to educate yourself by checking other sources before posting your drivel here…

EWWW!

By Paul

February 15, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

BlackAdder 3:43

I wasn’t trying to twist your words - I find that rather pointless - see my earlier “discussion” with Goldie. Does no good to ascribe a false position to a person and then attack the position.

Gotta admit - writing “Commit a crime against humanity, you’re the type of person we’re looking for!” is a tad provocative. That’s the difficulty with print - can’t see a smile or smirk when someone’s writing.

I’d heard the story. It’s a highly unusual situation given an all volunteer force - but the current deployment/redeployment is causing a lot of burnout - some Guard/Reservists are saying “enough.” Past JCS Chief Shalishkavili just called for repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” said most troops nowdays flat don’t care. We’ve lost some good linguists because of that bonehead policy.

By Blackadder

February 15, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

Sorry I can’t stick around and see Ed ignore yet another question due to lack of an answer.

See you all tomorrow.

By Midori

February 15, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

you’re doing great.

see why I have no interest in trying to discuss anything with him?

the same song, dance and B.S. — Just another day.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this

Huge— you may have noticed that Paul has trouble reconciling his true feelings because he feels like such a d!ckhead — he’s been precariously supporting Dubya’s war-mongering and at the same time trying to post his “moderate” views, which of course only means that it all boils down to “well, Bill Clinton did it first!”…

By Paul

February 15, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

The cowardly AWOL Bush is talking war again today. From where will he obtain the lives to totally waste this time?

By Huge

February 15, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

You know Edwin it’s either tragic or laughable, I’m not sure, how never-served neo-cons always act like they know so much about the military.

And to add icing to the cake they almost always spout their stupidity to someone who has given some of their life to protecting America.

You’ve learned real well from that chickenhawk Cheney, haven’t you. Guys like you personally have no experience with words like sacrifice, duty, honor, nation and valor.

They were just funny words you heard bantered about while you were watching TV and hearing about other more courageous people getting their heads shot off in combat.

And one thing left over from the other night. You made some ignorant reference to me giving OBL a pass. Where you dream this demented sh!t up, I’ll never know or care.

But I can assure you this. I’d love to be the guy who gave that POS a third eye, if you catch my drift.

And you are lucky you said it from behind the safety of your keyboard, chickenhawk. If you had made the HUGE mistake of saying that to my face, you’d now be missing a few more teeth.

And you send them to their death, with your every lying breath.

Ta Ta for now…

By Paul

February 15, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

Huge 3:49

I thought I’d answered. So I’ll recap.

I simply used the same phrases, arguments and “challenges” (let me get a word here to describe those on the far Democratic left who oppose all things Bush - how ‘bout LDAR - Liberal Dems against Bush) LDARs have used for months regarding Iraq. I just used them in context that the Congress is Democratic and at the very least, they could introduce legislation to cease funding (rather than engage in debates about a done deal).

Given I addressed my remarks to Goldie (from whence orignated much of the style) I expected long-time participants, such as you, to understand that.

I am serious - that leaders who have the ability to force an immediate end to something they’ve condemned for so long, who don’t do that, are political opportunists. Saying the President’s “stay the course/surge” costs lives, then advocating patience and “stay the course as it was before the surge” is to me, quite hypocritical.

I did not “know” you were including weak-spined Democrats in with craven Republicans. But the fact you are is, in this situation, refreshing.

As I said earlier, I’m willing to give the Baghdad plan a shot and see if the Iraqis will do for themselves. If not, it’s “adios, amigos.”

Then I’ll wait for someone, somewhere, to introduce legislation for a coherent energy plan for this country (ethanol farm subsidies don’t count) so we can cut off all but minimal interaction with that part of the world.

By IN THE NEWS

February 15, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

THIS WILL SET THE WING NUTS OFF>>>

HEY EDWIN

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO WWW.MEDIAMATTERS.COM?

TRY IT, YOU’LL EITHER HATE IT OR START TO GET REALLY REALLY SCARED AND DISCOVER ISSUES WITH YOUR SELF ESTEEM.

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

By LEFT WING FAKE NEWS February 15, 2007 03:50 PM Watchdog Group: More Neo-Nazis in the Icky Military

So when did Joe Biden join the army?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Willie

February 15, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

Fools! The military has always been a haven for a certain percentage of crooks and thieves. The way it is. Maybe if you’d spent some years there it might dawn on your ignorant arses. It’s getting worse because today’s people are inferior to the past and standards have been greatly lowered. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Stop with the pretend patriotic BS.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

Goldie

When have I ever “supported Dubya’s war-mongering?” Or “excused” anything because “Clinton did it.” Memory failing? Don’t remember comments on special prosecutors’ abuses? Or do you just like to argue with yourself?

No comments on a non-Iraq topic, like the education question I asked? Afraid of taking a conservative stand on an issue? Or simply not interested in anything that’s not “I hate Bush.”

Midori - of course you don’t. If it deals with anything you can’t Google or that’s not more “Bush is bad” you turn into a namecalling cheerleader. Whatever floats your boat -

Or maybe you’d like to take a crack at the education question from 3:28. It takes a bit of thought but it isn’t that difficult - c’mon, you can do it!

By Tom

February 15, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Too bad about Hardaway. Stupidity and personal fear know no bounderies. The guy is terrified of gays. A Repug too no doubt.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Aw, c’mon, Goldie, Midori - no interest in an education discussion? Is it because you can’t accept the fact that a person can be liberal on one issue, conservative on another, moderate on the next -

Or is it because someone of your (it appears to me) extreme persuasion can’t accept that there is a domestic issue upon which you might find yourself…

conservative?

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Huge Zero,

I was commenting on the unbelievable hypocrisy of you calling Paul out after your earlier hate speech. Sorry you are busy looking in the mirror and admiring yourself to get it.

As for the Dixie Chicklets topic, GFY. You’ll recall that Luckovich had a cartoon about it the other day, and your side has turned them into heroines. The AJC saw fit to write a story about them again today, and if if you don’t like it send a letter to Angela Tuck.

When and if you get hired as a news editor let me know, so I can have a good laugh.

By Dusty

February 15, 2007 04:36 PM | Link to this

Huge @ 4:07

Of all the ignorant, rude and twisted commentators here, you are the best of the bottom babblers in blab.

Edwin Williams posts quite clearly with little rancor and much reason.

Then you proclaim,”Guys like you personally have no experience with words like sacrifice, duty, honor, nation and valor.”

You don’t know Williams personally which makes your comment even more obnoxious.

You can make your long boring epistles much shorter by saying “You are a conservative therefore I condemn you.”

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

To the yellow BIG bird at 4:07…

Put your money where your mouth is pal. If you want your opportunity to give OBL the “third eye”, enlist and do it.

Otherwise, take your own advice and stfu.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

{{Then I’ll wait for someone, somewhere, to introduce legislation for a coherent energy plan for this country (ethanol farm subsidies don’t count)}}

Uber-P, you’re so freakin’ brilliant, why don’t you yourself put your mind-numbing words to use and run for office? You certainly seem to enjoy sitting around in your underwear down in your parents basement, with computer monitors all around, and spouting off what everyone else is doing wrong, and they’re not answering all of your asinine questions here — all the while demanding a “coherent” energy plan — get off your butt and start doing something about all of your unrequited rage, Mr. Moderate-views-in-an-@sshole’s-disguise!

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 04:53 PM | Link to this

{{Is it because you can’t accept the fact that a person can be liberal on one issue, conservative on another, moderate on the next -}}

Uber— I accept that “fact”, but honey, you’re not one of those persons— you’re deluding yourself again. And you don’t really care what my feelings are about education, do you, Uber? You’re just another mixed-up man who bloviates on a blog…

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Back for a brief session. Appreciate your response on the naked sgt. You’re right, the UCMJ really deals with dis-honoring the uniform. It also deals with talking with the press (when representing the military). Ergo, many soldiers (even Generals) are reluctant to express their true feelings when queried by the press.

I am a little perplexed by your continued position that the Dems need to act on Iraq. True they used it in the election debate. But as you know, Congressional action is more often then not never a surprise. Before anything is voted upon, the result is known beforehand.

If Congress (getting both houses to even agree on legislation takes time) passes legislation to restrict military spending thus making it impossible to continue the Iraq War, Bush will veto it. The Dems know that they don’t have the votes to override a veto.

Personally I think they should do it anyway…let the public react. I also genuinely believe the Dems should re-introduce draft legislation - with the actual goal of re-starting the draft. That will also get the attention of the voters.

I, too think that Obama’s Iraq plan merits serious discussion. It at least includes talking with the neighboring countries. That is very similar to the tactics this administration used to get the PRK to talk (S. Korea, PRC, Japan, etc). I mean, why not?

One of the yin/yangs of the Dems is that they encourage differing viewpoints. The downside is that they have no cohesive plan that all Dems will support. The up side is that they will accept reasonable compromise. In any event, that will take time.

In the interim, GWB will either twist in the Iraqi wind, or he will benefit if his surge strategy produces results.

By Lord Help Us

February 15, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Huge,

The chickenhawks aren’t used to being called out and I am in stitches watching them twitch…

Even lil’ Andy had to cowardly hide behind a new (I know, yet another) nic to retaliate.

The chickenhawks should be called out. Never before have so many people that have dodged service themselves sentenced so many real heroes to death.

And…they can’t admit how wrong they were.

No WMD’s, no ties to 9/11, no threat…yet we have opened up a bottomless pit and the gutless cheerleaders are waving their pom poms as each brave soldier is tossed in…

Sad that our great Nation is temporarily under the rule of such gutless cowards…

2008 cannot come soon enough…

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

Goldie must have a database of phrases that are just recycles of the same old tired liberal bs. Talk about a ‘bot.

What’s up with the libs here today?

Comedy Central all re-runs last night?

By Midori

February 15, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

Correct Paul.

Of course I don’t. and I won’t.

thanks in advance.

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Yes it’s really be…N-GA. Nobody is jacking my name.

Paul doesn’t need defending…I view him as a moderate. He has well reasoned positions and is not reluctant to be accepting of other’s well-expressed views. I do wish he would occasionally take issue with some of the wing-nuts posting here. But by-and-large his posts are constructive and interesting.

Yes….it really is N-GA !!!!

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this

Oh, and BTW, Uber— there’s nothing “conservative” about believing that all American children deserve a good education in our public schools. I’m not sure where you got the idea that liberals want to argue with you about wanting to improve our education system for all Americans. Must be something else you read in the Washington Times one day…

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this

that I’m a complete fool.

Just sayin’

By Midori

February 15, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel

Typical.

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

Can someone explain to me why we don’t break Iraq up into 3 parts, let Iran dominate one, Saudi Arabia another, leave the Kurds be and get the h3ll out? This makes more sense to me than anything I’ve seen to date. Iraq is a country invented by the British, not some sacred cow. This may wind up avoiding civil war. Maybe ensure some sort of payment plan if the majority of the oil fields wind up in one territory, and other than that — clean break.

By @@

February 15, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

About Thatcherism’s contribution to the state of today’s daycare children.

I can possibly attribute it to one of two things. 1) Her economic policies promoting self reliance placing women in the workplace, or 2) She was a role-model for feminism? Who knows? I sure as hell don’t.

Her economic policies came as a backlash to a failed welfare state that had never really ceased to exist in the minds of the populace, and hadn’t produced good results. An unintended consequence that left people vulnerable and ill-prepared to provide for their children.

Here in the U.S. it all began with FDR’s “New Deal”. A program with a distinct, allbeit temporary purpose. Later it was transformed into LBJ’s “Great Society” which didn’t turn out to be so great.

Hell, I never thought raising my kid was costly. A little self-sacrifice, time, and love wasn’t that expensive. A helluva lot cheaper than daycare. The result of my investment is astounding in my view. My greatest contribution to society and the next generation.

Well worth the compromises I made.

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this

Lord Help You, I don’t see any Andy around here. And I am probably safe to assume that you call anyone who is not in lock step with your sorry sack of shiat a chickenhawk.

Nice namejack huge losers, same old lib bs. You can have it.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

Now, now, Goldie, calm down. Why do you use “moderate” in the same disparaging manner right-wingers use “gay”?

Glad you read the energy entry - why are you so opposed to this country pursuing a path towards energy independence? Just what do you think one of the major reasons we’re in the Middle East is, anyhow? Oh, I know - I’ve said our current situation is the result of inaction by Presidents Carter-Bush-Clinton-Bush and the Congresses. Then I cited an O’Reilly interview with Senator Kerry (who said O’Reilly had always treated him well). That’s gotta explain your antipathy - I cited a despised name in passing and didn’t blame everything on Bush.

You’re right - I don’t really care about your “education feelings.” I was more interested in your “education thoughts.” Just wanted to see if you’re liberal on every issue.

If you’d really like to go point by point sometime - you pick a topic, state a position, problem, suggested solution, then I do the same, I’d be more than happy. Heck, it can be policy, political issues, whatever you want. You state your thoughts (feelings?), I state mine. Then move onto the next topic. No debate or namecalling. Opinions are fine. Anytime!

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 05:23 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Err, Li’l Andy as you call him served in the military. Try again.

rushncap,

When was Israel “invented”?

Next, your idea that we give Iran a great big reward for being the world’s most dangerous Islamic terrorist State by giving them a big chunk of Iraq shows why your claim that you are a history wiz who excels at “analysis” is laughable.

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 05:23 PM | Link to this

Rushncap— Joe Biden has been talking about that 3-part-Iraq plan for a long time now, and I don’t hear anyone else taking it seriously. Also, I believe that the “constitution” that the Iraqis voted for stated that they would have a divided Iraq with a central govt.? I’m not sure why we’re not pressing for the Iraqis to get what they voted for…

By Paul

February 15, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this

Midori 4:58

Thanks for the honest response. So if you don’t want to discuss anything, does that mean you’ll be able to resist taking potshots? Doubtful - most doubtful.

By Lord Help Us

February 15, 2007 05:28 PM | Link to this

Just sayin’…that it is interesting you got defensive when I didn’t mention your (latest) nic…

Ouch, baby…very ouch…

Now, go back to whining to the AJC management whenever anyone hurts your wittle feelings.

You are a joke…

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this

{{why are you so opposed to this country pursuing a path towards energy independence?}}

Uber-moderate, why do you leave out your guy Reagan when you slam “Carter-Bush-Clinton-Bush” for their inaction??? You’re supposed to be Mr. Moderate??? What was it that Reagan did to put us on the “path towards energy independence”, hmmm? Can’t think of anything? Hmmmm?

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this

Muffin — you can worry about symbolic actions. I worry about people dying. You can keep your symbolism.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

Hi Goldie, just scrolling down, saw your 5:05 -

Many describe “conservative” as adherence to the status quo - or tinkering around the margins. So I’d say anyone who retains the current system, even in a slightly modified form, as “conservative.”

I’m pretty much in favor of abolishing our current system for funding education. Get rid of the property tax. Abolish local district/school board/state control. Nationalize it. Give kids in poor states the same funding as kids in rich districts. Equip all labs, music rooms, art departments, yes, even sports programs, pretty much the same. Equalize teacher salaries. Set national standards. Put vocational education on a par with college prep.

Some call that liberal. I don’t much care. But I do think support of the present form is pretty conservative.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

@@,

I suppose that Thatcher’s cutting welfare programs could account for it, but as you point out, why send the kid to daycare anyway?

Speaking of the cost of parenting, I’ve never understood why we need a W.I.C. program. Mother’s milk is free and feeds the kid for at least 6 months. Presumably if a woman is on W.I.C. she isn’t working, so why does she need baby formula?

Just a pet peeve of mine…

By Goldie

February 15, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

Once again, Uber-P, I’ll help you out with your “oversight” about Ray-gun… if you only did a little research before you post your beloved “moderate” drivel here, you’d know that Reagan dismantled all of the alternative energy programs that President Carter started in the ’70s. Stopped all progress on those programs that did not solely promote the oil industry… you can thank your guy Ray-gun for that, Uber!

By RE

February 15, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

BD:

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

RE,

It was a rhetorical question for rushncap.

rushncap,

You think it’s “symbolic” to expand Iran’s empire in the Middle East?

Brilliant./sarc.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

Hello N-GA 4:55

It’s been quite a day. I’m going to be up late finishing this project - that’s okay. Things got quite “spun-up.”

I don’t think Congress will take any meaningful action on Iraq. I’m just flat amazed at those who so vigorously condemned everything Bush, who called time and again for an end to our involvement (those on this forum as well as Congress), yet now when Congress has the ability to at least try to do something meaningful (funding) they do not - and they are excused. I agree, it’s a long process, votes do not exist for an override, but it would be a strong moral statement by those who seemed to claim the moral high ground. The same arguments (attacks) used against the Administration can quite easily be used against Congress. But the point is not well recognized, nor accepted.

Fighting for “lost causes” doesn’t bother me. In fact, it can be admirable (I’m referring to legislation, here). But being in majority, criticizing any an all opposition plans, then doing nothing when one has the means - that, to me, is unconscionable.

I think we’ll probably get to the Obama plan by default.

I differ about the draft, but that’s for later.

No one today who criticized the Administration’s plan for dealing with N Korea had any comment today about the announcement. Diane Rehm show today had panel, included negotiator under Pres Clinton, one current. Both said main difference is mechanisms now exist for short-term verification which will demonstrate if serious or not. Other was strong involvement, this time, of China and what that means for success.

Very, very good point about Democratic Party - but I fear more and more both parties have “ideological purity” tests. Which is why Sen Obama gets such attention. A Democrat who cites faith and decries rank partisanship - who’da thunk he’d be where he is?

I am pretty moderate on a lot of issues - RW(the original) didn’t care for that at all, early on. Saw it as trying for consensus, not taking a stand. That’s okay - one can have strong views on issues - but influencing policy beneficial for all Americans is a different story. I may think current laws on private gun ownership are way too lax - and think the Second Amendment doesn’t “guarantee” what many think - but the reality is qui

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this

It’s going to happen either way Muffin — might as well not sacrifice thousands of American soldiers. Shia Muslims in Iraq are going to feel kinship with Shia Muslims in Iran. There is nothing anyone can do about it. Again, I’m worried about actual, tangible lives of human beings. You worry about nebulous concepts like “expand the empire of…”. Besides, it’s not our place to shape every part of the world as we see fit. If they want to ally with Iran, it’s their right.

By Lord Help Us

February 15, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this

I call people whiners but that’s what I do.

If you jack me again, I swear I’ll sue.

By Paul

February 15, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

Goldie 5:31

Because I’m a bit tired and was rushing through. The Reagan Administration didn’t do squat, either. That should be obvious. Neither did the Congresses during those administrations.

The topic was inaction about energy policy, leading towards our current debacle. You keyed in on “you didn’t include your Republican guy Reagan, huh, huh?” Such a typical response -

By Ray

February 15, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

Hardaway? Just another American guy searching in vain for his elusive masculinity. Hell, he even drives an SUV, owns a carwash, wears a ballcap, and still can’t find it. Typical.

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe rushncap thinks Obama never went to school. I don’t like much of what I’ve seen about his politics, but the man seems educated and you don’t become President of the Harvard Law Review because people feel sorry for you never getting to go to school.

By @@

February 15, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

The three state partition has been ruled out because it pretty much takes us back to where we began. Power and control of the resources in the hands of one sect.

Turkey opposes it. Saudi Arabia opposes it. Many Iraqis oppose it. There are mixed tribal marriages. Where are they supposed to go?

I think Iran would be more than eager to go for it though. Literally speaking of course.

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

Just sayin’: Word up.

Isn’t it ridiculously easy to get these silly a-ss pinkos to shadow box with their make believe demons.

You can pretty much say this for every boogey man in their closet, “global warming,” Iraq and just about any other idiot idea out of their mouths.

Keep hammering them.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Lord Help Us

February 15, 2007 06:10 PM | Link to this

Lucko-stuckonstupid, yup…I knew it was you…

Got to you again…Thanks for being my beatch again today!

By RE

February 15, 2007 06:13 PM | Link to this

Funny cartoon on Politico

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 06:13 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Permit me to be outraged…not at you, but at this administration.

In an earlier post you commented on someone posting names of soldiers who have died in Iraq. That someone is me. Let me try to explain.

I’m a veteran. Damn near everyone in my family is a veteran. You’ve heard this before:

Our country was absolutely right to go into Afghanistan. We were wrong to not put enough effort into getting OB:.

Our country was wrong (IMO) to go into Iraq. It was wrong to do so without enough troops, without an occupation plan, without enough armor, etc. I don’t give a crap whether the failure was a politician or a career general.

I post those names not for political reasons. I post them to remind me of friends who died in Viet Nam…for what, dammit! And I don’t want to hear a bunch of post-war rationalizations. Those soldiers are dead, buried, and on the Wall. I go there (to the Wall) all the time because I refuse to forget them. But I think this administration has forgotten them. I don’t think you have.

Paul…this is not a Lib vs Con, Dem vs Rep thing…at least it shouldn’t be.

We can only surmise this statement, but I sincerely doubt Abe Lincoln would have made the same decision (to go into Iraq).

So here are some names of marines who died in Iraq. They were posted today by the DoD.: “Capt. Jennifer J. Harris, 1st Lt. Jared M. Landaker, Sgt. Travis D. Pfister, and Sgt. James R. Tijerina were assigned to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 364, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Cpl. Thomas E. Saba was assigned to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 262, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.

I won’t forget them, either.

By N-GA

February 15, 2007 06:19 PM | Link to this

The DoD just released the following casualties:

Lance Cpl. Daniel T. Morris, 19, of Crimora, Va., died Feb. 14 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

Sgt. First Class Allen Mosteiro, 42, of Fort Worth, Texas, died Feb. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his unit came in contact with the enemy using small arms fire during combat operations Feb. 13 in Taji, Iraq.

They will be remembered.

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 06:20 PM | Link to this

Stalk — GFY.

@@, as I said, have some sort of revenue sharing from the oil sales, but have the states be separate. If oil revenue is the biggest stumbling block, I’d say we’re in good shape. If this prevents a civil war, it’s a small price to pay.

Yes, there are mixed marriages. Let them make their own decision. As is the mixed couple chooses to live in either Shiate or Sunni area, so they’ve made a decision. Why not stick with it?

I’m not saying there aren’t issues, but they seem to be far more solvable than the problems we’d face otherwise.

By @@

February 15, 2007 06:22 PM | Link to this

On the surface of the N.Korea deal, things look good. Clinton’s deal was a bi-lateral one. This latest one has the world watching, and multi-lateral negotiations. China was none too pleased with that “Little Ill guys” recent displays of his nuclear prowess.

You do have the advantage of hindsight. It prompts closer attention in the future I would imagine.

He can’t deny he’s got them anymore. He’s already shown us his stuff.

By getalife

February 15, 2007 06:23 PM | Link to this

Bad news for the AJC

By Paul

February 15, 2007 06:24 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Just came back before going out to dinner. Thank you for the explanation - it’s a good way to end the day.

The Wall is tough. Very tough. As I’ve said, over have our KIA came after we elected Nixon with his “secret plan” - I’ve mentioned before - I voted McGovern (yes, Goldie ridicule - I know now that’s just her style) - even tho I disagreed with some of what he said I thought him truthful. I’m concerned we’re heading down the same path - change of Congress, possible change of White House - but continued major presence and casualties.

I’ve been able to track down one officer who resigned over principle regarding VietNam. I don’t have much respect for the “get a star and retire” critics. But enough - friends await and it’s Chinese night (I also love Korean food) -

Thanks again -

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 06:25 PM | Link to this

Lord Help U, no the joke’s on you.

You’re wrong, AGAIN.

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 06:26 PM | Link to this

It’s too bad the DoD doesn’t release enemy body count information so that when punks use our dead soldiers names without their families permission simply to make crass political points it can be counter balanced with what great things they did before they made the ultimate sacrifice.

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

Dmitry,

If I were able to do that would it increase my productivity?

By Lord Help Us

February 15, 2007 06:35 PM | Link to this

Okay, darnit…I only want one beatch per day Just Sayin’ (even if they are the same gutless coward).

You can be my beatch some other day…

By @@

February 15, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Those soldiers will be remembered. As valiant, brave, and honorable. Individuals doing what they were asked, and fighting for the freedom of others.

It would be arrogant and wrong of me to assume I KNEW they were there against their will or the cause.

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

rushncap thinks we can just pull out of Iraq and leave it to Saudi and Iran (he left out Syria) and everything will be just peachy huh?

Now that’s a joke.

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 06:39 PM | Link to this

Just for Stalk

By The Real Deal

February 15, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this

{{As I said earlier, I’m willing to give the Baghdad plan a shot and see if the Iraqis will do for themselves. If not, it’s “adios, amigos.”}}

Careful, Paul— your true self is shining through again. You show patience for your whatever guy Dubya’s “plans” are for Iraq, but your previous posts today show that you have no patience for the Dems after only 1 month in Washington… not really a very “moderate” person, are you?

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 06:45 PM | Link to this

Just sayin’, any hope of you ever Just shuttin’ up?

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

Lord Help U, I’m sorry you’re confused.

First you have me confused with someone else.

Second, you’re being my biatch right now.

Thanks in advance Wanker.

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 06:50 PM | Link to this

Paul,

It appears the Democrats are going to defund the war effort without actually saying so. The most corrupt member of Congress, John/Jack Murtha, is touting a plan to make it impossible to have troops that will be defined as allowed and eligible to fight.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

RW,

I love the way N-GA uses the fact that he was a vet as the excuse to exploit the deaths of these soldiers.

Wine and food do not classy make.

rushncap,

I neglected to mention this factoid:

Saudi Arabia was recognized as a country in 1927. Iraq gained its independence in 1932. You want to hand over 1/3 of Iraq to the Saudis because Iraq is a young country so who cares anyway?

Wow, 5 years really counts for a lot in Dmitryworld, doesn’t it.

By The Real Deal

February 15, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

{{It’s too bad the DoD doesn’t release enemy body count information}}

RW— so does that “enemy body count” include the thousands of Iraqi citizens who’ve been called “collateral damage” by you neo-cons? Just wondering how outraged you might be about that particular body count.

By Lord Help Us

February 15, 2007 06:56 PM | Link to this

Just Sayin’ Lucko-whiner,

Gaawd! At least alter your vocabulary slightly if you are going to namejack and use different nics!!

I’ve seen potatoes with higher IQ’s…

By Just sayin'

February 15, 2007 06:57 PM | Link to this

Sure cappy, as soon as you tell us what you “think” will be the backlash of pulling our troops out of Iraq immediately and let Iran, Saudi and Syria (and who knows who else) hash it out?

By rushncap

February 15, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

Retard Muffin — I’m saying that Iraq is not a country with a history of being in one piece. It was invented as such by the Brits who had no clue as to what they were doing. Other than your stupid “5 years” comment you seem to have no good reason as to why this country absolutely must stay together. I have offered reasons for why breaking it up would be beneficial, you have offered only snide remarks.

Hmmm, come to think of it, that’s the best you’ve ever done. Congratulations!

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I’d still like the history of when San Diego was a communist dictatorship.

What the goat refuses to understand is that family members will google those names and wind up in this cesspool. After a year they’ll actually have to pay to do it. If he wanted to do a tribute he should open a web site and do a real one. Of course we know all he wants is to trash their mission by throwing their names around.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 07:00 PM | Link to this

Just Sayin’,

I’m starting to wonder if munchkin rushncap isn’t rooting for a Worldwide Caliphate.

By LuckoDull

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

“While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements, and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely,” Boehner said in a statement. “The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face the enemy without our full support,” Boehner added.

First this scumbag Filthy Mouth Murtha slanders the troops, then falsely accuses them and now he wants to weaken their strength in the middle of a tough fight.

This is how liberals “support” the troops.

We’re starting to see who the enemy really is.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 07:14 PM | Link to this

The Un-Real Deal or TURD for short,

I don’t even know what a neocon is. I do know that if we weren’t taking great pains to minimize collateral damage or we wouldn’t have the casualties we do. Fighting the type of battle we are, while taking such pains to protect the civilian population makes it a marvel that our body count is as low as it is. It’s a tribute to the brilliance of our military.

Now would you like to show me where all these “neocons” are talking about dead Iraqi citizens as nothing more than collateral damage? I know you can’t, but it would be nice if you would at least try.

By the way, moron, why are you blaming our troops for the deaths at the hands of a bunch of cowardly suicide bombers?

By LuckoDull

February 15, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

Want to know how you can tell if a story was written by a pinko?:

Al-Masri took over the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{its charismatic leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,}}}}}}}}}}}}}} was killed in a U.S. airstrike last June in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

The lib thinks this butcher, this pig, this disgusting head chopper was “charismatic?”

Sick, sick, sick.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

rushncap munchkin,

I know you’re really proud of yourself for offering a magical fairy solution, but I don’t like your insane solution of further empowering the terrorist state of Iran (and Syria). May I mention that they are none too friendly to Israel - who you once claimed to care about?

I think you would give everything up as long as it helped your Bush sucks! theme. That includes selling your soul to the Devil.

By N-GA

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

If you examine the late posts of RW (Real Wuss), Guy Danish, and SuckoDull, you get a really representative cross-section of American neo-Nazis….people who will gladly let others die for them so that they are free to spout intolerance, stupidity and hatred as their basis for Christian living. They believe they are better and smarter than everyone else on the planet. Just ask them.

Stalin and Hitler are looking forward to spending eternity with you.

By RW-(the original)

February 15, 2007 08:40 PM | Link to this

I just examined the three late posts (although unlike goat boy’s they were all before the traditional closing time) and I found:

RW-Complimenting the brilliance of the US military.

LD-Berating the American media for glorifying a terrorist butcher that sawed the heads off Americans.

and

BD-Showing our resident commissar how stupid it is to deliberately strengthen Iran.

Anybody that thinks those views represent neo-nazis is probably somebody that is unctuous enough to parade dead soldiers through the streets for political gain. Meet N-GA, dragger of dead soldiers and truly classless punk.

By Buy Danish (The one and only)

February 15, 2007 09:26 PM | Link to this

This just in!

Speaking of al qaeda in Iraq butchers, looks like we just got Zarqs successor in custody.

Note to N-GA - that’s a really good thing.

Note to John Murtha - proceed with your slow bleed plans at your peril.