Thinking Right

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

Really, Bush’s comment was not that surprising. We already know he’s incapable of admitting error.

But Wooten… are you seriously suggesting that we should suddenly start worrying about “how we look” to the rest of the world? Where was this concern when we launched the stupid, ill-advised invasion?

I thought world opinion didn’t matter! Could’ve sworn that was the mantra of the neocons and their supporters all through the “UN sucks” and “global test, global test” hysteria.

Perhaps they’re wising up now that it’s too late to fix the problem.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

As a charter member of the ugly old men’s club, I care little about appearances, and anyone can deduce that when we are introduced. I don’t care how America “looks.” I don’t care how domestic leadership – Republican or Democrat - “looks.”

Let’s set a plausible hypothetical: The US announces today that we will proclaim victory and withdraw from Iraq on January 21, 2009. What will be the effect?

My guess is that the cheering in Tehran and Syria and Gaza and Southern Lebanon would be exceeded only by the cheering in San Francisco and Massachusetts. To steal the best argument from one of the online sages published this morning: “Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.”

As I wrote last week, I believe Iraq, now, is the right time and place to fight. There is nothing that threatens the terrorists so much as the spread of democracy. In the likely event anyone (everyone) missed it yesterday, Norman Podhoretz, Jewish godfather of the “Neocons” to use the leftist epithet, published a brilliant essay on Iraq: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008830 Warning, this is not light reading, and is not appropriate for the lesser minds in our audience, nor for anyone with less than 30 minutes free.

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Morning Mr. Curtis, I’m not suggesting in the least that we should start worrying about “how we look” to the rest of the world. I’m asking for enlightment from you and others on how the world shakes out if and when the policies the left advocates are implemented.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

And to pre-empt the snipers among our leftist friends, my younger son is in the Navy, and my older son (who has some baggage) is working with an Army recruiter in an effort to enlist. I have a personal interest in the welfare of our fighting forces.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Perhaps, JBM, you in turn could supply some evidence that Iraq has something to do with fighting terrorism in the first place.

Since you seem to have confused the two, to the point that opposing the Iraq mess is somehow equivalent in your fevered imagination to “Wanting the U.S. to abandon the efforts against the terrorism, roll over, and be conquered by religious extremists.”

Would you like to fight terrorism effectively? Or would you like to keep getting our people shot at in Iraq instead? They’re two separate questions, no matter how much the neocons try to combine them.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Geo-political justification for the Iraqi War is murky. Are we there to save Iraqis from Iraqis? Is that not a civil war?

Civil War: The terrorists in Iraq become “Iraqis who chose the confederacy” if this is suddenly called a civil war.

Yes, there are foreign nationals in Iraq showing off, but a civil war will chase those yahoos off faster than it will chase the US off.

But is it just spin? Even Bush weighed in on the “civil war in Iraqs”. Is it entirely up to observers to make this call?

If so, then that means that our mission is Iraq is undefineable, and dependent on the daily white house spin.

There’s not one member of the joint chiefs of staff who thinks that there’s a viable military solution for the war. There’s no end game scenario that matches any criteria for victory, or defeat, because this is an animal nobody’s ever seen.

What is it, an occupation/invasion that morphs into a insurgency/feud that draws in foreign nationals/terrorists to take pot shots at the US all the while a sectarian based sunni/shia civil war starts to bubble to the surface which is further aggravated by the more ancient ethnic rivalries….oh this goes on and on….

Without a clear, ideologically based geo-political justification for war, it’s impossible to define a mission. We have an army just thrashing around in the desert.

Nobody has enough data or intel on who is who. You cant tell the terrorists without a deck of scorecards. Get your scorecards here.

Isaakson has no credibility on this latest push in Baghdad. His statements are unbriefed spin.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Excellent question, Brian. I anticipated that, thus the link to the Podhoretz article, the best evidence you could seek. Assuming you are serious.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Also Brian, as you say in your post, “Would you like to fight terrorism effectively? Or would you like to keep getting our people shot at in Iraq instead? They’re two separate questions, no matter how much the neocons try to combine them.”

Thus, I pre-emptively asked: “perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.” Assuming you are serious.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding, your comments are thoughtful, but the tragic flaw in your argument is in your first paragraph: “Are we there to save Iraqis from Iraqis?” Your argument fails everytime we or the Iraqis kill a Palestinean or Syrian or Pakistani in Iraq.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding, I partially agree with one of your arguments: “There’s not one member of the joint chiefs of staff who thinks that there’s a viable military solution for the war. There’s no end game scenario that matches any criteria for victory, or defeat, because this is an animal nobody’s ever seen.”

Your first portion is true, this is not a war with a military end; the military’s role is to enable the successful conclusion. Had you posed this same question, about communism, in 1980, your observations would have been just as valid.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Because Bush couldn’t tell a sunni from a shia before we went into Iraq, and that’s a fact, (because we all heard his advisors speak about the Iraqis when we went in), then how do you expect anyone to know the fallout from either a US pullout, or a “stay the course even if it kills us” policy?

Look how unfair it is to start a war, and then say, “What would happen if we didn’t start the war or if we stop fighting the war”?

You cant expect any rational person to respect such an interview. And it’s the wrong question anyway.

The question here, folks, is “Are we prepared to slaughter the Iraqis to save themselves from themselves”. So far the answer is yes.

Isaakson is suggesting that the foreign national terrorists in Iraq are holding the 35 million Iraqis as hostages, and we are there to save them, free them, and build them 1.6 gallon turbo-flush commodes and a power grid (to boot).

The entire episode, from the strategic mission statement to the tactical approach to completing that mission to the evolving purpose of the occupation has no ideological basis in logic, faith, or reason.

Bush expects all the terrorists/Iraqis-who-chose-the-confederacy to eventually give up and say, “We give up, gringos, dont shoot us, we have our hands in the international sign of surrender, we are all coming out now, what were we thinking? We dont know, I guess we all went a little crazy there, but we’re okay now, and ready to start using the missionary position with our women, and sporting ties and weejuns just like our dear uncle sam. That’s right, we dope for jesus….”

Please.

By Harold

August 24, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Bush’s comments about not leaving Iraq while he is President were not about success or failure in Iraq. The outcome of Iraq does not matter as long as it continues to stay a mess.

His comments were just laying the groundwork for him continuing his rule in January 2009 under (self granted) emergency war powers due to the “critical ongoing national security issue.”

There has to be a mission in Iraq. At this point most everyone can agree clearly it is not a successful, independent Iraq. The mission must be something else.

If you don’t buy the “profits for his buddies” story, which Harold does not, the continuation of the mess in Iraq is about Bush retaining control of the USA and power over the world.

Harold would do it. Who wouldn’t? Bush is.

By Mid-South Philosopher

August 24, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

I am afraid I am a little cynical this morning.

Senator Isakson got it partly right. I just wish that he had gone all the way.

There is no doubt that Iraq is a “phase” of the larger War on Fanatical Islam, and there is no doubt that the “Battle for Baghdad” will determine the outcome of the insurgency on that front.

What Johnny failed to admit is that in order to prosecute the long, protracted war in which we are engaged, we are going to have to replenish our military forces. Despite what the “idiot,” Rumsfeld would tell us, a “lean, mean, fighting machine” will not suffice as an occupying force, which is most certainly what we are in Iraq. Likely, in the months to come, we will need additional forces in Iraq. At the same time, I suspect, we will need additional forces in Afghanistan. If we are serious about dealing with Iran (and we had better be), we may need an Army of 1,000,000 or more. Couple that with 25,000-50,000 in Lebanon, another 100,000 to confront Syria, etc., etc., etc.

And, always, looming in the background, are the North Koreans.

The “clowns” in Washington had better start leveling with the American people. Specifically, they had better starting preparing us for the reinstitution of conscription or the draft and they had better make sure that the munitions and equipment of the military are prepared and plentiful.

I am too damned old to convert to Islam!

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding @ 8:38, I assume the portion of the war on terrorists that you would support is “Spitballs?”

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

Morning, Philsopher. 8:43. Hmmm. Sleep in this morning? I think Rumsfeld’s lean, mean machine was the right strategy, but in the Baghdad opeartion overwhelming force is required, at least in the short run.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Lets see, we can stay the course, have another 25,000 US troops murdered like Vietnam or we can redeploy and have no more US troops murdered. Either way, Iraq will still support Iran.

We could attack Iran, start WWIII with Russia and China and have millions murdered.

We could hold those responsible for the Iraqi invasion accountable to show the world how wrong they were, change direction and try to fight terror with new leadership.

You be the decider.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

MidSouth, I respectfully disagree with your call for reinstitution of the draft. Nobody in the military wants Brian Curtis or Harold or Law Abiding in the foxhole with him. Pay the servicemen what the market requires.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

And furthermore, the tragic flaw, (poetry before 9 am is not pretty), in my argument is not exposed by the accidental killing of actual foreign national terrorists (via collateral damage) that our occupation engenders, but by the fact that my argument is a local one, without consideration of Iran’s role in this mess.

I’m open minded enough to realize that Bush may have stumbled into the exact correct move to thwart Shia ambitions to destroy Israel by forcing Iran to show their cards too early, before they had the bomb.

But he didn’t know that he was doing anything other than avenging his dad’s assassination attempt and conspiring with the military industrial complex who have their own reasons ($$$$).

History may, I admit, portray Bush as our greatest president, up there with Lincoln and Washington. I just dont have enough data. I dont know how far into Iraq the Persians have reached. Nobody knows. Certainly not Bush or Isaakson.

But I have an open mind. I’m an american, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow Cheney/Bush to wiretap other american’s porn surfing habits, which is the only intel Cheney has sponsored so far, BTW.

They’ve turned our 200 year old democratic experiment into a circus and a pathetic clown act, and I demand that they resign effective noon tommorrow.

!!!!

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

JBM: Oh, I agree that Bush’s latest statement is in keeping with Podohertz’s comments and the overall neocon doctrine. I just point out that the doctrine itself is illegitimate.

You don’t need to conquer the world to fight terrorism, and America’s only hope for surivival is not ‘spreading democracy at gunpoint,’ much less defining all who disagree with us “evil.” That’s not only inefficient, it’s downright stupid and counterproductive.

What parts of the war on terrorism do I support? The parts that involve sensible security measures on our ports and nuclear plants, legal wiretapping (with warrants and legitimate oversight) and tracking of suspects, cooperation with other nations’ intelligence agencies and law-enforcement bodies… basically the whole string of more sensible and effective options that have been largely ignored in favor of “blowin’ sh## up.”

Iraq is not part of the fight against terrorism—at least, it wasn’t until we made it one. And “imposing” democracy on the Middle East, as Podohertz suggests, is neither possible (by definition) nor a noble cause (since it is, by his own admission, something we’re doing for our OWN best interests first and foremost).

The PNAC was a good tool for identifying the traitorous power-mad psychos who should be barred from holding any public office in future. Anyone who signed it has, in my view, signed away their right to call themselves American.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Getalife, none of our honorable servicemen were murdered in Vietnam, nor did we murder anyone. Perhaps you forget how much the Iraqis enjoyed the opportunity to vote; I think you underestimate their potential enthusiasm for sharing that privilege with their Iranian brothers.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Brian @ 8:53, you point using circular logic. The policy is flawed because ….

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

On the blog this morning there’s me. And there’s jbmlaw. And all the rest disagree. Jbmlaw, I think we’ve got them surrounded. But meetings intervene;I’m off.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

I dont know, I thought the President was pretty clear, clear enough for a child to understand it, when he said that the mission in Iraq is to help implement the will of over 12 million voting Iraqi’s who want a better life. You have a small percentage of the populus trying to stop the will and desire of over 12 million non-militant, decent men women and children. That seems like a good mission to me.

If that isnt enough for you, I offer this. Terrorist organizations from Hezbollah, to Al Quada and Hamas are clearly in the process of uniting their forces to achieve a common goal. With the US military presence in Afganistan and Iraq, we have interrupted thier way of life, thier training grounds, thier ability to be effective. Clearly these terrorist orgs are in need of a state, a home, a safe haven. Pulling out of Iraq is exactly what that would give them, a home for the taking (and boost thier moral by giving me them a percieved victory).

The day we pull out of Iraq our country becomes less safe, period. That is fact.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

The reality on Iraq that you and your fellow wingnuts do not want to see or understand is this:

Iraq supports Iran Period.

Your argument must include this fact or it is silly.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

If the cut and run lefties ever get their way then Iran wins at the very least a semi-permanent victory over the shiite areas of Iraq. The sunnis on the western side will naturally gravitate toward the likes of Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Which may well fracture the current expediency of the Syria- Iran axis of evil. The Kurds essentially will be on their own yet again, which they’ll be happy about, provided nobody tries to steal their oil or their current relative freedom.

Beyond the immediate fallout the newly energised fascist shiites and their moral fascist leader in Tehran who noisily wants to destroy Israel will be so emboldened by such wanton liberal cowardice and appeasement they will very likely try to impose an even greater Hizbollocks hold on Lebanon, knowing that no one in the region can stop this. Iranian momentum will be on their side, at least for a while. If this occurs then expect much more frequent and aggressive provocations of Israel and a much more extensive, open flow of arms to S Lebanon. Resulting sooner than later in another purely defensive Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Where that goes depends on how successful how quickly the IDF are.

Geo-politically the cowards in the EU will have essentially surrendered to Iran and will be faced with growing terrorism supported by the new shiite terror state Iraq and Iran and al quaeda types. The US will continue to press for some international action against Iran but until something equivalent to the invasion of Poland occurs the craven EU and the vile American left will say and do nothing.

The war on mohammedan fascists will be perhaps fatally weakened if Iran gets shiite Iraq. There will be a huge area of the ME devoted to terrorism with vastly greater state sponsored resources than the Taleban ever had access to.

To a great extent much of this also depends on when Iran gets the bomb - not if, unless things change dramatically!! Naturally the lefty appeasers will say and do little or nothing about that - as will the spineless corrupt UN. All of a sudden, in a year or two - three at most the mohammedan world will have to choose between taking on the shiites or fighting with them against the west and Israel.

ALL because the nasty America hating lefties in the US, UN and EU endlessly shoved their cowardly cut and run policies down the willing Bush hating media’s throats.

All this, or some fairly close variation can be avoided by the left SHUTTING THE HELL UP AND SUPPORTING BUSH or at least not anally undermining Bush and OUR ALLIES IN THE WAR ON TERROR.

Deal with what is actually the scenario now - not what you desperately keep obsessively demanding it should have been. All is not lost yet by any means - but the yellow appeasing lefties will be largely responsible if it all goes t** up!!

By Mid-South Philosopher

August 24, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

OK, Jim,

I’ll give credit where credit is due. I admit that the Rumsfeld’s “attack” strategy was great. It worked beautifully. The trouble came with the “occupation” phase. We needed 250,000-300,000 troops to do the job.

I am slow this morning…what was the General’s name, who stated this publicly and was replaced, retired, or something?

At any extent, our forces are tired. Many have served two and even three tours over the past five years. We had better be replishing our ranks UNLESS (and this is really troubling) we have chosen to initiate use of the “tactical” nuclear option.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding @ 8:52, avoid the silly arguments: “But he didn�t know that he was doing anything other than avenging his dad�s assassination attempt and conspiring with the military industrial complex who have their own reasons ($$$$).” Makes you sound like a moonbat. “What parts of the war on terrorism do I support? The parts that involve sensible security measures on our ports and nuclear plants, legal wiretapping (with warrants and legitimate oversight) and tracking of suspects, cooperation with other nations� intelligence agencies and law-enforcement bodies� basically the whole string of more sensible and effective options that have been largely ignored in favor of �blowin� sh## up.� Yes, a return to pre-9/11, as that worked so well the first time. “And �imposing� democracy on the Middle East, as Podohertz suggests, is neither possible (by definition) nor a noble cause (since it is, by his own admission, something we�re doing for our OWN best interests first and foremost).” Spoken by one who truly does not believe in the virtues of freedom.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

And dammit jim, i’ve let you get away with too many contradictions, (cause I’m a big fan), but your latest is the most obvious: “I think Rumsfeld lean mean fighting machine was the right strategy, but in Baghdad, overwhelming force is required, at least in the short run.”

That’s three contractions not just to logic in general, but to the question you posed (which itself had several contradictory premises).

“short run”? But you just said “stay the course”, and that be long run. “Lean fighting machine was correct”-but you just said “overwhelming force” is correct.

If I start to think that you just pop out words from ideas that just appear in your head that you think sound conservative, (like a gumball machine) then I’m going to be very very very disappointed dear sir.

Because that will mean that you have sold out. Never sell out your talent cause you will lose it the moment you do.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Here! Here! Mid-South has it right!

MORE TROOPS, NOT LESS! MORE FORCE, NOT LESS!

I agree the administration needs to stop sugar coating things and level with the American people. But despite the lies that Bush and this admin is accused of, I clearly remember GW standing in front of the American people and Congress and stating clearly that this would be a difficult, long, tenuous task, and that we would need to stay strong and dedicated to it. I think some just hear what they want to hear.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Anybody catch the bin Laden special on CNN last night.

Very informative. 50 troops on the ground to get bin Laden in Tora Bora is the worst mistake our military leaders have made.

Why are they still in command? This maybe the reason Iraq is a disaster.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding @ 9:04, you confuse the distinction between “battle” and “war”:

““short run”? But you just said “stay the course”, and that be long run. “Lean fighting machine was correct”-but you just said “overwhelming force” is correct.” Short run - battle. Long run - war.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

JBM: A respect for the Constitution and a sane foreign policy were pre-9/11 too… you bet I advocate returning to that!

The policy is dumb for many reasons, not the least of which is assuming that citizens of other nations will be only too glad to do what the U.S. tells them, as long as we say “It’s for your own good.”

Look at it this way: If WE were invaded, would we sit still for an occupation force, no matter how much they insisted they were bringing us salvation? Or would we have a shred of national pride and insist that we could solve our own problems for ourselves?

One of the biggest blunders of the neocon policy is to assume that while Americans have pride, other nations do not. That terrorism can be “bombed into submission” (which never works) and that other societies will “eventually learn their place and never dare to step out of line.”

Every empire throughout history assumed that, and they were all wrong. And the inevitable result is decline and violence. As a patriot, I stand by America the democracy, not America the empire. The Podohertz policy goes the other way, and I don’t think most real Americans are going to put up with that.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Getalife, you are telling me that 50 troops chasing Osama is all it takes to keep Osama from successful launching terrorists strikes. Amazing; we do have highly effective armies.

By sct

August 24, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

“MORE TROOPS, NOT LESS! MORE FORCE, NOT LESS!”

Well get over there!! Whats stopping you???

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Force for what realfake?

They will still support Iran.

Include this fact in your argument to make it an honest debate.

By Mid-South Philosopher

August 24, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

While Jim doesn’t need me to defend him, I think I need to say something on this one. With respect to combat, faster, more destructive, and deadlier advancement against the enemy can be achieved best by a smaller, highly proficient and effective force (“lean, mean, fighting machine”). For “occupation” (the re-building of a nation) larger numbers of troops (especially when there are active insurgent elements) are needed.

While he is not immuned to making them, I don’t see a contradiction in Jim’s statement

By Realist

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

by mid-south @ 8:59

tactical nuclear option

Im liking this philosopher guy more and more!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

That is why he got away. Guess what, it took them 5 years to plan and carry out 9/11. It has been 5 years and bin Laden has warned of a bigger attack with much more murders. When he warns (according to Islam, they have to warn the enemy), it will happen.

Times up.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Dear Brian, I understand your desire for fortress America, a la Pat Buchanan. I understand you don’t want your government monitoring telephone calls to and from the middle east, or with suspected terrorists, for fear that someone might actually be prevented from committing an act of war. I understand that you don’t really believe the Islamic terrorists want to hurt you, because you are a good person. I realize you would excise that portion of the constitution that grants the president the power to conduct war and foreign policy, subject to funding by the Congress (and which omits any mention of the role of the judiciary.) I disagree with the foundation for your beliefs.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

getatinybrain sure is super ignorant today!!

The commie chi-coms and the Ruskies are NOT going to militarily defend Iran, They will simply sit on the sidelines and watch. Their interest here is a weakened US/west which you lefties are screeching every day to give them on a platter.

If ME oil is cut off to the US we can always invade Venezuela, get rid of the fascist thug Chavez and save some money at the forecourt. No wait … the bloody Cubans will stop us with loads of press conferences and days of action in Havana!!

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Getalife, I understand your admiration for Osama and all of the warnings he gave us before 9/11. Where do you get this crap?

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Arguing a moot point always brings out derision.

Fact: we are there.

Fact: there’s no plan.

Fact: nobody’s in charge.

Fact: That means the future evolves without any ideological guidance from the US, which has always been my main assumption about the planet’s future.

Fact: That means I want my mommy.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Do the left realize how brainless and utterly childish they sound when they challenge a pro-military pro-Bush supporter with “why aint you over there?” “Git over there then!”

That is assinine and ridiculous. One does not have to be in the military to support the military and its agenda. Not everyone is fit enough, healthy enough, young enough, etc to be in the military in the first place.

If you want to look like a complete imbecile on this blog, fine, but if you have one shred of pride, stop with the “why aint you over there” redneck ignorant remarks becaues you just embarasss yourself.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

JBM: Aside from disregarding the Constitution (which IS the foundation for my beliefs), you’ve made a heckuva lot of weird assumptions in that short paragraph.

For example: You assume I don’t want wiretaapping of terrorism suspects, when I explicitly said the opposite (as long as it’s legal, with proper warrants and oversight). You assume I don’t want to fight terrorism, although I spelled out a number of tactics we SHOULD be doing to accomplish exactly that.

And finally, you seem to accuse me of fantasy-world idealism rather than hardheaded practicality… which is rather amusing, since the original topic shows the level of denial Bush and his supporters are engaged in, and the Podohertz doctrine is full of such wishful thinking.

I think you’re getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.

By Voice of Reason

August 24, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

In my opinion we have two options, and neither is predicated by how we look to the world.

Option 1 - I have discussed before - quit pussyfootin around, double the forces. Take cities one by one and establish an EFFECTIVE Iraqi police and military presence. Once all of the cities are under control, step back (enjoy Kuwait for a couple of weeks) and see how things pan out.

Option 2 - Take our hand of the of the Iraqi military seats and enjoy Kuwait for a while. If there’s going to be a civil war, let em have it. It worked out pretty good for us. If they want several Iraqi states, so be it. We support the democratic ones, and let the others suffer.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Yeah, getalife, how dare you try to understand who our enemy actually is. How dare you not just make up a generic bandito and say, “suiciders”, and “We’ll stay the course, when they stand and run, or cut one, or accomplish missionaries and stuff”.

Nookyoolar! Lisp the “S” when you talk and you too can be like bush!!!!

FACT on BUSH: He’s a congenital moron, and he doesn’t even know what he’s saying.

By Mid-South Philosopher

August 24, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

To SCT,

I would go in my grandson or granddaughter’s place in heartbeat. However, decades of enjoying the decadent American way of life have left this physical shell in pitiable condition.

It is a great unfairness in life that the wars are generally started by old men, but the dying is done by young men…and, now in the Western World, by young women. I suppose that is another justification for “Hades.”

I would point out that among the Islamists most of the dying has been done by their young men. You don’t find Usama bin-Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Hassan Nasrallah in the front lines of the fighting or submitting themselves to martyrdom.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Realist: Does the right realize how brainless and utterly childish they sound when they meet all questioning and opposition to Bush’s agenda with “You hate America!” and “You’re on the terrorists’ side”?

That, too, is asinine and ridiculous. One does not have to champion a failed tactic to support fighting terrorism. Recognizing that armies are the wrong tool for the job is neither disloyal nor disrespectful of our military.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Hey BRIAN, Show me the post in THIS DISCUSSION that said “You hate America” and “Youre on the terroriest side”.

SHOW ME OR STFU

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

To offer a brief cease-fire, there is a great short piece of humor in today’s WSJ, editorial page, on the McCartney divorce, if anyone needs a good laugh on an unlikely subject.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

FACT on BUSH- HE WILL FINISH THIS TERM AND THEN LEAVE OFFICE. HE WILL NOT BE IMPEACHED NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU PRAY TO WHATEVER GOD OR THING YOU WORSHIP AT NIGHT.

FACT on IRAQ- WE WILL STAY THE COURSE AND WILL NOT PULL OUT SO LONG AS BUSH IS PRESIDENT. END OF STORY. STOP CRYING. YOU CANT STOP IT.

FACT on USA- WE HAVE SUFFERED ZERO ADDITIONAL ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 ON OUR COUNTRY. THANK YOU GW.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Realist, I was referring to the right in general—although “STFU!” is a good example of inanity as well. You, uh, DO know the purpose of a forum, right?

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Fact on Clinton post 1993 attack on the WTC: we suffered zero attacks on US soil for the remaining seven years of his presidency.

Meaning of that fact…..ZIP!!!

moron

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

We need to let the Iranian nazis back themselves even further into a corner politically over the nukes and their state sponsored terrorism in Lebanon etc. Then at their next major gathering of ALL their clergy/political leaders we need to drop several dozen battlefield nukes on them - wiping the lot of them out. Instantly decapitating the Iranian leadership will buy a good deal of time and will massively increase the internal pressure for regime change which overwhelmingly Iranians want.

It will also isolate Hizbollocks which the IDF should then be able to take full advantage of. The sunnis viscerally hate the shiites so few will seriously whine after the initial bleating and most will quietly cheer in the arab world when they see Iran is no longer a major threat to them.

The best way to kill a venomous snake is to chop its head off!!

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Well BRIAN, If I take your obvious definition of what a forum is, its a place to spread lies and hyperbole and produce ad hominem attack one after another.

You would have us beleive that the “right in general” meets every question with “you hate america”. If that isnt hyperbole and just flat out false I dont know what is.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

I pay attention to the facts and not the spin jbmlaw.

Yesterday, I read an article about a 60 year old ex marine called back to active duty in Iraq.

You are not too old to go fight so Iraq can support Iran.

I do not admire bin Laden. Get to know the enemy and you will see what we are up against. w is not a leader for this fight and his party are greedy cowards. They could give a crap about your security.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Law abiding s**, Of course we suffered no further attacks after the 93 failed attempt. Thats because for the next 7 years of Clintoons presidency the terrorist trained, planned and operated freely and with impunity. You’re argument is WEAK sir.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Realfake,

What is your excuse for not fighting over there?

By sct

August 24, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Mid-south, my response was meant for only one poster here. Realist has claimed that he is doing his part by blogging all day. At a time when our armed forces are hanging on the thread he thinks he is doing his part by blogging against the liberals. He wants to blog all day, then go to his safe gated community, get in his jacuzzi and sip wine. Thats what I have a problem with, young men yelling “Kill’em all” from the saftey of their comfy home willing to let others do the sacrificing.

From Realist Dear Iraqi Soldier, I am fighting right along side you son. You see, back home, we are fighting a threat just as real as any IED or RPG that you may face. Its a threat to our way of life as we know it. The threat is the undermining of American patriots and servicemen just like you son, and you wont beleive where the threat is coming from! Its coming from the liberal congress that many of us trusted and beleived in when they voted to send troops into Iraq. Thats right, the very ones who voted to send you in are now backing out on you and abandoning you one after another. So my son, we are here fighting for you. Not to mention working hard at our jobs each day and sending our tax dollars to Washington so that you can have the equipment and food and tools you need to win this war. You are doing a great job son, and we appreciate you and your work for this country. Keep doing your part, and we conservatives will keep doing ours on your behalf!!

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding @ 9:19, “Fact: there’s no plan. Fact: nobody’s in charge. Fact: That means the future evolves without any ideological guidance from the US, which has always been my main assumption about the planet’s future. Fact: That means I want my mommy.” Intellectual material, how can I respond!

Brian @ 9:22, you forget that wiretapping warrants (required for prosecution but not required to conduct of war until the Carter-appointee found that last week) requires a showing of “probable cause.” Are you willing to grant a general warrant for such incoming telephone calls, or do you require the government to go to court for each tap with a showing of the specific probable cause? How do we get the warrant in time to tap? Or do you use spitballs? “since the original topic shows the level of denial Bush and his supporters are engaged in” - I agree that at least one of us lives in a fantasy world.

Law Abiding @ 9:23, “Nookyoolar! Lisp the “S” when you talk and you too can be like bush!!!! FACT on BUSH: He’s a congenital moron, and he doesn’t even know what he’s saying.” Clearly you have a dazzling intellect.

Brian @ 9:26, thanks for getting back on subject, but you still misperceive the role of the military in the war on terrorism - their job is a holding action until the political solution - planting the seeds of democracy - can take hold. This is a 50 year war, like the war on communism. The leftist plan - that is, no plan at all - guarantees failure.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

getalife, I mean this as contemptuous and as mean-spirited as possible. I barely read your third grade, limp wristed, poorly thought out attempts at the english language. And other than this very post that you are reading, I will not discuss, debate, chat, correspond, shoot the s**, chew the fat, or even exchange smoke signals with a brainless, thoughtless, cut and paste, bush-hater like yourself.

Be flattered I even responded this one and only time.

Now FOFF

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Quit lying, the Dems do have a plan much better than w’s. Google it.

It deals with the fact that Iraq supports Iran.

Wingnuts have a major problem with reality.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

We could attack Iran, start WWIII with Russia and China and have millions murdered.

getabrain’s obsession with blithering idiocy is hugely amusing. come on - tell us how/when the chi-coms and ruskies will commit their armies on Iran’s behalf. You post mindless drivel and run away from it when ever challenged!!

you’re just a cowardly moveon.org cyber terrorist!!

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Astronoers have just declared that Pluto is no longer a planet, just like I’m declaring that the Iraqi Occupation is no longer a war on terror, but an Iraqi Civil War.

No backs, no vice-versas, no changies.

It’s a civil war, can we bail yet?

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Well STFU coward realwussie.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding, @ 9:35, why so many qualifiers in your statement? Is it possible that there were additional attacks on US personnel and interests and properties around the world in the seven years after the 1993 attack? You deceive by omission; the fact is the war is ongoing, it did not start on 9/11.

Getalife @ 9:44, really intellectual stuff, how do you think of that?

SCT @ 9:45, “Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.”

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

getatinybrain …

What is your excuse for being a complete leftist moron who cant answer awkward questions about your own witless drivel?

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Getalife @ 9:49 and 9:50, really intellectual stuff, how do you think of that?

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

It is reality.

Deal with it.

There is no honest debate here.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Everybody, relax. Its all over. We can put down the guns, surrender our positions, and come on home.

Jesse is headed to the ME to take care of things. Surely after listening to him drone and rhyme for a few days, the terroriest will all kill themselves.

Boy if this doesnt stink of political manuevering I dont know what does.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Getalife @9:53, your observation is correct, as least insofar as your contributions today.

By Conservative Pictures, LLC

August 24, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

AJC BLOGS IN ASSOCATION WITH CONSERVATIVE PICTURES , LLC.

PRESENTS: THE CONSERVATIVE DIRTY DOZEN

PREVIEW:

In a fearless effort to save American lives in Iraq, twelve dangerous individuals have sacrificed their military obligations to accept a mission on a more deadly front…the AJC blogs! Without care for their families or lives, these conservative warriors don’t cut and run, but fight the insidious, liberal anti-war campaign that endangers American lives on the Iraqi front! The work is dangerous, the pay non-existent, but their commitment and nerve is unwavering as they take to the keyboards to unleash a covert war on the giant liberal media machine that supports terrorism and threatens the minds of American youth.

Their keyboard tough talk isn’t pretty, and it gets dirty, but that’s why these twelve are THE CONSERVATIVE DIRTY DOZEN:

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

lies,

Can’t handle the truth can you?

Are you a legal immigrant?

By getalife

August 24, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Conservative Pictures, LLC,

LOL. Classic post.

Bwhahahahaha!

By Realist

August 24, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Well sct,

You are here everyday are you not? Where exactly do you go every night? Do you not go home to whatever it is you call home? I dont see you out on the protest lines or traveling in the bus with Sheehan and her cohorts. So enlighten us sir, since you hold me in such contempt, what is it that YOU DO everyday for your side sir?

Again, what is that YOU DO DIFFERENTLY for your side each and every day? We are all waiting on your response.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Remember, when Bush said, “Mission Accomplished”, he also said that there would be a lot of “hard work” ahead.

So astronomers have declared that “hard work” is no longer an occupation, but a planet wide plutonium search, and women are no longer from venus, but from some hot flash planet filled with MAGMA!!!!

Oh brother are we in trouble. You neo-jackasses dont even know it. That’s the most pathetic part of all, Mr. Bush.

As a law abiding citizen, I formally issue a citizen’s arrest on the entire Republican Party.

The charge? Overactive Imaginations.

If you all throw down your spins, I’ll let you stay out of the impending draft which will be first introduced in the days after the November elections. Hey, the Republicans might be traitors, but they’re not crazy.

Keep your hands up, did I say you could put your hands down, repunklicans? This is still a citizen’s arrest.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

@ Law Abiding,

The charge? Overactive Imaginations

If dems get in the white house, I hope you fly out of major cities, and OFTEN.

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

August 24, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Greetings from Boulder - for the first time this week, Alabama’s finest John Mark Karr is below the fold of the Denver Post.

Conservative Pictures, your post leaves me with a huge smirk…

By getalife

August 24, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

w is trying to tell you something

Get rid of Isakson, he is pathetic like the rest of the GOP.

By Voice of Reason

August 24, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Conservative Pictures, LLC - I would prefer a higher billing, you have me too close to the bottom. But I at least appreciate you noticing me.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Give Conservative Pictures credit for wit. Since the left has no rational plan for the war on terrorism, they can contribute to morale.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Senor - do not disrespect me or I will send ORKIN to your house again … you will not like this senor … last time you begged for mercy senor —- we will clean your house and cut your grass senor and then sell your house for beer mnoney!!

you understand senor??

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

God, Bush is stupid. But how stupid? Lets just play a little criteria match game called, “How stupid is Bush?”

First, he ruined our language, and because the rules of lexiconography state clearly that usage itself defines propernity, like calling Iraq part of the war on terror, or Pluto no longer a planet, then the word Nookyoular is proper usage, but I’ll be damned if I’ll do business with anyone who speaks like a ingnoramus.

Second, he ruined our republic by completely ignoring the constitution the way Andrew Jackson ignored the supreme court when he forced the Trail of Tears on the succesful native american petitioners who had won the supreme court’s decision that they could keep their lands. “How many divisions does the supreme court have?” was Jackson’s reply.

Third, he’s made stoopid cool. Now everyone is stoopid, or acts stoopid, so that, if you’ve watched Paris Hilton’s show lately, she comes across like Margaret Thatcher or Madam Curie, or Eleanor Roosevelt or something…..ew.

Fourthly, Bush has made being a bully acceptable, and our playgrounds are filled with black eyed kids. With clinton, middle schoolers were practicing the not-sex act of sodomy. With Bush, the middle schoolers are practicing the “hard work” of beating each other up.

I demand Bush resign effective noon tomorrow.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

I dont know if that Conservative Pictures post is funny…..or sad. Im thinking sad.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Law Abiding @ 9:58, you have articulated most forcefully the left’s entire plan to fight terrorism, i.e., if you can’t beat them ….

By sct

August 24, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Realist, I’m here helping the Army with their recruiting of eligible candidates for the Armed Services. Trying to nudge those wine sipping jacuzzi living Chickenhawks that love war so much to do their part. NOW GET YOUR AZZ TO IRAQ.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

I am pleased to note Law Abiding’s acceptance of the supremacy of the deity at the 10:08 post.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

SCT, I honor your military service. My son is trying to enlist, and he a marginal candidate for the Army. Can you help one who wishes to serve his country honorably?

By harold

August 24, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

teh only way to hold iraq together is to put saddam back in charge. there is a reason he was such a bastard. that country was already in virtual civil war except that saddam killed everybody as they started trouble. dubya took the cork out of the hole and now the dam has burst. there is no way to win. the longer we stay, the more americans die and the more money we waste. it was too late on the first day in bahgdad.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

We appreciate Harold’s desire to make Iraq a safe-haven and funds source for the terrorists.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Can you expand on that sct? That is a little thin? So what, you are a military recruiter? Doubtful, because I dont know any military recruiters who are bedwetting limp wristed girly men like yourself.

So enlighten us more please. What EXACTLY are you doing to get candidates into the military? I mean come on, Ive shared parts of my life that you love to throw in my face. Why the ambiguity on your part?

Is it because your attempts to recruit “eligible candidates” is really a big charade that allows you give physical exams and see young boys naked? Cough indeed sir.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

jbmlwa,

Your lying again. The army will take anyone, including yourself.

So, stop blogging and start fighting.

Or are you just spewing global warming?

Back it up warmonger. Go fight for Iraq to support Iran.

By JK

August 24, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Too funny, CP, LLC! HAHAHA! Thanks for that. Much better than this pointless discussion: Those whose whole identity lies in how far they can shove their heads up Bush’s a— will holler in all caps at how stupid anyone else is for observing, thinking, asking questions, or commenting about what’s actually going on. Go ahead y’all. Fling the poo. I think I’ll go search for some actual news o’ the world instead.

By sct

August 24, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

The war on terror starts with leadership. We had a good start after 9/11, but things went south quickly. Letting Osama get away was the start of some very bad decisions. Going to Iraq was a disaster. Going into Iraq without enough troops despite the advise of the Generals set us up for failure.

False hopes of an easy time in Iraq continued the leadership hole. “Mission Accomplished”, last throes, treated as liberators, greeted with flowers, inadequate equipment, led to what is now a very po’ed public.

The Administartion is now in public relations mode but still hasn’t done the one thing that can change alot of peoples attitude, start holding people accountable. Like firing Rumsfeld and filling his position with a non-politician.

Before we can accomplish our goals we need strong leadership that can adapt when needed. The public needs to know what it will take to bring the situation under control, but will not hear that until after the election.

As Brent Scowcroft said “You break it, you fix it.” I believe that we have to stay there until we fix it. At great cost to the real war on terror, the stability of the region and our national debt.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Podhoretz tells us that Bush is an ideologue that is true to his ideology regardless of what his detractors say. The proof is in his speeches going back to the 2004 State of the Union address. Podheretz also hints that maybe the ideology might be tempered by the fact that Bush is a politician and politician trumps ideologue during times of close races. What we Americans are supposed to do is pledge is unwavering loyalty to the Bush doctine and all its tenets for generations to come. That is the only way to spread the democracy that will inherently “unfreeze” the Middle East, defeat radical Muslim ideology, and preserve Bush’s legacy. Podheretz found a few Muslim spokesmen that confirm that the elections in Iraq have started to defrost the area.

The Shia Sadr brigade and the Mahdi army militias that have sprung up in Iraq since the Iraqi elections are estimated to be about 200,000 strong and gaining. They are waiting for the US to pull out of Iraq to do whatever that Shia militias do after an occupation ends. I suppose that we’re just going to have to stay because apparently GWB seems to have some insight into how that looks because he told us just a couple of days ago, “you think it’s bad now, pull out of Iraq and then you’ll see what bad is.” That may be the only thing he’s been right about in the last 6 years.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Awww come on JK, why the dry bitterness so early. Have you not had your margarita yet this morning ?

By Van

August 24, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

After yesterdays mostly civil discussions, todays are full of &^#%$!!

I guess those on the right are tied up with earning a living and can’t devote full time to the blogs like the out of work liberals using the libraries computers.

The only way to make a difference in Iraq is to recognize that the trouble is mainly from outside forces stirring up the radical members and thier militias. Sadr has got to go.

Quit p*** footing around and use massive force.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Getalife, you err, and I am in earnest. My son has a checkered past (two simple possession convictions, one underage alcohol conviction, and a GED) and the Army will not automatically take him.

There is never any intellectual content in your posts. Your response to every reasoned or reasonable statement is denial. Why don’t you address the subject instead of hurling mud? Goodness knows we have posted enough content today to urge something other than spewing.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Actually DeeGee, Bush has been right about everything except his assumption that the Leftists would support a war on terror. What is you plan to stop the terrorists? Spitballs? Podhoretz may be Jewish, but his argument is brilliant.

By Voice of Reason

August 24, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw - if he didn’t have the GED they would have taken him already.

By Mid-South Philosopher

August 24, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Totally off the subject!

Word comes that the International Astronomical Union has domoted Pluto to “dwarf planet” status and thus downsized the solar system to eight planets.

Let my reactionary side show for a while.

Miss Ethel, my third grade teacher, taught me over a half-century ago that Pluto was the ninth planet. When she tells me different, I will buy the change!!!!

I would have loved to have seen her address the IAU. She would have them sitting up straight!

By candide

August 24, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten and George Bush have only one answer: more senseless death in Iraq, more of the same. If your policy has failed, keep failing.

I suggest something different: the impeachment of Bush.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

jmblaw,

They are calling back 60 year old marines to active duty.

I think they will accept your son.

I hurl the truth and you think it is mud. If you can’t handle it, run along.

By candide

August 24, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Norman Podhoretz is a thug. He has no loyalty to anyone but himself and to Israel.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

I agree candide.

These folks will not accept reality.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, if part of the war on terror involves illegal wiretaps, why keep them illegal?

Shouldn’t we first change the Constitution so that proper boundaries are set?

If we modernize our war tactics do we need to also modernize our Constitution?

By YOU WROTE IT

August 24, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

“The army will take anyone, including yourself.” This is complete non-sense. There are age, physical and education requirements for all branches of the Armed Forces.

“Letting Osama get away was the start of some very bad decisions” Indeed, Clinton letting Osama get away, not once, but twice, cost America thousands of innocent lives.

“False hopes of an easy time in Iraq continued the leadership hole. “Mission Accomplished”, last throes, treated as liberators, greeted with flowers, inadequate equipment, led to what is now a very po’ed public.” The Bush admin stated time and again that this would NOT be an easy campaign in Iraq. The inadequate equipment was a result of 8 years of decreased military spending under Clinont. A large portion of the country still supports the war and is not PO’d . Its the leftist anti-war crowd who want you to believe they are in the majority when in fact they are not.

“I suppose that we’re just going to have to stay because apparently GWB seems to have some insight into how that looks” We are going to stay because we made a committment, both liberals and republicans, and even if the left wont honor thier committment, the Right will. And yes, you are going to “have to” because GW calls the shots for two more years, as much as you all hate it and it eats you up and consumes you.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, how can you say that nobody in the military wants Brian Curtis or Harold or Law Abiding in the foxhole with him and then tell us what you just said about your son?

By sct

August 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Sorry that last jmblaw post was from me.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

how pleasing to see the haggish feminazi JK is hurling the hate speech already - it must be hormonal - surely it couldn’t be chemically induced!!…smirk

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

how quaint - conservative movies is wonderfully obsessing over its betters. the more abuse they pile on - the better the job one is doing of winding these liberal vermin up.

the liberal/leftist characters on here are obviously just fiendishly treasonous loony tunes - gedditt??

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

SCT @ 10:30, good content. I disagree, in part.

Letting Osama “get away” (despite deposing the Taliban) looks to me to be a consequence-less decision; I agree that minds may differ, however. Bush promised to chase them down and kill them; he has not abandoned the chase, and admirably has conducted the chase without offending the soverign integrity of other nations in the middle east.

“False hopes” seemingly emphasizes “false” and minimizes the importance of “hope.” You recall that the left promised us 20,000 dead American servicemen in the first year in Iraq. Is not “false fear-mongering” worse than false hope?

I agree that the administration should hold people accountable - when the NY Times publishes details of an effective secret intelligence gathering operation, heads should roll. You don’t like that idea, do you?

I’m not sure what situation you think needs to be brought under control - this is a 50 year war we are facing, and we face it without regard to whether we fight now. I think you underestimate the integrity of the American public; I think most are willing to fight to preserve our historical freedoms of life, liberty, and property.

As you detect from my earlier posts today, I disagree with your position that Iraq is a dead “cost.” Establishing the democracy there will make the rest of the Middle East manageable - this is the terrorists last stand, not ours. Iraq is an investment, with high potential for payoff and little downside risk other than the initial investment.

By no more lies

August 24, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Do you ever get tired of bashing America? I, for one, am sick of the constant undermining of the foundations of our great nation by America-hating cowards who are content to trade the freedoms and liberties fought for by our patriotic and heroic soldiers/sailors/marines so they can delude themselves into believing they are safe in their gated communities and double-wide trailers. You rave about “the left” undermining the “war effort” while you sit idly by watching the corrupted government cronies usurp your freedoms. You rant dismissively about how anyone who doesn’t submitted docilely to your trade of liberty for false security “doesn’t understand” the war or the enemy or the obstacles your messianic leaders (be it Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice or whomever you are selling our country out for) face therefore you must be against fighting terrorists.

You want a plan – let’s get an actual plan that doesn’t spit on the graves of our fallen heroes who died to protect our liberty. How about let’s follow the law and demonstrate who Americans really are — get the warrants so we can fight the terrorists without eroding the civil rights of Americans. Secure our borders, and not with “minutemen” militias, but with actual security. Let’s focus on Afganistan, where there is a legitimate threat and known history of terrorist training grounds. Let’s address the growing threat coming out of Iran – don’t think for second they don’t know we are stretched too thin to really respond to a real crisis in the Middle east (which is why America isn’t sending troops to the Israel/Lebanon border and instead we are depending on the French! to protect the border) Let’s look at our real options in Iraq – it’s not the “stay the course” or “pull out” dichotomy posed in Mr. Wooten’s article. There are other options out there – check out one option offered by Joe Biden in the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html)

Yes, that’s a big job, but Americans are known for overcoming challenges.

BTW, Americans don’t resort to the torturous techniques normally associated with third world dictators – techniques like holding prisoners without counsel or charges, torturing people, kidnapping civilians from their homes to be held in military prisons with no contact with their families, or placing an individual in custody outside of any legal definition. The Soviets did all that stuff, that happens in China and in Cuba and in lots of African dictatorships… and it happens here, now too.

If we all start acting like Real Americans and not left leaning pacifists and right leaning war hawks, we can save our great nation and a large portion of the world, as well.

By Van

August 24, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

YOU WROTE IT,

You forgot the times when Clinton had UBL in his sights and did not have the stones to pull the trigger.

2-3 times “Preditor” survellence crafts had him and were armed. The Clinton administration would not take him out. If we had, not telling how the outcome would have changed.

By Van

August 24, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Some good news folks,

Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006 BAGHDAD, Iraq — A senior U.S. military commander says the level of violence in Baghdad has fallen during August and that U.S.-led and Iraqi forces captured more than 100 known and suspected al-Qaida terrorists this week.

By Chazman

August 24, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Sorry YOU WROTE IT, but I don’t recall “time and time again” the Bush Admin telling us this would not be an easy campaign. Why would Cheney say the insurgents were in their last throes? What evidence did he have? Will you admit that it was a mistake for you man to stand under that “Mission Accomplished” banner? Will You? A large portion still supports the War? Just what do consider a “large Portion”? The White House stated this week that W has read 60 books so far this year. That is a book every 3.9 days. Do they think we are really that stupid? More crap from the White House.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, why do you think that Podheretz’s opinion deserves a caveat because of his religion?

GBW has had great support from liberals in the war on terror. No problem with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. What he and his advisors missed is the lack of support from liberals and conservatives on the way it is being fought.

It took the Israelis about 30 days to determine that their offensive in Israel was not working as planned for a number of reasons and they stopped and are regrouping. They are also frankly discussing what whent wrong. I don’t think that anyone is being so trite as to ask if spitballs would be the answer to the solution. Apparently they are committed to the next phase which is multilateral peacekeeping operations and diplomacy.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

I know you folks do not read much, so allow me to educate you

no more lies,

Biden’s plan along with Murtha’s was dismissed months ago in favor of w’s stay the course. They support failure.

Your post is very honest and I agree. The conservatives have a major problem with honesty on this blog.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

SCT, thank you for acknowledging that you inadvertently input my blog-handle. To your argument: there is no need to change the constitution just because one Carter-appointee screwed up by misconstruction. The appellate court will fix it. In my mind, the proper bounderies are there: the executive conducts the war, the congress has power to defund or legislate. The judiciary has no role in conducting a war; it, inherently, does not move quickly.

Getalife at 10:42, you are dishonest, in that you assert as truth that which you either do not know, or which you know to be false.

Deegee @ 10:45, my statements are not inconsistent. People like Brian, or Harold, or Law Abiding, or Getalife are not desirable in the military; they do not want to be there, they make lousy soldiers, and they are terrible for esprit. People like my son - who recover from substance problems - can contribute to the betterment of the world, but they need a vehicle to do so. I understand that you do not like to associate with dope-smokers and drinkers; neither do I, but we play the hand we are dealt.

By Eric

August 24, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

“Mission accomplished”

“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

“Stay the course”

“My answer is bring ‘em on.”

“As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

“Freedom’s untidy”

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Brrrrrrrrrrilliant

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Deegee @ 11:02, your question is fair. The people who use the epithet “neocon” know exactly what they are saying. As Podhoretz is proud of his faith, I note his faith to ensure the leftists cannot engage in coded language, such as we discussed yesterday.

You leave the shoe dangling, however: how exactly do the leftists disagree with, in the way the war is being fought? You affirm it is not a dispute on the need for the war. Do you believe we need more forces there? Would that not offend Iraqi pride?

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Eric @ 11:06, “Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.” Or have you exposed the limits of your intellect?

By DD

August 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

America must kick out the Republicans from the Senate and let our country be strong again.

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

It has been TWO THOUSAND FORTY TWO DAYS since William Jefferson Clinton was President. Yet somehow, every problem in America is still his fault. (If you’re secretly, painfully in love with him and can’t stop obsessing over his jock, that is.)

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

DD @ 11:08, your bus obviously arrived late. That was last week’s subject. Please re-read Jim’s essay, and rejoin the debate.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

You are a pathetic blog baiter and an amateur.

They should be paying me.

I wish your son luck with his deployment. If you are telling the truth which I seriuosly doubt.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

This is shame! Everybody google the word FAILURE. We need to put a stop to this liberal agenda!

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

Who’s counting and Getalife, your posts reflect the scope of your perception. Time to visit the optometrist.

By DD

August 24, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Isakson and Frist are Republican Senators. Remove them and the country improves especially in regard to Iraq.

Now jbmlaw..go find someone else to jab at on a personal front since that’s all you got going.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Well if we have about 130,00 troops scattered about Iraq and about 200,000 shia militiamen concentrated in and around Baghdad, yes I would say that we need a better presence in the area. We are not going to get out of this cheaply as the civilian leadership imagined.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Here is your flip flopping liberal Biden not even one year ago from an interview with Fox news…..

SEN. JOE BIDEN, D-DEL.: Hi, Chris.

WALLACE: Good to talk with you again.

BIDEN: Good to be back with you.

WALLACE: As we’ve been saying, Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha this week called for bringing U.S. troops back home. Is that a good idea?

BIDEN: Not immediately, no. I can understand Jack’s frustration. This is a guy who has concluded that so far we’ve handled this effort incompetently, but it seems to me that we have one last shot at getting this right.

WALLACE: If you don’t want to pull the troops out — and I’m going to ask you for a kind of curtailed answer here, because I know you could go on for the rest of our show here. Give us a sense of what you think we need to do in Iraq to turn things around and how much time do we have.

BIDEN: Well, the 78 senators sort of laid it out in a Republican-sponsored amendment on the floor the other day. But basically, we need a political solution. It means you need a consensus constitution. You need to get people in there who, in fact, can help them set up ministries that don’t function now so the government can function.

You need to change the way in which way you, in fact, are rebuilding Iraq, so you actually do small bore projects to get the sewage out of the street and get electricity turned on locally. And you have to train Iraqi troops, which is now beginning to occur, notwithstanding what the secretary said.

And by the way, the number is somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 trained troops and not very much up from what you asked him. There are the four things you’ve got to do. If you do those, if you change policy, change course here, we’ve got a shot of an Iraq that can be held together and not a haven for terror over the next year.

end quote

So I suppose since in the last 8 months we ahvent been able to accomplish every goal, institue and up and running government that can stand on its on, that now all hope is lost and we should pull out? This is pure political grandstanding and flip flopping by Biden and all the other dems. You liberals couldnt take a stand on an issue and stick to it to save your lives! No integrity whatsoever!!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

I have Larry and it was no surprise then this named popped up:

George W. Bush.

These folks support failure, they are failed Americans.

By Fishing for consuckers

August 24, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Consuckers are trash fish (huge smirk) - they live in filthy water and shallow gene pools (another huge smirk). They also are found in stagnant pools around trailer parks. They are bottomfeeders, and are especially fond of bullsheet.

Usually pasty white, the consucker is either extremely skinny or enormously rotund. Skeletal and dental deformities abound in the species, most are truly disgusting to look at closely.

Consuckers are not edible, and they are toxic to the touch. So why fish for them?

The consucker rises to pretty much any kind of bait, and will jump around on the hook for hours - the whole school (they usually hang out in same sex groupings) will jump and spin and keep swallowing the hook. They are a sport fish, for people who like to watch trainwrecks.

Right now, the government protects consuckers, and in fact is increasing their habitat. Originally found primarily in the hills and molehills of Appalachia and the South, consucker habitats are now found in all 50 states, especially in rural areas with shallow gene pools.

Hopefully, government policy will change soon, and the control of this species will be instituted - consuckers ruin every habitat they live in.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

These folks support failure, they are failed Americans

what exactly is a “failed American” maggot brain? Someone who doesn’t believe in leftist appeasing defeatism?

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Deegee @11:15, fair critique; you persuade me.

DD @11:15, nonsequitur, you do not persuade me.

By William Fielder

August 24, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Exactly right. Isakson and Wooten have nailed it. The War on Terror is international. Are we to believe that Iraq is the only country that is neutral? Saddam harbored terrorists (Abu Nidal, Ramsi Yousef), paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers, and ran terrorist training academies at Salman Pak and Samarra. Al Qaeda took over the major effort against the US until we cut off the head of the snake. Now terrorism has morphed in to sectarian violence. Stay the course. Raise up the Iraqi Army and let them solve it their way. Then, we pull back “over the horizon.” Maybe even to Okinawa. whf. dodint49@bellsouth.net

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

George Bush is not a failure, never has been. I will never use google again.

By jbmlaw

August 24, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Getalife @ 11:18, nobody will ever accuse you of inconsistency in the quality of your arguments.

Fishing @ 11:19, either you hit the wrong link looking for the sports blog, or your argument is abstruse.

By Barbara

August 24, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Hi jbmlaw. Fishing is just rednecks, using a different name. His hatred seeps right through the post…..

By Who's Counting

August 24, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Larry, I believe the name of the company that filed bankruptcy (but not before he got HIS cash out) was Harkin Oil. I believe bankdruptcy constitues some sorst of failure. Also, he traded Sammy Sosa. Only a failure would trade a young Sammy Sosa. Or do you hate baseball? Larry, why do you hate baseball? Why do you hate America?

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

Name one failure of President Bush.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

lies,

Gawd you are ignorant.

You support failure that is a failed American.

Besides, your an illegal immigrant from England (you spew).

You are a failed illegal immigrant.

By AM

August 24, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

At a cost of 6 billion a month -just what exactly is the good? What a waste of US tax dollars. I don’t even want to hear about not having the money to pay Social Security when I retire, thatI have paid all my life. Bush is a stubborn idiot and will ruin everything he changes!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Larry,

bin Laden.

By Eric

August 24, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

Name one failure of President Bush.

Bin Ladin - “Dead or Alive”

I don’t need to go any further.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

AM, Senator Biden voted to allow Illegal Immigrants to participate in the Social Security program youre afraid might not be there for you. Look it up. This is your party.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

I love America, that’s why I never leave her soils. Who cares if white american males are unsafe to travel abroad. We have everything a person can want right in our own damn country. Send all the blacks, asians, hispanics to the foreign countries to do tourisms. Maybe they’ll stay and stop muddying up our land with their liberal filth. 3rd Term supporter of President Bush right here!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Link the roll call vote realfake to see all the Senator’s vote.

By Van

August 24, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

I keep waiting for semi intelligent lefties to add something to this blog, I am still waiting

By AM

August 24, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

What party is my party … I can’t stand either party. They are bought and paid for by the chamber of commerce. And as far as illegals go - what needs to be said ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL, and our corrupt government needs to enfore the laws on the books! Period. Mr. Realist

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Yes Larry.

I would love to see the elections included ex Presidents to get Bill and Al back into the White House.

Bill Clinton/ Al Gore 08!

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

YESSSSSS!!!!!

The Feds have nicked the Hizbollocks TV provider up in NY - court appearance this afternoon. Hopefully Mossad will greet him with a Bulgarian made umbrella (gedditt??)

By Van

August 24, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Bill Clinton had his chance to be a good or even great President, and blew it (pun intended).

Al Gore, should just go back to his polluted zinc mine and stay there.

By Nope

August 24, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

At 10:35 jbmlaw wrote “Why don’t you address the subject instead of hurling mud? Goodness knows we have posted enough content today to urge something other than spewing.”

I can tell you for a fact why no one addresses the subject or joins the debate here. I mean, why in the name of God would anyone who isn’t lock step in line with the far right ever want to step into this mess. I am no lefty nor am I liberal minded, but I have personally been accused of fabricating my military service, called a nazi, an imbecile, an idiot, and too many other things to mention. I’ve been done with you a***** for a while, but I revisit occasionally to see if things have changed. Not a chance.

It gets old being accused of undermining the country, hurting the troops, being un-American and the like for the simple reason that you happen to think something even slightly to the left of the far right. Perhaps it is a character flaw on my part but what some consider “zesty zingers”, the term JW used to defend one of the most foul posters yesterday or gentle mocking as others defend their rhetoric does make me angry.

I’m a reasonable guy, of reasonable intelligence who would dearly love to be able to debate on my hometown paper’s blog. So why not just ignore the flamers and just discuss with the reasonable here, you may ask. The problem with that idea is that the nastiest of the bunch always seems to jump in and start slinging the mud. And then after you get called every name in the book and accused of hating your country your intelligence is questioned as to “why don’t you join the debate.”

Are the lefties here guilty as well? Absolutely. They give as good as they get. But they are not the best the other than far right has to offer. The other than the far right crowd is not represented by the sharpest tacks as no one of intelligence would waste time there. I’ll never join another debate here.

Why do I care? It’s my hometown paper too and I think I have a right to say this and say that I am ashamed of this mess. I think we can do better and deserve better.

So the next time you decide to ask someone to join the debate wonder no longer. This is why they stay out:

Honest debate does not exist here. This is just a name calling, mud-slinging blog. Nothing of consequence can be discussed here unless you are in total agreement with the “regular” bunch of bullies.

Stop fooling yourself. You are preaching to the choir.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

We need to stop looking at just Mexican as invaders (they are indeed) but those sneaky a* Asians are the real problem. They are the ones buying up the land. They have always been invaders throughout history!

By Realist

August 24, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Mr. AM, I was simply pointing out, though obviosuly not simple enough for you, that Bush and his admin are not the “stubborn” idiots regarind social security, and if you would actually read and stop spewing baseless accusations you might learn something. If Social Security is your concern, as inidcated in your post, Bush who you obviously blindly hate will get you those benefits before anyone elses plans will.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Another point that Podheretz is making in his opinion piece is that the Bush doctrine inherently supports a pre-emptive strike against Iran. This is the most divisive of issues among conservatives. Given the mistakes that we have made in Iraq who but the “war is the only answer” crowd would support an invasion of Iran?

By harold

August 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

1 failure-

failure to maintain lane.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

“Hezbocrats.” Hehehehe! I love it. ‘Splains the cut-n-run, terrorist-ignoring demopoops to a T. Thanks Mr. Cain, you da man. Just when I thought I could come up with every realistic descriptive name for the party of the jackass possible, along comes this gem.

dummyhezbocrats

By AM

August 24, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

How can letting people break the law and ruin my country to pay for the social security that I have paid, make Bush a hero? I must be missing your logic. As far a spewing blind hate - Sir I am no blind man. Maybe a pack of wild illegals can move in next to you and pay for your social security, but that is not the way I see it!

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Senor maggot brain - I have told my peeeples to send ORKIN to your house now, this fumigation is needed for good of all loyal Americans.

Unless you pay us ALL your latest FEMA cheque we will not cut your grass no more and we will let your mouldy old leaves pile up on your crack pipe littered FEMA provided trailer door step, just like your stinkin’ Bush hate does on this conervative blog!!

Next time you get a hurricane in school bus Nagin’s chocolate city Bush will tell the feds to leave you to drown in your pool of anti-Bush bile!!

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

the “regular” bunch of bullies.

On behalf of this much oppressed minority thank you so much for your kind words!!

NOW SOD OFF!!

By Realist

August 24, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

No AM, lets start over. Its BIDEN who wants to include the illegals in our SS program, not Bush. If Bush had it his way you would get your money NOW, to do with as you please.

Stop hating Bush for two seconds and actually read something so you can understand it. I HATE BUSH, BUSH IS AN IDIOT is not getting you anywhere obviously.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

lies,

At least you spew funny rubbish.

Your peeps would be who?

Illegal immigrants?

Sorry, I donated not accepted.

Real Americans help Americans not Iraqis like the failed Americans.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Speaking of terrorism and the part of appeasement, the liberal Hezbocrats, just remember that people like Reid (no, not Dirty Harry Reid, the shoebomber Reid) are no threat to Americans and the Bush administration is just using “scare tactics” on aholes like this snake. Remember, it’s people like this that the party of the jackass wants to let go free in Club Elite Gitmo and elsewhere. Just remember that… the wonderful party of liberal neomarxist terrorist appeasement. Remember that…

heroesoftheleft

By Filster

August 24, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

As one who proudly spent a career serving his country, including during times of conflict/war, I thought I’d weigh in on this one. Without regard to blaming one party or the other, trying to analyze how it started and why, and what the best course of action is, all I can say is we are in a real war ladies and gents, and if we don’t finish it our children and grandchildren will have to fight on. If it were up to me, I’d let the Sunnis and Shi’ites kill each other to their hearts content because I don’t think the whole race is worth the life of one American servicemember. But remember this folks, this enemy does not abide by the geneva Convention, which some strived so mightily to ensure terrorists receive after being captured. This enemy blows up women and children, beheads captives with a knife and videotapes it! This enemy believes it is their god-given mission in life to kill you, your spouse, your children, grandchildren, and all who do not worship in the name of Allah. You may not be religious. You may not be patriotic. You may not even care about anything outside of your own immediate cirle of existence, but I will bet you one thing. If theses terrorists are not stopped and destroyed, are allowed to re-arm, re-organize and re-finance, they will be back in this country within a couple years for another round of 9/11. This is a fight to the death regardless of the details, and if anyone cannot see that despite political affiliations, then it’s going to get real ugly.

By Nope

August 24, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

TFTT,

F*** you.

How’s that for sodding off and abuse?

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Nagin is a great American because he voted for President Bush. Like the president, Nagin is not a failure.

By Who's Counting

August 24, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

The Al Quaida WTC bombing attack in February of 1993 occured 37 DAYS INTO CLINTON’S PRESIDENCY. Using the existing logic, clearly this is the sole fault and failure of PRES. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, not the man who was President at the time. Right now, we are at a 6 year plus time period for things not being the current president’s fault. How high will it go? Eight is the max, but that may change with the next signing statement.

Terrorists convicted in March 1994. Justice was swifter then.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Hey AM-

Your pathetic ilk won’t even allow US citizens to CHOOSE to invest some of their socialist security money ON THEIR OWN! So show me again where it’s written in the US Constitution that the federal government has authority to rob me of 14% of my paycheck.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Who’s Counting,

9/11 was Clinton’s fault. Our leader was on vacation much of that time leading up to the tragedy. So he cannot be blamed!

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Hey Who’s Counting-

Yeah, throwing a half-blind shiek in jail really, REALLY thwarted terrorism under the genius leadership of Clintoon and his joke sidekicks like Madeliene notsoAlbright and pencil-neck wimp Warren Christopher. GAG me already.

By AM

August 24, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Mr. Realist… How about this, Biden is moron -Bush is the idiot. Bush also favors a guest worker program that the Senate has endorsed at a cost to tax payers also. They are giving amnesty to ILLEGALS. The senators that vote for amnesty needs to be voted out! Still missing your logic and you did not need to start over!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Markus,

I did answer your question the next morning.

Look it up and answer now.

By Leslie Fram

August 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Wachs, Sit down and shut up! Everybody in town knows you are my little beeeeotch! Dont make me put on the BIG strap on tonight!

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

NO YOU DID NOT GETALIFE. Link me to it NOW or shaaadaaaap. LOSER.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Being serious on here and actually debating with the lefties is utterly pointless - I have asked getabrain questions related to his usual far left positions and once again like a leftist pavlov’s poodle he has NO intent of actually responding.

Once again bubba - how exactly is it that you, a FEMA beneficiary down in the parishes of LA have gleaned the extraordinary military intelligence that the chi-coms and Ruskies will join in militarily on Iran’s side?

Unhinged irrational robotic Bush hate is the only thing that the left overwhelmingly offer here.

NO ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS HOW/WHAT IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. Not much evidence of even grudging acceptance that the US simply cannot afford to lose or be percieved to have lost either.

Its a sad day when you realise that the left simply cannot be trusted with anything other than unremitting hate speech and unhinged partisanship!!

By Chazman

August 24, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

How ironic that the people who brought a new meaning to the way a party hates a president would now whine that others are now hating this president. WAAAHHHHH.

By AM

August 24, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Hey Markus, They will rob you one way or another. And if I paid in I expect a return. Maybe you should have invested in Enron, Now that would have help your retirement.

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Numbers are facts. The interpretation is yours to make, as is the decision to gag yourself.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Leslie, STFU you ugly, skinny, liberal. What happened at your station? Fell off a little bit? I know our economy is doing well when liberals are out of work and I’m doing just fine!

This isn’t the first time a ‘Filthy Bush” and “Dirty Dick” was in the white house, and it won’t be the last if you liberals have your way!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Yes Markus,

That half-blind shiek in jail really was responsible for that attack.

OBL is still free. I would highly suggest watching the bin Laden documentary on CNN this weekend. I watched it last night and it is very informative about the enemy.

I know you folks do not read so try watching it before you spew global warming.

By Chazman

August 24, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

WHHHAAAAAH! I don’t like paying taxes. WWWHAAAAAAA!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Look for it.

Lazy loser.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Reading is for elitists like you Getabrain. I’d rather watch Fox News. Great Americans like Hannity, and O’Reilly

By Chazman

August 24, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

WHHHAAAAAH! I don’t like paying taxes. WWWHAAAAAAA! I hate Clinton! WHHAAAAAAH! They hate Bush! WHHAAAAAAH!

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Hey AM-

Of the top Fortune 1000, how many have gone under due to corruption like Enron? Wanna count on one hand for me?

Blaming Enron as reflective of all businesses is as assinine as blaming the handful of abortion clinic bombers as speaking for all Christians.

No, “they” won’t “rob” me if Bush has anything to say about tax cuts. We are not a a marxist-led communist state even though we have a marxist-led “progressive” income tax and other taxes on those who chose to get off their lazy @sses and work.

By time for the truth

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

I note that NOPE amusingly merely echoes its robotic boorish leftist vapidity, unwittingly actually crystallising for us all the innate intellectual level that demoNcrats and their ilk operate on.

In the spirit of not wanting to overtly cerebrally intimidate cretins and offering them some comforting empathy I will fleetingly descend to your level and inform you that I have but two words for you —

the second one being OFF!!

By getalife

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

Sorry Larry.

I never watch the propaganda news.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Looking at past Wooten blogs though, these people need jobs:

Getalife Time For the Truth (job and hug) Realist (I hate blacks and mexicans too) jbmlaw Dana Barbara (even though I think she sounds like my wife????) White Jesus (redundant name)

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Didn’t THINK so, lazylife. Here’s the link again I’ll shove up your nose. Now tell me AGAIN that there is no oil coming out of Iraq. Go ahead, ya lazy lying liberal Hezbocrat!

liberaliesandthelyingliarswhotellthem

By Bluer

August 24, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

So, if we announce we are leaving Iraq and then do so, what will be the result? This question is for the anti-war faction by the way. Seriously, what will the consequences to Iraq? What will be the impact on the rest of the Middle East? How will it affect the apparent unrelated war with militant Islamic fundamentalists elsewhere -this is not limited to their terrorist tactics but includes their sponsors Iran, Syria, etc. In general how do you see the world impacted if we quit Iraq.

By Larry Wachs

August 24, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Marcus (you should call the FU line)

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

JBM: We do have a plan for fighting terrorism… which the Bush nuts have ignored. Just because you don’t like the (smarter, more effective) plan doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I, for one, would be delighted to support a battle against terrorism—when exactly does Bush plan to start conducting one?

Shuffling soldiers around doesn’t count, since you can’t use an army to fight terrorism any more than you can use them to fight inflation.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Real Americans help Americans not Iraqis like the failed Americans

wel well well … maggot brain is also a bigot/racist!!

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Link, again lazylife-

liberalies

By AM

August 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Markus, You wrote that the federal government does not have the right to ROB YOU of your 14% of your paycheck. I pay more than 14%. That is why I replied but I won’t anymore because you are full of it!

By Corey

August 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

The Iraquis voted overwhelmingly because forming their own government - in their minds - would hasten our departure.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Now lazy Markus,

Look in the next morning’s posts and it contains the name of Cheney.

You are right, you do not think.

*Apoligize, when you find it. *

By Van

August 24, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

getanenema,

That is part of the problem the shiek should have been treated as a terrorist and not a criminal.

And once a gain, Clinton did not have the stones to kill UBL when he had the chance, he also had a chance to jail him, but was too unsure of himself.

Terrorism is not a law enforcement problem, An attack against this country is a military matter and should be dealt with by the military.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Bluer: As for consequences when we leave Iraq, I expect it’ll continue on its bloody path of internal violence and civil war… which are already going on.

The terrorism recruiters will have one less weapon to use in whipping up anti-American opinion, since we won’t be illegally occupying another country any more.

And those who have already decided they hate us will be unaffected. They’ll continue hating us, and there’s no amount of bombs that will ever change that.

Terrorism is a fact of life. Better to deal with it intelligently than to hide under our beds or swagger around like a posturing, clueless bully. Neither approach is going to put an end to terrorism—all we can do is manage and minimize it.

By Van Woo

August 24, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Chau Ong Van

By DD

August 24, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Hey Isakson, you Christian you…you’ve wasted a half a trillion dollars and 2600 soldiers lives (so far) not to mention the thousands of lives of Iraqis who were never a threat. You’ve also damaged the credibility of the US for generations to come.

What’s not to be optomistic about?

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Van,

Clinton caught him, w did not.

OBL was not even at the location Clinton fired at.

They had him at Tora Bora but only had 50 troops on the ground so he got away.

OBL warned us and w had the memo stating we were going to be attacked.

He failed to act on this memo.

These are facts not spin.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

The wonderful Wally World Wild Ride Of Looney Liberalism shows itself again, this time in form of the federal government handling Medicare drug prescription “refunds.” It appears that nearly a quarter million folks got a nice check from the federal government for $215. Not bad… except said folks weren’t qualified to receive them! Yeah, they’ll really give that money back.

Oh that wonderful liberal socialist Utopian society of government running everything from cradle to grave just warms my heart all over… like a Mexican chilidog. Man I can’t wait to join liberal la-la land when the government takes over my healthcare, my retirement, and .. Sheer blind IDIOCY.

libsworld

By Van

August 24, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

You’re right, the only way to handle terrorist is to make them room temperature and let them hold their breath forever.

Until the radical muslims stop their jihad against non-muslims, we will have terrorist like what we have now and minor wars for a long, long time.

Better to kill them as we come across them, then trying to reason with them.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

250,000 medicare Rx refunds @ $215 each?

Well damn, I better get my broker on the phone and buy some KFC and FUBU stock, because thier revenues just spiked on that news.

By Liberal

August 24, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

I never supported the war, nor any politician, Democrat or Republican, who did. I felt the whole time that this thing was poorly planned and executed. It was all based on naivety. And to tell you the truth, I was more p** at the Democrats who voted for the war than Republicans.

That said, I really don’t have much to say about what we should do next since I feel that we shouldn’t have went in the first place with the plan that Rumsfeld had.

Fixing the situation will require a dramatic shift in policy, as well as a dramatic increase in cost (maybe taxes need to be raised?).

The only way I see any end to this is to:

1)Increase troop levels in order to quell the many insurgencies and the infighting.

2)Announce a 1-year deadline for us to pull out of Iraq so that they and the world know we plan on leaving. This will quell any unrest about us not leaving, as well as motivate various parties in Iraq to become more productive given that US force and funding will no longer be readily available.

To quote on of my favorite movies Full Metal Jacket:

“This is a huge $hit sandwich and we’re all going to have to take a bite.” …all of this because of p**-poor leadership and planning.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

I don’t have all day to play games, getlost-

Either link me to it now, or I will consider the issue ceased, dismissed, and WON. Time to pay the piper. You have all afternoon non, LOSER.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Are you too lazy to find it. Did you look at the next morning. Its got your name on my post.

Find it now and answer.

By Van Woo

August 24, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Confucius say:

Realist watch too much Chappelle’s show

By Van Woo

August 24, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Van,

Dit con me may tec hang

By deegee

August 24, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Leaving Iraq in the shape it is now would be a bigger mistake than staying the course ala Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney. Either commit enough troops, peacekeepers, police and security forces to make peace with the Iraqis or get out. We can’t win in Iraq by moving troops around from place to place to stamp out brushfires.

I don’t think that the rest of the middle east perceives the Iraqis as basking in the afterglow of democratic elections and who could blame them? When the militias and Hezbollah are providing protection, aid, and social services to ordinary citizens then where do you think their loyalty lies? Do you think that people care whether it came from Syria or Iran? We can’t leave Iraq until it is stabilized and at the rate we are going now the US assuredly won’t be leaving before Bush leaves office. In the meantime we have to think intelligently about how we wage a war of ideology.

By bluer

August 24, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Brian - How would you fight terrorism? Do you see terrorism as end unto itself, or as tactical tool of Islamic fundamentalism?

By Van

August 24, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

getabrain,

MSNBC, a bastion of conservatives did an article on just this subject.

Clinton did not have the stones, weak, spineless and too busy messing around with interns.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

He wasn’t a criminal, he was a terrorist.

Our great and peerless leader billy boy.

By Van Woo

August 24, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Van,

Bu cac tao

By @@

August 24, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten: You’re right when you say there are good things happening in Iraq. The problem is you have to look to find them. Good news is not something the mainstream media focuses on. Looking to the positive can have an amazing impact on your perspective. I’ve never understood why people don’t want to place the positive in front of the negative. It’s a defeatist attitude.

America would look like France in the aftermath of the Lebanon/Israeli crisis. They wanted to manage the cease-fire and contributed a minimal number of troops to do it. Do they live in the real word? I think not. There are some that see France as enlightened progressives and a role model for the free world. France looks good during peace time. But in times of war, which are inevitable in a global world, they will become unwilling victims of their weakness.

This is a regional war. Iraq is the battleground. It looks like there may be some players and instigators from outside the Middle East as well. At the very least, some benefactors. Iran is certainly receiving a lot of verbal support from outside the Middle East.

Now’s the time, Iraq is the place and it’s got to be done. Send a message to Iran. There’s no vacuum in Iraq that you can fill with your radical ideaology. Give the Middle East an alternative view that people can aspire to.

Games can be won in overtime. You’ve just got to be willing to stay to the end to watch the “Hail Mary” play.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

brainless curtis utterly ignores the simple, blindingly obvious point that once the USA leaves Iraq to its own murderous devices the Iranians and sunni fascists will slither enmasse into Baghdad, contolling the airport, the military, the levers of govt etc and terror planning will massively outdo anything the nutters in Afghanistan managed.

all so these irrational Bush haters can make Bush and the US look bad.

DO NOT PLAY WITH MY SAFETY AND THE NATION’S SAFETY FOR LEFTIST POLITIAL REASONS YOU DUMB selfish LIBERAL WANKER!!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

There are 250,000 refugees from Iraq. 50 % of them are children.

There is no security in Iraq.

By Van Woo

August 24, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

TFTT, Di du may do ngu. May do ngu, em ghet anh. May an long dai cham mui!

By Van Woo

August 24, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

@@,

Confucius say:

Hail Mary only works 3% of time. Do ngu

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Number of times Van has mentioned Clinton’s private parts since I started eating my lunch: Two.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Van Poo … go choke on a grilled rabid dog steak dinner!!

By Van

August 24, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

I agreee with half of your ideas.

We need a massive number of troops, but will Congress authorize an increase in the Military???

We need to show the cowards that if you shoot at an American, Iraqi Police or Iraqi military, you will die. IF you threaten one of the above, you will die. If you try to bomb one of the above, you will die. And above all, you will be buried in a grave lined with pig fat.

But, I disagree with setting a public timetable, tell the Iraqi leadership they have a limited amount of time to step up, but not a public statement.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Van,

Good link but needs updated since 9/11.

Clinton thought the military action was too high risk.

9/11 changed that for the invasion of Afganistan to get him.

They never finished the job because w decided to invade Iraq.

Most problems today will tie back to the invasion of Iraq.

By Barbara

August 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Larry, this is your wife! And you said you were going to mow the grass today, so get out there buddy. I’ll be home in 30 minutes and you’d better be in the yard pushing that mower, because after 3pm you are painting the house! Now get off that damn computer and get to work!

By Veteran

August 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Van Woo,

I know what you are saying you little turd. I spent time in South Vietnam and your insults are wasted on these idiots.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Fighting terrorism is police work, not a military objective. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can start fighting it effectively for a change.

As for terrorism itself, it’s always been a classic tool of the small and weak factions to use against a perceived more-powerful opponent they dare not attack directly (in the military sense). It’s a popular choice among fundamentalists, and indeed hateful extremists of every stripe, but it didn’t originate with Islam. And trying to identify it with ALL Muslims will only make the problem worse.

By Van

August 24, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

getalife,

It was updated in 2004, can’t you read?

Senior investigative correspondent NBC News Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004

By Fishing for consuckers

August 24, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Cons love War - and Rape

People with no honor are always fighting for it…

By Van

August 24, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Who’s Counting?,

Vivid imagination, have you missed it?

Just stating facts, nothing else.

By Liberal

August 24, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Van,

Threatening an Iraqi insurgent with death is like threatening a whore with sex…they’re prepared for it already.

That is a good question about Congress being ready to authorize more troops, hence my comment about a dramatic change in policy. Icreasing troop strength is the only way that we can secure the borders and quell the insurgencies.

Setting a definite timetable lets everybody know what to expect as well as quiet any of the voices or insurgents who oppose the occupation. If somebody gave me a project with no deadline, I really wouldn’t be motivated in accomplishing it in a timely manner.

By Liberal

August 24, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Van,

I didn’t catch the last part about burying dead insurgents in pig fat. Very low-down…but yet funny indeed.

By Missy Rottweiler

August 24, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Can’t we find some way for a group of concerned citizens opposed to war to get through the lines and get a message to the those fighting for their freedom that we care, that we want to help, that we want peace, that we love them, that we want to be their friends? Bono would be perfect to lead such a mission even if it might put the future of U2 at risk. But isn’t peace worth that chance? There are other bands after all.

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Official White House claim before the invasion of Iraq of what the war and occupation would cost the US Taxpayers: $50 billion.

Total amount appropriated by Congress for the war and occupation as of July 2006: $295,634,921,248

Current Pentagon spending: Per month: $8 billion. Per minute: $185,185.19

By getalife

August 24, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Van,

You were correct, it was a three parter

Unless I missed it, I do not see Tora Bora.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Liberal, Careful throwing around words like “whore” with such ease. That isnt very “liberal-ish” of you. :)

And regarding your timetable comment, you might “find” the motivation from the exploding bombs, kidnapped and beheaded co-workers, and threat of ambush at every corner. I think that would motivate me to get my a** in gear without being told to do it.

By Van

August 24, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

If we make terrorism a crime, then we would be giving foreign combatants American civil rights.

Would you have tried Hitler ot Tojo as a criminal or as combatants?

Under the Geneva Convention, being caught in combat, without a uniform or some form of identification that marks you are a combatant, makes you eligible to be processed as a spy or saboteur. That also makes you eligible for summary execution.

Being a criminal, means you have a right to a trial - since when!

By Liberal

August 24, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Realist,

That sounds like my job, except that the explosions come from the bathroom, the kidnapped are the ones stuck in boring meetings, and the beheaded are the ones who have just had their a*******es chewed out by a client.

By Van

August 24, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

getasoul,

The article was about Clintons missed opportunities, not Bush’s.

That is another subject. You can’t run a politically correct war.

By Filster

August 24, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis - are you really so naive that you believe we can “manage” terrorism? You cannot deal with them or appease them (unless you either die or convert to Islam). And you can manage them only until their plans are in place to bomb, behead, orkill anyone and everyone who does not believe exactly the way they do. I mean look at the Shi’ites and Sunnis. Both Islamic faith, yet they’ll kill each other on sight. Son, you’d best start growing your facial hair, putting a veil on your wife, and get used to having religious mullahs burst into your house to determine whether any insults to the faith are present. Maybe you’d like a good public stoning or beating as well.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Fighting terrorism is police work, not a military objective. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can start fighting it effectively for a change.

SNIVELLING MORON ALERT!!!!

brainless has just encapsulated the cowardly moronic demoncrat mindset in one simpleton appeaser friendly paragrpah.

Terrorism needs a military response!! Terrorists have weapons these days way beyond the usual arab kalashnikov, hand grenade and pistol. They also need to be exterminated - not arrested and processed for finger prints. terrorists consider anyone who doesn’t really go after them to be weak - it only encourages them!!

the towel head terrorists constantly claim on virtually every arab satellite channel that they are the only true mohammedans … DUH!!! Until such time as the rest of the supposedly peaceful non jew - non-kafir hating mohammedans actually begin to consistently and harshly oppose them its mohammedan terrorism … and your contemptible weasel like lefty political correctness again will only encourage them.

the police are NOT equipped to go up against terrorists who have IED’s, rpgs, anti-tank rockets, SAMs etc.

in afghanistan, pakistan, iran, iraq, syria, lebanon etc its millions of terrorists, arab fascists and their fanatical sympathisers that are the problem … not just a few western based urban cells. this is where they are trained and armed …

this kind of doltish cowardly liberalism needs stamping out - or we will all become targtes — oooops to late - WE ALREADY ARE!!

By sct

August 24, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

An all out massive effort to develop alternative sources of energy.

By Bluer

August 24, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Brian - You don’t see a connection between the goals of Islamic terrorists and those stated those expoused by Muslims in political power, for example the President of Iran?

Also, how is making such a link the same as identifying all Muslims as militant and/or terrorists.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

You sound like you have been in my office. Glad to hear its the same everywhere. With one exception, my meetins are NEVER boring! I use graphs, and we all know, graphs are FUN!

By Van

August 24, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Missy Rottweiler,

Peace had a chance. It failed. If one side does not want peace, then there will be no peace.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

That’s good, Van. Threaten the Iraqis with death by pig fat for threatening the peace. Isn’t that kind of like what Sadaam did?

Oh and the whispering in the ear of the Iraqi leadership is a good idea too. It will be their little secret.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Van,

w is on my link.

w missed acting on the memo by the FBI warning of the 9/11 attack.

We have the advantage of OBL having to warn us, due to an Islam belief and we have been warned for the next attack.

I am guessing it will be some sort of nuke attack in a big city with alot of deaths.

Only intelligence will stop it and if w acted on his warning 9/11 may have been stopped.

By five o'clock somewhere

August 24, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

By Van August 24, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this getalife, It was updated in 2004, can’t you read? Senior investigative correspondent NBC News Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004

be vewee vewee careful Van, you don’t want to upset the leftie playskool wunderblocks. you just might get a tantrum.

By @@

August 24, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

I looks like Van Woo likes the position of bench warmer in the game. I wonder how wide his a$$ is? <——————————————->

1 inch = l foot.

By Van

August 24, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

deegee,

How would you treat terrorists. Anyone bombing a police station or public markets, what should their punishment be? 100 hours of community service?

I agree, telling the Iraqi leadership would make anything a non-secret, so don’t tell anyone.

And getalamebrain, yes, intelligence would help, but the lefties are trying to stop all secret activities that might help, like monitoring internation phone calls from suspected terrorists.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Senior investigative correspondent NBC News Updated: 6:43 p.m. CT March 18, 2004

Typical, the link is not complete.

“In the foot steps of bin Laden” has all this info plus all the updates. It will be on CNN this weekend. Please watch it before you spew.

By Missy Rottweiler

August 24, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Van - Peace and walking in the other person’s shoes is the only way. It must always be given a chance. If you can’t see that then eat s*it and die - Missy

By Redneck Convert

August 24, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

I have to admit that I become downright poetic when I’m relieving myself atop the log near my trailer.

And as I surveyed my pile-on cyst, I couldn’t help but think of the poor fellow on this blog who couldn’t serve in the military because of a pile-on cyst on his rear end. What a tragedy! I thought. Here’s a brave fellow who urges the Iraq war on while being deprived of the opportunity to display his own valor. As I thought of this situation, my poetic spirit began to appear. And I developed this little piece called “Ode to the Pile-on Cyst.” I know it won’t measure up to TFTT’s English standard, but I provide it here for the rest of you.

Thou wretched, rancid, festering boil, Just waiting to be cut: How low would be the price of oil, You pimple on his butt, If you had left his rear alone And taken as your shack His arm or ponderous jaw-bone— He could be in Iraq! What warlike rants are now without Some action bellicose? O see him rave and yell and shout, What worthy actions those!

What hero hast thou left behind, Disabled for the war? A soldier of the bravest kind, You syphilitic whore! He blogs and blasts the wretched crew That says “Let’s cut and run,” While urging on the precious few Who carry knife and gun. His rear is sore but not his heart While he so much opines; Let others die and do their part: He’ll nurse his sore behind.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Wrong Van,

Nobody said to stop it. w is hiding something, probably listening to people he should not or he would get a warrant.

The laws are on the books he chose not to follow them. He could work to have the law changed but chose to be above the law.

How in the world can you impeach Clinton and not w?

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Running totals in the Iraq War Death Toll:

How you interpret that on a good-thing-bad-thing scale is up to you.

(Who’s Counting? respectfully acknowledges that whatever the number rises to in the coming years, it will never be enough to make some of you happy.)

By harold

August 24, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Since “they hate us for our freedom,” Dubyai could save us all with a massive marketing campaign pointing out that many nations are not only freer than the USA but are also more conveniently located for attacking and destroying.

Seriously, why would anybody go all the way to America just to destroy freedom when Estonia is right there AND freer?

By Incredulous

August 24, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

I am so amazed at how much energy you all on this post put into the conversation around Iraq and it’s people. Do any of you give a damn about your fellow americans who have paid taxes in New orleans. Our money should help our people here, not over there. it is part of their money that is going over there anyway. You all should be fighting for us not Middle Easterners and their country.

We should have never been there in the first place. you know it and I know it. When Sadaam was in power, none of these bombings were going on and those bombing had no way to get to america if Bush had spent the money he is fighting wars with instead he could have beefed up our borders and transportation safety. This is a joke and I am tired of being misled by Dems and Repubs. This group in DC has to go now. Repubs especially because they control all 3 branches of govt and look at us now!!! you ignorant selfish people.

By five o'clock somewhere

August 24, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

missy the teacup terrier says peace and walking in other’s shoes is the only way? Oh sure, I’ve always wondered what it was like to date a woman in a burka.. pray east 6 times a day.. not listen to music.. and not watch movies. Absolute leftie geniusness.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

That bs about converting us to Islam is political rhetoric to scare cowards like five o.

Grow a spine coward. It will never happen.

By harold

August 24, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

this whole topic is flamebait. why is this garbage even here? bits dont just grow on tress you know

By LGM 118A

August 24, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

We gave peace a chance, now give ME a chance

-the Peacekeeper

By Southern Democrat

August 24, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

I want everyone who reads this to know that I intend for my tone to be interpreted as civil and respectful, not glib or sarcastic (it is so tough to tell on blogs the tone of the poster sometimes).

First, I always afford Mr. Wooten a degree of respect in military matters as he served in combat, something I have not done and will probably never do, God willing. I come from an Army family and broke their hearts when I enrolled in Air Force R.O.T.C. for 2 years, but I never received my commission due to the doctor refusing to sign off on my physical due to childhood asthma (give me a break).

I respect every individual who has served in the military and I value their service. I also know that the vast majority of officers I know (to use specific numbers, I would say 15 out of 20) who have served in Iraq are proud of their service, but do not feel that their efforts are appreciated by the Iraqis nor do they feel like significant progress is being made. These 15 officers range in rank from a 2004 West Point grad to a Lt. Col. who has since left the Army. The other 5 officers I know feel like progress is being made, but also a quiet sense of desperation and are certainly in no hurry to go back. Of the 15, around 6 saw significant action in Afghanistan and say that that conflict was infinitely better planned and executed, and even that wasn’t textbook.

I also had the honor of talking to a 22 year old Marine sergeant who served 2 tours in Iraq (including Fallujah). He is in the IRR. He is an ardent conservative. He is absolutely terrified of going back and does not think that he is adequately prepared to lead fresh Marines into the hell he walked out of and does not think there is a concrete mission in place.

I do not know if these viewpoints are indicative of the military at large, but these are the only military personnel I have had lengthy discussions with.

To answer Mr. Wooten’s question, what does the world look like when we leave Iraq? Well, it looks a lot brighter for our brave men and women, sir. They can, hopefully, come back, rest and re-train, and await deployment to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, North Korea, etc., wherever the next true conflict lies.

Iraq may devolve into civil war (has it not already?) and/or be unstable for some period. Perhaps it will divide itself into three states. Perhaps it will be a peaceful democracy with sharia law… who knows? But it WILL be whatever Iraq decides. The U.S. can provide MASSIVE foreign aid (as would be our moral responsibility), on the level of Egypt and Israel, but we will not have troops on the ground. Establishing peace will be determined by the Iraqis themselves. If the country becomes a failed state, we will await for their call for help… when received we will go in, with international support, and attempt to help as best we can.

Our country will heal. We will tone down the rhetoric and work together on securing our borders, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels for both national security and environmental reasons, and on improving the lives of our citizens.

As someone who has lived among terrorists and terrorism in major cities in the world, the bloodlust that many espouse on this and other blogs simply baffles me. Do you not understand that this is the exact result that terrorism strives for? Do you not understand that using religious rhetoric is exactly what they want… our God versus theirs? Do you not understand that they will never, ever be afraid of us because their entire philosophy is based on placing little to no value on human life? Do you not understand that Saddam Hussein was contained by his Arab and Persian neighbors (not the same ethnic group by the way) and that Kazahkstan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Saudi Arabia were INFINITELY more likely to produce anti-U.S. terrorists than Iraq?

How can I convince you? Do you hate me for thinking like this? Please do not call me a coward, for I am not. I will not call you stupid or hard-headed or any other label used by the far left. But we must figure out how to do this together.

I attend Mass every Sunday. I pray to the same God as all of you. To my fellow Christians: how can our interpretations of Christ’s teachings be so different? How can we look at the state of the world and our nation and see such different things? How can we get back to being a better community together?

I fully anticipate an onslaught of criticism for this lengthy post from both sides, but it is directed at those on this blog who take the time to try to discuss the issues and who look for solutions to problems.

By Poetry Luvr

August 24, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Ode to the Pile-on Cyst Thou wretched, rancid, festering boil, Just waiting to be cut: How low would be the price of oil, You pimple on his butt, If you had left his rear alone And taken as your shack His arm or ponderous jaw-bone— He could be in Iraq! What warlike rants are now without Some action bellicose? O see him rave and yell and shout, What worthy actions those! What hero hast thou left behind, Disabled for the war? A soldier of the bravest kind, You syphilitic whore! He blogs and blasts the wretched crew That says “Let’s cut and run,” While urging on the precious few Who carry knife and gun. His rear is sore but not his heart While he so much opines; Let others die and do their part: He’ll nurse his sore behind.

Dang, yer good! I’m humbled, Sir. Freakin beyoooooooteeful, man!

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Bluer: “You don’t see a connection between the goals of Islamic terrorists and those stated those expoused by Muslims in political power, for example the President of Iran?”

No, I don’t see it as a hand-in-glove relationship. Sure, the president of Iran is a hotheaded moron—but how about “Muslims in power” such as the heads of Turkey, Morocco, Yemen, Qatar, and Jordan? All these countries are Muslim-dominated, with a Muslim leader, and yet none of them are lining up with terrorism.

In fact, many of them have been valuable allies in helping to track terrorist activity (LEGALLY, something Andy seems to keep forgetting). Most of their populace also support representative government and individual freedoms… and yet they’re Muslims! That’s logically impossible in Andyland, but it’s an everyday fact here in reality.

JBM: You claim to know quite a bit about our legal system… surely you’re not pretending that treating terrorism as an intelligence matter equates to “giving them civil rights,” are you?

The CIA and other intelligence agencies have fought criminal organizations, cartels, and (yes) terrorist groups for decades. They have the skills and equipment to do the job, whereas the military does not. To declare, as you have, that turning terrorism over to intelligence operations is the same as putting Deputy Fife in the face of machine-gun fire is ludicrous.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

They can, hopefully, come back, rest and re-train, and await deployment to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, North Korea, etc., wherever the next true conflict lies.

If we follow your lead, to these areas of future deployment we can add New York City, Atlanta, Washington DC, and Los Angeles.

By deegee

August 24, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

No, Van, their punishment should be having to share a cell with goofy-toofy for the rest of their life. They would probably ask for death by pig fat after the first 20 minutes.

By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda

August 24, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Thank you, other redneck, for your stirring words - I’m sure that you speak for the many kkkons who post here with their sore butts atop their shoulders. huge smirk

By Liberal

August 24, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Realist,

Graphs, yikes! You’re giving me flashbacks of the last boring meeting that I was secuestered in. Good to hear that I’m not the only one.

Southern Democrat,

Excellent post. Thank you.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Hell Southern Democrat,

It is hard enough to get these folks to admit the facts let alone a debate on your post.

Good post BTW.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

the president of Iran is a hotheaded moron

Yeah, that silly old hothead Mahmoud. A leader of country threatening to wipe all the stinky rotten filthy jews off the face of the planet. No big deal. He is just blowing off some steam. ARE YOU MENTAL???!!!

sct is a hotheaded moron. Mahmoud is a maniacal, islamo-fascist, intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon and killing a million jews.

By Bluer

August 24, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Brian - Nothing was said about ALL Muslims or ALL Muslim heads of state being militant fundamentalist and supporting terror. But there are governments in SOME Muslim populated nations with elected and non-elected heads of state who do openly support terrorism with funding, weapons, etc. How does police work address that? How does police work stop a political or social movement like militant Islamic fundamentalism which knows no boundaries? What is “small and weak” about any this.

By Eric

August 24, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Where’s Osama?

By Cletus Snow

August 24, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

The intelligence demonstrated in this blog leads me to believe that the media has corrupted the info its feeding you. Most of this group are incapable of separating the bovine excretement from the media babble. The only thing you will recieve for self important rantings is a bigger glass of koolaid

By Van

August 24, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Eric,

Clinton refused to kill him

By Van

August 24, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Re: Clinton - he was convicted in a federal court of purjury.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Where’s Osama?

he’s busy collecting the annual al quaeda membership dues off maggot brain, brainless curtis, renekkk’s vermin, the other rednekkk’s vermin, amelia, nazi susan, feminazi JK, sct, deegee, harold and the rest of the leftist rabble on here!!

looks like he’ll have enough this year to buy an extra nanny goat to satisfy rednekkk’s wander lust - this summer ty ty, next summer rednekkk’s will getting it up his treasonous khyber pass!!

By Osama

August 24, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Im living in caves and have the US Special Forces up my a*. Ive been on the run from that relentless little madman George Bush for over five stinking years now. I trust no one and my health is declining. Please for the love of Mohammed please hurry and elect a democrat so I can go back to my 5 star hotels and silk sheets.

By Filster

August 24, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Bluer - the problem isn’t only with Muslim heads of state. There are Arab heads of states which are fairly fanatical as well. Arb or Muslim, the problem is with their interpretation and application of Islam. have you seen any photos of some of the signs being carried by Arab protestors in Britain after the arrest of the 12? “Behead All those Who Insult Islam” and “Europe, your 9/11 is coming” were only a few of many. You should read more than just local papers mate. Also, SoDem, we may have differnt interpretations on Christian teachings, ideology, etc., but last time I checked catholics wren’t blowing up methodist churches who weren’t bombing protestant churches and none of whom, might I add, were doing anything to the myriad jewish synagoues, arabic mosques, hindu temples, and so on that abound in THIS country.

By Van

August 24, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Missy Rottweiler,

There you go, flirting again.

Peace was given a chance after the ‘93 Trade Center Bombing, what happened? If we start from there, you will see very clearly, that the radical muslims do not want peace. They want to kill us.

Would you turn the other cheek? How many times?

If someone is trying to kill me, I will use all and any force to defend myself and take out the bad guy. Only a whiny, spineless coward would run and hope to survive.

If they want to live in Peace, let them show it to the world, they can lay down their arms and stop trying to kill our soldiers and civilians.

If they do, they might live to a nice old age - if not, let them rot in h*ll.(not sure if that would pass the censors)

By getalife

August 24, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Here ya go wingnuts, blame it on the liberal blogger

Failures.

Bwhahahahahaha!

By getalife

August 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Van,

Exactly, put Cheney and w under oath and see what happens.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

You know, I’ve read all the neo-con’s comments today, and taken all together, they add up to a great big, but strangely well written stool sample.

BTW, neocons, you’re low on potassium.

(and realist gets too much fiber).

This is Katie Courek saying check your colon today the life you save may be your own.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

you sneaky rotten nasty clever barsteward Filster

you used legitimate, relevant facts and logic on the lefties!!!

DONT DO IT AGAIN!!! its an old and tried tactic that never works on here due to gargantuan intellectual dishonesty by the appeasing Bush hating left!!

still working on that answer about Ruskie and chi-com military intervention on Iran’s behalf are we maggot brain? even huger smirk

By Redneck Convert

August 24, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Oh please! Not my Khyber Pass again! Where’s Rudyard Kipling when you need him?

By Van

August 24, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Redneck Convert,

Him and Gunga Din are “…squattin’ on the coals are givin’ drinks to poor damned souls”

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Realist: Earlier you were asking who was lumping in all questioning of Bush with “Being on the side of the terrorists,” when I pointed out how stupid and childish such comments were.

Where’s Osama? He’s busy collecting the annual al quaeda membership dues off maggot brain, brainless curtis, renekkk’s vermin, the other rednekkk’s vermin, amelia, nazi susan, feminazi JK, sct, deegee, harold and the rest of the leftist rabble on here.

Kinda obvious, wasn’t it?

By Van

August 24, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

getagrip,

They, to my knowledge, have not been convicted of anything while in office.

No one has charged them, tried them and convicted them, until then, shut up.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

but brainless - you ignored my earlier attempts to enage you more seriously on your witless assertions that terrorism was but a “police matter”. Surely a spot of well placed, well intentioned ridicule is warranted for such moral cowardice even huger than huge smirk

By getalife

August 24, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Patience Van, its coming.

You a sore loser like Joe?

I do not give up my freedoms, like the freedom of speech like you cowards.

By Realist

August 24, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Brian, I concede that the debate has gone astray and we are all currently having a little fun with each other back and forth, but at the time of my comment earlier this morning, most were actually being civil and respectful from both sides.

That is until the typical cast of leftist pukes took what was a thoughful debate and lowered it to romper room status.

By Missy Rottweiler

August 24, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Van - The only arms we should be using are our own flesh and blood ones when we put them around our enemies and call them friends. Open arms can open hearts…

By Van

August 24, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Missy Rottweiler,

Give me a break - they attacked us. You peaceniks make me sick. I saw your type back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. You haven’t changed, you will stand up for nothing.

I’ll open my arms as I cut out their heart -

By LGM 118A PEACEKEEPER

August 24, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

You need to put your arms and hearts around my idea: type in the launch codes, hit the big red button, and let me do my job. I only cost taxpayers $7M, and I was bought and paid for years ago. Why keep spending billions on something I can accomplish in the blink of an eye?

By getalife

August 24, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

lies,

What is up with all the smirking?

Did rednecks get under your skin?

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

I can (virtually) see it now, as HiTllary or some other festering liberal hot dog eating surrender monkey is asked by the Bush hating media in the aftermath of the next major arab terror attack on the USA - how should we deal with this outrage??

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

its a police matter SQUAWK

so folks, lets be real bold and daring and send the liberal cops in Boulder CO who cant even find a 6 year old girl’s killer after 10 years - or the bigoted leftist DA in Durham who wont see racial bigotry in a phoney non existent rape case - lets send them with all their police matter expertise after the terrorists in their training camps in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq etc …

then America will be safe!!

By Nope

August 24, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

You are an amazing idiot. You are so witless and ignorant that you cannot see that you 12:14 post PROVES everything true I said above it. You know nothing of my political leanings other than I am not in lock step with you but you’re confident enough to brand me a lefty. Without having to lift a finger my point is made. My thanks to you!!!World’s largest smirk

But remember this. No wisdom or intelligence can undo the damage you do to your own cause. You think your nastiness is cute, but the fact is that you hurt conservatism far more than you help it. Scoff at that if you want but no one likes nasty blowhards and that is all you are. With each insult you reinforce the image a great deal of Americans have of conservatives and continue to hurt your own cause.

Debate those substantive facts. universe sized smirk

So two words right back at you, the second being off. Oh what the hell, F*** off you brainless Coulter wannabe.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

maggot brain … smirking contemptuously at liberals is but the will of Allah!!

By Van

August 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

time for the truth,

Calm down, ease it back a notch or two.

Hillary will say she could not connect the dots because the NSA was controlled by the New York Times.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

uh, oh.

lies lost it again.

Its the chimps on the toilet post card, ain’t it?

By MELO

August 24, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

We will be in Iraq until BUSH leaves office. Thereafter, the one who comes in, Democrat or Republican is having nothing to do with Iraq.

Bush’s legacy is a failure and he is holding on to save face! America is paying the price for electing this kid born with a silver spoon, but that has such inferior education and lacks a deeper understanding of international diplomacy.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Ah, lies worships Islam.

You should not admit that here with the hatred of the wingnuts.

By Brian Curtis

August 24, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Realist: The problem is an everyday occurrence. As long as you have raving, foaming losers like TFTT/Andy on your side, it’s going to be hard for Bush apologists to be taken seriously.

By Sen. Kerry

August 24, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

but that has such inferior education

Actually old GW outperformed me at Yale and the records prove it if you care to google it.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Tell me more about Allah, lies.

Why all the hate of the infidel?

Surely, you do not buy into that 72 virgin crap do you?

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

My major hissy fit of the week courtesy of the dickbrained dolt NOPE!!

congratulations … and cheers mate - that was freaking hilarious - got any more like that left in ya??

part of the extra smirks generated by this hissy fit is knowing that I effortlessly got NOPE to bite on the cynically clever, understated leftist jibe I typed earlier.

and a streisand big nose sized smirk is still bigger than any yours , NA NA NA NA!!

By Realist

August 24, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

And likewise Brian, as long as you and getalife and other Bush-haters spew nothing but anti-Iraq rhetoric, and find not one positive thing this President has done, you simply look like scournful misguided children who need a time out.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

and brainless still wont discuss the self defeating idiocy of his police matter policy.

By MELO

August 24, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Why dont we just drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq and get done with that big MESS?Then we do Iran next,hezbollah,Syria and Palestine, in that order.

In no time our problems will be over.

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Back from meetings and from a Rotary speech, where I invited folks, most all of whom are not into blogging, to join us. So be kind to newcomers until they at least get the lay of the land.

Meanwhile, back to an early morning question raised by Law Abiding Citizenry @ 9:04 about apparent contradictions in previous posts. The references to “short run” and “overwhelming force” were specifically related to the battle for Baghdad. To the extent possible, U.S. and Iraqi forces have to rgain control, neighborhood by neighborhood, leaving in place Iraqi troops capable of dealing with secretarian violence. That is an operation that should be completed before the end of the year.

As for overwhelming force in general, truth is that I have no idea what the proper troop level shold have been once the battle phase of the war was over. The force applied was obviously sufficient. But the question then becomes whether the “occupying army” should be 130,000 or whether it should have been some other higher number, say 1.3 million. Every generall, fighting the last war, would prefer overwhelming force everywhere. Rumsfeld didn’t and I think he’s right. For one thing, we have mobility, air power and superior weapons and therefore the means to concentrate forces and defeat the enemy when and where needed. A substantial force would most certainly have established us as an occupying army and that’s not what we ever intended, as I understand it.

History will judge whether Rumsfeld was right or wrong. Big armies require big support systems and ultimately, as has been the case in Muthanna province, you do have to take the risk and hand over security to Iraqis. A big, standing, occupying army makes it too tempting to stay longer than necessary, and prolongs the training period for the locals. Besides, we’ve privatized many of the functions previously performed by men and women in uniform so the military force is not, I don’t think, as thin as it appears in raw numbers.

The day of reckoning is coming where Iraqi forces will have to demonstrate they can fight an insurgency and control neighborhoods. Overwhelming force is needed so that they don’t fail in the Baghdad operation, so that they gain confidence, and with that success they should be pushed into taking responsibility for their own security.

Stay the course? Absolutely. There’s no contradiction in my mind.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Melo,

It will take years to judge GW’s legacy. We’re still writing JFK’s, etc. As far as a spoon in the mouth comment…That’s pretty stupid considering you can say the same about Al Gore and John Kerry and just about every other politician out there.

By Nope

August 24, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Kind of kettle to black with the hissy thing, huh witless?

With every post that I bait you into making I prove my point further. So keep it up brainless. Rush Limbaugh’s a* size smirk

Prove me right.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

getatinybrain …

my Allah usage is clearly quite sardonic and clearly much too subtle for you to glean off the screen - but I generously understand that and cheers for humbling yourself to ask such an obviously obtuse question.

now about that ludicrous military scenario you moronically asserted this morning?

By Filster

August 24, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

let’s put a perspective on an Islamic terrorists’ mindset. To all of those who have disagreed with time, or brian, or van, and so on, they have a devine duty to find out who you are and kill you. And notonly you, but your family as well because your family are also infidels. So, all debate and gibberish aside, does everyone finally see that this really and truly is boiling down to an us vs. them freedom vs. jihad. And say what you want about Bush, Iraq, etc., but I will share that I am very afraid that if some gets into the White House who will withdraw, or attempt to negotiate, appease, or otherwise try to manage terrorists, the next attack with kill millions of U.S. citizens. That will not happen with Bush in office because whoever did it knows they would be hunted down like dogs. Now, where Ms. Clinton, Pelosi, Dean, et al. in power, not only would they face no repercussions, but the liberal elite would probably make it sound like it was our fault somehow. Sad. Very sad.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Jim,

I’m sure you know I am a supporter of the Iraq war. But don’t you think the president could do a much better job at communicating to the Americans more often on what’s going on, what the strategy is, etc. Stay the course does nothing but communicate the same old same old. I know he is being reigned in by his advisors, but to me the cowboy persona is much more effective than what he is doing now.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

poor diddums nope is getting very petulant now. occasionally you can catch someone and completely bypass their critical factor on here. that is way more fun than hammering the left factually and logically.

you sad little pinko you —- oooops we already did that today!!

By Filster

August 24, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Jim:

Got to disagree with you on Rumsfeld. A career civilian who thinks he knows more than the generals with 30-plus years of service. Yes, we needed speed and agility when we first went in, but when the predictions of being welcomed as liberators never materialized we needed to switch to the “have to be strong enough to hold what you took” mode, which means heavily armored HumVees, body armor, etc. You know, all the things we didn’t get over there for the first couple years. And because Rumsfeld would not see the light, fess up and change his strategy (by, say, listening to the brass in country) a lot of our guys died unnecessarily. That’s the history I’ll remember that arrogant @ss for.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Hell lies,

I quit trying to decipher your rubbish.

Jim,

Stay the course you say but why?

Iraq has shown their alliance with Iran.

You are saying to stay when more US troops will be killed for what?

Freedom for the Iraqis to support Iran? Please explain.

By Missy Rottweiler

August 24, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Van - The ’60s were a time of peaceful revolution that brought down a warnmongering regime at home and freed its victims to find their own voice in their own way. Has anything really changed in the last forty years? Are the insurgents in Iraq any different from the those who fought Western domination back then? - Missy “For the children if nothing else”

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

No question, Stewart, the President could communicate more effectively. The difficulty is that he’s attempting to communicate with a substantial bloc of the population that regards him as an illegitimate President, who has never found merit in the Iraqi campaign and who, I believe, are vested in seeing him fail. Much of the commentary I read in the MSM strikes me as resting on those foundations.

Mistakes in war are commonplace. They have been in this one. Every one in this war is cast by opponents as an ah-ha moment, the last piece of evidence that it’s a failure and was a mistake. I yearn for some good-faith understanding that this is not a partisan game. And I haven’t seen that in a long time.

It’s tough. It’s slow. Leaders, military and civilian, acting on the best available evidence and guided by training and experience, make decisions. Sometimes they’re wrong. What we call the “war” on poverty in this country has gone on for 75 years and it hasn’t been wiped out. We’ll certainly not be in Iraq 75 years, but if we leave prematurely and it implodes, we’ve done nothing but divide the country and cost valiant young men and women their lives.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Oh please Filster,

bin Laden is still planning the next attack. w could give a crap about catching him or your security.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Missy Rottweiler obviously needs to immediately avail herself of the services of any local vetinary. A hippy rottweiler? A decidedly incongruous image methinks!!

Scott McKenzie isn’t making records any more love and corporate loving homosexuals and the America hating far left crowd have taken over San Fran Sicko as Dr Savage astutely calls it. The world has moved on.

By Van

August 24, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Missy Rottweiler,

Yes much has changed, back then we fought the commies, Reagan won by calling their bluff. Now we are fighting for our lives against jihadists that want us dead. They do not want to compromise, negotiate or back down.

BTW, it was far from a peaceful revolution.

You can sacrifice yourself for peace, I won’t.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Filster,

I have heard many generals supporting the Rumsfield strategy. Obviously there have been many supporting the alternative as well. I for one do not place the blame entirely on Rumsfield, but I would not be sorry to see him go at this point. He is a distraction and a liability.

With that said, our forces were depleted tremendously prior to the Iraq war through attrition and we had equipment sitting in yards for years because we did not have the spare parts. This may have played a part in Rumsfield’s strategy. As we can now see, there was no peace dividend for cutting the defense budget. Hopefully we (Americans in both parties) will have the will to boost defense spending to approximately 7% of GDP. It is more than worth the investment.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

But is terrorism just a police matter?

Our silly billy liberal chums seem to think so - even though they wont say why? Why is that?

By Van

August 24, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

time for the truth,

Missy is just another unwashed, pot smoking, free loving, STD spreader.

Be gentle with her, she doesn’t know any better. Her mother was the same way, We may have “known” her - back in the day.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Jim,

I understand you point. The way I see it that segment of the population will forever be against the President no matter what he does. I think he should pay more attention to the 55% that elected him in 2004. I’m not a fan of a president who looks at the poll numbers (can we say Clinton), but there are many Republicans and independents that have jumped ship simply because the President is not communicating with them. The one thing I admired about President Clinton was that he did not allow the media to dicate to him. He was much more assertive and effective in this regard.

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Filster @ 4:09: No general has 30 years experience fighting this kind of war in this political environment. They’re trained according to doctrine, they’re experienced, they know how to win battles and campaigns. All of that, as well as their lifetime willingness to put their lives on the line, deserves respect. But they’ve never been here before. This nation hasn’t. I thiink history will judge Rumsfeld and the military-advised civilians to have been right. But I admit conventional wisdom is with the higher troop count.

getalife @ 4:14: The Iranian matter does concern/scare me. Their strategy is slow walk/long talk and the world will do nothing to stop them from going to the edge of nuclear weaponry. My fear is that the appeasement-minded world will talk for three years and Iran will have nuclear weapons in four, five at the tops. That gives us a very narrow window to take them out, or at a minimum to get regime change. We can’t co-exist with the combination of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and nuclear weapons. We can’t have lingering instability in Iraq, for which we bear responsibility, when that window approaches. There is a real danger that the next step is Shia/Sunni warfare and while we can easily defeat Iran militarily, we don’t want the protracted conflict/occupation that would open up. It’s a frightening prospect, but Ahmadinejad-nuclear weapons is an intolerable combination.

By Mark

August 24, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

I’m with peacmaker…nuke the muslim countries and take their oil when the radiation clears! No great loss there… just a bunch of sand, camels and opulent palaces paid for with US money (I would feel sorry for the camels, tho). Indonesia’s kind of nice, though, so maybe don’t nuke them… they’ll just know what’s coming from the wasteland that used to be Iraq, Iran and Saudia Arabia if they get out of line. Yee Haw!

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Jim Wooten, just re-read your 4:20 post. This is what we libs are talking about. Look at what you wrote: It was like a tone poem, just ramblings about a yearning for something or other, but nothing concrete about why we are there, other than the final insult about if and when we pull out that doesn’t conform to some arbitraty timeline or objective criteria, then “we’ve done nothing but divide the country and cost men and women their lives.”

See? None of that follows logically what came before it, and it jumps around with conflicting premises all the way, it’s a f’n mess, jim.

Now, please, you have the floor, and I am listening, sir.

What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?

and how does that mission change if Bush decides it’s a civil war there?

See the problem, sir?

Well………………..(trying real hard not to scream).

By Filster

August 24, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

getalife:

the absurdity of your “logic” (don’t want to stoop to personal attacks) astounds me. You say Bush doesn’t care about my (and your) security or catching bin laden. Do you not realize what a MAJOR coup capturing bin laden would be? Think back to when hussein was captured. his approval ratings soared. Are you so incapable of logical thought because of your political hatred that you can’t accept anything outside your own viewpoint as true? Mate, you really do need to get a life.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Well Jim will not answer my question but Ken of the GOP just did.

He is now talking about Iraq being the number two oil producer in the world and does not want Al Qaeda to control the oil.

Interesting statement but is full of crap. They do not want Iran to control all that oil. Now we are getting to the truth about Iraq.

By Van

August 24, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Mark,

Great idea, we can follow the template we used in WWII.

1) for about 6 weeks drop leaflets to the folks in the sea port of Bushehr, Iran - that we will nuke the city unless the Iranian government gives up their nuclear desires.

2) 6 weeks later, drop a large fuel air bomb and destroy their port terminal facilities.

3) ask them again.

4) repeat from #1. with the ports city of Assaluyeh.

By Mark

August 24, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Jim… Bush’s legitamacy aside…you are WRONG that people against the war are people who “never found merit in the Iraqi campaign”… many politicians of both parties voted for the campaign when Bush painted pictures of mushroom clouds and WMD’s on every street corner in Iraq. When that proved to be a pack of lies, more and more people and politicians began turning against the president. I think the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The definition of ignorance is refusing to learn or change based on new information. Bush lied about WMDs… people now know that and have changed their opinion. On the other hand, Bush seems incapable of changing his perspective based on new information and continues to believe that by staying the course (doing the same thing with the same leaders over and over again) that somehow, magically, he will get a different result. What a joke. And you’ve got a (thankfully dwindling) group of neo cons who cover their ears when they hear new information and chant “I’m not listening… I love Bush…Stay the course.” The “course” isn’t working and it’s time for a new one. We may not have funnelled enough money and power to Bush’s oil and military contractor friends yet, though.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Do you realize how powerful Iran would be, how much influence they would have to wage proxy wars through terror groups if they controlled over 40% of the known oil reserves. Actually it would be more, because it would not be long before they controlled Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. The Iraq war was about terrorism and whether or not he was a threat. Yes that’s debatable. But your naive if you don’t think Oil is a national security issue. Yes, it’s there oil, but it’s our billions upon billions in investments from western oil companies that make it possible. What’s wrong with the US looking out for it’s national interests?

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Van … I’m proud to say that I also intuited all that but was astonished to see that you deprived her profile of activism in a fairly moderate pro life Republican group, secretary of her local sunday school teachers target shooting group and NASCAR afficionado!!

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Mark,

Sorry pal, but your an idiot if you buy the Bush lied about WMD’s cry. Do some research pal, yes we have not found modern WMD’s. Yes we have found outdated WMD’s, yes we have found documents that indicated he was pursuing WMD’s.Bill Clinton said he had them as far back as 1997. Was he a liar? Or was he incorrect.

By Filster

August 24, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Jim:

You sort of proved my point. This sort of warfare is new, but not that new. It was called guerilla warfare in Vietnam. The IEDS, willingness to bomb civilians, and so on echoes strongly of nam. What I referred to is partially old dogma, in that you have to have enough strength in place to fortify what you’ve captured. Rumsfeld, and much of Bush’s administration, sort of “group thinked” the way we’d be received, and it became painfully obvious early on that this was a false assumption. Yes we were welcomed early on (or so my buddies coming back tell me), but that quickly turned to resentment becuase we are not Iraqi, Christian, etc. We are now seen with mistrust and suspicion. That change alone should have served notice to change tactics. It took years to get the properly armored humvees, bradleys, etc. over there in large part because the field commanders (who had to toe the line, it’s called supporting the chain of command)were ignored as Rumsfeld believes he knows more about the military than those who actually served (and I know he was a pilot for a few years). You are, however, dead on about our nation not having been here before. This is an especially ugly war (aren’t they all though) with no chance for armistice, peace, or victory without a huge cost in human life as well as the use of methods our fellow countryman find inhuman. But, when confronted with a mad dog, you don’t reach down to pet him, try and rub his belly, etc. You find a gun, club, whatever and kill the s.o.b. as fast as possible. And these terrorists are indeed mad dogs.

By Rainey

August 24, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

What would the world look like if we withdrew from Iraq?

The view would be eastward with our backs to the west.

It would destroy the greatness that is America.

Shame would be our burden to bear.

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

There are 58,195 names on the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Wall.

How many names must line up to be etched on the Iraq War memorial that will one day be built, in order to make YOU happy? Jim? Van? Stewart? Mark? Filster? How much blood will fill your thirst? How many soldiers must return with their arms, legs, faces, and minds blown off, for you to feel validated in your contempt for people who think, question, and speak out against this madness?

Because that’s what it’s really all about: Your validation, isn’t it? How many? How many more will die before you finally decide the lives of our soldiers and of innocent people are more important that your egos? I’m all about numbers, so you tell me how many, and I’ll keep a running count, and remind you to shout and cheer for every dozen or so that are added to the list!

By Jim Wooten

August 24, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

We went to Iraq because we thought Saddam’s regime represented a threat to our national security. There’s no new undisclosed information that will satisfy anybody who still believes otherwise, as the conversation on this blog attests.

Despite the real threat that civil war could erupt — and will unless Baghdad is brought under control and the Iraqi government and military are given a reasonable time to establish their ability to function — the prospect exists of planting a version of democracy there. If civil war erupts, the job is obvously tougher and may very well require more troops, ideally an international force, but if not we have to be prepared to go it alone.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

Who’s Counting,

It’s about the big picture. If you can’t see it, I’m not going try to explain it to you. I hate to see just one soldier killed. But I know they are fighting for a good cause. I served in the military, so I am hurt probably more than most Americans (not counting family obviously). I’m not going to debate whether Vietnam was a just war. But while you are talking numbers. How many South Vietnamese were slaughtered once we pulled out? 3 million. Are the White Europeans that we saved in WW2 more than the Vietnamese people? Life isn’t black and white buddy. Just because we support the war in Iraq, does not mean that we are a bunch of war-mongers. The same can be said for those that oppose. Not all of them are necessarily appeasers. So I take exception to what you are trying to imply. That brings nothing to the debate.

By Van

August 24, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

Who’s Counting?,

You don’t win wars dying for your country, you make them die for theirs - Gen. Patton said that - or something like that, his language would not be printed here.

Who’s, Your question is not logical. How many more names need to be etched into the Twin Tower memorials, or the one in Pennsylvania or the new one from the next attack?

How many US civilians do you want to die while the killers are enjoying killing us?

By Dusty

August 24, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

Your post, somewhat gentle in approach, reminds me of that famous saying “Can’t we just get along?”

I gather you yearn for the days of no bloodshed in the world, if there ever was such a time. Maybe, like Miss Rottweiler, you want to put your arms around everybody and love them. I, to, am a Christian. But I wonder, after you give hugs and they have killed you, will there be peace?

You mention the “Bloodlust many espouse” on this blog. Are you talking about fighting terrorism or political name calling? I cannot see giving up to terrorism which to me would be like lying down in front of a train. The political name calling is juvenile. But, as Americans, we have never failed to fight as one for this country. Don’t let talk fool you.

I disagree with you saying “Saddam Hussein was contained” referring to countries around him. His military was somewhat contained although not in Kuwait. His capabilities were threatening. But the cruelty and oppression of his own people were not. How long does peace ignore that?

I wish I could respond to you with deep thoughts of peace and accord. I hope we always strive for them. Right now, I can only say that we are doing the best we can for peace in a world without peace. I doubt that our thoughts are similar.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Ken just said we are going to stay to protect their oil. Enough with the crap. Its not about anything but their oil.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Do you want to pay $6 a gallon? Are you really this naive and shallow? I have seen some legit posts from you in the past, but you are really disappointing me.

By Law Abiding Citizenry

August 24, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Okay, you’re all talkin’ in circles.

We need a moderator. I nominate me. All in favor, say Aye! “AYE!!!” All opposed…..(crickets chirping).

Good. Now, we have to start with what the geo-political justification for invading Iraq was/is.

1). They had/had not WMDs, and Saddam is a bad/good man, and the evidence was all phoney and delivered by our leaders in the persons of Rice and Powell. (Ist das nicht ein uranium enrichment plant? YAH! Das ist ein uranium enrichment plant!)

2) Saddam had WMDs and a delivery system and a conspiracy with the 911 terrorists to continue the attack on the US.

3) Saddam could have developed WMDs a few years down the line, like Iran might do now, and we are preemptively preventing that possibility whether it’s real or not.

4) After we found no WMDs, then the geo-political justification morphed into, “provide the security necessary for the Iraqi people to hold free elections and build their own police/army”. That apparently ignores the fact that these people haven’t been able to co-exist peacefully for ten thousand years. They’ll never agree to a government, especially not one that we introduce. Remember the first leaders we brought in from exile? Bad move, Bush. They hated that guy. Yet Rummy stood at attention next to him. That photo op alone doomed this mission. But that’s a reality that no neo-con is capable of accepting because it’s too real, and filled with too much irony, and it’s just too painful.

5) We are there because the post WW1 cartography was a compromise between Britain, the US, and France, and it arbitrarily split the tribes into the mess we find ourselves surrounded by now. Only a strong man like Saddam could tame the region, with our help, and he was effective. We liked Saddam for thirty frickin years, folks. Our friend. If only we could put that toothpaste back in the tube.

6) I give up. You can explain logically to the neo-cons about why they are foolishly squandering our military resources against terrorists, but it falls on the same deaf ears that ignored the memo that read “ALERT! Osama plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center Towers, yes, Both of Them.”

By getalife

August 24, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Obviuosly you are Stewert, buying into that WMD crap.

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Jim,

Let me ask you this: Why do you hate america?

Why do you hate the baby jesus?

Why do you hate patriots?

What was the U.S. mission in Iraq?

Seeing as to how the blog has deteriorated today, I figured I’d might as well deal the final blow… :^)

By getalife

August 24, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

If you want to stay in Iraq to protect their oil from Iran, they should just say it . Be honest for once in their lives.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Hey getalife-

If you think this post is answering my reply to your assinine question why “no oil from Iraq” then I will have succumbed to wasting time with yet another looney liberal that can’t focus on topic, even one THEY brought up. Corner you, you spin off into another topic. Typical of your ilk. I’m not impressed with your pseudo-intellect.

By Missy Rottweiler

August 24, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Van and Time for the truth,

“Those who hurl stones at the peacemaker risk being hurled themselves from the belly of Hell…” Mirando

Missy

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

After all, if you disagree with me in any way, you must hate the troops, ‘murica, Toby Keith and the baby Jesus (in that order, of course).

Let’s not even mention hating W….

That’s what we call substantive debate these days.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 24, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Hey Jimmie Boy, You’ve got a good’un goin’ today. You are a master at bringing out all the nutcases.

Much of what I hear from the leftists is that “Bush lied” and “there were no WMDs”. If THAT was the case, WHY were all the DemoNcraPs saying the exact same thing? WHY did THEY ALSO vote for the WAR??? OF course they long ago “cut and run”, blaming Bush for all the problems of Iraq, distancing themselves from THEIR votes to allow him to go to war. LIEING A$$ HYPROCRITES!!! No wonder the troops vote Republican! No wonder why I mostly vote Republican!

Would someone on the left please answer my 2 questions? I’d like a legitimate answer, not some BS rhetoric and lies.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

I’m buying into the fact that your worldview is somewhat limited.

By Bart

August 24, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Bart’s Law #2

Any time a person or entity makes “mistake” that puts extra money (or power) in their pocket, expect them to make that “mistake” again and again and again. That’s why refineries have fires now and then, because a fire allows them to scream “unexpected shortage” so they can gouge us on the price of gas.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

Getalife-

Lemmie guess, since you believe Halliburton blew up the pipelines in Iraq, do you also believe the Halliburton Jews set explosive charges in the World Trade Center?

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Ugotta,

True, Democrats (and Republicans) all voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It’s a bit different than a declaration of war, which requires imminent use.

It seems to me both dems and GOPers voted in the hopes that he’d use some sense in exercising force. The debate is therefore not of whether someone voted, but what kind of judgment got us to this point, and what to do from here.

After all, even Fox News is reporting GOPers are making a point of distancing themselves from the White House out of fear of retribution at the polls.

It may be hypocrisy, but there’s plenty to go around.

Does this mean you hate the baby Jesus, too UBK? :^)

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Seeing as to how the blog has deteriorated today

when … where …??? who did this rarrington - lets lynch the beastly rotten buggers!!!

By ATICO

August 24, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

We have lost a great amount of our freedom since 9/11. Why, because the terrorist have us hunkered down in our little shells waiting for their next big hit.

I suppose all you liberal folks want this loss of freedon to get worse (been to the airport lately) by using the “kiss their butt” routine. Well it may work, lots of people like to have their butt’s kissed, but be aware once you turn you butt to them.

History with Facist tells all that it does not work, so why do all you pansies on the left, think it will work with Islamism? It wont, been there done that.

You lib’s beat the WWD situation harder than the media beats Karr and the Jon Benet case, 24/7/365. We know all those liberal talking points, please, for the sake of my sanity, come up with something new to whine about.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Well Markus,

If you found my post first you should apologize, then read it again. Haliburton was never mentioned.

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Misst Rottweiler … who the hell is Mirando? Does he have a talk show on Fox - or is he a new switch hitter for the Red Sox?

By Who's Counting?

August 24, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

Annual Payments that Cheney has received from Halliburton since he’s been Vice President: 2001 - $205,298; 2002 - **$162,392; 2003 - $178,437; 2004 - $194,852; 2005 - $211,465.

“Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind.” Dick Cheney, Former CEO of Halliburton, Meet the Press, September 2003

Cash bonus paid by Halliburton to Cheney just before he took office: $1.4 million. Retirement package Cheney received after only five years as CEO: $20 million.

Numbers are facts. How you interpret them is entirely up to you.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

A decleration of war would have been the best case scenario. In that sense, there is no option but to win. That’s what we should do right this very second. Declare war on Iran, Syria and Islamic Fascism. Step toeing around it is just going to costs more lives. Good point Rraringt.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

Hissy the mangy mutt thinks that peace can be had by “walking in other people’s shoes” and understanding them. Sorry, tell that to the Europeans who didn’t want to understand the Nazis, you STUPID ignorant candyassed liberal.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 24, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

rarrington, Man don’t give me that lame excuse that “they ONLY voted to AUTHORIZE the use of force in Iraq.” IF THEY DIDN ‘T INTEND FOR BUSH TO GO TO WAR, WHY DID THEY VOTE TO AUTHORIZE IT?

I’ve read many of your posts and rarrington if you’ll be honest, YOU KNOW that’s a DemoNcraP lie!!! They can’t vote for war, or authorization of war and then say, “Oh Hell, I didn’t think he was really serious!” Do you realize how stupid that sounds??? And I AGREE that RepublicOns are starting to distance themselves. They’re ONLY interested in getting re-elected just like the DemoNcraPs. So that ain’t gone work either!!!

And please cut the “hate the baby Jesus thang man!

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Well, I see our resident multiple ID freakshow of liberal socialist terrorist-appeasing propoganda had a little fun this morning.

Newsflash: you do not own this blog, freak. You do not control this blog, freak. You will not change people’s minds on this blog, freak. Go build a habitat for humanity house and feed and shelter the poor that you cry about so much, freak, instead of wasting time and b!tching about conservatives all day here, freak.

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Ah Markus,

The Oracle of Conservatism has been active today. So glad to see you’re not harping on the One Correct Post in a Blue Moon regarding oil production you made earlier in the week.

I know, I’m a commie pinko leftist li..li..librul!

But at least I don’t hate the baby Jesus, like you do. >:^P

Wow, I kind of am enjoying this. Insulting people’s intelligence while adding nothing of value makes me feel like style is better than substance. Further, I’m thinking that…what? What’s happening to me? I’m..I’m changing! I’m….Aiiii!

Hello all, this is Markus, here to keep you durn libruls in check…..

By time for the truth

August 24, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

Bush did use some sense in exercising force - he and Blurr ordered the liberation of Iraq - the arab fascist insurgency was poorly planned for and other mistakes have been made, But it still needed doing and I’d do it again - albeit with hindsight informing a few different choices/tactics of course.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Who’s Counting,

During the five years of his employment at Haliburton, they received no-bid contracts from the US Government to do conduct similar services in Bosnia. Haliburton is one of the few firms that specialize in war-time logistics. The second most likely company is French. Hence, why the US did not use them during the Iraq or the Balkan conflicts. France opposed us in both situations.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

What year is this?

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Apolgize for WHAT, getalife? You neither backed up your comment over “why no oil out of Iraq?” nor did you even make an ATTEMPT to. All you did was spin off into some loonbat conspiracy theory (that you can neither back up with evidence or prove). You are a typical loonbat liberal that let’s your jackass liberal bedwetting emotionalism overload your mouth every time. You are a waste of my time, as always. Freak.

By Lauren

August 24, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Going to war in Iraq was the worst strategical blunder ever made by a president of the United States and his unwillingness to change course from this huge error is not admirable. A new poll came out today that says most Americans do not see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror. Just because the GOP says it does not make it so and the country simply does not trust this president or the Republican leadership anymore. Only the ones who “drank the kool-aid” like this administration and the rest of us (65%) of Americans are sick of hearing it.

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

Stewart-

Don’t waste too much time here with these Halliburton squawking liberal parrots. You could show them facts until they’re blue in the face, but their emotionalism of the Bush administration blinds them. You can only dress up a pig in so many different dresses.

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Of course they expected him to use it.

They also expected him to use his head.

My point is Congressional history is rife with resolutions, which presidents use for political purposes. Sometimes they act on them, sometimes not.

My point is that folk on both sides of the aisle expected the use of better judgment and planning. Both sides have been disappointed. The polls and their subsequent actions of distancing themselves from him are the result.

If you’re tired of my “baby Jesus” comment after three posts, how do you think it feels to have your sense of faith, country and intellect assailed with every post, every day?

Welcome to the burden of the reasonable, UBK.

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Lauren,

Polls can be manipulated anyway you want them to. Depends on how you ask the questions. Besides, there are kool-aid drinkers on both sides Lauren. If we were a true democracy (i.e. majority) 60 percent of Americans would be sitting on their behinds and the other 40% would be carrying the load..Hey! Isn’t that what the Democrats are trying to do right now?

By Markus

August 24, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

rrngt, I don’t have that much of a problem with you, believe it or not. It’s the kook leftists who use hit-n-run postings that I have a problem with.

Oh, and you don’t see any NewsMax or Washington Times links from me either, do you?

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 24, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Lauren, More than 6,600 American troops died on D-Day (ONE DAY) in WWII fighting the Germans (who never had attacked us). If folks like you and some of your fellow leftists had been around those days we might just be speaking German today. I’M SURE that European countries would! The French speaking German might not have been so bad!!!

Oh, didn’t the Korean “conflict” or “police action” go really swell??? That Truman was a military giant.

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Markus said:

You are a typical loonbat liberal that let’s your jackass liberal bedwetting emotionalism overload your mouth every time. You are a waste of my time, as always. Freak.

Filster said:

Are you so incapable of logical thought because of your political hatred that you can’t accept anything outside your own viewpoint as true? Mate, you really do need to get a life.

TTFT said:

*My major hissy fit of the week courtesy of the dickbrained dolt NOPE!!

congratulations … and cheers mate - that was freaking hilarious - got any more like that left in ya??*

My point of incivility, made by the usual suspects.

By getalife

August 24, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Run along failure. Made you waste a lot of time didn’t I?

Idiot!

By Stewart

August 24, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

Actually Lauren, the strategically worst decision made by an American President was to follow public opinion during the Vietname era. Had we crushed the Viet Cong, we would not have second rate powers challenging us. The see that the American will is weak. Pulling out of Iraq now would be worse than going into Iraq.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

August 24, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

rarrington, you’re waffling brother. You know as well as me that the DemoNcraPs are lying thru their teeths. THEY KNEW DAMN WELL what was coming. Now they’re trying to cover their A*******ES just like the weinee RepublicOns that are running for cover. I have no love loss for any of them.

And hey, if the “hate baby Jesus” thang makes you feel good, then by all means continue. I didn’t think that good “moderates” like you sunk to such depths…

By Markus

August 24, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

Actually I spent time looking for a REAL response, not the one I saw that I linked to that I understand now is you laughable answer (before you spun off into another topic). But I thoroughly enjoyed watching you paint yourself into a corner, as usual. You idiot liberals should learn to think before you emotionalize that mouth. “Why no oil out of Iraq?” LAUGHABLE.

By rarringt

August 24, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

It’s not the depths I’ve sunk to, UBK. This room was a disaster area when I came in. Lots of vitriol, little value.

As I mentioned yesterday, if we devolve into name calling so quickly and adamantly, how much worse is it on the Hill? Judging by the quality of legislation being passed, I’d say much worse.

But anyway, hope you all have a good evening (and weekend). I’m off to vacationland (yay for me).

By Markus

August 24, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

No getalife, not done with you yet-

You said Iraq was the “second largest producer of oil” before the war. I assume you meant in the ME. Depending on the year, that may or may not be true. They were generally behind Iran and the UAE, raking fourth all behind Saudi Arabia.

In 2000, one of their peak years, they produced 3.4% of the entire world’s oil supply. Now, getting back to my original point to your dumb@ss question, do you really, REALLY think that that Iraqi oil production slowdown under Bush would have caused oil prices to double in five years? Go ahead, let’s see how that genius liberal brain works getalife.