Weather

Cloudy

70° F

Pollen 8

| Traffic

Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 10 > Entry

On Iraq, polls be damned

By Jim Wooten | Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 07:43 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Look, here’s the story. President Bush will likely reveal in a speech tonight that 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq to quell violence in Baghdad. Twenty thousand troops may not be sufficent. A higher number deployed throughout Baghdad may be the needed force. That, though, should be left to the generals.

As could have been anticipated, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the rabid anti-war Left which has opposed this President from Day One, especially on the war on terrorism, are beside themselves. Increasing the number of troops “would be a policy of desperation built on denial and fantasy,” Kennedy said in a speech Tuesday at the National Press Club. “It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq.”

The sentiments of the Kennedy speech will undoubtedly appear today or Thrusday as editorials in liberal newspapers around the country. What it comes down to is this: On Iraq and the war on terrorism, this President should set his course for the next two years, in consultation with Congress of course, but doing what he thinks is in the nation’s best interest in the conducting the war. Let Kennedy and those who gleefully predict defeat in Iraq as the Bush legacy rant. Congress has the power to cut off funds for the war effort. We are there. If Democrats in Congress, and their editorial voices of doom, wish to retreat in defeat, the option exists: cut off funds.

It’s clear now there’ll be little or no middle ground. Too bad. The Left still believes, I am convinced, that their political fortunes will rise from defeat in Iraq and that any effort to achieve victory is futile because Iraq is already lost. Polls be damned — this President is, after all, not Bill Clinton — Bush should supply the troops necessary to stabilize Baghdad. The Left will hate him. Kennedy and his wing of the Democratic Party will spout and spew, comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and in one speech or piece of commentary after another insist that all is lost. But then, what’s new about that?

Permalink | Comments (252) | Post your comment |

Comments

By TW

January 10, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

When are the Freepers gonna give those fans who ran Mora out of town a bunch of crap for not supporting the Falcons?

On the surge? Much better to have six guys there when the IED goes off than just three???? Yeah, that’s great strategy. Par for the course…takes a real man to lead with someone else’s chin.

By sct

January 10, 2007 08:26 AM | Link to this

Jim why no mention of the 10 Republican Senators likely to oppose the troop increase?

26% of all Americans support Bush’s Iraq policies. Just when did 74% of all Americans become Leftists? You shpuld be writing about that. Thats big news.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

The Democrats are invested in our defeat and it is our job to make that blindingly obvious.

I am delighted that Bush ignored the Iraq Surrender Report, and its about time they changed the rules of engagement. No neighborhoods can be off limit, Mosques used as armories are fair game, and the Mahdi Army has to be defeated - among other changes that need to be made for the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people. Politically correct wars cannot be won.

On another topic, anyone want to wager if any reporter from the MSM, say a David Gregory, asks Tony Snow WTF happened with Sandy Berger, if anyone at the National Archives was fired, and who in the Justice Department was responsible for this travesty of a $50,000 fine, and oh yeah, security clearance back in 2 years while Scooter Libby awaits trail for a big fat nothing, and Mel Reynolds gets treated as a hero by the C.B.C.

By Mitchell

January 10, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

A lot of those ten Republicans are Republicans in skin only. Their soul is liberal. 74% don’t support Bush’s current policies. That doesn’t mean that those same 74% want us to pull out of Iraq. Questions in polls can be misleading, and only a liberal would believe a poll to begin with, let alone base policy upon one like Clinton. And why would we listen to Senator Kennedy about anything anyway, let alone a war? That man has the moral convictions of a DUI highway slaughterer and the spine of an amoeba.

By sct

January 10, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy.

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

You see, it doesn’t work. Sorry. No matter how many times you mention those names. Same results.

Iraq is still Bush’s mistake. Its still Bush’s failure.

By jbmlaw

January 10, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim and Danish and Mitchell have said almost everything I think. Let me add one idea, so far missing: Democrats, led by the leftists, are the party of “cut and run.” That wisdom brought us a blood bath in Southeast Asia, when the leftists refused to fund the South Vietnamese at even de minimis levels, this after the Viet Cong had been wiped out. That wisdom was a direct factor in causation of the 9/11 attack, as President Clinton ordered the cut and run after “Black Hawk Down;” Islamist hero Osama has said as much. Until our left grows a spine, we will suffer from the American Democrat version of Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” delusion.

By Peter

January 10, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

Hey Jim,

How many of your kin is over in Iraq?

I bet you would never tell us that!!!!!

By jbmlaw

January 10, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

Hey Peter, can you teach us the Islamist version of Kum-Bah-Yah? (something Boom to ya?)

By Grading Wooten

January 10, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

I’m no journalist, but I did construct a string of expletives and wind them around the horns of a dilemma once. For a while there I was friggin’ Roget himself.

Grading Wooten:

From an imaginary eighth grade english teacher, Mr Cheops, here is your review:

STYLE: One sentence that jumps out at me is this one: “Let Kennedy and those who gleefully predict defeat in Iraq as the Bush Legacy rant.” It’s always a bad idea to separate the subject and the predicate with too many modifying phrases. The word “predict” automatically implies the future tense. The sentence should have read like this: “Let Kennedy, and those who gleefully predict that Defeat in Iraq will be the Bush Legacy, rant”.

There is another poorly constructed sentence in your blog today, Mr Wooten: ” What it comes down to is this: on Iraq and the war on terrorism, This president should set his course for the next two years, in consultation with congress of course but doing what he thinks is in the nation’s best interest in conducting the war. ” Doing - conducting…is that a complete thought? “of course” is litter. Lose it. The gerunds are journalist-killers. Stay away from gerunds. You should only use them sparingly. They set up very complex ideas and nearly always lead to incomplete compound sentences. Stay away from compound sentences; you’re a folksy-toned writer, not a NYT editorialist. Read some Hemmingway, and absorb.

This blog has been a bad influence on you, Mr Wooten. Dont try to be what you are not. Dont try to use the same style tactics that drip off me like irresistable manna, because I use them to convey allegorical tone and textural suppleness, which, if misapplied, would destroy another writer’s composition.

Mr. Wooten, you need to look at the overall impact each sentence has on the composition. First, you must understand what impact each word has on a sentence. “Rant” is a bad word. It suggests that you’re judging the opposing view, and that in itself is a poor intellectual foundation for syntactical choices.

CONTENT: you obviously need to watch the Sunday Morning news talk shows and CSPAN live. The surge has been defined by generals for months now: An extension of the tour of duty for those scheduled to depart Iraq, and an expedition of those already assigned to deploy in Iraq, and that will give a six month surge of about 20K troops. The surge is already in the pipeline. There are no new troops. We can only train 7K new troops per year. That’s a three year timeline, and that would make a true surge a ridiculous tactic. Bush’s speech would sound like this: “In about three years, we’ll have 21K new troops in Iraq and we’ll secure baghdad and bring peace to the middle east”.

It’s also appalling to me that you would write an entire blog about the war on terror and not demand the surrender of Osama Bin Laden. You have been poorly advised, my fine friend. Your mindless partisanship has been emboldened by Saddam’s execution. Your innappropriate temerity lacks compunction. (that means you’re very brave with other men’s blood, and you would rather define new terrorists, ie. the left, than deal with the ones we know about).

You are very passionate, but you do not persuade, sir. While there is no logic in war, there should be logic in foreign policy.

It’s the foreign policy, Watson, the foreign policy.

Grade: STYLE D+………….CONTENT D-

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this

Peter,

Is this good enough for you, punk?

Freedom does not come without a price

By sct

January 10, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished.

Gosh, that didn’t work either.

By Jim Wooten

January 10, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

Peter @ 9:01: The answer to your question is zero. None. Is America’s future a ballot-box referendum only for those who serve and their kin? I’m certain America’s Left doesn’t want to live by the results of that referendum.

This is absolutely not a requirement for standing in this debate, but my only brother and I served in Vietnam and my ancestors have served, and in some cases died, in every war, excluding the Spanish-American and Iraq, since the Revolution. And that gives me no more, or less, right to speak in this debate than any other freedom-loving American.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

Morning Jim,

So with the GOP it’s kinda like this:

“Just do what we say and nobody will get hurt. Anyone who disagrees with us is evil and will go to hell. There is no room for disagreement of debate. Our Word is final.”

That’s not much of a way to run a government.

Here’s the funny thing…if King George had been right during his “Mission Accomplished” speech a few years back, if major comat operations were actually over, we wouldn’t be going through this. But he screwed it up from the get-go, and now he’s emboldend his critics and given them an opportunity to chime in. That doesn’t make those critics wrong…it’s Georgie’s fault for not getting it done right in the first place.

The situation Georgie is in is the same one I face in my corporate gig. If what I tell my management I will do happens the way I say, no problems. If what I say turns out to be wrong, and I have to spend more money, take more time or reduce service, then people come out of the woodwork to nit-pick me.

Except as best as I can remember, nobody has died when I messed up, and I never really lied about the things that I wanted to do, just so I could do them.

So how about this: shut up and sit down. You had your chance. Republicans all over the place, running the government, the balance of power was fully in your vest pocket. And what happened…a big mess.

It’s a big mess Jim. A big mess. A really big mess that will have lasting repercussions, for generations. Lil’ George has really screwed up this time. It’s not Kennedy’s fault. It’s not Clinton’s fault. It’s not Pelosi’s fault.

It’s King George’s fault, and his alone. He wasn’t qualified for the job, he listened to the wrong people and now he doesn’t have a clue how to fix it.

By getalife

January 10, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

Jim,

You should stay the course with bashing State politicians.

The surge has been tried twice and failed.

The battle of Baghdad is going after Sunni insurgents.

Iran is loving it. Again.

w is betting all out on Marlarki to go after Al-Sadr.

He will not and the Shiite thugs will run Iraq.

By benita

January 10, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

It is amazing how it is someone elses fault why this or that isn’t working. The democrats and republics have there own agenda and it doesn’t include what the American people want or need.

Where are the additional 20,000 troops going to come from? The only way to do that is to bring back the draft. Those in support of Bush and being in Iraq aren’t running to join armed forces.

It is time to bring the troops home, they are NOT winning, let the Iraqi people finally do what they should have done years ago, fight for themselves.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this

Peter,

Here’s that link I screwed up which is to a Jim Wooten column

Like he said, freedom doesn’t come without a fight. And of course he is 100% right in his comments to you.

By Staceye

January 10, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

Bush is so quick to send our loved ones over to Hell to die…why won’t he send one or both of those drunk @ss twins of his…make them useful for something! This is his daddy’s unfinished business over some oil. How many more US Troops have to die before we as Americans get this fool we sadly have to call President (Commander in Chief), out of office and bring what’s left of our loved ones home where they belong. Where is it our job to police the whole world? We need to take care of home first befoe we go telling the rest of the world how things should be done! This guy has made a mockery of what it means to hold that Oval Office.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

How like you Bush cultists to think that anyone is happy about the results of the idiocy implemented by the current administration. No, people oppose this craziness because we realize it’s futile, underplanned, and strategically stupid. It’s sad to watch a train wreck, and no one takes pleasure in being right when it’s about something so horrible.

The only gleeful part is knowing that we’re moving away from the maniac philosophy of the White House. It’s the same sort of glee felt when the fire department arrives and starts hosing down a burning building.

By Bag-o-donuts

January 10, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

On 9/11/01 the USA was attacked by Osama bin Laden. He is alive and free today supposedly in the mountains of Pakistan where we have minimal military presence. Go figure.

Iraq was a war about WMD, then about Freedom is on the March, then about fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, then about a global war against the Islamo-facists, then democracy in the Middle East, then about stay the course, then we never said stay the course…what is the new slogan for this week…oh yeah, Surge!

It’s time to get real about the Iraq war, Iraq occupation or whatever you want to call it. The military and the soldiers have done an outstanding job with the chaotic situation they have faced. But because of lousy planning and poor execution by the architects of the war and their successors, nearly 4 years later Iraq has become a huge turd in the punchbowl. Its time to clean out the punchbowl.

Jim, blaming the left for current state of Iraq may make you feel better, but that blame is miss-placed and you are well aware of it. If you support this war/occupation then get your head out of the sand and make an argument for it. Call your elected representatives and explain why we should stay or increase the military numbers there. Write columns that explain why we should be there. Clearly explain the current strategy because there are very few that actually understand what our strategy is at the moment. Blaming the new majority party for the mess Iraq is easy, but factually hollow.

When you, other conservatives, liberals, moderates or libertarians are ready to take a ride in a convertible from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone then I will admit that we are making progress in Iraq. Until then, you may keep blaming the cut and run crowd. How about finding Osama, Cutting his head off and Running over his body with road grader. Yeah, that’s my cut and run philosophy.

How about you Mr. Cheney—-ready to take that ride in the convertible?

By Steve

January 10, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

You are exactly correct in your analysis that “Twenty thousand troops may not be sufficient. A higher number deployed throughout Baghdad may be the needed force. That, though, should be left to the generals.” All of the generals now there in command say - and say so at significant risk to their careers - that more troops ARE NOT THE ANSWER - they do not want more troops!!!! So Bushs’ solution to this is to replace the generals in command until he can find someone who agrees with his preconcieved solution. Good solution.

Secondly, Ted Kennedy did happen to hit the nail (it does happen occasionally) on the head with this one “It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq.” Folks what do you think you are going to “win” by continuing to slug away? A stable democratic government? Here is a real newsflash - the people of Iraq DONT WANT A STABLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT!!! We can set up and install the absolute perfect stable system (given a massive amount of US resources) but if the spark, the original impetus , the desire doesnt come from within from the people as of a collective whole of Iraq - it wont work. Iraq is not a stable homogonus group of people who formed a government. The borders drawn by the British politicals who created Iraq included people who had NO historical ties to each other, but in fact hated each other - throwing the Sunni, the Shiite and the Kurds together and calling them a country will not work. The main goal of the Sunni is to kill Shiites (Kurds too)not form a democracy with them - just like the main goal of the Shiites is to kill Sunnis (Kurds too - all sides seem to enjoy killing the Kurds) not to form a democracy. The only thing they like better than killing each other is killing Americans. Throwing more Americans into the crosshairs is not the solution. You cannot force an idea into peoples minds - it has to be there in the first place - if it is there in the first place we can help nurture it and make it grow into a democracy but it has to start with them and it aint there. Our military cannot “win” an ideoligical battle of minds - we can kill everyone involve if that is our desire but you cant make em want to get along with each other. The sooner Americans face that reality the sooner solutions will appear.

And one last one - if you really want to fight terrorism then lets refocus on Afghanstan where there was and still is a very viable link to terrorism that needs to be killed - not bargained with, not negoiated with - KILL IT.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish @ 9:33…

That is so tired, that excuse.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We invaded it for no legitimate reason. The people that you are referring to now as Terrorists are Iraquis that are waging a civil war…a civil war that we enabled by destablizing that country.

Again, repeate after me, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaeda & the Taliban. They were in a completely different country.

Good googly moogly, the evidence of this is overwhelming. What’s it take?

By whynot

January 10, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

The high comedy of Jim and all his acolytes never ceases to amaze. You should all get together and read a few books on colonial wars and learn how they ALWAYS end. But as absolutists, I doubt any of you are interested in knowing what anybody who understands history has known all along. The war was doomed from the start.

So keep pointing fingers and blame everybody but yourselves for the failure to see things clearly from the beginning. It’s everybody fault but your own. The party of personal responsibility? What a joke.

By Mrs. RepubLady

January 10, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

You lazy fornicating liberals waiting for a handout from hard working Americans have been whining about the economy for weeks and I am sick of it. War is good for the economy and here is your proof. You cant have it both ways so stop whining and get a job and put the pipe down and repent you stupid anti American liberal scum!

By getalife

January 10, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

Kennedy is right.

w spewed he listens to his generals.

Just another lie, he purged them and had to get a Admiral to stay the course.

Cut the funding.

Period.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

I agree with Jim’s comment that everyone has a right to an opinion.That’s independent of their (or their families) miliary service.

But some of the “Chickenhawk” mudslinging is a direct response to those who question the patriotism or decency of those of us who question the war.

Call it the Saxby Chambliss Syndrome.

By Peter

January 10, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

Dear Jim,

We all have had family that served in “real wars” around the world, and you in Vietnam, were truely serving our country.

My dad served on Guam as an Army photographer, as a result I have origional pictures of the before and after of Hiroshima, plus the signing of the treaty on the aircraft carrier, as well as many day to day pics of life on the Army Airforce base at that time.

He was a great guy who like you served his country, for that I am proud of both you and him.

But I have to disagree with you and Bush on this matter, it seems like the decision to invade was made in haste, and the plan was and IS very flawed.

The result is today’s problem……there is no clear victory in sight, and the loses both to American soldiers and Iraqi Civilians are mounting at an alarming rate.

I also think the true numbers of loss have been squashed by the Bush war machine.

Bush didn’t think this through, and we see that by the results. His reasons for going are questionable at best, and this really stinks very much like the Iran Contra Affair, which his daddy and the playes such as Cheney were very much a part of.

Bush’s mistakes cost many lives, huge financial waste, and the big contracts given without bid as a result of “creating” this war IS an out rage.

Everyone has an opinion, but your’s seem to be very much in the minority of this country, the bind leading the bind still cannot see.

Big money has been made off this war, and frankly that is what it has been about…..raping the American tax payers money, and giving it out to buddies, and then acting like we are going to spread Democracy to that region. Also using religion as a tool…….”Bush prayed to his God before Invading Iraq”.

I seriously doubt any god would want anyone to kill, or start a war.

Remember Jim, “you can’t back WAR and be Pro life”……killing is killing no matter what the age.

All sides already hate each other there, and there are probably 10 more Saddam’s waiting to pounce and take over when they can!

Have you forgotten all side have been at this for 100s of years? These are tribal people, and that is how they wish to stay.

Are you telling me a country that allows the beating and raping of it’s women, and children a country that wants to be in a democracy?

It was a bad move, but greed leads many to poor decisions!

By benita

January 10, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

Bag-o-donuts and Jim’s distractor, you both are so right. I am a muslim and want to tell everyone, that after 9-11, if Osama was the culprit, that is where our focus needed to be. He is the one that we should have seen being hanged, not Hussein. But,no, he is sitting back laughing at us, planning another attack probably and wonder who will be blamed for it then because he knows we won’t come after him.

By Van

January 10, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

The left is again going back to its 1970’s play book. I am sure the left feels it had a victory in the 70’s when they forced us out of VietNam by cutting the funding for the war effort. I am sure they were proud of how America and her allies retreated from the roof tops. I am sure they swell with pride as their friends from Hanoi lived up to their end of the agreement.

And it appears to this old guy, that they are preparing to do the same again.

look at us, we pulled our troops out by crippling the President. Aren’t we glad only 3 million Iraqis will die because of our pull out. Look how the New Extremist Iraq is a model for other Al Qeada terrorists in Africa and other countries.

Sonabitches then, sonabitches now.

By ckt

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

“That, though, should be left to the generals.”

Whom, as you may know, said that a troop surge (which has, incidentally, occurred multiple times in the last four years - this is again nothing new) was unneeded and would not help. They were recently replaced.

Another incidence of a moron replacing those around him who disagree with those that will repeat the (ever diminishing and faint) party line.

Jim. You sound like an idiot. Please, just calm down and cut your loses while you can. Iraq is a mess, the region has been completely destabilized, and W is trying nothing new.

By Support the Troops!

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

Support the troops, you traitors!

By Support the Troops!

January 10, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

No, support the troops for real!

By Buy Danish

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

Jim’s a distractor,

I guess it’s time to refresh your memory (if you even have one.):

Item One

Item Two

Item three

Item four

Item five

Item six

Anticipating your response, I’m not going to rely on the phony 9/11 Commission report’s findings, particularly since Sandy Berger destroyed ORIGINAL documents before he testified, and Jamie “The Wall” Gorelick was on the committee.

By @@

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

Jim:

Buy Danish’s references at 9:01 clearly point out the SOP of the Democratic party during times of war.

Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Despicable SOP Sons of Polls.

Oh…and add those Republicans opposed to commitments in Iraq to the SOPs Stupid Opportunistic Politicians.

PWC&C Politicians with Commitment & Convictions…that’s what I am supporting.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Hey Van,

Where’s Viet Nam today? How many more Americans died after we pulled out?

Just shut up. Go away. Go on over to Bagdhad.

We f’ed up Irag good this time. Our dumb-arse daddy’s boy of a President has really screwed it up. Just him.

It wasn’t Clinton. Kennedy didn’t do it. Pelosi didn’t do it.

Bush did it. He f’ed it up. Big time. The whole world knows it. Everyone.

He thought he could just waltz on over there and have everyone bow down to him, but it’s not working that way is it? He didn’t undertand the situation, didn’t have a plan, and doesn’t know when to cut his losses.

Jebus, he’s an idiot. We got a frigging dumb-arse frat boy f’ing up the whole world. Man we’re dumb.

By Support the Troops!

January 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Van, why do you hate the troops? Why do you hate democracy? Oh yeah, the knowledge that blood is pouring forth from live people, making them dead people keeps you going, doesn’t it. Life is good, eh Van?

By benita

January 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Everyone one of us support the troops!!!!

That’s why they need to be home. I hope when they finaly do come home that Bush has made it so they can get all the medical and psychological help they will need.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Van,

When Ted Kennedy compares Iraq to Vietnam, he’s right in the sense that he is aiding and abetting the enemy all over again.

Peter,

Changing tactics now I see. What a bunch of disgraceful phonies you all are.

benita,

Do you speak Arabic? If you do, then maybe you could get a job for our government translating intercepted communications, or tracking terrorist websites for us. That would be a big help. Thanks!

By @@

January 10, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Oops! Gotta change my last post.

PWI&F, that’s what I’m supporting.

The leftists will have a hayday with the commitment & convictions.

They’re so predictable. The strangest things make them salivate (drool).

By Peter

January 10, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

To BENITA……..such a true statement……I wonder how much is in the WAR Budget to help the soldiers that will be messed up in the head after this war……

How many movies have been made about that same situation after the Vietnam War?

HA HA HA to all the Chicken Hawks….

Let’s be told what we are going to do for the poor folks that come home after being in Iraq, what will we do for these Brave Americans then?

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

@@ 10:12…

Shut up. Just shut up.

Rockefeller, Kennedy and Kerry didin’t get us into this mess. Bush did. George Bush started the frigging thing.

It was his idea, he executed it and now it’s a big arse mess. Gerald Ford called it the biggest strategic blunder in America’s history.

George did this. It’s his friggin mess.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a distractor,

Why don’t YOU shut up and read the links I gave you instead of squawking like an ignorant parrot?

By Ashleigh

January 10, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

There’s a very good chance my fiancee will be going back because of this crap. I can’t imagine him leaving and not coming back. I hate thinking about it, but it’s always there. He’s the biggest right-winger I’ve ever met (and being a liberal, I’ve met a lot of them) and he doesn’t even agree with this war. This absolutely disgusts me because his unit may be getting deployed again in August.

I can’t wait for Bush to get out of office. I’m so sick of this. I freakin’ hate that guy. What a moron. He screwed it up royally the first time, why not go for a second time around?

By MELO

January 10, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

There will be no cut in funding because that hurts the troops and America and not Bush! A surge in trooops now is late. this should have happened 3/4 years ago when the good general who said so was let go.Bush as always is too slow and DUMB to learn anything. General Casey, who was in charge in Iraq as late as Nov06 is opposed to the idea of troop surge. Where is he now? Stay the course, thats the name of this “new” strategy. We wish you Jim,Bush and your other slow thinkers in the Republican camp success on the ‘new stay the course’ strategy.

By Curious Observer

January 10, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Take as a given that there will be a surge. Oh, there will be a lot of posturing in opposition, but Congress has no real power to prevent it. After all, any attempt to cut off funding would be political suicide for the Democrats. It would be trumpeted as proof that the Democrats don’t “support the troops.”

The real test of this revised strategy will be how Iraqi and US troops handle the army of Muqtada al-Sadr. Right now, it is all very easy and politically popular to launch an attack on the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad. But Maliki owes his position to the 43 or so Shiites loyal to al-Sadr.

If Maliki balks at an attack on the Mahdi army of al-Sadr, in much the same way he demanded removal of road blocks to al-Sadr’s enclave, then we will have proof of the utter hopelessness of this new strategy. And if al-Sadr’s supporters respond to any attack on that army by pulling support for Maliki and thus bringing down the government, we will have proof that the propped-up government is merely a Shiite tool and that our troops are being used as part of a civil war aimed at ensuring Shiite dominance.

I am not ready to join the chorus of those in utter opposition to the surge. Let’s see whether it works. We will assuredly know within the next six months. The lives of our troops are at risk anyway, surge or no surge. The surge can serve as a final test of whether this war is indeed winnable in the sense of its ensuring an Iraqi government that can stand on its own.

By Bunny

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

Bush will send troops immediately. He won’t request the supplemental funds to pay for them until late February or March. Regardless of theirs feelings about the troop “surge”, Congressional Democrats and Americans can’t and won’t vote or support cutting off funds for troops that are already in Iraq. Contrary to Mr. Wooten’s statement, cutting off funds is not an option…not at this time anyway.

By Brian Curtis

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

Blind hatred of those who are opposing Bush’s War won’t change reality. The reality is still the same: the war was wrong, is uwinnable, and has nothing to do with America’s security. It’s a lost cause.

Railing against those who point out these inarguable truths won’t change anything. And neither will calling them all “leftists” (interesting that 3/4 of the country is now considered “leftist in spirit” simply because they acknowledge reality).

The reality won’t change by stubbornly denying it or by wasting more American lives. Iraq is Bush’s crowning failure, and always will be. There’s no saving it… no, not even if you stick your fingers in your ears and scream “NO-NO-NO-NO” at the top of your lungs.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish…

You can dig up all the garbage conspiracy theories you want, all the latent Clinton-bashing too. The 9/11 Commission, nor any other credible report, has found a link between Iraq and Al Quaieda.

No WMD either.

George Bush did this. It’s his fault.

Not Bill Clinton. Not John Kerry. Not Ted Kennedy.

So yeah…send more troops. Send more money. I’m with it. 100 percent. Cause I’m an American and I “support our troops”.

Go for it. Keep digging.

By @@

January 10, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Jims a Distrator:

Calm down.

The “truthout” about noble (cough, cough) Democrats is a hard pill to choke down.

Cover your nose and mouth to avoid infection.

By jim d

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

The shrub war?

Well, guess if congress might cut his funding to that one we can always continue bombing in elsewhere.

Can we say Somalia

By Rod

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

Bush has screwed up the Iraq war enough - starting with the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. It’s about time we got some people with common sense to take over.

Bush’s answer - send more US Soldiers to die. I bet if his daughters were in the Army, he’d have a different attitude.

Pathetic, egotistical President.

By CJ

January 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

President Bush is the Decider, and as usual, he’s decided wrong. In the early years of the war experts were telling Bush to send more troops. He stubbornly refused. Now that the Iraq is lost, and it is, most experts (yes, there are exceptions) are telling him to begin drawing them down – not overnight – but over time. He refused again. Bush seems determined to do the opposite of what most experts advise (by experts, I mean most former Secretaries of State, UN Ambassadors, Presidents, Defense Secretaries, Generals, …). Jim might call that resolve. I call it mad.

Jim is correct when he writes that Democrats believe that all is lost in Iraq. So do the American people — not because real solutions can’t be found, but because the President refuses to explore them. Despite urging from the large majority of foreign policy experts to the contrary, he refuses to talk with Syria and Iran. He also has effectively ignored the Israel/Palestinian dispute that can only be resolved with American leadership and which inflames hatred in the region. In addition, the American people won’t sacrifice by supporting a draft when the numbers tell us that we actually need hundreds of thousands more troops in Iraq and by agreeing to pay for such troops by reversing Bush’s tax cuts (i.e. “it’s my money”).

Yes, Bush should ignore the polls. On the other hand, he should listen to those who are hell of a lot more experienced and intelligent than he is. He doesn’t. Our President thinks that the prophesied “end times” are near, and he’s doing his part to inflame the situation in the Middle East to bring it about. As long as the Decider is deciding, we’re screwed in Iraq. I assure you, Liberals and Democrats aren’t “gleeful” about it.

By Cletus Snow

January 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Ted kennedy the gutless wonder should simply sit down and shut up, his whole life has been spent hiding from responability. It started at Chappaquiddick Island with Mary Jo Kopechne death, Ted ran away and hid until there was no way he could deny driving the car. ted was a drunken coward then when he spent the night on the phone with his lawyers trying to squirm out of responsability. Most of Ted Kennedy’s life has been spent in very much the same manner.

By getoveryourself

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

The audacity of many of those on the right is stifling. This is a war that was led by a Republican administration and approved by a Republican Congress…and conservatives have the gall to point fingers at Democrats?? Where in the hell has this war gotten us? Seriously, someone speak up and refrain from using corny bumper sticker expressions! This war has gone longer than our involvement in WWII.

The most low-down thing was to send brave young men and women into a hostile place without a clear-cut plan. Think about next time you place that red-white-blue ribbon magnet on your car proclaiming your support for the troops!

By Dusty

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

Jim,

You really stirred ‘em up this morning. Every cut’n’runner in these parts wants a piece of you for wanting to do the right thing.

They want to protect America by running.

They honor our troops by disgracing them.

They belittle Americans who use the word “Patriotism”.

They question everyone’s military record as to whether their opinions are valid.

They apply every slanderous rumor to the president but overlook the truths about their own representatives.

Their Pledge of Allegiance is written on a white flag which they wave bravely.

I will be kind to them and only call them cowards.

By Staceye

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

Ms. Republady…..war is good for the economy???? Since when do we value the ecomony over the value of human lives? That is what is worng with the world. Now what is rreally good for the ecomony is smarter choices from our political leaders. They make the big bucks and get the priviledges of being in office..now make them work for it….use their brains to come up with better solutions other than the blood of Americans for monetary gain!

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

@@,

I give a crap about Democrats. They’re just as big a bunch of lying, cheating, stealing opportunitsts as the Republicans.

This back and forth on this blog between right and left is for chumps.

They’re all crooks.

But the fact of the matter at hand is that George Bush started a war for no reason. He created this problem. The right has no credibiltiy on this, and should expect to be attacked on their failures. And that’s what they are…failures.

We defeated Germany, Japan and Italy across three continents quicker than this boob has been able to stabalize one friggin city.

And me b*** about it has nothing to do with his failures. He has failed. George Bush. Failed.

Get used to it. All your sympathetic media trying to change the subject over to Kennedy drowning that girl 100 years ago and Bill Clinton’s zipper woes won’t change that fact.

George Bush failed.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Buy,

Never mind Benita, what’s stopping you from studying arabic and translating a few recordings or websites?

Seriously, we really need that nowadays.

By Richard

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

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We invaded it for no legitimate reason. The people that you are referring to now as Terrorists are Iraquis that are waging a civil war…a civil war that we enabled by destablizing that country.

Repeate after me, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaeda & the Taliban. They were in a completely different country. Bush is busy continuing his quest for Iraq and doesn’t give a damn about the true enemy - Osama.

Bush couldn’t find his head in the morning if it wasn’t stuck up his a$$.

By Jim Wooten

January 10, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

@@ at 10:12: Sons of Polls. I like that. Some decisions are, really, about the next generation and polls don’t matter.

Dusty, you’re right about those on the other side of this issue being stirred up today. I’ll leave it to you and other like-minded souls here to defend the fort. I’m off to hear the State of the State.

By Rod

January 10, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten is a Communist!!!

The title of this blog is: “On Iraq, polls be damned.” Yeah, according to Jim - to hell with what Americans want. He’s part of the 26% that agree with Bush and he thinks they should rule - because he says so.

Americans have learned Bush’s an idiot and don’t trust him or his staff any more. Jim doesn’t care about anything except “bashing the left.” Yeah Jim, you’re bright. Why don’t you sign up and join the 20,000 additional soldiers in Iraq if you believe in it so much?

By jim d

January 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Let me get this straight.

Questioning the commander in Chief’s motives is disrespectful to the troops under his command?

By Jim's a Distractor

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

Dusty,

You know what I wish?

I wish that George had been right during his “mission accomplished” speech.

I wish he had done it then….how many years ago was that?

But he didn’t. It’s not over. He has no plan. People are dying because he can’t admit that he made, in Gerald Ford’s opinion, the biggest strategic blunder in American history.

So my wish isn’t coming true. I don’t care to have my head buried in the sand with you.

Reality sucks. George is a failure. This “war” is a mess.

And there are more than 3,000 American familes out there who will agree with me.

By IC

January 10, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

How to win a war.

1) remove all troops.

2) turn that piece of sand into a huge sheet of class.

By Buy Danish

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

Jim’s a distractor,

I’m going to do a little arm-chair psychology on you.

You still blame mommy and daddy for everything that’s wrong in your life, don’t you? Can’t accept responsibility for any role that you played, or just learn to move on and get over it.

Now you are projecting your miserable life on to Bush - who represents a Big Daddy, in that he is our President and liberals rely on government for their own happiness, but he’s a Daddy who won’t allow your Utopian pipe dreams to be implemented.

In short, you suffer from Bush derangement syndrome.

By Rod

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

Dusty - you’re pathetic.

We’re in this situation because a Republican President and a Republican Congress decided to attack Iraq for no good reason, instead of going after the Taliban and Osama (different country than Iraq). Now, the whole world knows what a screw-up it was and Bush doesn’t have the balls to admit it.

His Napoleonic ego has him sending more and more troops into this pathetic war.

You’re an idiot for saying that those of us who want to save US Soldiers lives are cowards. You - Dusty - and your Republicans blowholes are the real cowards for not admitting your mistake and taking action to not endanger any more lives.

We don’t disgrace our troops by wanting to bring them back. You disgrace them by leaving them there to die as insignificant specs.

You - Dusty - are a disgusting, pathetic coward.

By getoveryourself

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

Buy Danish,

What the hell? Are you serious? Taking responsibility? Tell that to W. Bush and his perpetual state of denial make Baghdad Bob look sane and rational.

By Renee

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

Anyone who supports this war is dishonoring our brave soldiers by wanting them to be left to die for no reason.

Bring back our soldiers - and send Bush!

By Rightist

January 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Jim…thank you for the support of our troups. I just read that the Dems are planning a “symbolic” vote against the President’s war plan. Don’t they realize they are messing with our young men and women’s LIVES? We need more troups to finish the job, train the Iraqi forces and stabilize the region. Plain and simple. Why can’t the liberals see this?

Oh I forgot…they’re Sheeple. They’ll believe anything they’re told by politicians and ignore the words of the people who are ACTUALLY THERE!

Frustrating.

By time for the truth

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

What a bunch of pathetic crap is being stirred around in here today!

President George W. Bush is the premiere President of all time. Cut your b*** about him - finally! However, it may be time to start downsizing the military action and finding an end to all of this. Sending an additional 20,000 men (honorable right-thinking men) is a bit drastic.

By Aquagirl

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

Oh, Dusty and Buy are tanking up on the kool-aid since Jim’s going to be busy. But the same squawks of “Communists! Cut and Runners!” just won’t help the Bush groupies anymore. George doesn’t have the blank check any more to try and indulge his utopian pipe dreams.

IC @ 11:00,

Now that’s a war. Nice to see a realist here.

By Jim's a Distractor

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

Danish,

I’m going to do a little arm-chair psychology on you:

You’re an idiot.

No WMD. No link to Osama (who’s still foot loose and fancy free, btw). We’re occupiers. There’s a religion based civil war on. Americans are dying. George has no plan. He’s spending my money. Halliburton is taking it.

Three and a half years and counting. How long will this take? How much of my money is he going to spend? When’s he going to wake up? When are you going to get your head out of the sand?

And get this…I voted for Bush. Twice.

FU.

By Steve

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

dusty - think very carefully about what you say.

Stopping doing the wrong thing is not running it is stopping to continue to do the wrong thing.

I’m not sure how you think that is disgracing the troops.

“Patriotism” two comments - “Of course the little people dont want war,but you tell them they are being attacked, who is to blame and you accuse those who disagree of being unpatriotic.” Herman Goerring Nuremberg 1945 and secondly the quote “Questioning your leaders is the highest form of patriotism” Thomas Jefferson Who do you think is a little more in line with the meaning of being patriotic?

Every American has a right and duty to question and to state their opinions regardless of any previous military service. But just so you know - here is mine - United States Military Academy - active duty 12 years - reserve after that - one son United States Air Force - other son United States Marine.

Who voted for who and who has skeltons in which closet has nothing to do (or at least it shouldnt) with doing what is right and in the best interests of this nation.

And finally - calling people names for stating their opinions is the most UNAMERICAN thing I can think of -trying to squash opinions that you dont like is called communism not democracy. Stating opinions is vitally important for a healthy democracy to survive - lets try to keep the name calling to the playgrounds.

By Buy Danish

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

Dusty,

Now J’SAD thinks he and Cindy Sheehan speak for all of the families of fallen soldiers.

These are the real Gold Star Mothers.

This is the plagiarized version that Cindy Sheehan runs.

By Richard

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

Rightist - you say you’re worried about our soldier’s lives - then in the next line you want to send more to die?

Damn, you’re one stupid righty.

By Sgt. (name withheld)

January 10, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

I recently got back from a tour in Iraq and have got to say that any of you who think the troops are supporting this war - ARE WRONG. For every soldier there who supports it, there are 10 of us who don’t. We don’t believe in the cause and pray every day that we’ll be able to come back home. There is no motivation there, everyone is tired and wanting to come back. I personally have killed 5 people.

I’ve been informed that I will be returning if the 20,000 troops are approved. I pray to God that the Democrats say hell no.

By Rightist

January 10, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

A question for the Libs: Do you realize that if we DON’T take the war on terror to the places that harbor and fund terrorists, the war will come HERE? Has that crossed your minds?

Nope, the Sheeple thing again. I guess they’re too busy watching Oprah and The View to exercise their teensy little brains.

I’m glad President Bush is staying the course. Think for one second about the world you will leave to your children if we don’t do something NOW.

Then again, go back to your bon-bons, girly TV shows, and welfare life. The troups don’t really care. They’ll take care of you no matter what.

At least someone cares.

By getalife

January 10, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Well Jim,

It will be up to the next President because w will pass his disaster to the next President. Its the will of the people be damned.

This will give the Dems total power in 08.

By William Fielder

January 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Yes, we are finally on the right track, but we must follow through, not interfere with the coming tough military decisions. Note that the new counterinsurgency guidelines are being implemented, and they should be given a chance to work. We have already won the war and achieved victory. Now we must win the peace. We can only lose by leaving too soon. whf.

By Richard

January 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Hey Rightist - do you realize there are terrorists in every country in the world?!?!?!

Guess you support the US attacking every country on the planet!

By Rod

January 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

What a stupid comment by Rightist! There are terrorists everywhere. You can’t just attack a country because you want to (which is exactly what Bush did). Here’s an idea for you: attack the terrorists (not just a country). If we were to do that, we’d have gone after Osama. But Bush has let him skip away.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Too bad Wooten’s gone for the day. I wish he would write a column explaining what victory in Iraq would look like. Since the majority of Iraquis are Shi’ites, if there were a true democracy the fundamentalists would be voted in and there’ll be another Fundamentalist Muslim government in the Mid-East. So to all of you Bush supporters, what does victory in Iraq look like to you?

By JK

January 10, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Same argument, different day. You chickenhawk people care more about sticking your noses in the air and claiming to be right than you do about the lives that are sacrificed for your lies, or the country you claim to love. You defend lies with more lies, with rationalization, with irrelevant history references, and with the claim that you love America, when you reject everything we truly stand for in favor of your guy. Your loyalty is to him, and to defending your sorry, regrettable votes for the decider in chief — not to America. You can screech from now ‘till the next millenium but you’ll NEVER be loyal to the America I believe in. YOU are the traitors. I no longer acknowledge you as my fellow Americans. You are just noise with no truth and no meaning.

By Camus

January 10, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Wooten writes: “Is America’s future a ballot-box referendum only for those who serve and their kin?”

Since you’ve already declared that the opinion of the masses is irrelevant, what difference does it make who votes?

Wooten, again: “A higher number deployed throughout Baghdad may be the needed force. That, though, should be left to the generals.”

At the outset of this war, any general brave enough to disagree with the Rummy and Bush approach — which was to go to war with insufficient troops — quickly found their military career in the ditch. Let the generals decide? Fine. The Joint Chiefs have opposed this escalation idea since it first appeared, as does Gen. Casey (oops, another career in the ditch!).

Bush could care a damn about what the generals want unless it is what he wants them to want. In fact, he is actively denigrating the generals and the troops as he tries to sell his escalation, blaming them for his own failures. But I suppose pointing out that the “Commander in Chief” actively disrespects the military makes me one of those America-haters who wishes for our defeat. Just like those dirty hippies Murtha, Webb, about a dozen Republican Senators, hell even Oliver North — all of whom have explicitly denounced this escalation as a crucial mistake and contrary to US interests.

The Dems gained their current position in Congress primarily based on public disgust with Bush’s incompentence and deceit over Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Americans wish us to leave Iraq and distrust/disapprove of Bush’s handling of the affair. There are just a handful of dead-enders left, the approximately 23% of you who still cling to your Bush hero-cult and refuse to see the damage this incompetent has done to US prestige, military strength and economic health.

The idea that Bush/Rove are not plugged into and utterly reactive to polling data is laughable even by Wooten’s typical standard of sycophantism. Perhaps he has escalated the art to ‘psycho-fantacism’.

By Nikki

January 10, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

“Our President thinks that the prophesied “end times” are near, and he’s doing his part to inflame the situation in the Middle East to bring it about.”

I don’t know whether CJ was being facetious when he wrote that sentence, but I’m actually starting to believe it’s true. Many from the evangelical right think that the stories in “Left Behind” series of books are accurate and imminent. They also believe that Bush’s actions are consistent with God’s plan. So does Bush. President Bush told the truth when he said in an interview that he doesn’t ask for advice from his Dad, but instead, listens to a “Higher Father”. I fear that he actually listens exclusively by reading the Book of Revelations.

By Ashleigh

January 10, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Hey, Sgt. I totally agree with you. I never once heard my SO or any of the guys in his unit support what was going on over there. They’re borderline hitting post traumatic stress and it’s hard for them to adjust to American living now. If you ask him and the guys in his unit, all they cared about was going back home and they weren’t proud of what they did. He is a sniper and killed a lot of people while he was in Iraq and will tell you that what Bush is doing is wrong.

By Buy Danish

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

Let’s see who suffers from BDS right here on this blog:

Ashleigh (I’m so sick of this. I freakin’ hate that guy ),Rod, getoveryourself, JAD, too many to name.

The only one who’s making sense on the Left side of the aisle today is Curious Observer.

Aquagirl,

What a stupid, snotty comment. I had enough trouble learning French. Arabic is a very difficult language to learn, and believe me if I thought I could, I would.

I thought that maybe Benita the Muslim Senorita, who pretends to care so much, might be able to help bring the troops home quicker by offering her services to our Country (for a fee of course).

I have an ex-friend who speaks Arabic fluently and has spent much of her life in the Middle East. Unfortunately she’s a lefty. You know what she does for a living? Does she work for us? Nope. She works for Al Jazeera. And they wonder why we don’t think they’re patriotic.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

By all means, let’s take the war on terror to the places that fund and harbor the terrorists! Like, maybe, Afghanistan?

Oh, sorry, we’re too busy in Iraq to get the job there done. And N. Korea is rapidly gaining the ability to launch a conventional strike. So is Iran.

And you Bush cultists…check in with Pat Tillman’s brother for an opinion of someone who was “over there”. I guess he’s just a sheeple too.

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Well, Buy Danish,

I get it now. According to liberals here, surrender is now called correcting a mistake. If you believe in your country and the troops, you are drinking “Kool-Aid”. There are no terrorists in Iraq or Somalia so our troops should be home playing tiddly-winks. And furthermore, Cindy Sheehan has a halo she awarded herself.

How did I miss all of THAT?

By @@

January 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Well thank you Jim. Within the privacy of my keyboard here at home, I’m more inclined to hit the “B” making it SOBs (Sons of bureaucracy) but “bureaucracy” is such a dirty word.

I am intrigued by The Man Who’ll Lead the Surge.

Diplomacy and positioning in the Persian Gulf.

Makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Is there a plan for the “big drip” out of Iran?

By Saint Joan

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

Look, Jim Wooten, you are a lemming. To the sea!

By Joe L

January 10, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Dusty are you under 40 and not enlisted in the military? If so there’s only one coward here and that’s the one advocating more Americans blood being spilled for their enjoyment and political ignorance.

By Buy Danish

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

Richard,

Al Qaeda was in the U.S in places like FLorida. Why would you morons think they weren’t in Iraq?

JAD,

You mention Haliburton and you have the gall to talk about “conspiracy theories”???

The DEMOCRATS urged Clinton to take military action against Hussein because of WMDS. That is a FACT not a conspiracy theory.

I’m outta here.

By getalife

January 10, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Wingnuts,

Insert American people in place of “liberals” and you may have an ounce of credibility.

You will see the gop turn on w about Iraq to save their jobs.

Kennedy’s plan to get them to vote is straight out of the gop playbook.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Buy, it’s the height of snottiness to tell others to do something that you admit to lacking the brainpower to accomplish.

It’s interesting that you disagree with someone who you think is smarter than you are. Care to think about that?

Didn’t think so.

Rhetorical question—- Good Lord, what possessed you to learn the language of the original Cut and Runners? I admire your mastery of another language, but speaking French might make me physically ill. Wussy truffle-hunters.

By Captain Freedom

January 10, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

The Captain wishes to point out that I gave Mr Wooten the idea for this column two days ago.

While the Captain applauds Mr Wooten’s tireless defense of Our Leader’s Inerrancy, he would appreciate credit where credit is due.

By LivingRight

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

“doing what he thinks is in the nation’s best interest”

Haven’t you morons figured out that this administration doesn’t care about the NATIONS best interest?

From HalliburtonWatch.org: Oct. 2006

*In the same month that we lost a record number of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens lost many more, Vice President Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that “if you look at the overall situation they’re doing remarkably well.”

Now we know that the Darth was speaking about Halliburton.

This week the Halliburton’s third-quarter net income rose 22 percent with third-quarter revenue rising 19 percent to $5.8 billion.*

By Van

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

To all the whining lefties,

When a country engages in a war on terror and the media paints war as dark and evil as possible, we lose. It happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

When the military is forced to fight a politically correct war, we lose. It happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s, and during Billy Boy’s excursion into Somalia.

As with the past, this war will be lost by the media and its insistance that we fight “fair” while the other side can use any methods possible.

If we use this “surge” to change the rules of engagement and fight like we actually want to win(the media and the feds), we might achieve something. When Socialist Pelosi at the money’s helm, I am resigned to defeat for our military at the hands of the left - again.

The fine men and women in uniform have the worse job known to mankind. Imagine fighting an enemy and being afraid of your countrymen and the media will paint you as a baby killers. It happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s and I fear it is happening now.

So for all the lefties out there, you can start your victory parade as soon as Pelosi and her cabal yank the troops out of Iraq and the mass murdering begins in Bagadad.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

No one has answered my question: What would victory in Iraq look like? Here’s another one: How can we tell we’ve won?

By Captain Freedom

January 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

On a side note, just more proof from Tired of the Truth that he is either a fake Brit or a fake conservative. Perhaps both.

Yes, Our Leader Bush is indeed a man of rare Perfection, as ordained by the Almighty. However, the statement that “President George W. Bush is the premiere President of all time” is simply untrue.

The definition of “premiere” is this : * first; initial; principal: a premiere showing *. Any schoolchild knows that George Bush is the 43rd President. You must have confused George Bush with George Washington. Or perhaps English is a second language for TFTT? Or is he historically ignorant? Both?

But let’s take the charitable view that Troof is suggesting that Our Leader is the “premier” (First in status or importance), and accept that he is merely a victim of poor typing skills or linguistic failure. (Both?) No, sir, you miserable cur of a whelp, Sir Saint Ronald Reagan is the greatest President of all time. To suggest otherwise betrays your bedwettery.

Now, get Markus’ nut$ack off your chin and do something useful with your life.

By Joe L

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

Ah BD making yet another classic comment that show the depths of ignorance of most of the right wing. Benita is Muslim NOT necessarily (as yet stated) Arabic. Less that 20% of Muslims are Arab. And there are vast numbers of people even in the Middle East that do not speak Arabic. And a vast number of Muslims are born and bred in America and speak no other languages at all!

This kind of blind ignorance is yet another example of why the right lack any real capacity to manage a conflict of the sophistication we face.

By 3rd Tour On The Way

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

Jim, it looks like I’m heading to Iraq for the 3rd time. Iraq is in a serious CIVIL WAR, what the news doesn’t report is we (military) are attacked each and every night with no end in sight! Contrary to those who aren’t serving, most troops no longer support this war but we have an obligation to follow orders and we will fight until we are either dead or home!

By NO ONE CARES

January 10, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

I wish people would get as angry over the 42 thousand plus deaths that have been and still are happening EVERY YEAR as they do over the 3+ thousand that has happened in a war zone over 4 years in Iraq. Where is the moral outrage over these 42 thousand who die every year from alcohol related car wrecks? or the outrage concerning the thousands of deaths from spousal and child abuse? or drug deaths? There is a war going on here too and NO ONE CARES.

By getoveryourself

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

There are no terrorists in Iraq or Somalia so our troops should be home playing tiddly-winks.

No, our troops should be looking for bin Laden and Al Queda in Central Asia instead of playing tiddly-winks in Iraq.

By ICEMAN

January 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

I voted for Bush in the last election. I have sunce withdrawn my support for the following reasons:

  • Nothing has been accomplished as a result of invading Iraq. The response that there have been no attacks on U.S. soil is ridiculous because there were no attacks prior to the invasion(at least not from Iraq.)

  • I can clearly see Bush himself backtracking on his methods of foreign policy. He was stupified when the democrats took over the senate and continues to modify his cowboy stance concerning Iraq.

  • More people have died since the “Mission Accomplished” banner flew in arrogance and haste. That is not a sign of a winning campaign, it is a sign that the leader does not know what he is doing to say the least.

    • I am neither democrat or republican. I am a conservating thinking black male that is looks at every situation objectively and then reaches a conclusion.

    By Captain Freedom

    January 10, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

    Van writes: “When a country engages in a war on terror and the media paints war as dark and evil as possible, we lose. It happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s.”

    This is a long overdue observation of equivalence. Many people forget that the Vietnam War was explicitly defined as a War on Terror. True Right Thinkers knew even then that a failure to succeed in Indochina would lead to a network of Veitcong (which is slanty-eyed talk for al Quaeda) sleeper cells from Savannah to San Diego.

    Yes, our failure to remember and learn from history will surely destroy us. Especially those who — unlike Van — refuse to admit that Iraq is indeed another Vietnam.

    By Steve

    January 10, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

    Dusty - who on earth do you think we a “surrendering” to? Stopping to continue to do the wrong thing is stopping doing the wrong thing - not “surrendering” If you find yourself going down the wrong path, surely you believe you can admit that this is wrong and quit it as opposed to knowing it is wrong but continuing to do it anyway and ask for more help too!

    Belief in your country and military is not dring Kool aid, but unquestioning blind obedience is - question your leaders and demand accounting.

    Heck of a lot more terrorists in Afghanstan than Iraq - maybe we should finish that one first.

    Cindy Sheehan awarded herself a halo - hummmm not sure what that means, but perhaps she is just a person stating her opinion like everyone else is entitled to do?

    By RW (the unintentional)

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

    Isn’t asking Dusty to defend the fort kind of like asking Moe not to disfigure saws, hammers, and tire irons across Curly’s head?

    What kind of fort did Wooten build with that non-blogged logjam of undammed bilgewater he spilled over the urge to surge?

    You’re a gaunt, hollow bard, Mr Wooten.

    Surge? What a joke. Surge is a red herring time-buying ploy. Now everyone will argue about “surge”, (like morons would), for six months, not realizing that we’ve all been had again.

    What is the mission of the US troops already in Iraq?

    What is the mission of US troops as separate from the troops already there in what is being called a surge? Why, that’s ridiculous. The surge troops ARE the same troops already there. The new troops scheduled to be deployed in Iraq were scheduled before any surge was considered. They’re just delaying the departure of troops whose tour is over. Thus you can say they’ll be a surge (if you were an idiot who had no respect for truth, logic, math, or reality).

    There’s a surge of morons on this blog. I want to know what that’s all about? Dusty, @@, RW, Buy Danish and their aliases and fellow buttplugs are surging, folks!!!

    Early leaks about the mission of the surge is to squash sunnis, not shia. Now Saudi Arabia has warned Bush personally about that. They aren’t going to stand by and allow the Bush to turn Iraq into a shia superstate. (like that’s preventable anymore).

    BTW dusty: Defend the fort to the last drop of @@’s blood.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

    Aquagirl,

    Do you have water on your brain?

    Languages are like math or music - some people learn them easily, others don’t. It has nothing to do with “brainpower”.

    Benita said she was a Muslim. If she speaks Arabic, and she is sincere about caring about our country’s citizens, then our country could use her help.

    How hard is that to understand?

    By Captain Freedom

    January 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

    NO ONE CARES makes a very good point. Since the invasion of Iraq, only 3000 Americans have lost their lives, a mere one fourteenth the number who die in gruesome alcohol-related car accidents each and every year.

    Clearly, the troops in Iraq are safer than they would be if they were home in the US. Why, it is more dangerous to be a driver in the US than it is to serve in Iraq!!! Yet another fact that our liberal media refuses to share.

    By Captain Freedom

    January 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

    NO ONE CARES makes a very good point. Since the invasion of Iraq, only 3000 Americans have lost their lives, a mere one fourteenth the number who die in gruesome alcohol-related car accidents each and every year.

    Clearly, the troops in Iraq are safer than they would be if they were home in the US. Why, it is more dangerous to be a driver in the US than it is to serve in Iraq!!! Yet another fact that our liberal media refuses to share.

    By Staceye

    January 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

    time for the truth….what are you smoking, inhaling, etc? Premiere President my @ss! This guy is the World’s Biggest Idiot who is his daddy’s puppet…and he even sucks at that!!! No wonder the idiot won the election the second time (after cheating the first time)….nuts like you, who forgets to take their meds on a daily basis, but still has a vote, put him there. Geesh!!! No wonder the US is going to hell in a cheap handbag on the express jet!

    By 3rd Tour On The Way

    January 10, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

    To: No One Cares, it’s obvious you have never served in any type of Armed Forces! The war is about more than 3000 dead troops! The examples you speak of have this little thing called THE LAW and the deaths are the results of people COMMITING CRIMES. I guess it shows that someone cares or we wouldn’t have DUI/DWI laws nor would we have Laws protecting children!

    By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

    Having a war in Iraq keeps from having a war in our country.

    So, our troops that you supposedly support are just cannon fodder to be killed instead of civilians in the US?

    By time for the truth

    January 10, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

    Lance Corporal Syphilis … GO KILL YOURSELF NOW!! (and cease anally responding to your own demented troll like id stealing posts)

    Do the world and this blog a huge favour and end your pathetic worthless noxious cyber existence as Syphilis immediately … and then, using your increasingly expensive crystal meth habit for some ‘Dutch courage’ have the guts and backbone to post your rather more typical pinkoscum bollocks under your real (brain dead leftist) regular user id which as ever you are just too chickensh!t to actually do!!

    By Dusty

    January 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

    Joe L,

    Never have I heard so many time worn excuses. Well, as to past military experience(…sigh…are u new here) my oldest son, my husband, my father and grandfather all served honorably in the military. Most of them served during war time. I have never been eligible. OKKKK???

    Rod,

    May I remind your nimble brain once more that DEMOCRATS VOTED APPROVAL FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ? You seem to forget that little fact so I thought I would remind you. “Lest we forget” has now been changed by liberals to “Let’s ALL forget.” Their memories keep getting shorter and shorter.

    Now think real hard while I’m gone.

    It’s going to be a long day here today.

    By Staceye

    January 10, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

    See….who forgot to take their meds today!!!! Time for the Truth Truth is…you’re nuts! LOL

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

    Joe L,

    Blah Blah Blah. Freaking moron.

    This is what I said -

    By Buy Danish January 10, 2007 10:20 AM

    *benita,

    Do you speak Arabic? If you do, then maybe you could get a job for our government translating intercepted communications, or tracking terrorist websites for us. That would be a big help. Thanks!*

    Got that dunce? Believe me, I don’t need any “education” about demographics from a*******hats like you.

    By HARDLY

    January 10, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

    Why is Bush now ignoring the Generals on the ground, who http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872.html this is a good idea?

    By Markus

    January 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

    Pathetic resident liberal ID jackass RW-jacker:

    “There’s a surge of morons on this blog. I want to know what that’s all about? Dusty, @@, RW, Buy Danish and their aliases and fellow buttplugs are surging, folks!!!”

    It’s a CONSERVATIVE BLOG you neocommunist liberal sewer RAT. Don’t like what you see here from CONSERVATIVES? Then pack your pretty little liberal pinko flower basket and HAUL A_SS.

    I don’t give a flying pig what the demoncats on the left think about Iraq or any other military matter for that matter. They sit by and say nothing when SandyPants Burglar gets off scott free on STEALING DOCUMENTS from the National Archives that had NOTES written on them about al-Qaeda and 9/11 (NOT copies, moonbathole liberals). Gone. Disappeared. FOREVER.

    These jackasses take the exact opposite stance of Bush no matter what he says. Bush says we need more troops, the RAT pack says less. Bush says we need less troops, the RAT pack says we need more. All just to be in spite of Bush. I don’t give a damn what they say. No credibility. Period.

    I don’t care what Ted “Drunk Olds U-Boat commander wannabe” Kennedy thinks. The “man” ran from his responsibilities when he allowed an intern drown due to his incompetence. What he has to say has no credibility. I don’t give a damn. Nothing to me. Period.

    I don’t care what limpwristed liberal demoncats think. They feel they can talk their way out of any threat, or just lay down and play rollover like good little Carter pacifists. Nothing to me. No credibility. Period.

    Someone tell Madeliene notsoAlbright and Clintoon that the way you retaliate for a 1998 embassy bombing is to waste the islamogoons from 5,0000 feet with a 120mm Howitzer… not treat the problem as a crime. Nothing to me. No credibility. Period.

    By time for the truth

    January 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

    Staceye,

    I’m not nuts. I love nuts very much so. Especially when their attached to Joe L., or Rod.

    By Aquagirl

    January 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

    Learning a language does have some connection to intelligence, it isn’t some freakish talent like being able to belch the alphabet. But you’re probably right that it is sort of a natural for some folks.

    Now how hard is it for you to understand that being a muslim doesn’t mean you speak arabic?

    And here’s a way to help without learning arabic: Get some of those pseudo-patriots out of their ribbon-laden SUV’s to volunteer at the VA? Or at the very least, ask them not to cut off the vets trying to turn from Clairmont into the VA hospital.

    I saw that last week—-for me it sums up the “I support the troops only through mindless placement of ribbons and “W” stickers!” crowd.

    By Peter

    January 10, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

    I would like to nominate Dusty and Jim for Political advisers to Bush on this Great War we are in…….

    Please go to Iraq in person, and figure out how to win this most excellent war Bush has got us in……

    Or at least give us a clue to how to do it !

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

    Lily Toad,

    Dear toad, as stated many times by this administration, Victory is when Iraq can maintain law and order in their country, in other words take care of their selves.

    Victory in the War on Terror is when non-state thugs stop trying to turn the world to their warped views. Its bad enough when socialists try to turn a prosperous country into a sh*thole backwater place to avoid.

    By NO ONE CARES

    January 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

    3RD TOUR ON THE WAY - i think you missed my point, i certainly did not mean to disrespect the troops…i have two sons in the army, one in the 82nd. my point was that the liberal media keeps harping on the deaths in iraq like they shouldn’t happen and this is in a war zone! they keep blaming bush, the republicans and whoever else for the war when in reality its the terrorists, the scumbags who attacked us and the thing is i think probably like you that they are not looking at the bigger picture…taking cruel tyrants out like saddam will only make the entire world safer and america gets little thanks and nothing but disdain from the rest of the countries. i see the media making much of the deaths in iraq and i don’t mean to deflect from that but there is much death going on right here everyday that they continue to ignore while making much of the deaths there and then blaming our troops. personally i am sick to death of the verbal attacks on our men and women in the military and if anyone disrepects them in my presence there is hell to pay. as for you…thank you for your service, it takes an incredible person to do what you, the military and my sons.. i am in awe. stay safe and many blessing on you and your family.

    By Dusty

    January 10, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

    RW (the unintentional)

    I don’t usually pay much attention to someone who is afraid to use their own ID so steals parts of an ID from another poster. Sooo cute and crookedly clever!!!

    But just wanted you to know that I will “hold the fort” while you continue to surrender to the terrorists. They appreciate having Americans on their side and have more white flags if you need them.

    Run fast now. I have to go load the cannons.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

    Aquagirl,

    Glub glub glub glub glub.

    [Please see my message to Joe L.(http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2007/01/10/post_40.html#comment-924437)

    As for you suggestion that we volunteer at VA hospitals, there are none anywhere near my neighborhood, but it sounds like there’s one in yours.

    I look forward to hearing all about it.

    By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

    OK, Van, now tell us how sending more troops will ensure that Iraq can maintain law and order in their country by themselves.

    By Markus

    January 10, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

    Anyone catch the video of Saddam’s adam’s apple “hanging out” last night? Cool. It seems to be gone today on Google video. Watch how these candyassed liberals whine and howl like stuck pigs over that, yet said nothing while Saddam’s lynchmen raped, sodomized, and murdered his own people, some of which we have video of. Some people really have their priorities assbackwards… naturally, that’s usually the horseass left.

    Oh yeah jackass liberals, Iraq belongs to these people too, not just Bush:

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc20030123.html

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc20021009.html

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+%22Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+the+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+technology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+region+and+he+has+made+a+moc

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+%22Hussein+has+…+chosen+to+spend+his+money+on+building+weapons+of+mass+destruction+and+palaces+for+his+cronies.%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/10/2002A07621.html

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html

    By jim d

    January 10, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

    Damn,

    Both sides of the isle today need to understand that these folks have been killing each other since nearly the beginning of time. WE AINT GONNA FIX THAT regardless of how many of our children die trying.

    Now that’s the plain and simple truth of the matter.

    By Brian Curtis

    January 10, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

    Van, Dusty: You’re still confused.

    When the warmongers in office lose, America wins. In the long run, it’s better for our country to admit its mistakes and quit sacrificing our soldiers’ lives on pointless and illegal crusade.

    You claim to love our country, Dusty, but you really don’t. You just love Bush. Other than that, you’ve heard all the correct answers (It’s not ‘surrender’ to admit to and correct a mistake, Cindy Sheehan was right all along, and Bush lied)… you just refuse to admit them.

    That’s called psychosis, i.e., living in a fantasy. The rest of the country—the 3/4 of us so-called “leftists in spirit”—are looking at the real world, and wondering how long it will take you to join us.

    By Captain Freedom

    January 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

    Predictable little poodle, that TFTT. Give him a kick and he yaps like a little girl. It’s quite fun as sport, really, but Dr Pavlov figured this guy out years ago.

    Ding.

    By Aquagirl

    January 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

    Buy,

    C’mon. Give up and admit that you were making the muslim=arabic connection. Don’t start splitting hairs.

    I’ve done my military service, thanks. It involved traveling a lot farther than out of my neighborhood. Apparently doing anything like that takes too much time out of your precious life.

    That goes for the rest of the crowd that is so happy to say that they couldn’t serve in the military, but really really support our troops. As long as it doesn’t inconvenience them in any way.

    By Dave

    January 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

    Sigghh…

    More hackneyed revisionism from a Bush apologist. Jim: you should REALLY try to get spend less time in your Dittohead chatrooms and more time in that bastion of Leftist ideals called reality. Bush is a liar (obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence), his supporters rely almost exclusively on rhetoric and jingoistic sloganism (hint: look up the word jingo) and simply accept the fact that you chumps are supporting a total loser and his trainwreck of policies. Of course, this will never happen, but reality chugs along without you just fine…

    By jim d

    January 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

    Markus my friend,

    All that proves is that the Bush administration lied well.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

    Let’s do that again. I wouldn’t want our little tadpole to miss it.

    Aquagirl,

    By Buy Danish January 10, 2007 10:20 AM

    benita,

    Do you speak Arabic? If you do, then maybe you could get a job for our government translating intercepted communications, or tracking terrorist websites for us. That would be a big help. Thanks!

    Furthermore, it was BENITA who brought up the fact that she was a muslim here, in this context:

    By benita January 10, 2007 09:55 AM

    I am a muslim and want to tell everyone, that after 9-11, if Osama was the culprit, that is where our focus needed to be. He is the one that we should have seen being hanged, not Hussein…

    Sound like she’s from that part of the world now, doesn’t it????? She is certainly presenting herself as an expert on the situation.

    Glub Glub Glub…….

    By Midori

    January 10, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

    well, well. who would have thought that the clueless 12% who still believe Bush has a freaking clue all post on this blog.

    Shocking.

    absolutely shocking.

    Mr. Wooten: not only does Bush not listen to polls, he doesn’t listen to common sense, either.

    Markus: I’ll make a deal with you. You keep your rabid, ignorant wingnut buddies over here and away from the Luckovich blog, and we on the left will do the same in kind.

    But then, isn’t this still supposed to be America? I didn’t know this blog was off-limits for those of us who don’t share your side’s delusional and irrational praise of all things Bush.

    Heh. I haven’t seen anyone use that “Clintoon” analogy in a very long time.

    Think of that one yourself, huh? Aren’t you the “clever” one.

    No wonder you’re so angry. I hear the brain is usually the first thing to go.

    P.S. How’s that search for WMD coming along?

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

    Brian Curtis,

    As I said before, the lefties will claim VICTORY by cut and running, Iraq will have their killing fields and the new mass graves will make Saddam’s look like a day in the park.

    Or we can turn loose our military to do what it does best. We can find some military leaders with the cajones to brave condemnation in the Press and take control of the battle grounds. We can tell Iraq that as of today, if anyone steps out of line, they may not heal in time for their next election.

    By Aquagirl

    January 10, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

    Buy,

    If you scratch out the “I am a muslim” prefix, Benita’s assertions are no different than a lot of others on here. Do you think they’re arabs too? She said “I’m a muslim” not “I’m an arab”. So it sounds to me like she’s a muslim.

    She said nothing about being an arab, that’s your inference.

    Is all that glubbing from guzzling your kool-aid too fast?

    By jbmlaw

    January 10, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

    Our friend in opposition, Curious, seems to be the only one on his side who understands the true implications of Democrat opposition to efforts to win the war on terrorism. Those who argue there are no terrorists in Iraq are incapable of understanding a headline. Those who believe the war against the terrorists – started by the terrorists against us a couple of decades ago – will be over in the next 15 or 20 years are unable to understand the nature of our enemy. So today’s quiz:

    If the Democrats are successful with the “cut and run” show vote on President Bush’s adjustment in the war in Iraq, the result will be: (1) The terrorists will lay down their arms and the world will sing in sweet harmony. (2) Terrorists will never again attack the US, for fear of the consequences. (3) A blood bath of biblical proportions.

    By Redneck Convert

    January 10, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

    Glad to see Sister Dusty is holding the fort while Wooten is away. Course, we miss her down at the Church of Holiness speaking in tongues and shouting amen to parts of the sermon. Joe Bill says he ain’t going no more if Sister Dusty ain’t there. Says her face might look like a balled-up fist, but her heart is pure.

    When is Wooten going to kick the libruls off of this blog? All they do is critasize the best president we ever had and talk about pulling our troops out. What we got a army for if we ain’t going to use them to fight? Not just sit around in barracks and play cards. We need to send about 500,000 more to Iraq if we won’t use the A-bomb and turn that country into a sheet of glass. You can’t be from the south and not want to fight. And if we don’t fight them there, pretty soon they will be in my neck of the woods trying to blow up our trailers and pool halls.

    On a personal note, I am right proud to tell you I’m now a granddaddy. My dotter had him last nite. It was a big suprise. We thought she was just eating too much. We named him Sonny Zell George, after three great redneck heros of mine. She’s not certain who the father is, but she plans to go after all five of them for child support. Anyway, the state and county will take care of the doctor bills and I’ll chip in a little. I’m all ready thinking about teaching him to chew Red Man and drink shine and watch Nascar races and read the bible. Those are all family values. I’ll also teach him to watch out for Those People and hate libruls.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

    Aquagirl,

    Regarding your 12:48, it sounds like you’re splitting pubic hairs to me. What an ignorant punkette.

    Why don’t you learn to read what I actually said instead of accusing ME of “splitting hairs”?

    Moreover, as my last post read, BENITA portrayed herself as an expert on Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and I logically inferred that she was from that part of the world, but still asked her if she spoke Arabic in the unlikely event that I was wrong.

    Of course you’re the one who doesn’t give a fff that the Duke Lacrosse players were accused of a crime they clearly did not commit - so why should I give a damn what you think anyway?

    You have no sense of fairness, no grasp of reality, and you don’t know how to read.

    Enjoy your endless swim.

    By getoveryourself

    January 10, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

    Yup Douchebag Markus,

    I can’t think of anything more fun than watching an execution and the gruesome aftermath.

    Watching someone’s Adam’s apple literally hanging out…sounds like something that Uday and Qusay would like to watch.

    By Captain Freedom

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

    Again, Van is correct. If anything, the blame for our inability to put these Iraqis in their place lies squarely on the shoulders of our generals and troops on the ground who have failed to demostrate sufficient savagery. It’s all those people understand, anyway.

    That’s why the execution methods used on Saddam by the Sadr Militia are so encouraging. At last we are aligning ourselves with a faction that knows how to do things right over there, not like those Sunni pu$$ies that we are going to help the Mahdis cleanse. Thankfully, the New Way Forward includes a joint training component. With any luck, our boys will learn how to demonstrate strength without worrying about the liberal media.

    If the Iraqis cannot accept and be grateful for the sacrifices that Our Leader is making in their behalf, we should just bomb them and their damned purple fingers back to the Stone Age. Then they’ll behave and learn to appreciate their betters.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

    Van,

    The first time we take offensive action against a mosque that’s being used as an armory, these secular progressive leftists will scream bloody murder too because we’re not showing proper respect to the religion of peace.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

    Aquagirl,

    Give it up. You are making a freaking fool of yourself.

    Glub glub glub glub glub.

    By Oldpunk

    January 10, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this

    “the rabid anti-war Left which has opposed this President from Day One, especially on the war on terrorism”.

    First, you start off wrong. The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are two completely different subjects and have been from the beginning. Remember, it was al-Queda and the Taliban that attached us, NOT Iraq.

    Also, virtually members of the “rabid anti-war left” supported action in Afghanistan against those that attacked us.

    I think your biggest problem is that you and your cohorts have been wrong about everything in Iraq, while those you call “the rabid anti-war left” were mostly right.

    George W Bush and his advisors have been wrong about everything having to do with Iraq. Why should anyone trust him that escalation will help?

    For that matter, Jim, why aren’t you in Iraq, fighting that war? They’re taking National Guardsmen your age, you should be able to go! At least urge all your followers to volunteer!

    By Nick

    January 10, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

    @ Van

    Have you ever considered what THE IRAQIS want?

    It’s that type of narrow minded, do-what-we-tell-you attitude that has failed. Do you think we would put up with Mexico rolling tanks down Peachtree Street and telling us how to run our country? Or do you think we’d tell them to get the hell out and let us run our own country?

    Our vision for Iraq has been ignorant of their religion, culture, and society in general. We have failed to truly, truly listen to what the people want. And yes, I’m sure they want democracy, freedom, and whatever other patriotic buzzword you want to throw out there. But don’t you think they want it on their own terms and in conjunction with their way of living?

    Force feeding our values down their thorats by way of a 20 year old with a machine gun isn’t going to work.

    By Captain Freedom

    January 10, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

    Please, Buy Danish, stop your obsession with AquaGirl. It is beginning to appear like my old schoolboy crush on Wonder Woman or BatGirl.

    I realize “glub” is an easy word to type with just one hand, man, but your self-abuse has got to stop. You’re just going to chafe yourself. And the squish squish sound coming from beneath your keyboard is just revolting. At least go to the bathroom, it’s the decent thing to do.

    By IC

    January 10, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

    lmao,

    I must admit the name calling on this blog is almost as funny as the scene between rufio and pan just before the food fight in the movie hook.

    Peter— I’m not a pirat. It so happens I am a lawyer!

    Rufio— Kill the lawyer!

    Lost boys— Kill the lawyer!

    Peter— I am not that kind of lawyer.

    Rufio— Eat your heart out, you crinkled, wrinkled fat bag!

    Peter— You’re a very unmannered young man, did you know that?

    Rufio— You’re slug eating worm.

    Tink— Come on, you can do better than that!

    Peter— I can’t believe you’re encouraging them.

    Rufio— Show me your fastball, dust brain! You paunchy, sag bottomed puke-pot!

    Lost boys— Bangerang, Rufio!

    Peter— You’re a very poor role model for these kids, you know that? I bet you don’t have a fourth grade reading level.

    Rufio— Haermorrhoidal sucknavel.

    Peter— Maybe a fifth grade reading level.

    Rufio— Oil-dripping, beeffart sniffing bubble-butt.

    Lost boys— Bangerand, Rufio!

    Peter— Someone has a severe caca mouth, do you know that?

    Rufio— You’re a fart-factory! Slug-slime sack of rat guts and cat vomit, cheesy scab, picked pimple-squeezing finger bandage! A week old maggot burger with everything on it and flies on the side!

    Peter— Substitute chemistry teacher.

    Thud— Come on, Rufio, hit him back.

    Rufio— Mung tongue!

    Peter— Math tutor.

    Rufio— Pinhead.

    Peter- Prison barber

    Rufio— Motherlover

    Peter— Nearsighted gyneacologist.

    Rufio— In your face, camel cake!

    Peter— In your rear, cow derriere!

    Rufio— Lying, crying, spying, pying ultra-pig!

    Peter— Lewd, crude bag of pre-chewed food dude!

    Thud— Bangerang, Peter.

    Rufio— You man! Stupid, stupid man!

    Peter— Rufio, if I’m a maggot burger, why don’t you just eat me?! You two-tongued, zebra-headed, slime-coated, pimple-farming, paramecium brain munching on your own mucus, suffering from Peter Pan envy!

    Lost boy— What’s a paramecium brain?

    Peter— I’ll tell you what a paramecium is! That’s a paramecium! It’s a one-celled critter with no brain that can’t fly! Don’t mess with me man, I’m a lawyer!

    By Aquagirl

    January 10, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

    Buy,

    Perhaps it is time to end this exchange, as I must take off. And I admit, I have no defense against your brand of logic. It resulted in the most creative reference to pubic hair that has ever been posted here, though I haven’t read all of TfTT’s posts.

    Sorry you’re still bitter about your jock frat boys. It’s not that I don’t give a damn, it’s just that I give so little of a damn. Really, there are far worse things going on in the world today. And the DA is getting his due. I bet any soldier who’s had his legs blown off would gladly trade for such troubles.

    By whynot

    January 10, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

    Michael Ledeen, Middle East Expert at the always popular neocon lodge the American Enterprise Institute has discovered a big part of the problem in Iraq. We don’t need more troops, we just ones who aren’t lazy air-conditioned latte liberals. Who knew?

    Jim Woo-Can you please get Michael to support our troops? He seems to have lost the script

    Here’s the always wrong, but never in doubt Michael Ledeen:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYxZDcxMzkzNzhiMzFkNTAwMzkxNjE0Y2FkNmM0MTE=

    “Note that an increase in embeds doesn’t necessarily require an increase in overall troop strength. We’ve got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don’t know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it’s a substantial number. Enough of that.”

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

    Captain Freedom (Stalker Boy? or one of the tubscum crew?),

    You=disgusting.

    By getalife

    January 10, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this

    Most Americans were with w until he decided to cut and run from the enemy to steal Iraq’s oil.

    So many reasons given by w to invade Iraq but never the truth.

    The truth is it is all about Iraq’s oil from the start and w does not give a crap about anything else.

    w is sacrificing Americans for big oil contacts in Iraq. This is okay with the 10% wingnuts but not okay with real Americans. Big oil execs should testify under oath about these contracts and their secret meeting with cheney.

    Cut the funding to this theft and murder and file class action lawsuites against big oil for Iraq and global warming. Criminal charges should be filed too.

    By sagegirl

    January 10, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

    In the words of Mr. Spock: “The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few”.

    Yet W’s tiny brain has it backwards. Instead W hears: The needs of the few (he and his administration), out weigh the needs of the many(the people).

    Mr. President, The blood of too many are on your hands. How do you sleep at night????

    By Fat @@

    January 10, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

    @@ must be fat. I am a professional profiler. Her blogs reveal a blubber butt without rival.

    Hey @@, Wendy’s has a salad bar.

    By getalife

    January 10, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

    “President George W. Bush’s plan for Iraq includes a $6.8 billion budget request to pay for a 20,000 troop increase as well as jobs and reconstruction programs aimed at stabilizing the country, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.”

    There is w’s escalation plan. With blogs, you do not have to watch him spew. Watch the gop squirm for their jobs and vote no to this plan.

    By Jenny

    January 10, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

    Captain Freedom,

    Great stuff. LMAO.

    By MELO

    January 10, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

    **@@ at 10:12: Sons of Polls. I like that. Some decisions are, really, about the next generation and polls don’t matter.

    Dusty, you’re right about those on the other side of this issue being stirred up today. I’ll leave it to you and other like-minded souls here to defend the fort. I’m off to hear the State of the State.**-Jim

    You have two supporters here on your own blog!!! Thats the best you van do? Pathetic!

    Go ahead and listen to Purdue dreaming how he intends to make our education the best in the country. Dont know how thats possible with parents like u Jim, whose own education is a joke. Thanks to all the migrants from other states and the illegal immigrants who make this state habitable. Otherwise meth would have destoyed the state a long time ago.

    By deegee

    January 10, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

    Does anyone remember Desert Storm? In terms of winning and losing a war it was a win. George the First had a mission which was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. The US had boundaries in that it was not to go to Baghdad. The military was prepared with the proper amount of troops to do the job. Compare that with the complete botch job that George the Second has done and I don’t see how anyone can argue against ceasing to dig the hole that we have dug for ourselves in Iraq.

    By Capt

    January 10, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

    I desperatly want my son or daughter protected by Sen. Kennedy. I think he is great with floating a car off a bridge and waiting , what???, 6 hours to call to save Mary Jo. Kennedy has killed more people with his car than most of our young men and women have killed in Iraq. Not only should we ignore him we should try him for murder and put him and his alcohol away for life. He is a degenerate and should be sent away for life.

    By Captain Freedom

    January 10, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

    The Captain prefers Jenny’s analysis to that of “Sticky Fingers” Danish.

    Honestly, would anyone dare shake hands with that man?

    By Buy Danish

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

    Aquagirl,

    You have no logic, period. My words and benita’s words speak for themselves. You’re twisting in the wind as you twist my words and hers, and find things that aren’t there while discounting what actually is.

    As for your appalling apathy about the Duke case, I’m not “bitter” about anything. I don’t like to see ANYONE have their lives ruined for no reason.

    The Duke Lacrosse Players do not need to carry the burden of Iraq on their shoulders - one has nothing to do with the other, and your attempt to equate the two is a false analogy.

    In your neo-Libertarian way, you’ve enabled the girl who made the false accusations. The players families have been injured because of someone who I suspect is quite like you.

    I don’t doubt that there are some who cheer you on. The anonymous accuser had plenty of those on her side too.

    You’ve chosen your side; I’ve chosen mine. Live with it.

    By @@

    January 10, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

    F@@:

    Heeeyyyyy @ 1:43. You’ve been peeking into cyberspace haven’t you? One pound off each cheek since my return.

    Wendy’s? I don’t touch anything from public salad bars.

    People like you seem to leave something slimy on the cucumbers. Is it snot?

    My apologies to all here, including Jim.

    Sometimes, the opportunity just presents itself, and then…

    …what can I say?

    Is it snot?

    Over and out!

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

    Jenny,

    The dirty bathtub crew meets every Friday night. Ask Captain Freedom for an invitation. He likes your “analysis”.

    Mine is that both of you could use a bath.

    Over and out.

    By MELO

    January 10, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

    Those who argue there are no terrorists in Iraq are incapable of understanding a headlineJbmlaw aka b*****!

    That terorrists line is so tired. Bush used that during the last election and lost heavily at the Polls, remember”if u dont vote for us the terorists win”-Augusta speech. Well the terorrists won indeed! Why are u still sticking to that lame punchline, JAMBALAW?

    By liberalextremist

    January 10, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

    Where is Dan Rather when you need him????

    By jbmlaw

    January 10, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

    Dear deegee @ 1:56, I am delighted to read your praise of President Bush 41. Most Democrats spent all of the 1990s complaining about how he did not “finish the job,” in his failure to remove the mass-murderer. I am pleased to see you separate yourself from the whiny Democrats of the 1990s.

    By James Patterson

    January 10, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

    How will more troups secure Bagdad? Will they assign one soldier to each Iraqi to watch them 24/7 to be sure they don’t plant a bomb? Who are you kidding with this add more troups will stabalize the situation? What it will do is provide more targets for insurgens and get more Americans killed. And in the end, what will happen to Iraq when we leave? Do you really believe the factions there will live at peace with each other under one government? It’s another Vietnam!

    By jbmlaw

    January 10, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

    Dear Melo @ 2:36, I freely acknowledge that you are almost certainly one who believes there are no terrorists in Iraq. I think that recogniztion validly measures the competence of your analysis.

    By Brian Curtis

    January 10, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

    Van: “Or we can turn loose our military to do what it does best. We can find some military leaders with the cajones to brave condemnation in the Press and take control of the battle grounds. We can tell Iraq that as of today, if anyone steps out of line, they may not heal in time for their next election.”

    In other words, you advocate open conquest of another nation. Congratulations; the PNAC crew would be thrilled at such a suggestion.

    Unfortunately, America doesn’t swing that way… and the vast majority of Americans have no interest in the sort of empire you propose.

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

    deegee ,

    Ignorance becomes you.

    Desert Storm was to force the Iraqi occupation out of Kuwait. Almost a win, UN kept Saddam alive.

    This war was to overthrow Saddam, as punishment for ignoring the UN and its resolutions, and his terrorist buddies. A terrorist is a terrorist and Congress gave Bush the authority to fight terrorism.

    Different war, different men in charge. Just like the war in the Pacific was different than the war in Europe.

    While, I too, wish we had gone in with a very heavy hand and sealed Iraq’s borders from the gitgo, that wasn’t done.

    Like many operations during WWII, some work and some don’t. When the did not work, the tried something different or new.

    Matbe we should have gone in with the intent of being an occupation force like Germany and Japan. I think it might have worked. Maybe we should have installed a high ranking General as a “ruler”, like we did with MacArthur.

    Either way, we need to stay and finish the job, walk out like men with our heads high and not like whiny dogs with our tails between our legs.

    By Rod

    January 10, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

    The question has been asked repeatedly, but Bush’s buttlovers keep skipping it.

    Again: What do you consider success in Iraq? At what point do you want the US to pull out? Anyone (on the right) want to answer? Do you have an answer?

    By Rod

    January 10, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

    The question has been asked repeatedly, but Bush’s buttlovers keep skipping it.

    Again: What do you consider success in Iraq? At what point do you want the US to pull out? Anyone (on the right) want to answer? Do you have an answer?

    By Rod

    January 10, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

    The question has been asked repeatedly, but Bush’s buttlovers keep skipping it.

    Again: What do you consider success in Iraq? At what point do you want the US to pull out? Anyone (on the right) want to answer? Do you have an answer?

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

    deegee ,

    Ignorance becomes you.

    Desert Storm was to force the Iraqi occupation out of Kuwait. Almost a win, UN kept Saddam alive.

    This war was to overthrow Saddam, as punishment for ignoring the UN and its resolutions, and his terrorist buddies. A terrorist is a terrorist and Congress gave Bush the authority to fight terrorism.

    Different war, different men in charge. Just like the war in the Pacific was different than the war in Europe.

    While, I too, wish we had gone in with a very heavy hand and sealed Iraq’s borders from the gitgo, that wasn’t done.

    Like many operations during WWII, some work and some don’t. When the did not work, the tried something different or new.

    Matbe we should have gone in with the intent of being an occupation force like Germany and Japan. I think it might have worked. Maybe we should have installed a high ranking General as a “ruler”, like we did with MacArthur.

    Either way, we need to stay and finish the job, walk out like men with our heads high and not like whiny dogs with our tails between our legs.

    By Richard

    January 10, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

    Van - if you would take Bush’s dick out of your a$$ for just a minute - you’d see how stupid he and his policies for world domination are.

    By Renee

    January 10, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

    Buy Danish - what an appropriate name. He has to buy his women, due to his lack of manhood.

    By MELO

    January 10, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

    jjbmlaw, the terrorists are there. Thanks for taking the bait by the way. But they(terrorists) are feeding on American blood! U like that better? And the Middle east is full of them, in case u dont know. So will the additional 20,000 or so troops ensure that they are eliminated from the face of the earth? Not a chance.

    There are more America hating people in Iraq than supporters, and seeing the American military in there is fueling the fire. They are literally pouring in, never mind the lame threats to Syria and Iraq. Bush cannot touch those two countries without sucking in the whole of the middle east(Kind Abdullah aluded to this a few weeks back) He is more informed on this than u and me combined, never mind he is one Arab who is an American puppet! Some of u Americans do not understand THIRD WORLD POLITICS, LET ALONE THE MORE COMPLEX MIDDLE EAST! He is one history lesson: No matter how much those Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, when it comes to a foreigner, more so one with fair skin like the westerners, ARABS stick to each other. U think the Iraq police are’nt being trained enough? Think again. The same weapons and ammo they give them is used at night to kill Americans.

    U will learn this in time buddy! Good luck.

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

    Here is an interesting article about the way the San Fransissies, Pelosi’s supporters, feel about this country. The lefties make me feel real proud to be an American.

    From The San Francisco Chronicle

    By Howard Smith

    January 10, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

    First it was Bush’s weapons of mass destruction argument that you supported and he was wrong. Then, it was mission accomplished and you commended him and he was wrong. Then, it was “the last throes” argument and you concurred and the arugument was false. Then, just a few months ago it was no more troops needed because there was no civil war and you nodded and they were wrong, again. Now, you support the President, the “decider” as he calls for a troop build up and YOU say it is the “left” (3/4 of Americans!)who are wrong. I guess it is fair to say that you and the President are seldom right but NEVER in doubt.

    By MarkP

    January 10, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

    Mr. Wooten makes a bizarre, disjointed set of claims and arguments with no consideration of reality, only consideration on what he’s scripted Clinton doing in an alternate universe where we’ve somehow ended up in the same quagmire President Bush has found himself, despite his position (in Wooten’s mind) as a shrewd, pragmatic actionary. Mr. Wooten seems bent on making as many references to the frivolity of polls this week (recently claiming that the overwhelming majority of Georgians claiming to find education a top concern are actually lying or mistaken) but the topic in today’s rant has little to do with polls. Claim number one, that President Bush will provide oodles of troops is optimistic, but what about the past four years where he had the same chance to provide them under a better prepared plan? The other claim, that President Bush is sagely reliant on his generals, rather than polls, is misleading on two fronts, and the polls have nothing to do with anything. Firstly, he recently fired two of the top generals that he lauded last year as his great advisers. Secondly, most of the generals who have made public comments — and enough have as to be statistically significant — have consistently refused to cite a massive surge in troops as a solution to the quagmire. The troop surge may or may not be a sound solution, and solutions may emerge, but let’s not pretend that our President has led us on some efficient and expedient path to achieve grand results in Iraq.

    By Rod

    January 10, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

    Still waiting for an answer from the right:

    What do you consider success in Iraq? At what point do you want the US to pull out?

    By MrLiberty

    January 10, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

    Well Jim, you got at least one thing right in your comments (I think that may be a first). The Democratic Party is far more concerned about making political gains on the issue of Iraq than actually caring about either Iraq, the soldiers, or the future of america. Coincidentally this is the same problem with the Republican Party.

    As for their desire to see an end to this and their staunch opposition from the beginning, what are you smoking? The only opposition for this war has come from libertarian circles, true conservatives, and the general antiwar movement that is everything from true conservative to communist (no, that liberal label just doesn’t work). Oh, I forgot - and every intelligent, sane, rational true patriot in america. We all opposed this war from the beginning because all the evidence showed that Bush was lying.

    Face it Jim, this was was illegal and immoral from the start. There was never a legitimate reason to invade Iraq and as such there is no reason to stay. Bush will reveal in his speech tonight that what we are really holding out for is the adoption of the new energy policy in Iraq that will deliver more billions to his and Cheney’s friends by way of the oil fields (no real shock there), but this will be hidden amidst the usual lies about democracy, stability, and freedom.

    There is no way to dress up a war crime this covered in blood in a manner that makes it look like a noble cause. Shut up, admit you were wrong, and get on the bandwagon demanding an immediate end to this carnage. We now live in a fascist state with a dictator that will be setting the stage for his “invasion of Poland” this evening. What are we as a people going to do to stop him. We know the democrats won’t do a darn thing.

    Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate for president in 96 and 2000 said of Bush “there may well come a time when history looks back at this president and asks ‘why didn’t they stop him at Bagdad?’”. Does america still have the spine to make him stop?

    By President Bush

    January 10, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

    Hello my fellow Americans.

    I’m your President George Bush - just call me Georgie for short. Now here this: we need some additional help down south in Iraq and we’re going to send an additional 20,000 men - oops, I mean soldiers - over there to help out and clean up my - oops, I mean the - mess.

    If you don’t like the idea, then count yourself as one of the 20,000. Good night. Heil Bush!

    By jm

    January 10, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

    hey jmblaw, you forgot the other “cut and run” president, Ronald Reagan who pulled troops out of Lebanon after the marine barracks was blown up. As for southeast asia and Iraq, remember the first rule of holes, when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

    By Steve

    January 10, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

    Folks - do yourself a favor and do a little personal research to figure out for yourself where and how the split between the Sunni and Shiite sects came to be. When you understand that, then you will understand why there can never be a democratic government between these two groups - you can have a dictator in power to squash one side or the other, but never never never as long as Islam exists as a religion will these two groups ever try to have a democracy together.

    We Americans tend to think that democracy is a great thing and given a chance obviously everybody else would think so too. This is not the case. Many people in the world given a democratic government would freely as a very first move of that government vote to give up that democracy and return to a theocratic dictator who can and will enforce their wants and beliefs and values on others - and if you disagree, well then we will just kill you.

    standing in the middle of these groups and shouting give democracy a chance will only get you shot.

    By whynot

    January 10, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

    Van-

    Please just stop. You are so out of your depth you’re making Wooten look like Aristotle.

    Saddam had terrorist buddies? Saddam was a secular ruler who was despised by OBL, not to mention all Shiites, Persians of all creeds and even Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia. The man had no allies anywhere.

    So this is all about UN resolutions now? Should we invade every country flouting a UN resolution?

    So what is this job we need to stay and finish? How will we know when it’s done? Somebody has asked that quetion over and over, and still just crickets chirping.

    We will walk out with our tail between our legs, or we will run. From the moment this war was started anybody with a modicum of historical knowledge warned of the consequences. The only question is what is it going to cost in dollars, dead, and credibility.

    By MELO

    January 10, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

    ‘They are literally pouring in, never mind the lame threats to Syria and Iraq’ Meant to say Syria and Iran.And King Abdullah,not Kind.

    (He is)meant Here is……

    Thanks.

    By neil smith

    January 10, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

    What your “polls be damned” statement says is the opinion of the American public be damned. Since the poll you refer to is an expression of opinion of citizens of this country, some of whom have fought in Irag and some of whom have suffered wounds that will never heal and some of whom have lost loved ones in Irag. Just how self-RIGHTeous are you that you would damn the opinion of the vast majority of Americans because their views are different than your own. Free thinking American citizens have every right to oppose the war without being “damned” or do you oppose the right of Americans to think for themselves and express themselves. Your offensive and sick comment is insulting to citizens who simply disagree with your blind loyalty to a failed President and his policy. You should be removed from your editorial position for your unwarranted and irresponsible attack on Americans’right to free speech.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

    Renee,

    You’re right, troll! I have a lack of manhood, which is great because I’m not a man.

    Here’s where the name comes from

    Boycott French wines and Buy Danish.

    Anything else you lurkers want to contribute?

    It’s quite something to see how up in arms some of you are because I suggested that IF someone who claims to have the inside track on how to conduct foreign policy spoke Arabic they might consider getting paid to help out this country.

    Heck, I’ll take it a step further. Since you’ll all hot under the collar anyway over nothing, I might as well take it a step further and really get you howling in protest:

    Make it a condition of citizenship. We’ve got our soldiers in the Middle East. If you really want to be an asssimilated American, and are coming here because you love America and the liberty and way of life it offers, and IF you speak Arabic, we’ll put you on the fast track if you’ll help us out.

    Sounds like a good deal to me, for all concerned.

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

    whynot,

    Your ignorance is amazing, your dpth of knowledge about the middle east and Persia is unbelivablely shallow.

    Go home, finish grade school and try to learn something for the first time in your life.

    The ties between terrorism and Saddam are well documented, wake up. His allowing terrorists to train, get medical assistance and his funding of the “palestinians” are well known amongst the learned.

    Breaking a peace treaty between Iraq and the UN, ignoring the resolutions that were meant to keep him contained earned him this war. He was the instigator, not us, all he had to do was tell the truth and he would still be in power and alive today.

    I love the “tolerance” of the superior lefties.

    By deegee

    January 10, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

    Hello Van, If ignorance becomes me then it becomes you, too! Thanks for bolstering my point for me. Your “coulda woulda shoulda” musings ring hollow at this point. We are up to 3,000 dead and 200,000 wounded in Iraq and according to you we did it to punish Sadaam Hussein. Well, he’s out of his pain and we are aren’t so who’s being punished now?

    By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

    So, Buy Danish, you chose your name because you are in favor of cartoons denigrating Mohammed?

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

    To all of those like Steve who claim that Shia and Sunni can never live together peacefully, the fact is that they did do so under a constitutional monarchy before Saddam came in by force.

    This is what we should have done in Iraq

    Here’s a website that has all sorts of links to the concept of a constitutional monarchy. Interesting read.

    Maybe it is an idea whose time has come.

    By jbmlaw

    January 10, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

    Taranto has a couple of funnies about our leftist friends today:

    Driven to Distraction We were hoping the Angry Left blogs would have an interesting take on the Somalia strike, and we weren’t disappointed. Here’s a sampling: • “I don’t have any facts or expertise, but it strikes me that the warmongers have pulled a fast one by escalating in Somalia instead of Iran or Syria. By tonight, Bush will be able to make a case that this has come up suddenly, that they have been ready for it, that it merely demonstrates what he has been saying about GWOT [global war on terror].”—“arper,” DailyKos.com • “Well, Well Well…..it never fails. Bush is about to ask America to allow him to escalate the war in Iraq. But whenever he needs to do something like this, it seems like there’s always a ‘terror scare,’ or some trumped up success, even if it’s not our own, some days before.”—“sephius1,” DailyKos.com • “With Bush’s umpteenth Iraqi war plan set for delivery today, was yesterday’s cruise missile attack in Somalia supposed to change the subject, or score points elsewhere while the President was on the hot seat?”—Michael Shaw, PuffingtonHost.com So now the war on terror is a distraction from Iraq? Finally, Strong Leaders Who’ll Get Things Done! “Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan”—headline, New York Times, Jan. 10

    By harold

    January 10, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

    who cares. can we buy beer and wine on sundays yet?

    By harold

    January 10, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this

    back to the topic at hand, Harold always said Bush’s strategy would be to tread water until Democrats could be blamed. So, looky dat. There he go! There he go! There he go! Peanut Butta Jelly Peanut Butta Jelly

    By Southern Democrat

    January 10, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

    The discussion today has been predictable and disturbing. I find the troop surge idea another example of this administration’s intellectual laziness and lack of imagination. If the job needs more troops, institute a draft. Who are the real cowards?

    I remember when I was in both New York and D.C. in October and November of 2001 thinking about a lot of things. The whole country was united and the world mourned with us and vowed revenge on those who attacked us. I remember hoping against hope that our leadership would make the right decisions and that we would stand united like 1941-1945. When we invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban, it really felt like my wishes might come true. But then whispers started, “Iraq is next. Bush is going after Iraq.” Do y’all remember what I’m talking about? It was a surreal time because the whole country was still thirsty for revenge and for the head of bin Laden. Our fresh troops were energized and ready to fight. “Iraq?” I thought to myself. Hmmmmmm….

    Since then, the foreign policy of this country has been nothing less than laughable. We invade Iraq on intelligence that Saddam might have WMD while allowing North Korea to test a nuke. We negotiate with India to give them nuclear technology in violation of our pledge in the IAEA while telling Iran they need to uphold their IAEA pledge “or else.” We agree that economic sanctions are sufficient to contain a dictator 90 miles away who tried to obtain nuclear weapons, but do not think they are sufficient to dissuade dictators in oil-rich lands from “attacking us.” We condemn Saddam’s chemical genocide on the Kurds with DOW made compounds, but turn a blind eye to the Sudan as hundreds of thousands die in Darfur.

    If the whole country could acknowledge that Bill Clinton made mistakes that did nothing but harm the prestige of the presidency, how come so many cannot acknowledge that this administration is making mistakes that are costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars?

    As for Mr. Wooten’s and others’ call to ignore the “poll numbers” about Iraq and trudge on into the abyss, I have 2 things to say:

  • The strongest “poll” was in November. The country spoke clearly. The GOP’s leadership of Congress was rejected.

  • I recall a man named Madison warning me about this viewpoint in a paper called Federalist No. 41. Van, Buy Danish, and others are nothing but a poisonous faction. What is most dangerous about them is they use the rhetoric of religion and patriotism and talk in absolutes. Thus, there is no way to save them from themselves. It is best to simply ignore them.

    • By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

    Harold, Baptists say “no beer sales on Sunday.” Polls be damned!

    By harold

    January 10, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

    Baptists will still be free not to sell beer or wine on Sunday. That’s constitutionally guaranteed as Freedom of Religion!

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this

    whynot, you whiney baby,

    Not link to terror, rightLinks Here

    No WMD’s right? Links Here

    But I guess I am stupid, Saddam was a prince of a guy and Iraq was a garden spot.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

    TOAD,

    Have you ever seen the cartoons that people rioted over. The cartoons that caused publishers in some countries to go to jail for printing? The cartoons that have left the cartoonists living in a life of fear with fatwas issued against them?

    Probably not because the newspapers and other outlets were too cowardly to print them.

    Here. Take a look. Go burn some flags, riot a little while you’re at it.

    By getalife

    January 10, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

    Excellent post Southern Democrat.

    jbmlaw,

    Watched Taranto on Lou Dobbs, he is an idiot.

    The leftist blogs are watching closely while the right are spinning and posting wrong information.

    In other words the left, has credibilty and the right does not.

    Great thing about the leftist blogs, it is oversight for our government.

    By MELO

    January 10, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

    Taranto has a couple of funnies about our leftist friends today blwjb or jbmlaw.

    Dont waste time scouring the web to find something to hang on.

    ‘Stay NEW the COURSE,MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’

    By harold

    January 10, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

    saddam gassed some folks once while allied with ronald reagan.

    bush has destroyed middle east with depleted uranium

    By Dennis

    January 10, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

    Jim Wooten talks about the left or the liberals or the democrats [“don’t get it about the Iraq war”].

    Jim is the one who doesn’t “get it”. To have to fight a war is one thing, to go looking for a war is another and the second choice was Bush’s.

    Unfortunately, George W. Bush and those who support(ed) this war seem not to know the difference, including both Georgia’s own senators and most of its representatives.

    George W. Bush has been allowed by a pathetic and sick Congress to willy nilly use the U.S. military as how own private army in a war that cannot be won and should not have been in the first place.

    In the meanwhile, personal politics (fear of being seen as unpatriotic or possibly unelectable if against the war) remain more important than the lives of our troops, and as the casualites mount each day, those who support the fighting sit safely at home watching sports or soap operas while giving little thought to the carnage they support as tho it is their due.

    No surge, not esclation. Bring the troops home.

    If Bush wants to fight let him go to it and take along those who support him (But he’s not going and neither are they). They’re the ones who “don’t have the stomach for it”.

    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    By Thief of Bagdad

    January 10, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

    Iraq was a garden spot.

    Bagdad is a popular name said to mean “Garden of Dat”, a Mussulman dervish.

    By jbmlaw

    January 10, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

    Greetings, Southern, great to see your words again. What, in your analysis, would be the short term effect within Iraq, excluding all other considerations, of

    (1) an announced withdrawal of all US forces before year end 2007, or, if different,

    (2) a Congressional vote of no confidence in President Bush’s proposed troop surge?

    By jbmlaw

    January 10, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

    Certainly, Getalife, you are one of the few literate enough to brand one who took his Ivy League undergraduate degree (with honors) at age 16 “an idiot.”

    By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

    Buy Danish,

    I gotta admit the one about heaven running out of virgins is funny.

    By Toadlily

    January 10, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

    one who took his Ivy League undergraduate degree (with honors) at age 16 “an idiot.” Statements like this make you lose any credibility you may have.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

    *Van, Buy Danish, and others are nothing but a poisonous faction. What is most dangerous about them is they use the rhetoric of religion and patriotism and talk in absolutes.

    Southern Dudeocrat,

    Like what? Most of the preaching that goes on here is from the pseudo-Christian Left who claim that being in Iraq is un-Christian and other claptrap.

    Just about the only time I have ever used the word “patriotism” anywhere was today in the context of an ex-friend of mine who chose Al Jazeera over country. BTW, he’s rich as Croesus, so money is not the issue - it’s purely a question of loyalty. I also refer to Luckovich as a “Pulitzer Patriot”. Anything else?

    When you’ve finished talking to Madison about how dangerous I am, please provide direct quotes.

    Thanks in advance.

    By Bass-Ackwards

    January 10, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

    CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. home prices may have dipped over the past year, but many American workers would still struggle to afford a median-priced home in major cities, a new study said on Wednesday.

    This should be called ‘trickle-UP’ economics. Remember the housing boom and the massive influx of new first time home ownership under the Clinton administration?

    When the middle class is protected from ‘trickle-down’ Republican economics, they have money to buy houses, then the home builders can buy new equipment, the equipment manufacturers can improve their communications equipment, the communications equipment dealers can buy industry stocks for their retirement savings, those industries can build new plants and hire new workers, the new workers can buy new houses……

    And it all starts at the foundation of American society, the middle class. Republicans sold us a bill of goods with ‘trickle down’ economics. Hopefully the American public has learned its’ lesson and America can, once again, become the prosperous society for all that it was under Democratic ‘trickle-UP’ leadership.

    As usual the Republicans got it bass-ackwards. If your child turns out to be middle-class, wouldn’t it be nice if they could afford to buy a decent home to raise your grandchildren in?

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

    Lily Toad,

    I knew you’d never seen the cartoons. That one is funny and not offensive unless you’re an IslamoFascist, in which case pretty much everything qualifies.

    People rioted, died, and issued fatwas and were imprisoned over NOTHING cartoons that almost no one saw.

    Maybe that will teach you a lesson about “jumping” to conclusions (being a toad and all).

    By Support the Troops!

    January 10, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

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

    By RW-(the original)

    January 10, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

    jm @ 3:29,

    Interesting that you point out Reagan’s mistake in cutting and running in Lebanon. When that happened it had never been tried and history has proven it to have been a mistake. Even the moonbats seem to know it was a mistake and retroactively chastise Reagan like you did in your post.

    So explain to me why you want to do something you know is a mistake and didn’t work when it was tried the first time.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

    Toadlily,

    I believe that jbmlaw was talking about James Taranto who getalife called an “idiot”.

    You could benefit from that advice about “jumping” to conclusions too that I gave your toad friend with the similar name.

    By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 04:50 PM | Link to this

    Buy Danish, Cal State Northridge, where Taranto went is hardly considered “ivy league.”

    By Lily Toad

    January 10, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

    Buy Dusty Doughnuts,

    I believe the reason Muslims were rioting is because their religion prohibits images portraying Muhammed and several cartoons did that. That being said, I do not believe in censorship or fatwas.

    By getoveryourself

    January 10, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

    Buy Danish,

    AlJazeera isn’t a sovereign government, but rather a news agency. How do you betray your country by working for AlJazeera?

    By Maria

    January 10, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

    Mr. Wooten,

    If you call your opinion “common sense,” then wouldn’t common sense tell you that if the majority of the generals are in opposition to bringing in more troops it’s probably a bad idea. Mr. Bush cannot possibly understand the magnitude and dynamics of the war as much as the generals. What is his policy with them? Replace them, if they don’t agree. Last I remembered this country is supposed to be a quasi-democracy, where autocracy DOES not hold the power. Bush needs to get off his short-sighted, narrrow-minded view point and accept the reality. As for you, I think people like you…your brand of “conservatism” will soon become extinct. No one likes a bland-looking, stick up your a* white guy. Lighten up and get with the times.

    By Southern Democrat

    January 10, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

    Jbmlaw,

    Happy New Year to you and yours. I hope that 2007 is a safe, healthy, and prosperous one for you.

    I would think (in pure pragmatic terms) the short term effects would be:

    1.) a spike in sectarian violence as the warring Shia factions and the increasingly desperate Sunnis attempt to jockey for power. I think the Kurds would disengage completely and, possibly, attempt to expand their autonomous region. In the long run, though, it would be IRAQ’s problem, with no third-party to blame.

    2.) There would be no short term effect (the tone here is not glib or sarcastic, but matter-of-fact) because this administration has shown a consistent willingness to go against the expressed views of the majority.

    By getoveryourself

    January 10, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

    Interesting that you point out Reagan’s mistake in cutting and running in Lebanon. When that happened it had never been tried and history has proven it to have been a mistake.

    Apparently you missed the evacuation of the US Embassy in Saigon in ‘75.

    By Cal

    January 10, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

    There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as “belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda.” The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden’s 1990’s heyday in Afghanistan. This from some guy, last name Perelman in New York. He got it through interviews and corporate registry documents.

    Who was acting as a middle man for oil companies? Marc Rich.

    Where does kickback money end up to avoid investigation? Switzerland.

    Who was a fugitive in Switzerland? Marc Rich.

    Who did Bill Clinton pardon? Marc Rich.

    Who was in Sandy Bergers pants? Was it Marc Rich?

    If this was all Bush’s mistake then why did Clinton sign this, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? That’s two years before Bush took office. Clinton signed an act implementing regime change in Iraq and instilling a democratic government.

    Why TF all the Bush accusations? I want to know more about the Oil for Food Program before I place blame on one man, Bush.

    If anybody knows anymore about this Oil for Food, Bill Clinton and Marc Rich connection, enlighten me.

    Damn you librals have one track minds.

    By RW-(the original)

    January 10, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

    Bass,

    Thanks for spamming every blog at the AJC with your cut and paste job. Maybe if you keep trying you’ll get it onto a blog where it has even the tiniest relevance to the discussion.

    Lily Toad,

    Did you know those Danish cartoons had run in one of the most widely read Egyptian dailies without drawing the slightest bit of protest? It was months later when the Danish Imam started taking them around along with a couple of phony depictions that the riots were ginned up.

    By jm

    January 10, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

    RW-(the original) the intent was not to chastise Reagan but to point out that other presidents, besides Clinton, have chosen to “cut and run” (I am sure I could find other examples in American history but this is one most people would remember). Whether or not it was a mistake, that I will leave to the historians. Regarding, Iraq, from day one my stance has been “wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons”. While Afghanistan was “the right war at the right time for the right reasons”.

    By whynot

    January 10, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this

    Van

    I would have to agree with you, you are stupid. Anybody who’s still spouting the Iraq-9/11 canard must be. Even W and Co. realize that was only for the truly gullible. The not the merely gulliable.

    Your links show how out of your depth you truly are. You link to people with zero credibilty, ignoring the findings of countless US comissions, committees, etc who have said Hussein had no link to OBL, AQ or 9/11. Not to mention as has been declared by our own WMD searchers-There was nothing there. He destroyed it all in the mid 90’s but kept up appearences as a deterrent. The irony of that is quite rich.

    The only people right about this war are those like myself who predicted we would find ourselves in this exact predictament we now face. You continue to believe people who got it all wrong at the start of the war, and have been wrong every step of the way since.

    You and your cohorts believe if we clap louder and maybe TinkerBell will live. But that is usually the case with absolutists. If only we try harder.

    We will leave one day as losers. The sooner the better. A real man admits he was wrong. I never expect to see that from the war whores especially W the Great.

    By Markus

    January 10, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

    Cal-

    You are wasting your time here. The liberal pink-panty wearing demoncats here don’t care about what you just posted about. I posted some quotes during the Clintoon years on Iraq as well as mentioned Sandy “Stocking Stuffer” Bergerpants, and nobody would touch it. It doesn’t matter. Bush and Iraq are the onl things in the jackass left’s crosshairs. The jackals on the left have no other interests. It’s what you might call “liberal enlightenment.”

    By Peter

    January 10, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

    HA HA HA to all the RIGHT or shall I say WRONGS today…….

    ROD asked a simple question, but all the WRONGS apparently failed to read it, dispite throwing it up 4 times……

    We do find out today Jim Wooten is in bed with VAN, and so anything Van says is Soooooo RIGHT……

    HA HA HA……you wrongs have said ZERO today……

    You all must be so very religious…..But somehow fail to remember the 10 Commandments……

    Bottom line Wrongs…….

    “YOU can’t be PRO LIFE and PRO WAR!!!!!

    White man speaks with Forked tounge!

    HA HA HA HA HA HA Bush is a good Man…..HA HA HA……

    By Bass-Ackwards

    January 10, 2007 05:34 PM | Link to this

    RW@5:03- Thanks for spamming every blog at the AJC with your cut and paste job. Maybe if you keep trying you’ll get it onto a blog where it has even the tiniest relevance to the discussion.

    The AJC has a great many blogs. I posted on two of them. I knew I’d get a wingnut implosion, congratulations for proving me correct. I see a lot of posts here regarding danish cartoons, Clinton, Taranto, N Korean nukes, etc. Just how relevant are those to the topic of Iraq & Bush’s troop surge speech tonight?

    Since you singled me out for ‘relevancy’ I know I must have hit a nerve and the snide relevancy ‘thank you’ is just another of the many obfistucations you are so famous for.

    Did you have something ‘relevant’ to say about ‘trickle-UP’ economics or has the cat got your tongue?

    By Huge

    January 10, 2007 05:34 PM | Link to this

    Mr. Wooten,

    First congratulations on this virtual community. It appears to be populated by an odd assortment of those who, Bob-Dole like, refer to themselves in third person (very bizarre), have affectations about being well-written or intelligent and the usual collection of various other on-line extremists and hate-filled, childish name-callers. It is truly something to behold.

    But I digress.

    Your comments at 9:20 are at the same time sage and suspect.

    “Is America’s future a ballot-box referendum only for those who serve and their kin?”

    “…And that gives me no more, or less, right to speak in this debate than any other freedom-loving American.”

    I agree. And there are many ways to serve this nation. We war-time veterans have no monoply or special consideration in terms of the validity of our opinions. Just our experienced and informed opinions on matters military.

    And I can’t be certain what your intention was with the somewhat obtuse, “I’m certain America’s Left doesn’t want to live by the results of that referendum.”

    But, IF, you are suggesting that the “right” has served in uniform more than the “left”, I would love to see some evidence backing up that dubious assertion.

    And although it may be true that active duty personnel VOTE gop more than not, the following is also true and definitely dillutes your claim.

    And that is that there is a very, very large disproportion in this and recent Congresses, in the number of Democrats who have served in the military, especially in time of war vs. Republicans. It’s not even remotely close.

    By Van

    January 10, 2007 05:36 PM | Link to this

    whynot,

    Typical response from the far left kookie fringe, more blather and hot air. Be carefful Albore will charge you with global warming.

    The self proclaimation of being right, just shows how “tolerant” the kooks are of other thought, try using your head and not the pelosites talking points. Open you ears and eyes and look for factual concepts.

    But then again, I must chastize myself. It is pointless to debate with a zealot, a radical, a person that would cheer Senor Chavez when as he was being swaorn in “Fatherland, socialism or death — I take the oath,”. I should not anger someone that believes to each according to thier need, from each according to their means.

    I should remind myself, that someone with that closed of a mind, is not worth the effort to educate.

    whynot, go home, your mommy is calling.

    By getalife

    January 10, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

    This is why wingnut Wooten does not want to talk about Iraq. It makes him look like an idiot.

    What a major smackdown by the real American people on w’s escaltion.

    We the people be damned, no wingnut. w be damned for getting into this mess. The buck stops with w.

    Cut the funding.

    By RW-(the original)

    January 10, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this

    jm,

    If you want to expand to any event in American history you can mnuddy up the issue all you want.

    When the barracks bombings in Lebanon took place we were told that it happened because of our presence there. Reagan pulled out and the only thing that happened was that Americans were labeled as paper tigers and attacks on our interests continued.

    Since Reagan didn’t have a failed model to look back on that specifically involved Islamic terrorists you can almost give him a pass for trying it. There is no reason to give any future President a pass for doing that and it’s exactly what Bill Clinton did in Somalia and it’s exactly what most of the left is calling for us to do now.

    Your stance is irrelevant as this was authorized by Congress and we’re there. If you were truly vocal in your opposition from before the war I applaud you for being consistent even though I disagreed with you then and still do.

    By Janine

    January 10, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

    Mr. W. Why do you suppose Mr. Bush is now agreeing to send more troops when he resisted it and ignored requests for more troops for years???It’s too little too late. ANd as I tell you so often…..THE IRAQUIS DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY, THEY WANT THEIR THEOCRACY AND THE SUNNIS AND SHIITES WILL NEVER STOP FIGHTING….

    By getoveryourself

    January 10, 2007 05:43 PM | Link to this

    It is pointless to debate with a zealot, a radical, a person that would cheer Senor Chavez when as he was being swaorn in “Fatherland, socialism or death…

    whynot,

    Can’t you see that opposing the Iraq War means that you support Hugo Chavez???

    By RW-(the original)

    January 10, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this

    Bass,

    No

    By Cal

    January 10, 2007 05:48 PM | Link to this

    Markus, I’ve noticed that about the libruls. I go to Luckovich’s when I can. I’ve read posts from conservatives that give information I didn’t know. I read down looking for a response and nothing.

    WTF? I end up having to check it out myself. It’s usually spot on.

    What you’re saying is they don’t care about the truth. They want to make it up as they go.

    O.K. But who can take them seriously?

    It won’t be me. That’s for damn sure.

    Locking up the desk and out the door.

    By Peter

    January 10, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

    Come on VAN……..say SOMETHING……sound like you know what you are talking about…..perhaps just reading what you wrote here is good enough for you!

    WHY don’t you answer ROD’S question?

    I guess when all fails just call a few names at folks……yes that will do it!

    NOT a single Right Winger had the guts to answer the question.

    HA HA HA……Chicken Hawks all of you!

    By getoveryourself

    January 10, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

    Since Reagan didn’t have a failed model to look back on that specifically involved Islamic terrorists you can almost give him a pass for trying it.

    …like Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis in ‘79?

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 05:51 PM | Link to this

    TOAD,

    I got the distinct impression you thought jmblaw was talking about himself. Nice side step.

    getoveryourself,

    Because my friend speaks fluent Arabic and instead of choosing to help us after 9/11 he chose Al Jazeera.

    Yhe patriotic thing to do would have been to volunteer one’s services to the country since we are in desperate need of people fluent in Arabic and English.

    btw, now that I’ve got you, what’s your point about leaving Saigon in 1975? The Democrat congress cut off funds. Are you expressing regret for that decision, which cost millions of lives?

    By Peter

    January 10, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

    RW…….after the Iran Contra Affair……Reagan back peddaled his way to popularity!

    But all the Kings Men remembered how to stretch the truth, and abuse the Constitution……they learned it very well in the Reagan Era……

    Thus we have the Iraq War…..

    By Huge

    January 10, 2007 05:54 PM | Link to this

    Support the Troops,

    Your 4:41 sadly says it all!

    It is in fact so relevant today that I’m going to re-post it!

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

    My guess is that the “experts” will say that although it was the wrong policy then, it is now the right policy and proves that the administration is doing more than “staying the course”.

    I know it’s a rhetorical question, but just how badly can one mismanage this situation?

    It is just amazing to me, that there is still a significant number of otherwise intelligent people left in this country who still believe this commander-in-chief has any credibility left in terms of this invasion.

    By RW-(the original)

    January 10, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

    getoveryourself,

    How is the 1979 hostage debacle the same as having been attacked by Islamic terrorists and responding by pulling out your military presence?

    I’ll save you time, they have nothing in common. Why didn’t you just whine about OPEC or something moron.

    By getoveryourself

    January 10, 2007 06:02 PM | Link to this

    Buy Danish,

    There are many of us that are able bodied that didn’t enlist after 9/11…that doesn’t make us traitors. You’re friend works for AlJazeera probably because she’s into journalism and that’s it. There’s no sort of treason or betrayal associated with working for AlJazeera. If she/he has some alterior motive, only you know.

    As far as Saigon, RW was saying that it was understandable that Reagan pulled out because it hadn’t been done before. I just merely mentioned Saigon was another example of the US military pulling out of a hostile area. And last time I checked, Vietnam seems like a pretty stable country with a growing economy. Hell, they even stemmed the Khmer Rouge genocide in neighboring Cambodia. So in fact, Vietnamese unification probably saved millions of lives. Unfortunately, they couldn’t get there sooner.

    By jm

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

    RW-(the original). Actually, the first instance of dealing with Islamic terrorists occurred during the Jefferson Presidency, the Barbary Pirates. As for irrelevant stance, it is about as irrelevant as “Mission Accomplished”.

    By Buy Danish

    January 10, 2007 06:07 PM | Link to this

    Professor Pecker Stalker who is lurking out there somewhere,

    Correction! “The” not “Yhe”.

    Peter,

    Have you even graduated from Middle School yet? I ask because your “ideas” are incredibly uninformed and undeveloped.

    Huge Blowhard,

    No matter what he does you’re going to squawk, just because that’s what you do.

    By RW-(the original)

    January 10, 2007 06:21 PM | Link to this

    Professor jm,

    Tell us all about how the Barbary pirate enslavement of our ship’s crews were blamed on our military presence in Algeria and how Jefferson cut and ran from Fort Algiers.

    Can you at least try to be serious?

    By Buy Danish

    January 11, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

    Getoveryourself (Noam Chomsky parrot)

    I can’t let these comments slide from last night.

    There are many of us that are able bodied that didn’t enlist after 9/11…that doesn’t make us traitors.

    I never said anything about enlisting, dumba$$. I was talking about working with Homeland Security as a translator or someone who scrutinizes jihadi websites.

    And last time I checked, Vietnam seems like a pretty stable country with a growing economy. Hell, they even stemmed the Khmer Rouge genocide in neighboring Cambodia. So in fact, Vietnamese unification probably saved millions of lives. Unfortunately, they couldn’t get there sooner.

    The Vietnamese economy didn’t begin to recover until the Cold War ended - thanks to people like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and NO thanks to you Leftists.

    More important is your frightening revisionist history about the Communist Khymer Rouge and the Left’a hero, Pol Pot.

    Here are the facts that belie your fabulist fairy tale.

    A few important excerpts -

    In November 1970, President Nixon asked the U.S. Congress to provide the Cambodian government of Lon Nol with $155 million in aid, of which $85 million would be earmarked for military assistance to help prevent the Khmer Rouge from taking power. American leftists, however, were adamantly against this proposal. One opponent of the policy was Anthony Lake, who in 1969 had become an aide to then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, but who – because he opposed Nixon’s bombing raids (designed to support Lon Nol against Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge) in Cambodia – soon parted political company with Kissinger and the President. By 1972 Lake was an activist in the McGovern presidential campaign, whose platform was founded upon the axiom that the military conflicts of Southeast Asia were rooted in the “arrogance of American power” rather than in Communist aggression

    Further…

    The first act of the newly elected Democrat Congress voted to cut off funding for South Vietnam and Cambodia’s Lon Nol government in January 1975. When Republicans had warned earlier that a Pol Pot victory would inevitably result in a “bloodbath” in Cambodia, anti-war Democrats like John Kerry and Anthony Lake brushed their concerns aside and accused them of trying to stir up “anti-Communist hysteria.”

    And …

    Turning a blind eye to all portents of the horrors that a Pol Pot regime was likely to bring, American leftists viewed him instead as an aspiring liberator of the Cambodian people. They thus repeated the same “mistake” they had made in regard to Lenin, Stalin and Mao, each of whose regimes were marked by targeted extermination campaigns implemented by leaders who saw themselves as infallible, who perceived the presence of political enemies everywhere, and who tolerated no dissent.

    In March 1975 Anthony Lake, who was one of the Democrats’ chief foreign policy experts (later to become Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser) wrote a Washington Post column titled “At Stake in Cambodia: Extending Aid (to Lon Nol) Will Only Prolong the Killing.” Lake reaffirmed the left’s position that the Khmer Rouge was not a totalitarian force, but rather a coalition of “many Khmer nationalists, Communist and non-Communist,” whose only ambition was to gain independence for the Cambodian people. He warned that if America alienated Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge followers, it would only “push them further into the arms of their Communist supporters.”

    And…

    After U.S. funding was cut, the regimes of South Vietnam and Cambodia were quickly overrun by the Communists. The South Vietnamese capital of Saigon surrendered on April 30, 1975 and was immediately renamed Ho Chi Minh City, as the Communists proceeded to execute tens of thousands of Vietnamese while more than a million fled the country. Lon Nol’s government in Cambodia fell thirteen days earlier, on April 17, when Khmer Rouge forces took control of Phnom Penh. The atrocities of Pol Pot commenced immediately thereafter.

    Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F

    Post a comment



    Remember me?

    You may use the following formatting:
    Bold: **this text will be bolded** = this text will be bolded
    Italic: *this text will be italic* = this text will be italic
    Link: [text to be linked](http://www.ajc.com) = text to be linked



    There will be a delay of up to 5 minutes before your comment appears.


    *HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.

     

    Take a break

    Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

    Find more causes » List your nonprofit

    Kudzu Services » Find the right people for the job