Thinking Right

By Brian Curtis

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

Gee, I musta missed the part where Iraq “threatened us.” Maybe it was with those invisible WMDs?

By Political Foreskin

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

Thank you, General Patton.

By jbmlaw

January 11, 2007 08:26 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I admit I enjoyed the President’s speech last night, thought it an intelligent discussion of the challenges – past and future – in Iraq. Did not change my mind about the necessity of the action – I always supported it – nor in our methods, past or present. I thought the most interesting argument on the issue was in an interview with P. J. O’Rourke last Saturday: “Mr. O’Rourke is particularly cutting on the situation in the Persian Gulf, which he covered most recently during the war proper, and also in 1990 and intermittently thereafter. “I was very much in favor of the Iraq invasion,” he says. “What were the questions? Is Saddam Hussein a bad man? Is he doing bad things? Does he have the oil money to do more bad things? Is he likely to do more bad things? If these were the questions, was the answer more cooperation with France?”

“In the aftermath he expected “a great spontaneous return to order,” much like, he says, what he saw after the Iraqis were expelled from “devastated” Kuwait. “After they got chased out of there the Kuwaitis totally took control, and it was as though somebody had been chased out of, I don’t know, Dayton. Everything was working again within days. Civil society came to the fore—Hayekian social forces. It was amazing. We thought—I know I thought, knowing a fair number of sophisticated, intelligent Iraqis—that this would happen in Iraq. You remove the oppressor, and there would be these self-organizing forces. Well, nooo,” he says, drawing out the word. “Instead what you got was Yugoslavia. Triple Yugoslavia. You might call it the really violent Bosnia.

“‘I have no idea if some societies, anthropologically speaking, aren’t really suited for democracy. I don’t think that’s true. But there certainly are societies that just love to fight. Northern Ireland, for instance. You couldn’t stop that problem because they were having fun—they were really, really enjoying themselves. It would still be going on full-force today if the sons of b*** hadn’t accidentally gotten rich. What happened was, more and more people started getting cars, and television sets, and got some vacation time down in Spain, and it wasn’t that they wanted to stop fighting and killing each other and being lunatics, but they got busy and forgot.’” (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009488)

By Rod

January 11, 2007 08:30 AM | Link to this

If Bush would care more about the US and our soldiers - and less about his bloated ego, this would be over.

By the way, this question was asked many, many times yesterday, but none of the “right-thinkers” had the balls to answer it (guess they really are like Georgie):

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

By Richard

January 11, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this

Um, Jim - maybe you’re a little more dim-witted today than usual. You stated: “continue pursuing those who threaten us, as we are doing in Iraq”. Hello? Anybody home? They didn’t threaten us, they were just minding their own business when we attacked them and obliterated their country.

So, according to you, we can go bomb any country we want, and when they defend themselved we can declare: “They’re attacking us! Kill all of them!” Yeah, you’re a bright one, alright.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

Screw all of this “opinion” crap and what people think. I couldn’t give a rat’s a$$ what any demnocrats think! The right thing to do is to continue to pulverize the pathetic dirt sheeeeeits until they are obliterated from the face of the earth. Just go ahead and nuke the whole damn country. Throw in a few other countries for good measure.

That’ll kill all of the terrorists and everyone else will know damn sure not to mess with the USA. While we’re at it, let the liberals go on a “fact finding” tour over there right before we drop the bomb. DAMN, what a better place this will be!

By Byron

January 11, 2007 08:41 AM | Link to this

So we continue to fight for a lost cause using our fellow Americans as pawns of our so-called leaders? The death of each American soldier is truly worth this, right? Continue to pour good money after bad, because “democracy” is the cure-all for a culture that predated ours by centuries, correct? The end justifies the means, huh?

All heil der Fuhrer!

By RetiredLTC

January 11, 2007 08:41 AM | Link to this

What we are doing in Somalia today is what should have been done years ago. That is where thee line in the sand should have been drawn.

By KP

January 11, 2007 08:45 AM | Link to this

Richard, that’s the Bush Doctrine to bomb anybody we want at any time. It’s called “pre-emptive strike.” And as stupid as it is, a lot of the neo-con and “right thinkers” whole-heartedly support it.

What Bush said last night was nothing more than “We’ve screwed this thing up so badly that all we can do it throw more money and people at it and see if something, anything, works.”

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Rod @ 8:30, I usually ignore the unworthy questions, but I make an exception for you, hoping it will allow you to post less drivel. The victory in the war on terrorism will look much like the victory over Communism. Success in Iraq will be like Doyle’s “dog that did not bark.” You will never notice it, and the fact that it is not noticed is its proof.

By Political Foreskin

January 11, 2007 08:48 AM | Link to this

Bush bravely suggested that he alone bears responsibility for Iraq. Yet, strangely, the next words weren’t, “Therefore, I shall resign the office of the presidency, effective noon tomorrow”

One bears responsibility for an error in judgement by accepting the consequences.

Did anyone listen to the words and phrases in Bush’s speech? I tried to just focus on the narrative as Bush described what had happened, and what lay ahead.

Merely by describing the strategy and outlining the possible complications, Bush wove a perfect nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then the nightmare became a sweat-dream when Katie Courik pronounced, “Well, the president really laid it on the line…”

Plaudits from a Pundit? No! Platitudes from a Platypus.

Notice how the timeline of reality on the ground in Iraq is catching up with Bushspeak? He actually mentioned the Samara Mosque bombing, so he’s less than a year away from real time now. Last year he was three years behind. Perhaps by this summer, he’ll address the nation and what we’ll hear is truth. Truth! Truth from the likes of a no good, lyin’ yellah sack of confederate trash? Times they be a changin’……

By jbmlaw

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

Dear LTC @ 8:41, I think you are right, but be prepared, our leftists brothers will turn on you like they did on Lieberman. They have little patience for someone who calls ‘em like he sees ‘em. (I write knowing you and I often disagree, but thank you again for your service.)

By low down

January 11, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

TFTT. Maybe some day someone will do the world a huge favor and slit your throat.

By jbmlaw

January 11, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this

Dear Faux-TFTT @ 8:39, that is not even a passable parody. Give it up, post something genuine. PoFo, if that is you, you are slipping. More coffee will sharpen your keen sense of humor, which I generally admire.

By jbmlaw

January 11, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

Dear PoFo @ 8:48, that’s more like it, funny.

By Curious Observer

January 11, 2007 08:55 AM | Link to this

It was interesting that a New York Times reporter in Baghdad quoted unnamed “sources close to Maliki” as saying that Maliki’s understanding of the agreement with Bush did not involve any attack on al-Sadr’s Shiite militia.

I hope these sources, if they exist, were wrong. If all Maliki wants is help in suppressing the Sunni militia, then our troops will be working to ensure the existence of a Shiite state in the form of a theocracy. And I hope that the agreement does include sharing oil revenue among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, as well as giving Sunnis a legitimate seat at the policy-making table.

We know what the president thinks he heard Maliki say. We don’t yet know what Maliki thinks he agreed to. I am willing to take a wait and see stance, rather than condemn the surge at the outset.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

Who’s next?

How about those pesky Canadians? They keep letting terrorists into their country that end up filtering south to the US. Let’s just bomb Montreal, if we do it right we might eliminate about 3,720,000 potential terrorists.

Time to lock and load those B-1b Lancer’s, boys.

By Political Foreskin

January 11, 2007 09:03 AM | Link to this

Okay, since no one here has any data to base their comments on, I’ll offer a look at 12 months from now as bush delivers his state of the union speech in ‘08. (because I do have data. Data I deduce by playing war games all day long, you know, what if…what would it take…how many men…)

We’ll still be in Iraq, “making progress, and opening schools and hospitals, installing power grids, and providing plumbing infrastructure”.

Flash ahead ten years: We’ll still be in Iraq making progress, opening schools…..

Flash ahead 25 years: we’ll still be in Iraq making progress….

Cost for a generation: 3 trillion plus

we can never leave iraq…ever. Bush is right about one thing: the consequences of leaving iraq would be a disaster for the USA, (forever).

He wont tell us that what he means is that he broke Iraq beyond repair and we are stuck there being collateral damage for a centuries-old civil war.

Bush done planted our flag on the temple mount, people. He’ll go down as the biggest geo-political, foreign policy idiot in history, no question, and anyone who doesnt’ see it soon, will be the #2 idiot.

I’m the Deja-vu Revisionist Historian from back to the future and I got a bad feeling about this war.

I know all. I see all. I AM RETROROCKETMAN!!!!

By WTFBBQ

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

Was watching one of the news channels last night, CNNi I think (CNN International) and I believe it was a show called The Situation Room. They made a good point, I think: if we pull out now, the Iraq gvmt will crumble, the militias and mullahs’ will control the ports and oil, which will make their “money chests overflow”, so they can possibly buy nukes from N Korea (and why didn’t we kick N Korea’s butts? - I digress), and after a year or two they will be able to strike Israel, then Western Europe, and probably the US. Doesn’t matter where they launch a Nuke, even if it is just Israel - the use of nuclear weapons will ruin the world, because someone will strike back, and it will escalate, and here comes nuclear winter.

Do I think that they have the intelligence not to launch? Umm.. not really.. They’re mullah’s with nothing to lose, but everything to gain by martrying(sp?) themselves or their followers for Allah and Islam, especially for their promised virgins in heaven..

So, what do we do now, pull out and let the region collapse? Doubtful. Do I think we need to clean the place up before leaving? yes.. But I think tha 20k troops isn’t enough. While the president stated that it is not open ended, he didn’t indicate a departure date. If they want to make sure that the gvmt of Iraq can stand on its own, and they want to clear insurgents from the 9 districts and have enough men to KEEP it clean, they ought to send more than a mere 20k, but for all our sakes put a deadline in place.

Maybe we could send 50k troops, and tell the gvmt we leave in a year, hell or high water? That “here’s the model for democracy, implement it or die”?

Of course, a deadline, especially a short one like a year, can be “waited out” by the terrorists so that when we leave they just come back in..

I don’t claim to know how to fix this, but damned if I didn’t think we just should have pulled out after geting Saddam Hussein.

I await the sniper like and sarcastic replies..

By jim d

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

Belly up to the table boys, Who’s next?

How about those pesky Canadians? They keep letting terrorists into their country that end up filtering south to the US. Let’s just bomb Montreal, if we do it right we might eliminate about 3,720,000 potential terrorists.

Time to lock and load those B-1b Lancer’s, gentlemen..

By Gordon Nelson

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

The MSM this morning all trumpet that the American people are not in support of President Bush announced plan.

This should come as no surprise. After two or three years of round-the-clock Bush Bashing by the press, both print and electronic, the public has come to believe the only thing they’ve been told.

In the late 30s and early 40s, if the press had behaved as they are behaving now, America and its allies would have lost World War II.

By jim d

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

What! no volunterrs for the armed forces? Oh, well—bring back the draft in 07 (it will happen) and watch all the conservatives flip when their kids are forced to fight a no-win war.

By Rod

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

Hey jbmlaw - you made a weak and pathetic “effort” at answering my question. A little bit of mumbling which you call an answer (like Georgie). However, you still did not answer the question, so I’ll repeat it for you:

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

You said: “Success in Iraq will be like Doyle’s “dog that did not bark.” You will never notice it, and the fact that it is not noticed is its proof.” What the hell is that?!?! That’s not an answer! How does that relate to when you pull the troops out? Are you saying if there are no suicide bombers for 2 weeks we get to leave? Or is it 3 weeks? Or a year? What? Stop avoiding the question and specifically say when is the war over and you would authorize our troops to come home? It’s not that hard a question.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

Hey low down, go back to your downlow - you maggot liberal.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

HA HA HA HA HA … too funny

Now these resident sick twisted piles of festering leftist afterbirth are getting abjectly hysterical about their conservative BETTERS first thing in the morning. Even posting empty reptilian snake like death threats/wishes. They wake up in their mental hospitals and multi-culti hell holes, gleefully haunted by their hilariously bilious obsession with yours truly which increasingly seems to master the demoNcrat excreta that passes for their thoughts.

I am still quite dispassionately hoping for the “cyber sucide” of the anal obsessive stalker - the maggot ridden snivelling cowardly gobshite - who simply cannot use its own “real” yellowbellied pinko id to post this unhinged envious bollocks! Kill off this putrid id bollock chops and lets see which treasonous gutless commie scum you actually are.

But then everyday we see on here that virtually all the Bush hating leftist liars are such pansy like dastardly appeasing vermin that all one can reasonably do is post at their level … so as not to intellectually/morally intimidate them too pugnaciously. Self esteem sure is a liberal sickness - like liberalism itself.

COWARDY COWARDY LEFTIST PUKE!! …huge smirk

that was kind a fun - typing a modest, measured response during breakfast … any chance of another brilliant stunning devastating parody like that dickweed round about lunch time!!

By jim d

January 11, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

Alright which of you spiked TFT’s coffee this morning with sugar from the “Project for the New American Century”?

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

snivelling moron rod

jbm effortlessly intellectually wiped the floor with you - you were shat on with laughable consummate ease - even more amusing though is your obtuse mongoloid like response which naturally evinces your extant proven doltish inability to glean (and assimilate) any kind of subtle argument. Ultra dumb morons like you clearly need to be explicitly spoon fed and are unable to engage the bigger picture abstract - which in this case hilariously makes you look even more sullenly stupid than we thought you were. Get an adult to reread the point to you about vanquishing communism and the subsequent less than oblique reference to your own familial experiences.

GIANT HINT: you can ONLY factually/logically reject an argument when you have actually understood it … DUH!!!

thickasleftistpigsh!t aint ya!!

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That was some goooood stroking!

(be back in a little bit, got to clean off the keyboard).

smirk

By getalife

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

This is strike three and w is out.

Better hurry up and close those oil contracts.

Its not about the enemy stupid.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 09:48 AM | Link to this

@ jim dickweed

I dont use coffee at all … but your crystal meth seems just a tad more hallucinogenic than usual this morning - must have beem mixed with some bad acid or summat!!

By Southern Democrat

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

Gordon Nelson,

You’re right. The “Mainstream Media” has it ALL wrong. That’s why I get my news on Iraq from reliable sources: two Marines who returned from Anbar province in November and an Army colonel who retired at the first opportunity rather than go back to his assignment in Baghdad. They tell me that, though they still support the mission, things are MUCH, MUCH WORSE than what is reported in the news. They also complain about conservative blowhards who talk about the glory of this country and winning the war on terrorism while checking their stocks on MSNBC.com (their words, not mine).

By Rod

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

Hey time for the truth - I see you weren’t man enough to answer the question either. I’ll repeat it again for you:

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

jbmlaw chickened out - you’re doing it too? Maybe you need to ask your pimpdaddy his opinion first. Go ahead and call Jim.

By WTFBBQ

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

(an aside, who is this stalker all of you keep referring to? Who is Andy? Obviously I haven’t been around the blog long enough to figure this out… Of course, if the inference is that I am the stalker, please state so plainly… but I assure you I am not)

By Van

January 11, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

Interesting,

No matter what Bush does, the lefties still hate him. At first, they said he needed more troops, they hated his mean, lean strategy. Now, he proposed sending in more troops and the lefties hate him for sending in more troops.

I guess, once the lefties hate you, you have no choice.

What would the socialists, I mean lefties, do in Iraq, outside of quitting and running home to mama?

By WTFBBQ

January 11, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

Da dum Da dum Da dum, da dum, da dum

The stalker is here!!!

By CJ

January 11, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

Jim’s use of the phrase “antiwar Democrats” is inaccurate and misleading. He should avoid employing tactics of the propagandists and sticks to facts:

Jim also wrote that Democrats want to “retreat into isolationism”. In fact, Democrats are in agreement with Iraq Study Group recommendations that we open diplomatic channels with Syria and Iran. Democrats have also been encouraging this President to bring Israeli and the Palestinian representatives back the bargaining table. But Bush doesn’t talk with – he only talks at. The United States is more isolated now than ever before, and it’s not because of the Democrats.

By Rod

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

Hey Van, why don’t you try taking your turn at avoiding the question like jbmlaw and time for the truth?

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

By jim d

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

Dear TFT,

Fortunately I can be cured from these alleged habits. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we just can’t fix your stupidity.

By time for the truth

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

Snivelling bollocks buggeroff bloody wanking bender spewing poppycock on the motoway of sniveling lies and drudgery whilst masticating eggiwegs!!!

By Curtis

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

Lisa,

Van doesn’t mean well. He’s a hypocrite who will blindly support the party that gives him the biggest tax cuts. If a Democratic President had messed up in Iraq, Van would be singing a very different tune.

Van,

You’re bias is showing. At first the Generals were requesting more troops. Now the Generals are recommending against sending more troops. If you have a problem with the positions taken by the left, then take it up with the Generals.

By @@ is FAT FAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By RW-(the original)

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

Rod,

I know this is over your head but it’s very simple. A self-governing Iraq that answers to it’s people, is able to police and defend itself, and is an ally in the middle east.

By lumpheaded liberal

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

jm, Mr./Ms. Liberal..I believe you were asked a question by RW yesterday evening. Do you want to answer or cut-n-run like Senator Turban?

======================================= 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.

Rod - stop acting like a soiled red doper diaper baby and grow the hell up. We’ll leave Iraq when we leave Iraq when the government is stable and not a moment sooner. The mission of removing Saddam was already accomplished. I can’t imagine ignorant punks like you during World War 2 asking when is the war going to be over? Just like a PITA kid. Daddy, are we there yet? Daddy, are we there yet? How much longer daddy? Daddy can you speed up? Why is this drive taking so long daddy? Ignoramus.

By map9671

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

Rod…..You are absolutely right(and don’t take that in a bad way….LOL)!!! I have been asking people on the right for almost 2 years now…….Define success/victory in Iraq. What is the definitive point where it is a success/victory??? I can never get an answer from them. But I thought they already declared victory in Iraq 3 1/2 years ago when Bush was on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and said “all major US combat has ended”, with the huge MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner in the background. jbmlaw (and most righties) are severly confused……the War in Iraq is not the War on Terror and it never was. The real War on Terror would be if we hunted down bin Laden and destroyed the entire Al Qaida network. With now close to 180,000 troops in Iraq and only about 15,000 - 20,000 in Afghanistan (fighting the resugence of the Taliban and hunting bin Laden)…….are we really hunting down the real 9/11 culprit. I don’t think so…..

jbmlaw made some ridiculous statements. To say that victory in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq will go unnoticed are two of the biggest cope outs I have ever heard. Everyone knew when the US won the Cold War…at that point Communism was defeated……Communism and the Soviets immediately crumbled. The only victory in the War on Terror is if we hunt down and kill every terrorist cell in the world……impossible!!! Victory in Iraq is equally as dim. Democracy will never work and endure there because of the sectarian hatred. The Sunnis will never recognize a Shia or Kurdish leader….as the Shias will never recognize a Sunni or Kurdish leader…..as the Kurds will never recognize a Shia or Sunni leader. Unless Iraq goes the way of Yugoslavia and carve out Kurdishnia, Sunnilandia, and Shiandia as three seperate countries …..there will be no clear victory. The only form of government that would work is a dictatorship ruled by fear. We need to pull out ASAP and Iraq work out its own issues. Whether we leave in a year or we leave in 10 years the result will be the same.

By Elizabeth

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

When are you going to understand that this is not a war that will be won with American military might or American lives?

It is a war that will be decided by the Shiites and Sunnis alone. These warring factions have been fighting since the 9th century. Nothing America does—not militarily or economically—will change their deep-seated hatred of one another.

This isn’t something for American to “win.” We blew the lid off of Pandora’s box in Iraq and we have and will continue to suffer the consequences.

Iraqis don’t want the same things that we do. When will we stop fighting for them?

By Rod

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

Hey RW-(the original) and lumpheaded liberal - you’ve given the ridiculously easy answer - when the government is stable. Now, try and provide a real answer.

How will you know when the Iraq Government is stable? Huh? Do they have to be in power 6 months for you to be happy? for 6 years? huh? Seriously - how do you know when the government is stable and we can send our boys home?

By Noelle

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

Escalation — his characterization of what the President had announced

Escalation is not an opinion. It’s fact. An increase in military presence is one of the basic definitions of escalation. Anyone who continues to use the term “surge” is simply following the spin, not reporting the facts.

By Lily Toad

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

Jim almost made sense today at least in his first two paragraphs. Escalating troop numbers is not a “new strategy.” What is it about Presidents not listening to the populace or their advisors? I’m thinking of LBJ and Nixon who just kept escalating the troops.

By RW-(the original)

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

Rod,

When the Iraqi government gets serious about putting down the militias we’ll know we’re getting close. They have promised to do that in this latest effort. If they refuse or start limiting our movement then we’ll know it won’t work.

If you feel the need for more screaming and sniveling take it to someone else. Perhaps someone in your playpen with you would be more on your level.

By Ree

January 11, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

When the public concensus was that we needed more troops, which was at least two years ago, the administration fed us the pc correct line stating that we had enough troops in place and everything was under control. On Nov. 7th we showed them that we ain’t buying that and if you won’t fix this we’ll get someone in office who will. We played this war out the way Bush and Rumsy wanted to and it failed and now we want the troops home. It is too little too late now to concede that we need more troops. We have the body bags to prove it.

Is it possible that a lot of the violence we see is because US troops are occupying Iraq and the Iraqis want us to go home. Is it possible that some of the violence going on is attributed to the fact that we have committed offenses and abuses on thousands upon thousands of their people.

No amount of troops is going to stop someone from strapping a bomb to their backs and walking down the street and detonating it. We are just sending more troops to die. These people have to find a way to live peacefully among themselves. They know each other better than we know any of them.

By time for the truth

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

moron rod

NO ONE “chickened out” … your rather obtuse question was clearly answered, you are just too doltish to see and too much of an irrrational Bush hater to assimilate the answer.

As countless clear thinking folkks have already stated, there will be NO abject “formal” surrender by the murderous mohammedan fascists and their ilk. Any “victory” will just quietly emerge, as our enemies simply -as the line on the old Blondie song says - (eventually) fade away and radiate, or better still just be radiated.

The global war on mohammedan terror will be “won” when the attacks and/or credible threats of mohammedan terror attacks permanently cease. It will likely be a decade or even two - and will necessitate the mohammedan world actually robustly engaging/targeting their own fascist vipers within.

Iraq will be a “success” when the obsessive craven leftist appeasers STFU … and Iraqis are able to assert complete, or virtually complete control over their own territory and future, politically and militarily. Cutting and running will be infinitely more catastrophic for the west than the relatively modest losses thus far incurred. The casualties so far - and blindingly obviously every one is deeply regrettable - have thankfully been pretty light. Especially when seen in the bigger picture context - which lefties always glibly ignore - of previous more conventional wars and the now ongoing global war on terror - of which Iraq is now (like it or not) the main battlefront.

Only an intellectually dishonest leftist moron childishly and cretinously keeps on bleating about being given an exact date for withdrawal, idiotically keeps dishonestly and moronically to know what self evidently what is a “success” - given the current circumstances, and arguably even worse insists on systematically (for purely political reasons) telling the enemy vital info which undermines the war on terror.

Remember the Hundred Years War … I bet the pinko appeasing likes of the NY Slimes, NBC et al would have been even more hysterically bombastic and hyper critical than they are currently being about about Iraq if such a drawn out conflict had been fought (by the US) in more modern times.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

WTFBBQ,

A little blog history for you.

“The Stalker or “Stalker Boy” as we call him (in addition to his new name Professor Pecker Stalker) is a piece of vermin who posts under these names - “One Voice”, “Common Sense”, “One of the Majority Voices of Dissent” and others. He is also a shameless nickjacker,a proud Socialist an anti-religous zealot, and he is certifiably insane. He is particularly obsessed with me.

As for “Andy”, if you see anyone using that name, it is PoFo or Political Foreskin - the decidedly unfunny turd that for some unfathomable reason Wooten and jbmlaw encourage.

By WTFBBQ (so this is why they put The Original)

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

ARGH! Now I comprehend.. Bastid!

By WTFBBQ (the duplicate (sarc))

January 11, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Thanks Buy Danish.. Much obliged for the history lesson. :)

By time for the truth

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

By time for the truth January 11, 2007 10:06 AM Snivelling bollocks buggeroff bloody wanking bender spewing poppycock on the motoway of sniveling lies and drudgery whilst masticating eggiwegs!!!

WOW … happily it looks like the worthless turd Aborted Foreskin is now ready to jump under the decidedly illiterate Inbred Redneck’s stolen beer truck holding Lance Corporal Syphilis’ limp wristed puffy cloven hoof!!

By map9671

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

Professor Jim,

Do you honestly believe removing Saddam was the complete mission???? Then why didn’t the troops pack up and go home after they caught Saddam in that spider hole???? No…..you and the rest of the righties who believe what you said are the true ignoramuses. You all believed what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld told you…that once Saddam was caught all of the Iraqis would love us as liberators, a quick democracy would be propped up, and we would come home. Not at all wondering ……if sectarian violence started and moved towards a civil war where we, the US, couldn’t take a side…….if foreign fighters came into the country and orgnanized attacks against our troops……if the Iraqi police/army was not dependable, requiring us to stay longer and continuously retraining them…….if we couldn’t tell friend from foe when it came to who would be attacking out troops. All of the above has happened AFTER Saddam was caught…..and the worst part about it is…..the entire Bush administration was warned this would happen by CIA analysts and estimates. These very same CIA analysts/estimates is the reason why Daddy Bush didn’t go all the way to Baghdad in the Gulf War.

Funny how when the case was made to go into Iraq because “they are a direct threat to the US because of WMD’s”, but when none were being found the story was switched to “liberating the Iraqi people”. Also funny how during the whole march up to the war, Bush was saying Iraq had WMD’s, but the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking and site after site coming up with no WMD’s and reporting it……destroying the whole case to go to war….well, Bush ended that by telling the inspectors to get out and started the war early……….

By jbmlaw

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

WTFBBQ @ 9:08, I don’t agree with your tentative conclusion, but I agree with much of your analysis. My own solution, please feel free to critique: US announces its intention to build bases, on the model of those we built in post-war Germany, in western Afghanistan and in the middle of Shi’ite territory, SE Iraq, to enable us to monitor activity in Iran, and actually simulates commencement of construction – runways for example. What would be the effect of a perceived semi-permanent presence?

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

If anyone wants a lesson from a historical perspective on what happens when we let Leftist ideology prevail, and let their Democrat representatives run wars, read this.

By Buy Danish

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

WTFBBQ,

You are a good student!

By getalife

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

w still is not telling the truth about his Iraq disaster

By JK

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

Mr. Wooten, Van, and the others who still applaud this failed President’s “plan,” you are loyal to YOUR GUY and YOUR PARTY. You are NOT loyal to America, the principles for which we stand, the principles to which you claim loyalty, or the soldiers you claim to support. When you pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands, you are lying. If you took an oath to uphold and defend the Consititution of the United States, as did Mr. Bush, you were LYING. Loyalty to your guy, no matter what, no matter how wrong, to save your OWN face, is not loyalty to America. You are liars. You are traitors. You are a stench on our republic. Thanks for listening.

By Lily Toad

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

jbmlaw, smells like colonialism to me. I think that is exactly Bush’s plan — to have a permanent presence in Iraq.

By jbmlaw

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

Dear map9671 @ 10:48, you repeat an error common among our leftist friends – confusion between a “mission” and an “objective,” which is also the difference between a battle and a war. In WW2 for example, capturing the bridge at Remagen was a mission; defeating the Nazi state was the objective. Invading Normandy was a mission, admittedly a huge one (almost like deposing the evil-doers Iraq.) Here, in the war on terrorism, the objective is larger than any particular mission. Connecting the dots has been a difficulty for the visionaries of the left.

By Political Foreskin

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

Good one, ttft!

you know, I will now confess that I am the stalker troll from yahoo who once went by the name, analchord.

I was king once. I influenced many people. I was copied by everyone everywhere. I wanted to control the world from my keyboard.

but i was mad. MAD! at first, i thought i could control my mad cravings for attention. I thought i could flame others out of a sense that i could handle anything. But i was/am dilusional. i am this way because i got no attention from my family, or from my coworkers, or anybody. i was always just there, just unhappy, and unfulfilled.

but then the internet was born and i could finally prove how superior i was to one and all

time for the truth, you have me pegged perfectly. you should know what an accurate judge of character you are

i dont know what i’m going to do now, i maybe have 20 years of life left, if you believe the insurance companies, i thought of going out to the desert, really, and just living by pushing a broom, hell i dont care, i obviously cant be around people,

let me tell you what just happened in my life. i’m an artist, and i’ve done biz with one main art dealer for 20 years, and i’ve purposefully kept my emails or phone calls to this guy at a minimum so that he wouldn’t realize what a daft loser i really am. my work, for some inexplicable reason, sells. or at least it used to. About three months ago, I wrote a drunken email to this guy and got 20 years of misperceived injustices off my back, (the broker has always been fair and honest, and i was just nitpicking about very small potatoes), anyway, he has dropped me like a hot potato, and now i face bankruptcy and ruin, because my cost of living is so high, and i’m too stupid to know how to market myself, and i’m helplessly inexorably sinking

you may not have analchord to kick around anymore because soon i wont be able to afford the bandwidth connection itself.

I’m going to do a farewell performance at the star bar in little five points soon, one step ahead of the sheriff, i’m sure

well, anyway, tftt, you’re the one who is funny, downright lol all the way. you should do your own blog and make some money on ads you know, that’s how you make money on the internet, by getting people to click. (like I know anything about it). i mean it’s perfect for you, you do have alot to say, and you feel so strongly about it , that you are motivated to affect people’s lives, and that’s a rare gift.

Well, anyway, i apologize for being a jerk, it doesnt matter, when it’s over, it’s over,

By jbmlaw

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

Dear Lily Toad @ 10:59, yes, exactly, much as we have colonized Germany.

By Van

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

JK,

Coming from the scum of the earth, your comments are fighting words.

Grow up.

By @@

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

jbmlaw:

Please know that that was not my post at 9:00.

This is my first comment here today.

My @@ seems to be showing up both here and at ml’s. Problem is, it’s not me posting.

By Watta Load

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

Just saw on CNN the current “financial” cost of the Iraq Invasion (I won’t call it a war)…$357,000.000.000.00…

By Watta Load

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

Oops.. make that $357,000,000,000.00

By Dusty

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

@@,

The imposters here using the ID of others pick the most sensible and charming to try and smear. So keep up the good words and we shall know you by them (and know the “uglies” by their mindless insults). Go, @@!!!

By Joe

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

jmblaw

In your 8:18 post, I think O’Rourke really misses the mark. My guess is at times he’s trying to make a valid point. At other times, he’s just trying to be funny.

While Kuwait is not a democracy, it was absolutely nothing like Iraq; 3 distinct ethnic clans, warring for centuries, ruled by an oppressive dictator representing the minority. It DID have more in common with Dayton than Bagdad!

Secondly, he states “But there certainly are societies that just love to fight. Northern Ireland, for instance. You couldn’t stop that problem because they were having fun—they were really, really enjoying themselves”.

Morbid humor that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the historical and cultural reasons behind the conflict in Ireland. Something this administration was warned about but chose to ignore before invading Iraq.

And finally, I take exception to points made in your 8:46 post. We DID notice the fall of communism, quite graphically with the tearing down of the Berlin wall and most recently economically with the former Soviet republics entering the free market with oil and services.

Your statement that “You will never notice it, and the fact that it is not noticed is its proof.” is not up to your usual posts. It’s too much like one from the Bush playbook, take it on faith and to not do so is proof of your lack of faith.

The fact that the dog didn’t bark was proof something was amiss. I suspect THAT is what really applies here.

Thanks for your always thought provoking posts.

By Rod

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

ATTENTION - time for the truth stated in his 10:37 post: “The global war on mohammedan terror will be “won” when the attacks and/or credible threats of mohammedan terror attacks permanently cease. It will likely be a decade or even two - and will necessitate the mohammedan world actually robustly engaging/targeting their own fascist vipers within.”

Even time for the truth (who keeps his head up Bush’s a$$) says it will be 10-20 years before we can recall our troops!!! This is insane!!! Howmany trillions of dollars and thousands of lives will be lost over 20 years of this - thanks to Bush’s bloated ego?!?!

By Political Foreskin

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

@@ why do you have to keep your running commentary so controlled? So what if someone jacked your ID?

Do you think that the handful of regulars who read this blog all day long are thinking, “Gee, @@ is acting crazy, this is very upsetting, I think less of her now, I dont believe what she just wrote, man oh man, well, that’s it for me, @@ is drunk or something, i mean, she used to be this incredible writer and my life hinged upon her every phrase so cleverly turned, but now, no way, i’m through with her..”

What? Why cant you just write your comment, so that everyone can read it, and then forget it? I’m a little worried that what happened to me, when I was destroyed by my own machinations on the yahoo boards, will happen to you. I took myself too seriously too. trust me, girl, DONT DO IT.

Laugh it off. Rub it out. shake it off. we’ll read you. we promise. and if someone nickjacks you we promise we wont think poorly of you, you can relax.

hope you have a great day of blogging and stuff, i really do, but try to relax.

By Dennis

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

KP said above,”the Bush Doctrine to bomb anybody we want at any time. It’s called “pre-emptive strike.” And as stupid as it is, a lot of the neo-con and “right thinkers” whole-heartedly support it.”

Jim Wooten is entitled to his “opinion”, but admit it or not, he knows just as the rest of us do that the entire middle-east war is over who controls the oil, nothing less. He might as well forget trying to smooth over the lie that attacking Iraq was all about terrorism. Nobody who can think is buying it and as bad as Saddam was, the kind of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that is going on there today was NOT going on until Bush removed OUR once and former “good ole boy”, Saddam.

Recently we have heard mention of Production Sharing Agreements (PSA)being worked out with the “government” of Iraq in which the oil corporations will take the greater share. Once these contracts are signed, Iraq cannot back out even if it wanted to, nor will Iraqi laws be of any effect for re-consideration for what the Iraqi “government” is about to sign.

All of this was predicted over three years ago in a study by Greg Muttitti, “The Rip-off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth”, which can be found at carbonweb.org.

Anyone interested in the truth should also read, “Blood and Oil” by Michael T. Klare.

What was elected to office six plus years ago was a group of self-serving bunglers whose eyes for money and power IS greater than their love for this country and the lives of our military. THERE ARE YOUR WAR CRIMINALS.

“The seasons change, the winds they shift and veer; The grass of yesteryear Is dead; the birds depart, the groves decay: Empires dissolve and peoples disappear: Song passes not away. Captains and conquerors leave a little dust, And kings a dubious legend of their reign; The swords fo Caesars, they are less than rust: The poet doth remain.”

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

By Political Foreskin

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

Where have you been dusty? We’ve all missed you. We are lusty for dusty. What did you think of Bush’s speech? Were you surprised by his candor?

How’s it going? How’s your family. Do you have pets? What’s your favorite thing about the War in Iraq?

Mine’s the secret pleasure I get out of knowing that somebody is paying for 911.

well, look forward to reading your blogs today.

By Dr. King

January 11, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

“Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.”

By JK

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

Van, (re: your 11:07) How NOT surprising that you’d gladly strike a 120-pound woman for exercising her first amendment right to speak the truth. This is because your loyalty is to your GUY and your PARTY, and not to America or the principles for which we stand. Thanks also for verifying that slander and verbal assaults can never sate your love for inflicting violence. If you must, bring it on then. I’m pretty tough for a lil’ ol’ gal, and might be able to take you.

By ICEMAN

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

Bush is a part of a secret organization trying to establish the New World Order. The Bible predicts that the antichrist will rule ancient Babylon. Guess where that precise location is:Iraq! They are simply paving the way for his takeover.

By Dr. King

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

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

By Cletus Snow

January 11, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Wow, now the excuse for stupidity is imposters are impersonating me!What a bunch of self important whackjobs.

By Lily Toad

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

somebody is paying for 911. Yeah, who cares who has to pay? Just like nobody cares that several generations younger than us will be paying for Bush’s ego/oedipus complex for decades to come.

By @@

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

Political Foreskin a/k/a Multi-I.D. poster:

I’m hearing what you’re saying, but let me change it just a tad.

If I didn’t keep my comments controlled, I’d be referring to slimy cucumbers like I did yesterday.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU COMES TO A NICKJACKER LIKE YOU.

Believe me when I say I can become extremely nasty and vicious. You accused me of that very thing not long ago.

It’s called self-discipline.

I know how to exercise it.

Maybe you should try it sometime.

I choose to rise above leftist tactics such as STFU. That’s one you use often.

Are you gettin’ me?

No!!!! I just wanted to make sure jbmlaw knew it wasn’t me. Other conservatives have chided him, so he may have thought I was as well.

Do you see how your childish games can cause problems for other posters?

I doubt it because you’re a selfish “prick-le”.

By Byron

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

“Mistakes have been made.” Ya gotta love the passive voice - dem mistakes just kinda sprung up from the bowels of the earth on their own, with zero ownership by any person or people! Next time POTUS should say “I have made mistakes” and if you really want the American people to believe you, add “…and I must be stopped at all costs for the lies and deception I have perpetrated on you mindless idiots that continue to support me!” to that sentence.

Bush’s war is idiotic, and anyone who continues to support the war in light of the sordid history of facts that brought us to this point is a M.O.R.O.N!

So be it…it’s our fellow citizens dying, our tax dollars being misspent and wasted, our pre-war balanced budget being shot to Hades because of our desire to impose a U.S.-led world order on other nations under the pretext of “national security” … and all for some bogus, insincere, ever-changing, moving target “principle.” Lawdy, lawdy…

By Dusty

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

Well, hi PoFo, using your real ID today? Nice.

I tell you what. When I write my autobiography I will send you a copy. OK?

By Darth Vader

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

George W. Bush will go down as the worst president in the history of the United States. This Iraq invasion will have been worst political/military move in World History.

By @@

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

…and BTW Political Foreskin. Why is it that when I point out a namejacking, you always raise your “uncircumcised head” in protest?

By Darth Vader

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

Anyone that uses @@ as an ID is frustrated sexually.

By Van

January 11, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

JK

Strike someone??? where did I say anything like that.

It appears you hae no problem with your free speech rights, until someone disagrees with you.

Calling someone “You are liars. You are traitors. You are a stench on our republic.” sounds awful aggressive, are you still taking anger management classes?

While, I do sometimes use hurtful words, I can not compare with the foul loathing that you posses. Your credibility would improve with a calmer tone of your voice and words.

BTW, if you were standing in front of me, saying those words, I do not know how I would react. Since women and men are equals under the law, I would treat you like any other low life spewing filth and garbage in public.

By Buy Danish

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

@@,

It would be nice if jbmlaw, Wooten and others didn’t keep cheering him on.

If it were up to me, I’d be firing rotten tomatoes at him in the hope that he leaves the stage quickly and permanently.

Typo correction^^^in my note to JK -

Make that “shield” and “falsely”

By Charles

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

We need to quit kidding ourselves. A shift in strategy or throwing more troops into the battle will not produce an acceptable outcome if significant numbers of prominent Iraqis are not on our side. If we can bribe people over there with mentalities similar to Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, and many others of notoriety who unconsciously hate the masses of their people, we might be able to win because this will paralyze the masses. We will continue to delude ourselves if people of that ilk are not complicit in Iraq. | If we are successful, we will be able to mold them into the people we desire them to become.

By Van

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

Dennis,

I must disagree with you.

“KP said above,”the Bush Doctrine to bomb anybody we want at any time. It’s called “pre-emptive strike.” And as stupid as it is, a lot of the neo-con and “right thinkers” whole-heartedly support it.”

Congress gave the President the authority to pursue terrorists where ever they might be. That is different than your statement.

By getalife

January 11, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

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

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

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm, a missive to JK is missing. I’ll try again -

This post By Van January 11, 2007 11:07 AM

JK, Coming from the scum of the earth, your comments are fighting words. Grow up.

Leads to this response:

By JK January 11, 2007 11:36 AM

Van, (re: your 11:07) How NOT surprising that you’d gladly strike a 120-pound woman for exercising her first amendment right to speak the truth.

JK,

Nice job using your “femininity” to both shield yourself from criticism, and falsely accuse Van of threatening you.

You’re not from Durham, North Carolina by any chance are you?

By jbmlaw

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

Dear @@ @ 11:08, thanks for the confirmation, I thought the post sounded out of character.

Dear PF @ 11:22, in all honesty I did think that my friend @@ was having a bad day. I’m pretty easily fooled I guess.

Dear Byron @ 11:44, I assume your favorite part of the speech was when President Bush looked into the camera, wagged his finger, and said “I did not have war with that country, Iraq.”

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

I did not post any comment at 12:18. Once again we have someone using another’s ID.

Must be one of those chicken virus attacks.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

You have one quote from Bush which you have posted numerous times already.

I have tons from the Democrats urging us to take military action against Saddam Hussein because of WMDS and other threats.

Do you really want to play a game where you are guaranteed to end up the egg-faced loser?

I’ll just leave you with this as fair warning of the ammunition that I hold in my arsenal.

All you have is spit-balls moistened with drool to throw back.

By Charles

January 11, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Dusty/Barbara,

Your comments proves my point. If you have people who are not conscious, as you are, they will not understand what’s really happening in their environment. That’s why we need prominent people to mislead the unconscious masses. The masses will not suspect the obvious. This requires thinking!

My last comment for the day, no people or oppressive system can deliver the masses of black people in America to the deplorable state that we are presently experiencing except prominent people are complicit with the oppressors. This is common knowledge for conscious people.

By harold

January 11, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

There is one sure way to get Iraq under control. Gas a few thousand of the next bunch to cause trouble, and the rest will start behaving. Hmmm. Sound familiar?

So anyway CAN WE BUY BEER AND WINE ON SUNDAY YET.

By harold

January 11, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

harold says the only possible end for the pornographic war on iraq is to pull out.

if you do not pull out, you do not get the money shot!

By JK

January 11, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, I don’t care what you think of me. Don’t ask me what I think of you. (I mean please, ‘cause it creeps me out when you address me! creepy shivers)

Sorry Van. I interpreted “Them’s fightin’ words!” as a thinly-veiled threat. Plus, I believe you to be a man who gets off on violence. (Hey, it’s not uncommon.) You are of course, like BD, entitled to put your loyalty in your GUY and your PARTY, forsaking true allegiance to truth, America, the principles for which we stand, and the brave soldiers who give their lives following orders. Free country and all. By all means applaud the demise of more American soldiers, at all our expense, to prop up Shiite fundamentalist fanatics while they wage war with Suniis and Kurds ‘till the last bloody stump is standing to claim the oil. YOUR GUY said it was a good thing, so um.. Yipeee-ki-Yay for YOU, cowboy.

By map9671

January 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

To Buy Danish:

Why don’t YOU getalife and here’s a homework assignment for you…..Look up The Office of Special Plans (OSP) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Take a look at who the members of the PNAC are who actually ran the OSP. The Bush Admin ordered ALL of the intelligence related to Iraq sent to the OSP, then that intelligence was manipulated, reshaped, or tossed out all together….this manipulated intelligence is what was given to Congress (which is what the Democrats went on and assumed it was good intel..and why many of them voted for the war) and what was given to Colin Powell when the Bush Admin used him and George Tenet to go in front of the UN. Powell actually admitted later that he found out the intelligence he used for his UN speech was false and he felt used by the Bush admin. With him being used and his purpose served, he was cast out……paving the way for Rumsfeld.

The truth about the Bush admin is out there….if people like you are willing to see it and call it what it is……………

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Charles,

Do not direct your comment to me as I have NEVER made any comment on your posts.

Someone on their lunchbreak is trying to confuse any line of thought on this blog. Please remember THAT when you read the comments here.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

“Charles” is smoking crack, and could just be idiot PoFo trying out a new routine.

11:28, not @@. Tiny brain? What is a better indication of a small brain, and small-mindedness in general, then to jack someone else’s name? Tiny Brain=Big Loser.

By DebbieDoRight

January 11, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

The Very Best, Most Accurate Comment of the Day

we can never leave iraq…ever. Bush is right about one thing: the consequences of leaving iraq would be a disaster for the USA, (forever).

He wont tell us that what he means is that he broke Iraq beyond repair and we are stuck there being collateral damage for a centuries-old civil war.

So true, and so sad

By harold

January 11, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

HEY Atlanta PD! Some guy just bought cocaine on Air Force One! Get on it!!!!!

By Dennis

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

Van said, “Congress gave the President the authority to pursue terrorists where ever they might be. That is different than your statement.”

I’m not opposed to fighting terrorists (their’s or our’s).

However, you know as well as I, and Jim Wooten knows, too, that the attack on Iraq was not about fighting terrorists. Saddam didn’t put up with that stuff in his country.

What the left-wing conservatives of this country do not want to do, is to air the dirty laundry of this administration. It’s like being an alchoholic, you can’t fight it if you won’t admit it. And the only people who will not admit it is the conservative left-wing of this country.

The liberal right wing knows it and so does the rest of the world. Anyone who thinks it’s a hidden fact is a fool.

IF/WHEN all of this is ever settled (which I don’t expect in the remainder of my lifetime, and I’m not near death’s door that I know of :)) at best we will be in the same position as we were before it all started, but most probably, worse.

We have a congress that ought to be coming out in droves against the Bush “surge” policy, yet it is pathetic - supposedly trying to solve this problem while still playing touchy-feely politics as American soldiers die.

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

By harold

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

No child left behind, because they need a good education to get jobs and pay for this war some day!!!!!

By Charles

January 11, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

Thanks Dusty.

By DebbieDoRight

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

This administration is going to be cussed and discussed for years to come. Harry S. Truman

By Dusty

January 11, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Ho hum

At 12:59 THEY are at it again. I am leaving for the afternoon. Keep the slate clean for me as I will NOT be here. Bye now.

By Jim Wooten

January 11, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Here’s a fun game most everybody can play. I’ve just taken down a dozen posts, most of which were represented as comments coming from one of our regulars. See if your twin is gone.

By Van

January 11, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

I must disagree with you -

It is well documented that Saddam did support the suicide bombings in Israel, with checks to the families and provided shelter to many terrorists.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary.

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Abu Abbas(Achille Lauro) finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003.

Terror mastermind Abu Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002. He ran a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries.

But, I am only a right wing nut job, and I know nothing. Saddam would never let terrorists into his county.

By harold

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

Call 911! Somebody jaywalked over to Air Force One and then bought some crack!!!!

By Horace

January 11, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

The only thing I liked about the President’s speech was that he lost his smirk. I think he finally realized that Presidentin’ is serious business!!!

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

JK,

What’s “creepy” is your using your your gender to try to gain a false advantage and then accuse me of being a “creep” for calling you on your daily dose of unadulterated BS.

The fact that you can take that statement by Van and twist it the way you did is also a great illustration as to how you can distort the truth about the War in Iraq and any other issue you might have an “opinion” on.

Map 9671,

Do you have a map of Area 51 in Roswell NM, moonbat?

Dusty,

I’m following you out of here.

By Katie

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

Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks was on Charlie Rose last night. Ricks has a direct and active relationship with current and former military Generals. Rose asked Ricks if any of the current Generals advocate and/or support Bush’s plan to send more troops. Ricks answered directly — NONE.

By Darth Vader

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

If any of you clowns on this blog really knew anything about politics you’d stop jerking each other off and run for office!!

Get a life quick before its too late.

By harold

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

Vader, that is not true. Look at Dick Cheney. He knows a lot about politics but refuses to run for office.

By Buy Danish

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

Before I go -

Katie,

This is highly amusing. All during Rumsfeld’s tenure your side was screaming and kicking about the General’s complaining about how he had downsized the military and we didn’t have enough troops in Iraq.

Pelosi and others who couldn’t go along with a cut and run strategy at the time if they wanted to win Congress were suggesting that we send more troops there.

The minute Rumsfeld goes, you all change your tune and claim that no one wants more troops there - based on what a freaking REPORTER says.

By Jamie

January 11, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

I’m sure active Generals have several reasons for being against Bush’s troop escalation plan. However, based on what I’ve seen and read, one of the primary reasons for their unanimous opposition is that our soldiers and marines are and have been beyond the breaking point.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this

Van,

Don’t forget it was none other than Richard Clarke during the Billy Jeff administration that said that we better be careful about how we went after Bin Laden if Afghanistan because he would just “Boogie to Baghdad” if we pushed too hard.

With that I’m going to catch up with Buy Danish and find Dusty since she’s got all the gift certificates.

By JPaternick

January 11, 2007 02:24 PM | Link to this

Thomas Ricks is well-known, well-connected and well-regarded within the Pentagon. If he reports something, then you can put it in your pipe and smoke it.

By Darth Vader

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

harold,

Why run when you can get a retard like Bush to appoint you?

We waste too much time on something that is a part of an international conspiracy anyway!!

By Dennis

January 11, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

Now, Van, if you’re “only a right wing nut job”, it’s by your own admission. :)

Regarding Abu Abbas, you are correct that he masterminded the Achille Lauro affair and that he ended up in Iraq (a good while after Italian authorities released him) and had some financial support from Saddam.

Regarding Abdul Rhman Yasin, he was killed in Iraq on the orders of Saddam.

As to 9/11, one source, Safah Khodada, who appeared on “Frontline” insisted that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Then, Kenneth Pollack, of the State Department, stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

So, like me, I guess you’ll have to take your pick.

We could go on, but I have an appointment. Otherwise I would post for you not a small number of terrorist acts committed by our government in the name of the American people.

But I doubt that we’re going to get a right-wing conservative to admit to, or to write about those. We must not air OUR dirty laundry to the American people. That’s not “patriotic”.

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

By ToePro

January 11, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this

FOLEY / HAGGARD 2008

GOOOOOOOOO GOP!!!!!!!

By Support the Troops!

January 11, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

Go ahead. LOOK at them. This is what YOU want. Dead is what THEY get.

By harold

January 11, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

Bush is only sending more troops to Iraq to try to put off the military coup he’s driving this country towards. It’s pure self preservation.

Vader you think Bush will appoint Cheney as the next President? Scary but Harold wouldn’t be surprised.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

As I vangloriously come to the end of my perpetual wanking may I remind everyone that whilst I lack the bollocks of most men I am still spewing forth, from the upper extremes no below. Now as soon as all the cowardly sniveling moron leftists sod off on this board I can look forward to enjoying yet another right-wing wank in peace, meanwhile my favorite benders jbm and Van cheer me on towards my fantastic finish…GEDDIT???

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

their unanimous opposition

Exaggerate much, Jamie?

By ICEMAN

January 11, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

Darth Vader is right!! We are merely pawns in the game of the Secret Order of the Snake,Skull and Bones, the Quest,etc..

By harold

January 11, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

the atlanta PD death squad are probably going to prison for home invading and killing an old lady based on made up intelligence, but Bush did the exact same thing on a much larger scale and is still president of the United States. what a joke. give harold a break.

By Dennis

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

Oh, Van, one other thing I just read on another site, “The fight for the oil and the contracts is over. Now it’s a matter of restoring civility.”

Sounds about right.

But it will still be reported by our conservative right wing media that it was all about “terrorism”, not oil.

How does anyone live a lie like that?

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

By Darth Vader

January 11, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

time for the truth,

I think wanking yourself should be your own private business not ours.

By Buy Danish

January 11, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Just stopping by to make a point about the Nickjackers.

I’m quite certain that that 2:39 is a nickjacking job on TfTT.

Jim Wooten is going to be a busy man if he tries to keep up with all this wanking. It would be much easier, and would be better for “civil discourse”, if we had a registry system.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

@ snivelling braindead moron rod

jesus h christ!! what a stuupid imbecilic UTTERLY DISHONEST illiterate wanker you is (smirk) rod!!

“10-20 years before the troops leave Iraq” … HA HA HA HA HA HA HA LMFAO!!

LIAR LIAR …

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

Butchag Danish makes a dishonest comment about my 2:39 post being a hapless victim of nickjacking…whatever that means luv.

Whilst I gleefully prove to the world that I lack bollocks you glibly ignore that your perpetual intellectually inferior arguments on the blog do nothing for the conservatives betters on this blog. In fact you and your moronic chap RW should sod off with the rest of the leftie mohammedan appeasers on this blog.

Now STFU and let me enjoy my wank…huge i hate leftists o-face SMIRK!!!!!!!!!

By time for the truth

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

WOW … the festering id stealing leftist afterbirth REALLY is having a B.I.G crystal meth day today!!

By deegee

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

How long did it take Israel to realize that their invasion into southern Lebanon this past summer was a mistake - 30 days? They left and the world kept spinning. What can we learn from that?

By time for the truth

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

time for the truth thinks harold needs to cool down and chill out - a long lingering bath in liquid oxygen works wonders for paranoid leftist queer lovin’, cowardly cut and run Bush hating, car less MOTORPHOBIC white trash from Cobb County!!

By time for the truth

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

@Butchag Danish

it appears the REAL rabid id NICKJACKER has vangloriously posted again at 3:58…

meanwhile moron rod sheepishly remains in the shadows as our resident id stealing d!ckweed…i’m still wanking mate!!!!! huge i hate leftist afterbirth SMIRK!!!!

By MELO

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

That’ll kill all of the terrorists and everyone else will know damn sure not to mess with the USA. While we’re at it, let the liberals go on a “fact finding” tour over there right before we drop the bomb. DAMN, what a better place this will be! TFTT

Get your teeth fixed buddy.Meth will disfigure your face, I am sure you now realize that.

By Food4Thought

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

Some of you have stated that President Bush should be more concerned with the American people rather than with his ego/the Middle East…

Newsflash: He IS concerned about the American people. If we don’t contain the leader of Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we will eventually be fighting a war in our own country, rather than fighting overseas. Ahmadinejad has made several speeches stating that he plans to destroy the entire non-Muslim world. Israel & the U.S. are at the top of his list. This is fact…refer to his speeches has he addresses his country.

So yes, President Bush is looking out for us.

By bushrocks

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

You guys just don’t get it.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

I SAY - HOW ABSOLUTELY SPIFFING … the id stealing leftist afterbirth is now effetly attempting to mimic its conservative superiors by actually deploying a garbled version of innately superior patter that goes straight over the pointy head of the rusty stinky abortion bucket dweller that the id stealer still infests the clinic with what it calls mommy.

If nothing else this aborted foreskinesque parody shows how unbelievably easy it is to by pass the miniscule critical factor of these leftist arsewipes and get them to spend hours of their lonely socially inadequate utterly worthless pointless lives living vicariously through their RIGHT WING NEMESIS!!

By MELO

January 11, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

Snivelling bollocks buggeroff bloody wanking bender spewing poppycock on the motoway of sniveling lies and drudgery whilst masticating eggiwegs!!!TFTT

SO u,jbmlaw and Jim are cousins and belong to the same party? Everyone can tell from your vocabulary.

By time for the truth

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

Get your teeth fixed buddy.Meth will disfigure your face, I am sure you now realize that.

damn!!!…pathetic leftist vermin has her pretty pink panties in a bunge. whilst it’s blindingly obvious that you resort to childish behaviour i’m still wanking mate!!

but then agaim leftist afterbirth like you will always be scum and i will gleefully remain a conservative wanking bender

By @@

January 11, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

Jim:

I forgot to comment on your column today.

I heard some different strategies in last night’s speech. Coupled with past comments from commanders in Iraq, that they are constantly making adjustments in the battlefield, I detected that there were plans to do so once more.

One critical difference. Maliki and the Iraqi governments’ feet are being held to the fire. Not just for the American audience, but for the world audience. “The American people will not have the patience for your failure to stand up and be counted” or something to that effect.

I like what Bill Krystal said. It’s possible (emphasis on the word possible) that the Iraqis hoping for democracy are thinking that is exactly what needs to happen, and maybe it will with this surge.

The insurgents and militias? Well Krystal can conceive that maybe, just maybe, they may be saying “Oh Shiite” they mean it this time.

I suspect that the militias will have a surge of their own, but it sure sounded like Sadr and Sadr City were no longer untouchable.

Personally, I’d like to see more than 20K troops. Bush did, however, say over 20K, so….

we shall see, and I will hope and pray for the best. I know our troops are the best in the world.

Your offer to play “find your missing twin” game at 1:39 Jim, was a noble attempt.

I’ll do you one better. I’ll remove myself from your blog, along with my @@. It’s not like I had anything that important to say. Nothing earth shattering. Nothing worthwhile. Nothing that’s going to change the world as we know it.

Let the other @@ make comments on my behalf.

Darth Vader:

I don’t believe that you and I have ever encountered one another here, but I can assure you…there is no frustration within my sex life.

Unfortunately for you, I don’t videotape. You might want to park your smarta$$ in front a porn channel though.

Get your jollies off in private. You’re obviously very experienced at it.

By MELO

January 11, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

Bush can do what he wants because he aint up for election.But his brain is frozen, thats why he speaks with so much contotion on his face, see last night.

By time for the truth

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

lest hope that the oedipus complexed leftist afterbirth aborted foreskin is getting ready for another compulsive bout of suicide by cop!!

By time for the truth

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

SO u,jbmlaw and Jim are cousins and belong to the same party? Everyone can tell from your vocabulary.

jesus mate!!!…youR blatant pathetic obsession with my previous posts really makes your sniveling leftist arse squirm in your filthy seat.

i’m just quietly enjoying myself winding up the resident leftist vermin whilst i vangloriously wank. huge i’m still wanking with my poof magazine SMIRK!!!!!!

By harold

January 11, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

so, 14 Carter advisers were Jewish, eh…

they are making themselves a laughingstock. “OH, somebody criticized Isreal; he is antisemite although that goes against everyhing the man has ever been but neveryoumind about that”

By Stewart

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

leftist afterbirth aborted foreskin

@TFTT,

What are you talking about? Whatever it is it sounds disgusting. I thought this was a political blog instead of some freak fantasy porn blog.

By deegee

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

The blog is clogged. Needs Drano.

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 04:53 PM | Link to this

time for the truth believes that leftist appeasing vermin like harold are hilarious whilst glibly defending the appeasing leftist peanut farmer!!

damn…your blindingly obtuse obsession makes it all to easy for me to wank.

little does harold know that whilst he rides his bike like a good treehugging leftist d!ckweed, time for the truth gets his exercise by gleefully wanking everyday.

huge i enjoy a good wank SMIRK!!!!

By Markus

January 11, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

New Orleans folks blame their leaders for the failures of maintaining civil order and keeping crime/murders down. Well I’ll be damned. I’d have bet $1,000 they were going to March all the way to 1600 PA Ave. and protest Bush’s handling of New Orleans. I would have lost that bet fer sure. I would have also lost a bet on the racial makeup:

“In a black-majority city where most murder victims have been black, the crowd was predominantly white.”

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEWORLEANSVIOLENCE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-01-11-15-31-52

By Van

January 11, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

It was never about oil, that was the lefties talking points. If it was, then why are we not paying $1.50 for gas? The oil fields are needed to help Iraq to get back on their feet with a cash income. In fact it is one of the only exports they have.

If it was just for oil as the lamebrained left thinks, where are the benefits?

Of course, no matter what is said, you just can’t educate the closed minded. What a waste.

By Markus

January 11, 2007 05:06 PM | Link to this

San Freaksicko Prep students crash Yale party and beat the hell out of a group of singers because they were jealous of the attention the singing group was getting (from who, other men?). Sounds like a buncha San Freaksicko anarchists… just beat the hell out of those that have more than you, even talent. Good job Pelosi, you taught the Catholic children well there, as if anyone needs YOUR help in raising children like a commienanni.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4924780

By time for the truth

January 11, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

@ Markus

so the good white folk of Nawlins decide to give the shamelessly dishonest racist Nagin a taste of his own medicine!!! pathetic leftist vermin are quite accustomed to glibly pointing their fingers at Bush rather than towards the reptilian thuggish leaders close to home.

as i cheefully type in response to your news Markus, i am quietly smirking that having a bender chap such as yourself by my side will make my wank all the more enjoyable!

huge conservative wanking GRIN!!!

By Consider the Possibilities

January 11, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

Perhaps Van is right. Perhaps it’s about aiding the Shia’s quest for domination. I mean, Shia now rule Iraq. Well, they will after they finish their civil war and kill off all the non-Shia. And Iran is Shia. And Iran is thrilled that we’ve pulverized the formerly Sunni-dominated Iraq for them. And so many American are so stupid, they believe all this gobledeegook about “freedom.” HAHAHA! Freedom for Shia men to enforce brutal codes of islamic, dogmatic law you mean! (Google “Save Nazanin”)

YES, Van may be right! Maybe it’s not about oil afterall…

By Markus

January 11, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this

EU protests US strike in Somalia. Ok EU liberal pantywastes, W is not Clintoon. All together now, raise your BIG MIDDLE FINGER and tell the EU “WHO GIVES A DAMN!”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e629d56a-a18b-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html

Who cares what those white flag wavers think? They will be overrun by Arab muslims in less than 20 years anyway.

It’s the Family Feud!

“Name the most popular UK baby name.”

“Johnathon.”

“You said Johnathon, you need 27 point to win $10,000.”

“And the survey SAID:”

“Muhammed.”

BZZZZZZZZZTT. Sorry EU, you lose.

By Jim Wooten

January 11, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this

@@ at 4:19: If asked to choose, I’d certainly keep you here and rid the blog of the imposter, who is on the verge of joining a fairly exclusive club.

By getoveryourself

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

It’s the Family Feud!

“Name the most popular UK baby name.”

“Johnathon.”

*“You said Johnathon, you need 27 point to win $10,000.”

“And the survey SAID:”

“Muhammed.”

BZZZZZZZZZTT. Sorry EU, you lose.*

LOL HAHAHAHA! Douchebag Markus!! HAHAHAHA!! You’re freaking hilarious!! HAHAHAHA! Where do you get your sense of humor from??!! HAHAHAHA!! My God!! …or should I say Allah!!! HAHAHA! A growing Muslim population is hilarious! HAHAHAHAHA!! My stomach is hurting! HAHAHAHA!!! And that part when you said …sorry EU, you lose. HAHAHAHA!! I just about lost it! HAHAHAHA!!!

By getoveryourself

January 11, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

It’s the Family Feud!

“Name the most popular UK baby name.”

“Johnathon.”

“You said Johnathon, you need 27 point to win $10,000.”

“And the survey SAID:”

“Muhammed.”

BZZZZZZZZZTT. Sorry EU, you lose.

LOL HAHAHAHA! Douchebag Markus!! HAHAHAHA!! You’re freaking hilarious!! HAHAHAHA! Where do you get your sense of humor from??!! HAHAHAHA!! My God!! …or should I say Allah!!! HAHAHA! A growing Muslim population is hilarious! HAHAHAHAHA!! My stomach is hurting! HAHAHAHA!!! And that part when you said …sorry EU, you lose. HAHAHAHA!! I just about lost it! HAHAHAHA!!!

By Markus

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

Yes, there are consequences to shove a minimum wage jackup (and who’s to say it won’t be up to $10/hr, or $12/hr in a few years if the RAT pack stays in power or gains more power?).

Here are the stories you won’t read about in the New York Slimes or Washington comPost, let alone see in Wolfman Bitzer’s War Room or Lou Dobbs. NO negative effects, eh liberals?

The biz owners won’t not hire more people, eh liberals? Costs won’t be passed onto us (INCLUDING those making said increase minimum wage), eh liberals, especially if Bush’s biz tax break proposal to offset the increase is proposal is rejected by the RAT pack? L

Little do the pseudo-biz expert neoStalinist liberals know that companies get TAX BREAKS for offering benefits like continuing education, 401Ks and other retirement perks, and healthcare benefits to employees.

Nah, businesses are just supposed to SUCK UP all those benefit costs, pay full taxes, and not pass on those increased expenditures and just magically all become non-profit entities (that’s right dumb@ssed liberals, those things cost M-O-N-E-Y). What a buncha economic MORONS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16549922/

By Markus

January 11, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this

getoverthyself…

How much weed do you smoke a day like a good little unedumacated pseudo know-it-all pathetic puke liberal?

By Markus

January 11, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

Ha! For YEARS now I’ve shown the hypocrisy of the party of the Jackass when they wet their panties over the “rich” and “obscene pay” yet shut their sewers about the pay in the entertainment and sports industries. I wonder why, especially with the Holly-woodheads? Could it be ‘cause the Woodheads usually lean for the RAT pack? Mmm-huh, methinkso. Someone else who thinks like me. Good stuff!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2007/01/11/demstotackleincomeinequality

By Political Pigskin

January 11, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

(o)

By getoveryourself

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

Sorry Markus, you lose… BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I’m still dying of laughter! HAHAHAHAHA Wait, wait, wait…HAHA…Survey quetion…HAHAHA…Who is the number one shameless douchebag in the world?HAHA…Sean Hannity?…HAHAHA….BZZZZ…sorry…HAHAHA…it’s Douchebag Markus!!!….HAHAHAHAH!

By getoveryourself

January 11, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this

Ha! For YEARS now I’ve shown the hypocrisy of the party of the Jackass…

What would the world do without you Douchebag? It looks like someone likes to play radio everyday. Look out Rush, Sean, and Neil…

By Markus

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

Yup, that must be some good weed. Liberals and dead braincells… go together like Waffle House and a hangover.

By Political Stiltskin

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

Cartoon Idea: show the I-penny, the smart penny with a chip inside that can be used to trace a deadbeat dad or a bubble gum machine bandito guy.

it stinks, nevermind.

By Markus

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

You know you pin the ears back on liberals when the only thing they retort with is a childish temper tantrum… or a brilliant “(0)” comment.

Liberalism: destroying one unused mind at a time.

By ultram

January 11, 2007 09:15 PM | Link to this

6f5feai-7xqj97j-tw6q96e7-1 http://hometown.aol.com/ph3ntik/index.html#1 viagra online [url=http://www.mimundo.americaonline.com.mx/fioric3t/#3]fioricet[/url] [url]http://www.ultimatetopsites.com/general/s0mvreke/#4[/url]

By cervfaylu efmlzgpy

January 14, 2007 12:32 AM | Link to this

dtgrak ecnkzj bewxrj tqrva doyc gyucbopa jkvqwlnma

By trpp1

January 22, 2007 07:47 PM | Link to this

Hello. trpp2 [url=http://www.trahnu3.com] trpp3[/url] Thanks

By HWIRZWUN1

January 24, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this

Hello. HWIRZWUN2 [url=http://www.tHWIRZWUN3.com] HWIRZWUN3 [/url] Thanks