Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 20, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

While I support the action of the Republicans in staving off the effort in the Congress to regulate the terms of deployment and service of our all volunteer army in Iraq, especially since that au-gutless body has grossly failed to live up to its Constitutional responsibility of declaring war (there is no mention of a authorizing Congressional Resolution in the Constitution), I hope that the next President and the new Congress in 2009 will move to increase our conventional forces and enhance our military power.

How many of you realize that if Hugo Bozo Chavez, Fidelio Castro, and a few other Latin American forces decided to invade Florida, Texas, and California, they might be in St. Louis before we could muster enough conventional forces to stop them!

It is something to think about.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

Go ahead and cheer, Mr. Wooten, but dont declare victory. Americans are getting on the same page about Iraq. We’ve all been on the same learning curve. By January, there will be a grim acceptance of the fate of our foreign policy paradox: if we leave or if we stay, Iraq will become Iraq. We will have virtually no vote in the outcome of any compromises, treaties, or chaos.

We’ll simply be there, to spin the unfolding end-game into some victory for our side.

Did we try to build a monument to ourselves in Iraq? Are we dressing up Iraq in liberty like we would dress a Barbi doll? Manifest Destiny Barbi. (“Mommy, can I have a manifest destiny barbi?”…..No, and go wash your mouth out with soap! Who fills these kids’ heads with these prurient ideas?)

By rarringt

September 20, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

I agree that congress has sunk to new lows in terms of their approval rating, and that the Dems inaction may be to blame.

My sneaking suspicion, however, may be that other issues, such as the Craig/Foley/Kolbe/Abramoff scandals, along with the fact that the dems have only had about 9 months to undo 12 years of GOP machinations, might have something to do with it as well.

By the way, thanks for discussing the protests in Louisiana, the resegregation attempts in Alabama, the global and local impact of the fed’s move on the markets, and all of the lesser issues in the news this week.

By Redneck Convert

September 20, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

Well, it’s just a shame that a fellow can’t even fight a war without having a bunch of do-gooders trying to get in the way. I don’t understand what problem the libruls in Congress are trying to fix. A guy signs up for the army. Well, that means he’s open for being sent to war all the time. Why should he get to go home for 15 months just because he’s been at war for 15 months? It’s a waste of the taxpayers hard-earned money for him to be setting around at home when he has a war to fight. I say send the guy to his boot camp in Iraq and just keep him there after he finishes and let him fight till his term is over. Unless he gets extended.

I look at it this way. Nobody guarantees me 10 hours at home just because I drive a beer truck for 10 hours. And good Christian people like Sister Dusty don’t get guaranteed 10 hours of break just because she fights the war on a keyboard for 10 hours. After she finishes fighting the libruls on here she got to get up and cook for those big lug sons of hers that’s been in the army and are hungry all the time. Not to mention hanging stuff out to dry on her clothes line. After all that she probly needs to hit that bottle pretty hard. Nobody can blame her.

Anyway, it sure looks like TFTT is ready for some more treatment. I noticed lately he’s been ranting like one of them homeless street people and calling all kinds of names and making up all kind names for people he don’t like. Maybe we could draft him in the army. I think it would be a great idea if we made people that come here from other countrys sign up for the military the minute they hit our shores. They got all kind of training in the military and maybe he could learn to spell and use squiggly marks so people could understand what he’s trying to say. And long as he follows the don’t ask, don’t tell policy he won’t get kicked out.

Have a good day everybody.

By jbmlaw

September 20, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. The partisan in me hopes that the democrats continue to pursue their course of self-destruction. The American in me wishes they would come to their senses, and start acting like the Sam Nunns and Scoop Jacksons of a prior generation. Joe Lieberman has shown them a path, but I suspect most lack the courage to follow that path, as it would likely provoke a MoveOn primary challenge.

By Moderate

September 20, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Interesting spin Jim. The approval rating for congress is low because the democrats don’t have the numbers to pass legislation. In other words the public is p** because the republicans are obstructing the will of the majority of the American people. When the democratic majority grows in the congress and the senate after the 08 elections, and it will watch that rating go up. Spin it anyway you want Jim. Nancy Pelosi has to tailor strategy based on the understanding that even if something happens in the house the senate majority is so thin that it will die there. Nice try Jim. The American people understand what party continues to go against the peoples wishes. And it starts with an R.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Nothing really bad can happen to our army in Iraq, and I guess you could call that victory.

But what is the Iraqi Mission? What is the Surge’s mission? How extensive a green zone will the surge provide?

To post about suporting the troops and our brave president, you should at least be able to understand the mission. Not one of you uber-pudwanks have ever enunciated a clear understanding of that mission.

“To support the Iraqi government in becoming self sustaining, self governing, and an ally in the war on terror” is the most wide open, vague, and misleading spin I’ve ever heard.

We could surrender today, and fulfill all of those mission statements. In fact, we did surrender to the sunni insurgency, gave them our weapons, and allied with them against al queda. Mission accomplished. (now the shia are asking for the same terms of surrender to fight against the renegade shia militias. I dont see a problem with surrendering to the shia too, and giving them our weapons, and aligning with them against the renegade shia militia, do you?)

I have never seen sitting ducks lined up in such perfectly straight rows as the people who pretend to understand the complex reality on the ground in Iraq.

Google the Kurds. Read 4 two minutes. You’ll know what’s dead ahead for Iraq.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Yes Jim the Congress has sunk to a new LOW…………. and here are the lowest of the lows…….

The 22 most corrupt members of Congress

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA) Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA) Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) Rep. David Scott (D-GA) Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM) Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Dishonorable mentions Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID) Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

Please note the number of WRONGS (Republicans) listed, as compared to Democrats…..no wonder this country is in such disarray.

The Republicans have been leading us since Bush got in office, he has almost no old staff left, as they were mostly corrupt as well.

You should be PROUD of this JIM…you guys are the Leaders !!!!!

By GreyGayGeek

September 20, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

All the neocons and neowannabes keep talking about “victory in Iraq”.

OK, just what in the $!@% do they consider to be “victory in Iraq”?

Yes, jbmlaw and RCh and Dusty, I’m looking at y’all. If you’re going to insist we hav to stay there until “victory” is acheived, tell the rest of us just what “victory” entails.

By Voter

September 20, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

I CAN’T WAIT TILL 08!!

By Southern Democrat

September 20, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

How can anyone say that Webb’s proposal of equal time off is a bad idea?

Of course, so long as Mr. Wooten wants to use polls to bolster his argument, why not include the number of Americans who want troops home immediately?

IT’S FIFTY-FOUR PERCENT

But I guess that number doesn’t matter when you’ve never questioned an administration that has continually lied, obfuscated, and crushed any opposing viewpoints.

By Abomi Nation

September 20, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

New Republican candidate questions…..

“Huggies or Luv’s?”

“Do you wear taps on both your shoes?”

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

56-44 in favor doesn’t sound like the vote for an unpopular law. It sounds like there are too many gutless Republicans who can’t or won’t stand up to this destructive administration. Perhaps the Congressional ratings are a reflection of the public’s continued displeasure with the inability of Congress to force the Decider to do something to end this war. GGG is correct, after four plus years we still don’t know what victory would look like. The GOP is simply buying time for the Decider to get out of office without having to make any more decisions. In their diabolically inane way, they are trying to turn it on the Democrats. It’s been SOP for the GOP for six years now, and ‘08 will let them know what the public thinks of it.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

I would love to hear as well what VICTORY Means….??????

I doubt anyone can come up with that since Bush cannot !!!

By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms

September 20, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

This pseudo war between liberals and conservatives is just a smoke screen for the real issue: The American Federal Government has been under the control of agents of a foreign government for the last six plus years at least. Everyone in Washington DC knows this fact, and all are afraid to say it out loud because of the power of this pro israel conspiracy. Only anonomous blogs will acknowledge this in the Washington Post. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties are controlled by agents and operatives of Israel and the fanatical pro israel american crowd. Until this is addressed, America will continue down the road to ruin, sacrificing herself for the benefit of israel, and the greater glory of zionism. The Neocons are just the Republican brand of these traitors, the Democrats have their own unique brand. Frankly, I am tired of being the lone voice pointing out the betrayal of America by some of its own citizens who owe their loyalty to a foreign power, the state of israel. There are far more important and pressing matters concerning American foreign policy than what benefits israel, but the time and ability to deal effectively with those issues is passing rapidly. One day in the near future, Americans will wake up a poor, broken, left behind nation.

By Voter

September 20, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

GryGayGeek neither of the above lemmings has a clue as to how to define “victory” in Iraq. All they know is shilling for their pied piper GWB. These morons would walk right over a cliff for the guy. But just to give you reinforcement, to the above GWB cheerleaders. Please define just what “victory” in Iraq means. At what point will we again hear “mission accomplished”? LMAO!!

By Destry

September 20, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Did we build a monument to ourselves in Iraq? Was the national conscience acting like righteous avenging angels when we invaded afghanistan? Yes. We had Osama Bin Laden and his entire entourage. Bush did give the order to attack. Rumsfeld did not attack, and the enemy slipped away.

Iraq. Righteous Avenging Angels, or did Bush put the red terminal on the negative pole and the black terminal on the positive pole and blow a circuit of stability in a historical state with people set up like some exiled prisoners in barracks of internment, where the cities themselves are de-facto refugee camps?

Our founding fathers were surely such people, the generations who were herded out of Europe by Christianists, and exiled to the new world, where they faced nearly certain doom. The history of the USA is actually a mini history of man, where the same populations migrate into the same squatter populations and we become like animals, easily frightened into submission and conspiracy.

I dont know what Iraq is. A stalemate, surely, with a completely unpredictable future.

Any occupation is really just troops milling around in the milieu. How we parade them around, is how we state our mission. We march to our mission, we deploy to our mission. That mission must necessarily be a derivative of the strategic interests of the country which themselves must be congruent with the Stated National Goals of our Republic.

Look at the Mission Statement when Bush ordered Rumsfeld to attack the surrounded pepetrators of 911. “Destroy the Enemy. Kill or Capture Osama Bin Laden.” That was the strategic, local, intermediate, long term, short range, mission.

Then a phrase like, “Mission Accomplished”, would ring like the Freedom Bell. U know, the 1 wid da crack, (irony rules the universe).

Did we build a monument to ourselves, under duress, under the stupification of the shared catastrophe of 911.

What have we done, my fellow americans? Say it.

Just say it.

By Anonymous

September 20, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

This is so sad it’s almost funny. Wooten continues the pretense (or is he really that naive?) that Congress’s low approval ratings come from their ATTEMPT to do what the people want, rather than their failure to make it happen.

America wants to end the occupation, Wooten—and anybody who lacks the guts to stand up to Bush’s insanity is going to be mighty unpopular among Americans. Keep hoping that these numbers spell something good for the proven failures of neoconservatism. Maybe it’ll help you sleep nights.

By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms

September 20, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Ok voter I will define victory in Iraq: Israel gets a free oil, water, and electric pipeline running from Kurdland -and Turkey- to Haifa. Iran is destroyed. Syria is destroyed. Israel annexes Lebannon, and deports all the pals to the remains of Syria. All Kurdish oil must be exported only thru Haife, using Israeli middlemen. The remains of Syria, Iraq, and Iran must pledge loyalty to tele aviv, and pay large yearly reparations for the next 25 years. Then american troops can go home.

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Well, now that the ignorant and the scared have spoken, let’s hear a good word for Jim Wooten. He has written a fine column this morning.

So you libs want Congress to run the military, huh liberals? You want the military to have ths same success as Congress, i.e. 11% victory in Iraq? And you nitwits who cannot even say WIN THE CONFLICT please stop the repetitious wartime propaganda. It just shows how dumb you are.

If you are so afraid that you might support the Republican President, just slink on off and quit making excuses. You look like two bit cowards. I don’t want you to keep encouraging our enemies. That’s the only ones you are helping now.

By jbmlaw

September 20, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Dear Grey @ 9:27, I don’t talk to Jew-baiters.

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

At what point will we again hear “mission accomplished”?

Excellent question for the GWB Moonies.

By Voter

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

I will be happy if the Democrats do nothing more than to insure that the present administration doesn’t get any of their agenda furthered until we can take them by the scruff of the neck and chunk them in the dumpster of history. GW gets absolutely nothing. Especially none of his freedom sapping, anti liberty surveillence programs and the such.

By Voter

September 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

What does victory in Iraq entail Dusty? If you can’t define it STFU. Your cheerleading for this bunch of clowns makes you look really stupid. What does victory in Iraq mean Dusty? No more dodgeing the issue. You started it Dust for brains, now man up or shut up.

By jbmlaw

September 20, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 9:32, with all due respect, I can say Webb’s proposal is asinine. War is not tiddly-winks. Every day we are not killing the bad guys, they are killing, or planning to kill, us. There is no rational reason to alleviate the pressure on the bad guys. I don’t know what is magic about an 18 month wind-down for our noble fighting men after an 18 month tour; if the Pentagon determined a ratio of 90 days off per 18 months on (instead of the current 12 months/18 months) was sufficient, I would not dispute their view. Our courageous warriors are the only meaningful assets managed by the Department of Defense; I am impressed with the management of their human assets. I see Sen. Webb’s proposal as a disingenuous effort to undermine the executive’s effort to conduct war, and I believe the effort is engaged for no reason other than partisanship – an ignoble effort.

As to your poll, how would the numbers look if you asked Americans (1) would they like to see a bloodbath on a par with SouthEast Asia 1975-1985? Or (2) do they think it is a good idea to allow Al Qaeda to take over Iraq as a launching pad. Or (3) do they think it is a good idea to remove American troops immediately even if we are on the verge of destroying Al Qaeda. (The latter – admittedly biased – also reflects the total lack of context in the simple-minded polls proffered by the media.)

Dear No Laughing @ 9:41, “gutless” is an odd choice of language for one advocating cut and run. Whining about a war does not require any courage – taking the fight to the evil ones requires courage.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Voter, Bush is a great man. He did order the attack. We had won.

Grant was a great man. His administration failed him. Google Grant’s cabinet’s corruption. It’s astonishing at how naive Grant was about business.

Bush is a great man. He did order the attack, but no Gin Rummy, (instead we did another No Gun Ri.)

Somebody stop me.

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Dusty, we can say “win the conflict.” We just want to know what the h3ll you think that might be. You think Congress isn’t succeding because of the 11% approval rating? So why has Bush’s approval rating dropped as the war has gone on? You think it means he’s not successful?

Seeing as how you ignored the question, it’s pretty obvious you have the brains of your leader. Your idea of winning the conflict ends with the sainthood of GWB. It’s got nothing to do with supporting troops or this country. Now slink off like the two bit coward you are, and go console yourself with a box of twinkies.

By GreyGayGeek

September 20, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

jbm @ 10:06 - Asking that you define your OWN phrase “victory in Iraq” is “jew-baiting”? My mind boggles. After you tell us what “victory in Iraq” means, please continue and explain how asking YOU to define YOUR OWN PHRASE is “jew-baiting”, please.

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Good response, Dusty. The mistakes of this war are our fault, not the fault of those who have been running it for the last 4+ years. Brilliant. And thanks for once again not answering the question of what victory would entail. As always, you have shown that your response is blind allegiance to the man who has caused this debacle. No need to keep repeating yourself.

By time for the harsh truth

September 20, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Inbred yanKKKee mutants like inbred rednekkk need to be put in their place … which in the first instance would be a prison chain gang picking up the garbage dumped by snotty uppity arrogant unwanted yanKKKees all over the south. After which inbred needs to be further experimented on by the kind folks at the Emory Primate Centre. Brain surgery on such small ape like brains as rednekkk has recently acquired - which is a huge step up from that old worn out badly damaged by acid (the timothy leary kind) smelly yanKKKee hippee brain that rednekkk sold to a collector in the middle east - is always pleasingly dangerous as apes have that typical leftist cut and run area right next to the banana selector which replaces the usual human cerebral cortex which has now been swiftly “bred out” of most snivelling treasonous leftist smelly hippy type vermin!!

Hilarious to see that the nasty racebaiter rabidington is back - puking up its pathetic bollocks about blatant despicable black cowardice in this Jena ‘village’. SIX thuggish blacks like a pack of wild animals beat a SINGLE white kid unconscious and then the blacks have the freaking cheek to whine and b*** and racebait when the prosecutor makes the black aggressors criminally responsible for their racist hate crime actions. NO WONDER so many blacks are increasingly despised for THEIR anti-white racism and racial hypocrisy by normal clear thinking non-bigoted folks!!!

At least that vile black hippety hop video camera toting (a trick learned from the seasoned black child molestor r kelly no doubt) sexual predator Wislon is still rotting in jail for that depraved assault on that poor drunken slut - so there is some justice being administered.

Barak the big eared vacuous magic “half black” negro is “acting white” as the venal racist shakedown criminal jackasson asserted the other day. Lard arse HiTllary is being accused by racist blacks in the bigoted black demoNcrat congressional caucus of pandering to “sell out” blacks - note how the racebaiting begins when some black folks do what racist leftist blacks don’t like.

Yep … and with all the black shootings in Atlanta in the last few days life is kicking on just as normal as we see yet more racist thuggish rappers going to jail and being arrested as most of them glorify drugs and crime and despicable treatment of black females they still proudly and loudly call ho’s.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

The 11% approval ratings includes the gop.

The progressives are voting out incumbants while the gop keep their corrupt fossils who steal their freedom.

Too bad the gop will not vote the incumbants but the Dems will have a Dem President and a larger Dem majority in 08 so there is hope.

By Dennis

September 20, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “After Wednesday’s failed effort in the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that would guarantee troops more time at home from Iraq, Democrats really should admit defeat and move on.”

That’s very easy for you to say, Mr. Wooten, and typical, too.

After all, you aren’t one of the troops who need a long break from Iraq. You aren’t one of the troops who miss their family.

You aren’t one of the troops whose life is being risked for a pack of lies promulgated by Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a host of others, and not to leave out big oil.

I suppose you’re saying that by defeating this idea, the Republicans, including yourself, are showing your support for the troops to remain in this war regardless of the disasterous results.

But, actually what you’re saying is that you support George W. Bush no matter what, and to hell with the troops (and their families).

For someone who served in Vietnam, you didn’t learn a damned thing.

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

By DemDems4Ever

September 20, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

All of the traits attributed to Dusty on Monday by the Blogging Analyst are demonstrated by Aquagirl, Peter, Voter, Curious Observer, GreyGayGeek and the rest of the liberals here on a daily basis.

Clintonistas are they all, following the deviant husband and the shrew wife into the briar patch of history. Treasonous cowards to be more to the point.

Rightly or wrongly, we are in Iraq and we have an obligation to bring peace to the country.

Hang tough Dusty, these lemmings will be off on another blog soon, cursing, blaspheming and wallowing their way to nothingness.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

I think I can field jbm’s question about whether gaygreek is a jew baiter (sic).

If you will refer to gaygeek’s original comment, he included this phrase, $!@% (sic) which is actually biblical code for “I wanna go to miami and drink wine (hic)”.

‘muff said. (dic)

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

So victory in Iraq is…the sound of crickets chirping? ‘Cause that’s all we’re hearing from the right-wing this morning.

The chickenhawk cheerleaders don’t even know why we’re feeding troops and Iraqis into the meat grinder, except that their Great Leader says it’s a good idea.

By jm

September 20, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

well, it seems that Mr. Wooten prefers to remain in the 50’s.

By Southern Democrat

September 20, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Jbmlaw,

Your comments are well-taken, but I do respectfully disagree. If Senator Webb’s proposal is asinine, then what label do you apply to the military strategy of the past four years?

Your second and third sentences do not sound like you, but rather reflect a hawkish, simplistic bloodlust that is beneath you. The fact that people want to kill us is never an excuse to make pre-emptive war and/or support failed policy.

As I have mentioned previously, I have great respect for the military, particularly its officer corps. I question the thinking at the top, however, of a coterie of generals who could not stand up to a whiny old man who insisted on insufficient troops on the ground after the fall of the Baath Party, could not sufficiently equip their troops’ vehicles to withstand the simplest of ordinance, and continue to blindly follow the orders of a misguided commander-in-chief. I firmly believe (based on a small sample) that the vast majority of field commanders and NCOs truly question the political and military leadership, but have the intestinal fortitude to, quite literally, soldier on and attempt to complete the “Mission Already Accomplished.”

Further, I would parry your poll question with snide answers: (1) if Americans were honest, they would say they wouldn’t care… See, e.g., Apartheid in S.A., Argentine desaparecidos, Rwanda, Darfur, Liberia, etc.; (2) Al Qaeda would not have to move far since they have a still untouched enclave in our “ally” of Pakistan; (3) My friend, we DID do just that… in the mountains of Tora Bora when we had our military focused on the mission and Al Qaeda on the ropes before our President went on his Oedipal adventure in Mesopotomia.

By Jack

September 20, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

We should willingly suspend disbelief when we hear anything the democrats have to say.

By Voter

September 20, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

DemDems4ever, all I personally want is for Dusty to define victory in Iraq. When she does that I will gladly go away. And the Chimpster in Chief saying mission accomplish again doesn’t count. Man up Dusty. Walk the walk.

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Poor ol’ libs, still at it.

You don’t know what “victory” means. Well, you certainly know what “defeat” means because you work for it all the time. Now be good little boys and girls and take the opposite of defeat and you have “VICTORY”!!!! Ah so.

Those of you who call fighting for freedom not worthwhile, please shove on off to some country where they have already lost it. Enjoy the sugar cane fields of Cuba!! Learn to diet in North Korean!! Eat dog meat in Zimbabwee!

Victory in the Middle East means less bases for Islamic terrorism. It means making great difficulties for terrorists to attack our country AGAIN.

George Bush has rallied our country and protected it after 9/11. He is trying to protect Americans now and in the future, even with libs screanming and fighting against it every step of the way.

So relax, libs, take a break. Someone is watching out for you babies and it isn’t your Congress led by Democrats.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

“Harry Reid of Nevada saw it otherwise. “In blocking this bipartisan bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated they are more committed to protecting the president than protecting our troops.”

Nailed it.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

The Right has never defined victory, they instead just spin the meaning depending on whether they have to shout “Amnesty” about illegal aliens to drown out the amnesty they just gave to the sunni insurgents who killed thousands of US troops.

That’s not surrender? I think it is. I think that surrendering to a nice enemy who changed it’s mind is the necessary compromise that history demands we make and one which we’ve always made during civil wars. Things simply change because we say they’ve changed. We pick a side. We choose the border. now go play nice. peace, out.

And I’m saying America changed, and I want it back to the way it was: for the people, by the book, of the majority. (from lincoln’s first draft).

By Peter

September 20, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

HAS any of the WRONGS seen the dollar to Euro Rate today ???

Has anyone been paying attention to how BADLY our US currency is doing around the world ?????

Currencies

$1 is worth… USD to JPY 114.73 ¥ USD to EUR 0.7109

PLEASE note that our DOLLAR is the lowest it has EVER Been to the EURO…..

Great Job up there in Washington……let’s bankrupt the USA WRONGS with lying policy……made up wars, and terrible fiscal management.

The Bush Administration has made us not only laughing stocks around the world, but poorer as well !!!!!!

By J

September 20, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

I also would like to know: what, exactly, is the definition of “victory” in Iraq?

If the troops must stay until we “win”, how will we know that we’ve “won”?

Corollary question: how will military action (by a foreign occupying force, no less) bring about a political solution from a (nominally) sovereign government?

The silence is deafening.

By time for the harsh truth

September 20, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Watching Dusty ‘metaphorically’ SPIT IN THE FACE OF THE LEFTIST VERMIN - because, despite unremitting unhinged visceral personal abuse she is way too classy to do it literally - even though actually spitting in the face of such COWARDLY odious leftist treasonous surrender monkeys is richly deserved provides unending daily entertainment. It is the likes of Dusty that quietly show us all how a REAL/TRUE American behaves!!!

then there’s crackpipe debbieturd, peeping tom, the VT based child molestor rednekkks NAMBLA, the anal mercilessly unfunny aborted foreskin, inbred rednekkk, the always simpering like a sick queer with a Freddie Mercury blow up doll Lance Corporal Syphilis, arsehole vet, the gutless Cuban illegal greaseball getaturd, aquahag, petersmallpecker, greyqueerAIDSsinfestedgreek, dennisthesadpenispuller, time topissonandsliceanddiceleftistsurrendermonkeys AND THE REST OF THE LEFTIST SCUM ON HERE!!!

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

So, jbm, allowing tired, stressed out soldiers who have been away from their families for 15 months an equal amount of time with them before they have to go back is “cut and run”? Interesting interpretation. I’m sure the troops appreciate your willingness to rush them back to the battlefield.

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

The answers to “what constitutes victory in Iraq again” (since we already won, but this is apparently a do-over for George): A.You’re a jew-baiter for asking. B. You’re a Clintonista for asking. C. Dead silence.

Any other answers? Maybe one of y’all can borrow the collective Republican brain cell and give an answer.

By GreyGayGeek

September 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Woo-hoo! I got mentioned by ttft.

Wow. I guess I’ve now Made It, at least on this blog.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Iraq is a stalemate, which isn’t a surrender, or a cut and run, or an immoral choice, it simply is, depending on what the definition of is is.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Wow some really intellectual comments by DUSTY Today !!!!!!

“Victory in the Middle East means less bases for Islamic terrorism. It means making great difficulties for terrorists to attack our country AGAIN.”

Gee Dusty where will there be LESS BASES ??????

“George Bush has rallied our country and protected it after 9/11. He is trying to protect Americans now and in the future, even with libs screanming and fighting against it every step of the way.”

Please DON”T tell me we are safer now then before….. Bush never went after the GUY who committed the crime on 9-11…..

Bin Laden is still on the loose, and still making waves TODAY…..He has a new war going on..Pakistan !!!!!

Wake up smell some coffee, and try traveling the world some…….we are NO Safer than when he took office…..heck we as a nation have most of our forces fighting a made up war……

WE HAVE LESS PROTECTION HERE AT HOME IN THE USA THAN WE HAD DURING 9-11 !!!!!!!

By getalife

September 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

The gop will abuse our troops and their families with 10 tours in Iraq and Jim and his wingnuts will cheer it on.

These are fraud Americans.

Disgusting.

By Dennis

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

By Dusty September 20, 2007 10:45 AM “Victory in the Middle East means less bases for Islamic terrorism. It means making great difficulties for terrorists to attack our country AGAIN.”

The above statement is ignorance at its best.

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

By J

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

Again: definition of “victory”? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

By Metaphorically Speaking

September 20, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Metaphorically speaking,time for the harsh truth, are you a switch hitter? Do you pitch and catch or specialize? Senator Craig would like to know.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

It is one thing for the ‘faithful” to engage in endless hyperbolic rhetoric, which they clearly excel at, as evidenced by much of what is written here on a daily basis. Irrelevant though it may be.

But for an oracle of theirs, albeit a mainly distrusted local “journalist” to rely so heavily on the same, is a sign of sure and complete Republican desperation.

When faced with the realities of a botched and horribly mismanaged occupation, and an irrefutably inept Presidency, never doubt that a professional neo-con like Mr. Wooten can always fall back on using words like surrender to enrage the “base” of the never-served.

In the “good old days” of Ronnie, Newt and Karl, these juvenile slanders, slogans and sound bites were rather amusing. And in some ways, to me, they still are. But the nation is no longer laughing.

The ONLY salient point our esteemed columnist makes in his effort today is regarding “the wobbly Republicans”.

Mark my words, last November’s Republican bloodbath is going to look like a total victory in comparison to what likely awaits the GOP next year.

I would not be in the least bit surprised to see the military vote go heavily Democratic in 2008, despite the fact that that may be the first time in my life. The rest of the nation doing so, is not really in doubt anymore.

At that point, I would bet that the approval numbers will go back to more historic norms.

It is their non-conservative intransigence and ineptitude that is the lowest common denominator. And that is what may well spell another forty years for them in the American political wilderness as they assume their historical and deserved position of being on the outside looking in.

By Vietnam Vet

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

Folks I guarantee you that when Wooten’s as$ was in Vietnam he wasn’t leading cheers for staying the course.

By Anonymous

September 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

By the way, it’s funny how Wooten praised Bush for ignoring his low poll numbers (he was “steadfast and principled,” remember?)… but he insists that low ratings for Congress are proof of their failure and humiliation, requiring urgent attention.

The only “failure,” of course, would be the failure to stop the insane Bush war machine.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

You’re myspacing around the topic again….

I’d say there are only three trolls posting all those comments, if you’ll see the syntactical lock step of most of the comments. they’re either 15 people all trying to sound like me, or they’re 3 trolls playing point counterpoint politely with themselves, with only obsolete and harmless invective to cloak the real intrinsic worth of the debate, which is masturbation. (they use both hands, and click with their feet.)

I am the world’s greatest troll spotter. n’est ce pas?

By Jena6 beatdown

September 20, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

One important point that seems to have been overlooked by our brilliant liberal leftwingnut friends here is that Hagel co-authored the failed Failure Bill. Is there still an ignoranus wingnut out there that denies that Hagel is a turncoat Rino? I can see clearly our men fighting at Iwo Jima and congressmen 7,000 miles away doing nothing but bickering about leave time our troops should have in the middle of a war.

All pathetic pig-headed libs who support Ahmadinejihad visiting Ground Zero raise your snouts.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Come on now folks………BUSH already said we have Victory……… OR did I dream that one up ????

getalife made a great point, and I would have to add, look at what the GI’s get to come home too ????

GI hospital’s in shambles, and what about the weekend warriors, the guys that made up the reserves ????

I talked to a buddy who is a retired 20 year Army guy a Major….. he told me the weekend guys were definitely NOT prepared or trained to go to war…but they are being used and abused anyway…….

PLUS…….. how many of them are now going BANKRUPT because they have lost the dollars from their daytime jobs, and now living off of the LOW PAY from ARMY PAY ??????

Great Job there George Bush, way to look out for those MEN !!!!!!

By snapfinger

September 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

“I talked to a buddy who is a retired 20 year Army guy a Major”

Peter, you know a 20-year career officer who never made it past the rank of O-4? He must not have been much of a leader. My old man made that rank in less than half that time.

“PLUS…….. how many of them are now going BANKRUPT because they have lost the dollars from their daytime jobs”

Bush didn’t force them to sign up at gunpoint, did he? If he did, then you have a point.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Wooten was in nam? Old soldiers should just…fade….away.

My dad was fading, but now he’s got a pacemaker and he might get to go home today, but only with teams of assistance taking round-the-clock shifts of intensive personal attention and care. Well, if that’s what it takes, it’s a good thing he’s got insurance that will pay for it. He’s so fragile now, at 85. Veterans deserve the best care, and I personally am going to make sure he gits it.

By DemDems4Ever

September 20, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Ah, the Dem lemmings write but do not read.

Dusty gave a good answer but still the lemmings from the left keep asking.

My father left in January of 1942 under the direction of Democrat President Roosevelt to fight in Europe against a German government that did not attack us. He returned in the Fall of 1945. But then he was a member of the “Greatest Generation”, not the “Failure Generation of the Lemming Left” we are forced to endure today.

getalife, Amvet and Dennis I am sorry I omitted your cowardly selves from the earlier 10:34 post, you have distinguished yourselves with great dishonor and merited inclusion.

By J

September 20, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

“By Jena6 beatdown September 20, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this One important point that seems to have been overlooked by our brilliant liberal leftwingnut friends here is that Hagel co-authored the failed Failure Bill.”

1) Actually, it was an amendment to a bill, not a bill itself. 2) It failed by only garnering a 56-44 majority of votes (to invoke cloture, since it was being filibustered). 3) Please define “victory”. 4) If you’re so sure troops should be in Iraq, why aren’t you there?

By J

September 20, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

My bad - there was no filibuster. But there was a failed cloture vote.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

The only problem with that “analysis” first posted at 11:21, is that in the world of adults, you need a little something called evidence to be taken credibly.

Not long ago I slapped around one of the regular loud mouth neo-cons here for calling Chuck Hagel a RINO. I provided several links showing where he had voted with his Party an exceptional amount of the time. He has very high approval ratings by most of the most conservative organizations and is considered one of the most loyal Republicans in the US Senate. I’m sure you know his stance on the issues intimately, right?

WRONG!

The earlier fool in question provided an op-ed piece from an Australian newspaper as his sole “proof”! And of course never admitted he was 100% incorrect with his moronic claim.

I would love to do the same for you if need be.

Man up and admit that you neo-cons hate Hagel for one reason. And one reason only. His opposition to the screw ups running this Iraqi invasion/occupation. Period.

As for your vivid memories of John Wayne movies and Iwo Jima, I’m sure the combat hardened Hagel could help you with other visions of fire fights and valor.

By TW

September 20, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Warner’s move ensures that VA will have another Warner next session. Two Dems from VA…keep defending the failed policy, Mr. Wooten…between you and O’Reilly the Dems won’t have to spend a dime…special thanks to your buddy Craig for his willingness to fight as well…

By Destry

September 20, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Peter, I could make that rank in like five minutes…..

By Lily Toad

September 20, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

GreyGayGeek, jbmlaw accuses anyone who uses the term “neocon” of anti-Semitism or Jew-baiting, even though very few people know about the supposed Jewish angle to the term (formerly liberal Jews who turned conservative). I’m sure you didn’t mean it as an anti-Semitic slur, but jbmlaw loves to batter anyone who uses the term.

By InquiringMindWantsToKnow

September 20, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

By Metaphorically Speaking

September 20, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Metaphorically speaking,time for the harsh truth, are you a switch hitter? Do you pitch and catch or specialize? Senator Craig would like to know.

Please tell us time for the harsh truth. Do you swing both ways? Pitch? Catch? Was Senator Craig really sending that cop a solicitation in that bathroom? I understand that you can give a definitive answer based on extensive expertise in that arena. Where are the best bathrooms to meet in? Do you have a steady stickbud tftht? I’m between relationships. Lunchtime quickie maybe. Please tftht! I’m extremely turned on by those diapers that you and Senator Vitter like to pose in. Which to you prefer tftht….pampers or huggies? I promise to bring you a box.

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Peter Cottontail @10:59

Please come out of your briarpatch. The world has left you behind.

A viable government in Iraq without a dictator means citizens will reject being a base for terrorism just as they realized what funadamentalist Islamists meant in Anbar. Or did you hear?

Osama is hiding in a cave in the most remote mountains of Pakistan. His biggest accomplishment is dying his beard. That black beard really scares you, right?

Afghanistan has its own government with the help of NATO. It has problems just as any country does after years of war and suppression. Guess you didn’t know that either.

So, homeland security has done nothing to protect you?? Here’s some NEWS for you, PCT. We haven’t had a terrorism attack because WE ARE BEING PROTECTED. Mercy!! What ignorance. Ooooo

Here’s a carrot, lil’ fellow. Run off and hide. Those who are not afraid will continue to protect you.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

HA HA HA snapfinger you are really quite the humorist……..

Well I guess your dad then stayed 20 years in the service like my buddy did, then retired to become a Atlanta teacher, and retire from the school system ????

Seems my buddy is a leader, and he did then come home and become a leader in the classroom as well……

I will agree with you Bush DID NOT ask them to sign at GUN POINT…BUT he didn’t have them properly trained, or protected with the correct armor going into battle……

So for allot of those folks, they went on a suicide mission………

I guess the money for the armor they were suppose to have went to the Bush buddies at Haliburton, and we watched as they over charged for everything, and didn’t full fill the contracts correctly.

I guess you think we are winning this WAR, and the 3 factions in Iraq are going to sit around camp fires together toast some marsh mellows, and talk about the OLD days when they all used to HATE each other ?????

By Jack

September 20, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

“Bush didn’t force them to sign up at gunpoint, did he? If he did, then you have a point.”

He wouldn’t have a point even if their was a draft. If you reside in the US it is your duty to serve if called upon even if you don’t agree with the administration. If you aren’t willing to serve you need to go to France.

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

snapfinger, that 20 year Major is four pay levels above your KeyboardWarrior a$$.

No wonder you have the attitude of “once they’re in, they can take whatever crap they’re served”. You typify the Repub attitude towards the troops, like your fearless buddies.

By Sam

September 20, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Dusty, very nicely….please tell us at what point we can declare victory in Iraq? If you can’t please waddle on back to the kitchen and fix your husband his lunch.

By YellowDogDem

September 20, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Folks, if Dusty will tell us when we can declare victory in Iraq, I will, and please Jesus, forgive me, vote for the Republican nominee in 08. Dusty is that not an offer you can’t refuse?

By J

September 20, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

“A viable government in Iraq without a dictator means citizens will reject being a base for terrorism…”

So, grammatical errors aside, this is apparently what defines “victory” in Iraq. (Pure genius.)

So, Dusty, please inform us all: how will our continued military occupation bring about a viable, non-dictatorial Iraqi government?

Also: since you’re worried about nations with dictators that serve as bases for terrorism, does that mean you’ll be leading the invasion of Pakistan?

By Peter

September 20, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Hey Dusty, how is all today for you ????

Seems like you have it all figured out…….

YES…. we should NOT be afraid of BIN LADEN…….. gosh he has zero resources, and he he has decided to become an E-bay seller with all his extra time in the cave….

Also…. I am very sure you have worked it all out with the 3 sanctions in Iraq, and with your help they now will Love each other.

I am hoping you will send them the marsh mellows so they can sit around and enjoy them over some burning Car there.

Wow we are SAFE !!!!

DUSTY figured it out…. Ring in the GOOD News….. !!!!!

HAIL DUSTY our savior…..!!!!!!!!

Now if we can get that guy with the fork lift over there, we can get her to a Waffle House to celebrate !!!

By jbmlaw

September 20, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Dear Destry @ 10:37, funny line, my compliments. As to 10:46, “I’m saying America changed, and I want it back to the way it was: for the people, by the book, of the majority,” sure thing, the minute we have a redo on 9/11. The world has changed, and it is a meaner place than before. As to your 11:29, we pray for God’s blessings on your father, and for you and your family.

Dear Aquagirl @ 10:38, I understand that you are not here every day, but I have answered the question many times: the war is won only when the last Islamist is killed or renounces his desire to murder Americans. Until then, our noble military has a job to do; please ask the screaming monkeys to stay off the military’s shoulders while the military is trying to take care of serious business.

Dear Southern @ 10:41, we will agree to disagree. So far as Islamists are concerned, I truly am hawkish and possessive of simplistic bloodlust – I have no patience for those who would kill us. I understand you have many on your side who would prefer to try them in open court and put them in jail for six to twenty. I would much prefer to grant their martyrdom at the hands of our noble military. In any event, I am unlikely to yield to the idea that Congressional micro-management is ever a good idea, especially on something like conduct of a war (or even healthcare.)

Dear TFTT @ 10:52, I will second your argument in the first paragraph, well-written.

By Lily Toad

September 20, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Dusty, how many “terrorism” attacks have been committed in the US? I can only think of two times in our country’s history — (1)Oklahoma City in 1995 and (2) NYC and Washington, DC in 2001. With this kind of history I think it’s a stretch to say we’re being PROTECTED because there hasn’t been an attack in the US since 2001.

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Jack @ 11:40

Now you’ve got al the libs learning to speak French! They have already learned “RETRAITE!”

By DemDems4Ever

September 20, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

An exchange with the lemmings here is futile.

If they are so smart, astute and able to predict the future - where were they when Hillary and the rest of the see-saw Democrats were voting to invade Iraq?

Oh yes, they were bamboozled by “faulty intelligence”, or was it they were lied to, or perhaps the lemmings just choose to ignore the calls by the Democrats for the ouster of Saddam during the Clinton administration?

These lemmings all suffer from selective recall.

By Sir Roderick

September 20, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Sista Dusty, since youse gettin screwed so bad in this blog let me releeve sum o yo stress. I know a cathouse in Tijuana that might take a BBW ho like you. And they ain’t be askin you about no victory in Iraq. So when can I transport you cross those state lines to give you sum pupuss in this life?

By USO HR person

September 20, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Dusty, we really need patriotic and loving women like you in our organization. Right now we are hiring for positions in Iraq. The guys need women like you who do more than just pay lip service to our troops. We will have an opening at the end of next week when the lady there now rotates back to the states. I feel that you would be an excellent hire. Give me call Dusty. 703-908-6400 and ask for Joan

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

YellowDog Dem, Sam, J & PeterRabbit,

I certainly will let all of you know when everything is calm and safe in Iraq. You have been doing some good running and hiding but I think I can find you.

Oh..Peter, doesn’t your wife work at Waffle House? She must. You’re always advertising the place and getting free handouts.

By J

September 20, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

“By DemDems4Ever September 20, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

An exchange with the lemmings here is futile.

If they are so smart, astute and able to predict the future - where were they when Hillary and the rest of the see-saw Democrats were voting to invade Iraq?”

Actually, I was marching to protest the planned invasion of Iraq - the only time I’ve participated protesting something publicly. I didn’t support the invasion before it happened, and I won’t be goaded, coerced or scared into supporting it now. It was ill-conceived, based on shifting rationales (WMD - no, I mean: fighting terrorism - no, I mean: promoting democracy - no, I mean: securing oil supplies…), and doomed to failure for too many reasons to count.

So, yes, I DID predict the future: that the pre-war planning would be too poor to actually work (weren’t the original projections that all the troops would be home by now???) and that we would be getting into an ethno-religious-political situation far more complex and nuanced (and historically based) than any of the geniuses in DC had counted on.

Shorter version: I was right, and you were wrong.

By A shill for the Shrill

September 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Gee, the Hilldabeast called Cheney “Darth Vader” at a fundraiser. More name calling from the supposed smartest woman in the world. Democrats. I’ll bet that liver lipped broad doesn’t even know what the Sith are. Actually the Shrill is a hissing cursed Greek named Medusa. Hey I can name call too! That was easy.

Another perfect example of the Hypocrats and their duplicitous ways. We all know if a Republican called her Hitlery (which she is) then all you cry baby liberals would be whining “hate speech! name calling!” etc… Yet when Hitlery does it then you cheer. You libs are all the same and you are the scourge of the country.

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, kudos for an attempt instead of cut-n-running. Your 12:01 post is an answer if it addressed the question—-you seem to be answering “when is the war on terror won?”

The war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, unless you’ve glugged the Kool-Ade. Gee, weren’t we fighting terrorism in Afghanistan? Wonder why we aren’t winning there with all the military resources at our disposal? If screaming Republican Monkeys hadn’t gotten us into the Iraqi mess we might have eliminated the Taliban. Now we’re watching them regain their base. A strange way to achieve your lofty goals.

Your aim for winning the war on terror is admirable, but hardly realistic, given that you seem to prefer mass military force in this war.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA HA DUSTY…….. the very lovely, and extremely sexy lady in my life is not in the restaurant business……

Now how about Rathbun’s downtown, Front Page News, or perhaps McKinnion’s Louisiana, we like these places to eat……

I have not been to a Waffle House in years, and that goes for Fast food which I do not eat at all…..

But back to reality…..

Tell me how the 3 factions in Iraq are going to kiss and make up like we are able to do ????

By Destry

September 20, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

How did you know it was me, jbm? Did I sign it again with ‘muff said? Confound it I cant stop doing that.

Do you realize that if everyone signed off with ‘muff said, that nobody would know who was what? That’s right, fall apart, people. Walk softly boys….

By DemDems4Ever

September 20, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

J@12:18,

Sure you were J. Yeah right, no wait, you were marching in protest, yeah right.

Your shorter version, like most all liberal postings, is based upon assumption.

No one is attempting to “goad you” into supporting the war. Simply stop the defeatist approach.

The liberal lemmings started the subversive tactics prior to the first inauguration of Bush, then voted for the war, changed their spots with the polls and began their anti-war chant. ALL FOR POLITICAL POWER AND NOTHING ELSE.

If you believe Bush and the Republican Party were in this without the Democrats you not only forget history, you are delusional.

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Dear USO Joan,12:13

I do hope you have success in finding loving women and men to work in your organization. As I understand it, you have many anti-war libs working 24 hours a day to tell the soldier’s and their families about the folly of fighting. But these volunteers do not go to Iraq by any means.

Now I applaud the REAL USO and its good work. It is a pity if someone should use their name for a political farce. But to the REAL USO, may you continue to spread your patriotic support for those who fight.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

With regard to part of Dusty’s 11:45 posting, one of Georgie Bush’s few positive accomplishments has to be the fact that NO act of terrorism here on the homeland has been committed by Islamist fanatics since September 11 and the anthrax attacks that followed. Love him or hate him, Georgie has to have the credit for that.

However, it chaps my posterior, which is quite substantial, to think that, that murderer, Usama bin-Laden, seems to have the freedom to distribute his pornography…excuse me…his political statements via video, etc., whenever he pleases.

I still say, if Georgie does not bring that walking human excrement to justice before he leaves office, his administration will go down as one of the worst.

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Okay, a shill, I’ll bite. Why is Hillary Clinton properly called “Hitlery”? Did she order the extermination of the Jews, invade a sovereign nation, proclaim the superiority of the Aryan race, or start World War III? And just who claimed she was the smartest woman in the world? Any more wild, unsupportable accusations you’d like to make? Any other stupid asides you’d like to throw in?

By Get It Right 4 Once

September 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Due to their association with this odd behaviour, lemming suicide is a frequently-used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences. This is the theme of the video game Lemmings, where the player attempts to save the mindlessly marching rodents from walking to their deaths

Whatever you do folks….don’t save Dusty. Let her go over that cliff right along with her fantasy men GWB and Dick4DustyCheney.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Wow read below……. another astounding statement……

By DemDems4Ever

September 20, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

An exchange with the lemmings here is futile.

Well it seems even Mr. Greenspan mentioned lately we went to WAR for OIL, and he mentioned that the Republicans have been mixing politics will arrogance……

Also it seems like More Americans want to END this JOKE of a WAR, that has wasted the American dollar, and also has empowered the Al-Qaeda…..

Seems like the Lemming as the ones sticking to the WAR machine despite the losses, the shame, and the truth……..

The truth is we have YET to get the GUY who created 9-11, and so the “REASON” for going to war ??????

The Chicken Hawks seem to be the lemmings here !!!!!!

By MajorTom

September 20, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Dusty, please answer the question that you opened the door for. Otherwise load up with Sir Roderick. That Tijuana brothel can at least get something productive out of you.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Here is a good explanation of what is going on in the Senate

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Well, jbmlaw,

I had to laugh over your “bloodlust”. I know. Not funny. But I bet you don’t even like your steaks rare. There is no bloodlust in your heart.

I leave now. Busy afternoon coming up. Keep ‘em busy!

By J

September 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

DemDems4Ever: 1) Yes, I did march in protest. (And I’m most definitely not the protester-type) 2) If you’re a republican, does that mean that everything R’s in congress do collectively is an exact reflection of what you yourself think and believe? 3) “No one is attempting to “goad you” into supporting the war.” So why is my patriotism questioned for not supporting it? Just for kicks? Why would it be insinuated that anyone who doesn’t support the continued occupation “wants the terrorists to win”? Hmm? 4) I’ll agree that D’s and R’s together drank the Kool-Aid on this one, with few holdouts. And it was shameful to watch the entire political establishment (along with the press) roll over in the face of unrelenting propaganda. And now we all live with the consequences: over 3,700 dead US soldiers, more than $500 billion spent, untold numbers of dead Iraqis, ethnic cleansing, 2 million displaced Iraqis, greater regional instability, a non-working Iraqi government, a strained military, ad nauseum…

But you asked where I was when many Democrats were swallowing, hook-line-and-sinker, the Iraq invasion rationale. And I already answered: I was in opposition to the invasion. I marched in opposition to the invasion for the reasons enumerated in my previous post.

So, again: I did foresee disastrous results to the Iraq invasion, and sadly they have become true. Can you say the same?

By CPA

September 20, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Sir Roderick you probably need to reevaluate that excellent opportunity you offered Dusty. It is a great deal for her but you will lose out big time. Assuming you can get $100 or so for her, even if you got .50 out of every $2.00 trick she turns down there it would take you about 200 years to get even your gas money back. Dusty is a very poor investment. Of course her not having teeth could present greater return on your investment. You could easily cut the 200 years to 150 if she multi tasks.

By Captain Freedom

September 20, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

THE Captain has only a moment to post today (like Dusty, he is very busy with lots of important things to do), so he will keep it brief.

THE Captain is gratified that the True Patriots in the Senate trounced the Troop Hating Democrats by only losing the vote by 12% of the total. This strong showing by the Senators who care enough about Our Fighting Forces to defened them from enforced time at home with their families PROVES that Real Americans support Our Leader and his policies.

Those stupid liberals. They lose even when they win by a vote of 56-44. Perhaps now they will realize there is no support for their stupid liberal liberalism.

THE Captain has spoken.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

WOW where have all the “WRONGS” gone ????

Not a single one answered the question about Victory…..except Dusty……for what that was worth…..?????

Not a single one of them explained how the 3 factions in Iraq will come together……

Not a single one of them will even comment on Bin Laden, and the fact he today is a FREE man after destroying the Twin Towers on 9-11…..

Yet we hear George Bush is making us “Safer” and a Stronger Nation”

Come on now Wrongs, what are the answers here ??????

By DancePartner

September 20, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

I think Destry summed it up the best today with the 10:55 insight into Iraq’s historical classification as a stalemate. Who is this Destry? Have you read how stentorian he writes? Have you been following this troll/prophet?

I havent read one word that wasn’t true. He’s the voice of our founding fathers echoing over hill and dale, across the fruited planes, oh where do we get such men?

But then, this is american where one man CAN make a difference.

By DancePartner

September 20, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

I think Destry summed it up the best today with the 10:55 insight into Iraq’s historical classification as a stalemate. Who is this Destry? Have you read how stentorian he writes? Have you been following this troll/prophet?

I havent read one word that wasn’t true. He’s the voice of our founding fathers echoing over hill and dale, across the fruited planes, oh where do we get such men?

But then, this is american where one man CAN make a difference.

By jbmlaw

September 20, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Dear Aquagirl @ 12:24, I believe you and I hold different perceptions of Iraq. I am reasonably comfortable that Iraq IS the last stand for the Islamists, unless they can evict us from Iraq. Certainly our American leftists share that desire with the Islamists, for the same reason – victory in Iraq would be the end for the democrats as we know them today.

As to “we were fighting them in Afghanistan” that is a mostly false argument – by invading Iraq we drew them all into a narrow area. When the Islamists were spread all over the world, they had a powerful strategic advantage; when President Bush suckered them into an “all or nothing” war in Iraq, he switched the military advantage strongly to our side; unfortunately he did not anticipate that democrats would politically undermine his effort. There is nothing the Islamists would desire more than for us to put all of our attention on whack-a-osama instead of connecting the dots, to the larger Islamist movement.

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Shill, the crickets are chirping, louder and louder. Did Senator Clinton try to invade Russia? Did she grow a really bad moustache? Why should she be called “Hitlery”?

By Jackie

September 20, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Dusty claims that we have not had an attack on American soil since 9/11 and Dubya is protecting us from the terrorists. I recall there was an anthrax attack on the US Congress. Was that a terrorist attack? have we captured the terrorists? For all those neo-cons that purport to support the troops, news reports have given us information about the rejection of the Senate Amendment to give the ground troops some relief. However, another report indicates that the National Guard is ill equipped to be deployed to Iraq as they have an equipment shortfall of approximately 75% - $13 Billion dollars - and have not been adequately trained. Dubya said that if the Senate voted for giving our ground forces relief, he would just call up the National Guard to continue our fight for “victory.” Dubya stated this illegal war will take many years after he has left office. Will we bring the draft back? The neo-con, chickenhawk, keyboard warriors will have ample opportunity to employ “hip service” instead of “lip service” in that case, won’t they? My guess is, it will not happen because it will require too many of those who have this Pollyannish attitude that it is right and honorable to go to war for a cause of protecting America from our enemies. These folks watch TOO MUCH TELEVISION!

By getalife

September 20, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

If the occupation for oil is so important, why no draft?

There is no military victory in Iraq.

The gop are against abortion but fail to take care of the sick children.

Jim hates taking care of sick, poor children and is giddy over w’s veto.

Pitiful.

By deegee

September 20, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

As to “we were fighting them in Afghanistan” that is a mostly false argument – by invading Iraq we drew them all into a narrow area. When the Islamists were spread all over the world, they had a powerful strategic advantage.”

And they’re not spread all over the world??? such as the Great Britain, such as the Germany, such as the Australia and the Indonesia?

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, about the only thing we may agree on is that our perceptions on Iraq differ.

If Iraq is the last stand for the Islamic fascists, who’s shooting at our troops in Afghanistan? Who’s bombing airports and transit in Europe? Who’s plotting here? There’s plenty of terrorist activity outside Iraq.

The only one GWB has suckered is you, jbmlaw.

You make the faulty assumption that the enemy has/will run to fight our military troops. Terrorists don’t like to fight soldiers. Terrorists like to fight (a very loose term) old ladies on Israeli buses by blowing them up.

You underestimate the enemy. The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a place we consider stable and pro-American. There isn’t some set group of nuts, there is a sizable populace of anti-American sentiment in many countries. Extremists among them become terrorists. As long as that widely-held sentiment exists, we will never win the war on terror.

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

What, you didn’t know that every Islamic terrorist is in Iraq right now? That Islamic terrorist travel agencies are selling one way travel packages to Iraq, complete with car, bomb supplies and a certificate good for 47 vestal virgins in heaven? (the joke is on them because the certificate is not bomb proof) That no terrorist attacks attributable to Islamic terrorists have occurred anywhere else in the world since we invaded Iraq, because all the Islamic terrorists have been too busy attacking US troops in Iraq to commit any acts of terror elsewhere? Come on, get with the Bush program.

By Catscan

September 20, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

We had an eight year victory from 1993 to 2001 by doing nothing, too, nolaughs.

So your claims are specious, and you are fecious.

So try again, but I see daft people.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Wow more truly incite full information today……. !!!!!

“As to “we were fighting them in Afghanistan” that is a mostly false argument – by invading Iraq we drew them all into a narrow area. When the Islamists were spread all over the world, they had a powerful strategic advantage; when President Bush suckered them into an “all or nothing” war in Iraq, he switched the military advantage strongly to our side; unfortunately he did not anticipate that democrats would politically undermine his effort. There is nothing the Islamists would desire more than for us to put all of our attention on whack-a-osama instead of connecting the dots, to the larger Islamist movement.”

Yes we drew who into a narrow area ??? Was that Saddam ??? Who was that we drew into a narrow area ????

Heck why would anyone be interested in Bin Laden ??????

Does 9-11 ring a bell….

DING - a - LING !!!!!

“connecting the dots, to the larger Islamist movement”

What the heck does that mean…….????????

jbmlaw, you cannot be so naive as to think all Islamics are extremists like Bin Laden ?????

Most folks are too ignorant because of the lack of education there, they may be totally tied to their religion, But no where in the Caron does it say to kill and murder……and to take over the world.

Muslim folks in the mid-east are members of one of the many factions there, and they all dislike each other……… mostly because they have separatist views on their version of being a Muslim.

Bin Laden is spending his time trying to excite them, and rally them to a single cause…….that cause…. Muslim’s taking over the world and the world running according to them…… that is HIS dream, not that of the general Muslim population.

He is also very upset about the Westernization of the Muslim world, that is one of his BIGGEST beefs.

Please try to read up on what is going on there before these silly comments…..

Especially from a guy who claims to be a lawyer, shouldn’t you due your due diligence before commenting ??

By Catscan

September 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

As we create the Chinese Big Brother 1984 style via hedge fund financing of their surveillance and liberty suppression industries.

Capitalism and democracy do NOT go hand in hand, obviously. Only fascism and capitalism go hand in hand. that’s the definition of fascism: Commercial monopoly of the social and military services of a country.

You people have so much to learn, but I’ll try. I’ll try. Because if we dont try, then we dont do, and if we dont do, then what are here on god’s earth 4? (shenandoah, jimmy stewart)

By Jackie

September 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

A House sub-committee is investigating the Inspector General of the State Department for suppressing and falsifying documents about the war. It appears that Condolezza “Pinocchio” Rice is about to get his comeuppance. Dubya is continuing to make noises about going to war with Iran and arrested an Iranian in Iraq that was invited by the Kurds to help with the oil wells. Aren’t the Iraqis our allies ? This circular logic being employed by Dubya is beginning to close the circle on him and mainly the American electorate. Those Senators that continue to support Bush today will try to tap dance their way through the election by blaming Bush for everything they did. WILL NOT WORK! THEY WILL BE SENT BACK TO THE HOUSE!!!!

By Curious Observer

September 20, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Ho hum. The resident queen TFTT continues to spew her disdain for justice in Jena, while Dusty again shills for the Bush administration. Just another day at the Wooten blog.

I marvel that a Senate that supposedly rejoices in its support of majority rule continues to use an arcane 60-vote definition of a majority. I wonder how the House has survived all these years with a simple majority vote. That Senate filibuster/cloture rule has frustrated the will of the majority for years. It has been used to stifle efforts to confirm judicial nominees and to defeat bills that have majority support. Yet, when I re-read the Constitution, I find nothing about cloture or a super-majority. Even worse, any individual senator has the power to bottle up a vote on a nominee for office.

It’s passing strange that the idea of a super-majority reigns so supreme in the minds of senators that Bill Frist’s mere threat of changing the rule by fiat led to the confirmation of Roberts and Alito.

Go ahead and call a 56-44 vote in favor of the Webb bill a defeat, if you want. The only thing being defeated is the idea of majority rule.

By deegee

September 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

The history books are full of instances where one country invaded another country and the results were less than optimal. Our execution of the war in Iraq is a textbook example of how to achieve military defeat. We have political cronyism, unexpected resistance by the invaded population, overly optimistic initial projections for success, lack of preparedness for a long battle, dwindling arms and supplies, and fierce factional fighting among the invaded population. We have gone into enormous debt to fund the war, and we have economic problems at home that need to be resolved. You can take democrat/republican politics completely out of the equation here and there is absolutely no difference in the reality of what is happening in Iraq. It is too late for a military victory in Iraq. It’s too fubarred to be fixed. Let’s find another secular Sunni-lite dictator to put in power over there so we can eventually get the hell out.

By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms

September 20, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment

Top military recruitment facts

Counterrecruitment for a better world

Ready to create a truly grassroots, people powered movement? Anti-war activism is changing. The familiar sights and sounds of large protests are giving way to quieter, but far more resonating, one-on-one work in classrooms, career centers, and communities. Whenever you hear people decry the lack of large-scale protest in the United States, even as the latest polls show more than 60 percent of people are opposed to the current war in Iraq, remember that the model for effectively challenging war is taking a different shape.

Note: The following is excerpted from Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World published by Seven Stories Press, August 2007. Reprinted here by permission of publisher. Copyright © 2007 Aimee Allison and David Solnit

Top military recruitment facts

Counterrecruitment for a better world

Ready to create a truly grassroots, people powered movement? Anti-war activism is changing. The familiar sights and sounds of large protests are giving way to quieter, but far more resonating, one-on-one work in classrooms, career centers, and communities. Whenever you hear people decry the lack of large-scale protest in the United States, even as the latest polls show more than 60 percent of people are opposed to the current war in Iraq, remember that the model for effectively challenging war is taking a different shape. Note: The above was excerpted from Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World published by Seven Stories Press, August 2007. Reprinted here by permission of publisher. Copyright © 2007 Aimee Allison and David Solnit

By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms

September 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Note: The following is excerpted from Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World published by Seven Stories Press, August 2007. Reprinted here by permission of publisher. Copyright © 2007 Aimee Allison and David Solnit

Top military recruitment facts

Counterrecruitment for a better world

Ready to create a truly grassroots, people powered movement? Anti-war activism is changing. The familiar sights and sounds of large protests are giving way to quieter, but far more resonating, one-on-one work in classrooms, career centers, and communities. Whenever you hear people decry the lack of large-scale protest in the United States, even as the latest polls show more than 60 percent of people are opposed to the current war in Iraq, remember that the model for effectively challenging war is taking a different shape.

By @@

September 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

I’m always amused by how the left fixates on Osama Bin Laden. He’s one of those obscured targets like global warming and evolution; the kind that allows them to drone on and on with the what-ifs, whys and why-nots. Kinda like those shots fired in the dark. It allows them to miss their target while shooting themselves in the foot, hoping that noone will notice.

Osama would have loved for us to come into the mountainous no-man’s land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. His ability to defeat or bring his enemy to a draw would have immediately allowed him to claim victory. We didn’t step into that trap and our military was wise for not having done so. Instead, we brought about a conflict that would incite hatred “towards” him and his methods. We did achieve that victory. Arab papers are launching a campaign lecturing Osama about the true edicts of Islam and questioning why he would want to face Allah with so much Muslim blood on his hands.

In 1936 a religious leader, Faqir of Ipi encouraged his followers to wage jihad on British forces. The faqir and his followers fought an extended insurgency against the brits that numbered more than 40,000 at one point. The battle ended only when Great Britain withdrew leaving the jihadists to fight another day in the not so distant future. We know that day as 9/11.

Faqir of Ipi? He was never found. He died a natural death in 1960.

Only the left, for political reasons, would pursue a defeated OBL. It’s the easier path — politically speaking of course.

By Jackie

September 20, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

@@@

You pontificate about how we fixate on Osama Bin Laden. What would your fixation be for someone that attacked you and your house? Secondly, you assert that our military would be defeated in going into the mountains of Afghanistan to pursue Osama Bin Laden. I think you do not have credible facts or you or obfuscating about the strength of our military forces. Our Special Forces could defeat Osama and his cadre. Why are you suddenly afraid for our military when you have no trepidation for their safety in Iraq? Thirdly, the war fought in 1936 was not one that used modern technology. If the goal is to “take out” Osama, have we accomplished our objective? Reading your posts make me suspect that you “support the troops?”

By Camus

September 20, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

Double@ finds concern over bin Laden amusing. Imusst be one of those humorless liberals, but it’s hard to find anything funny about a man who was responsible (without any help from Saddam Hussein) for the deaths of 3000 innocent civilians on 9/11 being allowed to spit in our faces from his safe haven at regular intervals. He’s safe, and he knows it. It’s not that we can’t touch him; it’s that our leadership doesn’t even want to try.

But like his hero Bush, @@ thinks that letting a mass-murderer get off scot free is an amusement rather than a dereliction of duty. A laugh riot.

The members of the Bush Cult could not betray their hatred for America any more clearly. They hate the troops until they are safely dead and lionized as heroes, and they hate anyone who does not share their fanatical cult worship of the dimwit son of a former president. All they care about is sitting back and enjoying the war porn and repeating “liberals stupid” cracks like retarded parrots.

Patriots my a$s. Criminal traitors is more like it.

By Analchord

September 20, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

JBM thinks that Pol Pot’s Killing fields was a result of our surrendering in Vietnam, which a few liberals managed to accomplish by having sit-ins and groove-ins on university campuses and clothing optional fraternity houses. Turn your head and cough, jbm.

I have no respect for anyone who blames the rise and fall of pol pot on the liberal conspiracy to destroy america and get free government cheese while we do it! None.

I dont be expectin’ to be respectin’ no man what donts lives by the code.

By jbmlaw

September 20, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Dear @@ @ 3:01, great argument. You have impressive strategic skills. Why cannot our leftists friends see what you see so clearly?

By catlady

September 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

This vote from the same congress that cannot/willnot deal with illegal immigration. what a surprise!

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Oh, now we see the Sour-Grapes doctrine constructed by the Bush cultists.

I’m not leftist, but I will own up to a fixation with Osama Bin Laden. Maybe it’s the thousands of deaths he caused. Maybe it’s that his continued freedom gives a morale boost to terrorists. Maybe I need Republican-designed electroshock therapy to accept Republican spin of Bin Laden as “defeated” when he’s still out there communicating to his network. Who knows? I’m sure the troops hunting him don’t care to have their efforts belittled. Oh, but since when do Republicans care about troops before political spin?

In any case, he’s certainly not an obscured target except that we’re not able to find him. Not that evolution and global warming are, if you don’t get a brain-feed from talk radio.

Please, @@, don’t tell me you’re one of those theo-creationists. We already knew you were nuts, don’t make yourself a public laughingstock like the crazies of Cobb.

By @@

September 20, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Jackie:

We almost had Osama early on. The only thing that prevented it were sympathetic if not outright loyal elements within Pakistan’s intelligence operations that forewarned Al-Qaeda. A harsh reality, but one we now realize.

Because of that close call, Al Qaeda has been forced to take extensive security measures that not only hinder our intelligents’ ability to get close but has hindered Al Qaeda as well. We have killed or captured many of their senior operatives, the ones who were needed to establish communications with militant cells. As a result, they are having to expose themselves (Bin Laden and Zawahiri) in an effort to recruit. Desperate measures will leave them more vulnerable an in our crosshairs. Just look at all the recent foiled attempts in Europe. They’re not getting the brightest and best to do their dirty work.

Patience…patience…patience Jackie. Al Qaeda is depending on the impatience of people such as yourself for their victory.

Do not surrender your patience.

Our warriors ARE the brightest and the best.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

By @@

September 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

WOW …..more real insight here……..

“I’m always amused by how the left fixates on Osama Bin Laden. He’s one of those obscured targets like global warming and evolution; the kind that allows them to drone on and on with the what-ifs, whys and why-nots. Kinda like those shots fired in the dark. It allows them to miss their target while shooting themselves in the foot, hoping that noone will notice.”

Gee when we got attacked in WW II by the Japanese…… did we go after China ???

Funny we got attacked by Bin Laden, and we go after Hussein……Duhhhhhh heck that makes perfect sense……

YES of course Global warming is not real….. Bush said so ….. Duhhhhhhhh…..

Gosh we do get a few laughs off this BLOG !!!!!!

By @@

September 20, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

And to be perfectly blunt with all the liberals here who now conveniently express concern for the victims in the towers.

Fuhgeddaboudit…you’ve already shot yourselves in the foot on that one and I saw it through my night-vision goggles

For you…history began this morning but I recall two years of liberal postings at ml’s.

By @@

September 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 3:21:

Thanks! I work with mentally and physically disabled children.

Strategy is everything — both militarily and professionally.

My students gravitate to me, I just can’t understand why the liberals here don’t.;-)

By deegee

September 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

“Our warriors ARE the brightest and the best.”

They’re freakin outnumbered!!! You can’t win this way. Either send 300,000 additional troops to Iraq or get the hell out.

By JK

September 20, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

My students gravitate to me, I just can’t understand why the liberals here don’t.;-)

Uh….. maybe because we’re NOT mentally disabled? One possibility.

By Anonymous

September 20, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

There was plenty of outspoken, highly visible opposition to the Iraq blunder BEFORE the invasion, and even before Congress stupidly voted to permit it.

I’m one of those who, like J and millions of others across the nation and around the world, was againist it from the start—and, like J, we turned out to be right. (Small comfort given the tremendous waste of money and lives.)

Here’s another guy who was proven right from the start (from a cartoon published in 2002): http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/08/30/tomo/story.jpg

By No Laughing Matter

September 20, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

So, @@, is the moral from the Ipi story that 9/11 was the Brits’ fault for not wiping out the jihadists 65 years earlier? Or is it that we should just let Bin Laden die in peace like the Faqir? I’m not sure what your point is. Still sounds like a rationalization for why we haven’t brought in ol’ “Dead or Alive” Bin Laden to this point.

By @@

September 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

JK @ 4:03:

Uh….. maybe because we’re NOT mentally disabled? One possibility.

I wouldn’t say that until you and your liberal friends here sought out a diagnosis for OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)?

Do you read what they type?

By Curious Observer

September 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Uh….. maybe because we’re NOT mentally disabled? One possibility.

Great smack-down, JK.

By Jackie

September 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

@@@

WHAT??????? You need to stop reading Ann Coulter for factual reference. I do have patience that ‘08 will arrive and your prevaricators on the GOP mount of obfuscation will be removed. Whom will you worship then? You have nothing to fall back upon and people are dying for lies, where do you stand????

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Poor @@. He can’t understand that adults can reason, and don’t just figure he’s the grown-up who knows everything. He’s used to kids who have to do something just because he said so. Tough luck @@, you’re dealing with adults who don’t automatically defer to your stunted reasoning.

We see another bizarre childish thought process…only Right-Wing Nuts are genuinely grieved for the casualties of 9/11. This is why there’s no reasoning with Republican Bushites. They’re freakishly self centered. This shows in feelings like—-Hey, if we have war in Iraq, all the bad guys will show up because that’s where we decided to fight! You only support the troops if you agree with the way I think! Liberals want another 9/11 attack and could care less about Americans who die! We haven’t found Bin Laden, so we didn’t really want to find him anyway!

Republicans: the party of utter Narcissism mixed with severe logic deficits.

By @@

September 20, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

No Laughing Matter @ 4:12:

Well, we could go back and rehash what the Brits shoulda…coulda…woulda done or we can seize the opportunity that is at hand in Iraq.

Look…for purely political reasons Bush could bring in Osama dead or alive, but then Bush has never pandered to politics. Hell, killing his reputation can better serve our needs. Kill him too soon and he becomes a martyr.

I’ve always thought it would be great if one of the young male martyrs could return and inform other wannabees that the pickins are getting slim in the afterlife. There’s more young men than there are virgins and we know what that can lead to, don’t we?

By @@

September 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Oops! Before you libs jump on this one

Hell, killing his reputation can better serve our needs.

I was talking about OBL, not Bush. You liberals do have a way of confusing who the enemy is.

I’m outta here for now.

By deegee

September 20, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

“Look…for purely political reasons Bush could bring in Osama dead or alive, but then Bush has never pandered to politics.”

that’s the funniest @@ post yet. I’m still reeling from that one. Bwaaaa

By YouDon'tSay

September 20, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

So @@…Osama has been defeated? I seem to remember GW standing in front of the entire nation and saying that we would hunt down and kill Osama if we had to chase him to the gates of hell. So have you cons forgotten that one. All of a sudden he’s not so important anymore? Has Osama become the republican O.J. Simpson?

By Thomas Jefferson

September 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

Dusty based upon what I have seen in this blog, had you been born in Cuba, you would be one of Castro’s block watchers. You obviously have the personality profile to follow that type of leader. Your lips would be firmly attached to Castro’s butt just like they are to GW’s. Maybe you should take Sir Charles job offer. That suction thing you have going on would sell in that Tijuana hohouse.

By @@

September 20, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

deegee:

and I’m laughing at how easily you miss the point.

It wouldn’t make any difference at this late date except politically. Had we captured him early on he would have served as a martyr with possibly even greater numbers following him.

Osama’s methods have being defeated by his fellow Muslims.

I’m thrilled with the successes on that front. It’s just a matter of time. I have great faith in the human spirit.

For you to assume that the Iraqi people don’t possess the same desire for freedom is very bigoted of you.

By @@

September 20, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

You Don’t Say @ 4:36:

So @@…Osama has been defeated? I seem to remember GW standing in front of the entire nation and saying that we would hunt down and kill Osama if we had to chase him to the gates of hell.

The hunt is ongoing and could still be successful. Tell me…if (heaven forbid) a defeatist Democrat wins in ‘08 how quickly will his/her patience wane in the hunt for Obama.

All indications, based on their past track record would indicate that OBL would be forgotten on Inauguration Day and my guess is that you liberals would fall silent on the issue.

Why? Because Democrats are opportunists but can’t recognize one when they see it.

By jm

September 20, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

@@- did you ever stop to think that the iraqi desire for freedom involves the US leaving?

By deegee

September 20, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

@@ you have a very narrow historical perspective and your skills at strategery are stretched to the limit with a game of cowboys and indians.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

WOW here are more silly comments from the WRONGS today……..

“Only the left, for political reasons, would pursue a defeated OBL. It’s the easier path — politically speaking of course.”

I am sure George Bush doesn’t care to harm this man, why would he ??????

What easy path are you speaking about here ????

Politically easy to go after Bin Laden……as compared to what ??????

Only the Left wants Bin Laden dead ??????

Wow what a statement……

I guess the Wrongs out to get together and throw Bin Laden a Party……he seems like your kind of guy!!!!

Here is more deep thought…….

“Osama would have loved for us to come into the mountainous no-man’s land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. His ability to defeat or bring his enemy to a draw would have immediately allowed him to claim victory. We didn’t step into that trap and our military was wise for not having done so. Instead, we brought about a conflict that would incite hatred “towards” him and his methods. We did achieve that victory. Arab papers are launching a campaign lecturing Osama about the true edicts of Islam and questioning why he would want to face Allah with so much Muslim blood on his hands.”

Gee we did what ????

The Arab’s have thrown him out of every one of their countries, because he is a lunatic with a Personal agenda, not an agenda to really help his Muslim Brothers.

He gets to hang out in a cave in Afghanistan, and maybe sometimes Pakistan…… yes that is as good as it gets for Bin Laden.

We didn’t fall into what trap ????

George was not going to Get OIL from Bin Laden……. King George didn’t even come close to doing the RIGHT Thing !!!!!

Let’s see Bin Laden Attacks us…..Cheney says he is in bed with Saddam, so let’s attack Iraq …….Duhhhhhh……….

I have never heard more baloney form a BLOG than this stuff……. HA HA HA….

By HeeHaw

September 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

So the U.S. Senate cannot address more important issues like passing a bill to give soldiers adequate leave with their families before redeploying but they can pass GOP amendment condemning Moveon.org?

What’s that saying about a kicked dog?

By @@

September 20, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

jm @ 5:21:

No doubt about it, but only at the right time when security allows them to pursue that freedom. The majority of them have said as much.

deegee @ 5:27:

I do not recall a time in history when radical extremism was so vocally denounced.

Peter @ 5:28:

George was not going to Get OIL from Bin Laden

You’re a conspiracy theorist and I couldn’t possibly reach your brain-waves through the tinfoil, so I won’t bother.

I’m off to the track.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA…….. @@ you are a funny guy who apparently is having a tough time with the TRUTH………

Seems like when you are at the end of your rope, and lack anything logical to say in your defense……….. the name calling starts…….

HA HA HA HA…….. the Left is the only one who would go after Bin Laden, an obscure target like Global warming !!!!!

By Thomas Jefferson

September 20, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this

The only defeatist are you lily livered chicken sh&t republicans that are so scared that you will give away cherished freedoms. I.E. the freedom of honest law abiding citizens not to be su4rveilled by their own government. I.E. the freedom from an intrusive government that before Bush and Dick4Dusty Cheney that we took for granted. OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS DEFEATED YOU @@. Those of you who have traded your civil liberties to this administration in order to feel secure have been defeated. The rest of us are fulfilling our constitutional obligation to resist an oppressive and freedom stealing government. I say again. YOU HAVE LOST CONS! The rest of us are still fighting for our freedom. Crawl under your bed you gutless cowards while the rest of us try to preserve the liberties granted to us by the founding fathers.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

@@ is dusty.

“George was not going to Get OIL from Bin Laden”.

I would add, he could not sale his occupation for oil with OBL dead.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

I realize that incredibly there is still a small minority of neo-cons who willfully don’t realize what they are in for next year. They cling to this inept GOP even though it has failed them and the rest of America.

But there collective heads are firmly in the sand and they have worked hard to earn what is assuredly coming.

It is, to me, unbelievable how some of the worst of the extreme right wing that now tries desperately to pass itself off as the core of the GOP’s constituency, can not even realize when they are being hosed. The list of screw ups is endless, absolutely endless. Pick a topic.

Foreign policy? A nightmare.

Domestic policy? Even worse.

Fiscal policy? Incredibly still worse.

We endure a sitting president who has vetoed one bill in six and half years! ONE! And it was a wedge issue that really means very little to the security or well being of the nation.

We endure an administration that promised us it would clean up Washington and restore dignity to the White House. What did we get? Corruption, scandals and sleaziness every other week.

We endure GOP congressmen and senators, save one, who have neither the conscience nor backbone to stand up to this stuff and demand that the commander-in-chief rein in the worst of the worst of his party.

We endure secrecy, end games, abuse of executive privileges and back room governance not seen since the Nixon thugs were in power.

We endure deceptions and half-truths from our “leaders” to concoct an idiotic invasion with no end in sight.

We endure cronyism, sycophants and fealty in the White House not seen in my lifetime.

We endure swift-boaters, Rove attack dogs and Saxby Chamblisses until we are positively nauseous.

We endure men who not only do not thirst for knowledge and wisdom, they seem to lack complete intellectual curiosity.

We endure Christian charlatans, frauds and ripoffs at the elbows of these “leaders” and who define the very base of the Party.

In short, we endure neo-conservatism.

But thankfully nothing is permanent and as the Jews say, “this too shall pass.”

By deegee

September 20, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

@@, just the silent support for OBL and Al Qaeda is deafening. OBL is assumed to be living and working in Pakistan, one of our allied nations in the mideast. There is a multimillion dollar reward for his capture. No one is giving him up.

The Sunnis in Iraq won’t align with the Shia because of a number of reasons but control of the Western oil fields is a major obstacle. They aren’t going to let the Iranians take them either. If you think that the Sunnis are grabbing American guns and defending their territory out of a sense of ideology you’re mistaken. The Iraqi Sunnis have fought the Iranians before. The US military in Iraq is not exuberant over arming the Sunni. They aren’t our friends.