March 02, 2006
Smells like Mapes...
The Associated Press summary video (embedded in this Washington Post story) of a high-level videoconference made one day prior to Hurricane Katrina's landfall smells to high heaven.
The leaked video—heavily sympathetic to former FEMA director Michael Brown—relies on dramatic still image splices of a post-Katrina New Orleans for dramatic effect in a heavily edited montage of dramatic hypothetical situations, narrated by an AP voice attempting to weave together an otherwise incoherent 2 minute, 41 seconds of disjointed footage. There is no way of telling, of course what the full video shows until it is seen in an unedited, un-spliced form. Until such a point as the unedited footage is made public, any claims made about this AP video should be regarded as highly suspect. Jason Coleman covers some of the inaccuracies in the spliced video in more detail.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ha! Just the latest media-hyped "we're gonna get that damn Bush THIS time!" story. How many can I remember? Uh, how about Bush "knew" about 9/11 before it happened? Or you'll recall "Bush was AWOL from the National Guard". Then there's that other gem: "Bush is spying on Americans!" Rush Limbaugh has it right when he calls these people the "Partisan Media". It's their refusal to just report facts fairly and objectively that's driven reasonable folks to getting news online.
Posted by: Thrill at March 02, 2006 12:34 PM (+E47Q)
2
Odd how the media demands to be told everything under the catch phrase, "The people have a right to know". Yet how seldom they ever tell "The People" the whole story.
Evidently we only have a right to know what they want to tell us. No wonder they get upset when Bloggers call them to task for the shoddy jobs they do.
Evidently we only have a right to know what they want to tell us. No wonder they get upset when Bloggers call them to task for the shoddy jobs they do.
Posted by: WB at March 02, 2006 01:44 PM (u2QdZ)
3
They say you can take a horse to water but can't make it drink. That's the problem with blind partisans like "Thrill". The much maligned media did not create that leaked video. If the video exposes the hypocrisy of publicity centered adminitration, it is not media's fault. I guess these people believe Fox channel as 'fair and balanced' ! By the way are Murdock's Fox and Post not part of media ? You can't fool all the people all the time.
Posted by: concerned citizen at March 02, 2006 06:36 PM (nBsu2)
4
Congrats to Jason Coleman for competing admirably for the "it depends upon what the meaning of is is" award. In his more detailed examination of the released tapes, Coleman accurately points out that "breaching" and "overtopping" are technically different phenomenon. Thus Bush was technically accurate in saying that no one (at least in the video taped meeting) expected the levees to be breached. Forget for a moment that in the minds of most folks, "overtoppping" a levee would surely constitue a type of breach. I just wonder if a president whose precision of language is weak at best was really so versed in these technicalities.
But maybe I'm misunderestimating him.
Maybe President Bush was trying to point out Homeland Security's total inability to accurately predict the events in a disaster that had been researched and discussed for years. How exactly is that supposed to make me feel better in a time of crisis?
But maybe I'm misunderestimating him.
Maybe President Bush was trying to point out Homeland Security's total inability to accurately predict the events in a disaster that had been researched and discussed for years. How exactly is that supposed to make me feel better in a time of crisis?
Posted by: wow at March 02, 2006 07:31 PM (EzUlq)
5
Hi "Wow",
Lemme just clue you in on a few things. Anyone who's lived under the protection of a levee (as I have) or stood beside one during a hurricane (as I also have) knows quite well that "topping" and "breaching" are two COMPLETELY different things.
The levees have been topped in New Orleans once before, actually more than once. When Betsy came through the levees were "topped" and much of the city was flooded. Unlike Katrina however, after Betsy, the pumps were able to remove the water from the city in fast order.
When a levee is "breached", you can't pump the water out, because a whole section of the levee is gone and pumping is useless.
You can try to play the "topping is a form of breach" game but that's all it is, a game.
Topping and breaching are two completly different events with two completely different causes, effects and remedies.
Your "most people" comment is most telling. Yes, most people are so uninformed that they won't know the difference, and rely on the media to educate them. The left and the media obviously knows this and is INTENTIONALLY misleading the public about what this video is saying and what officials were preparing for.
Topping DOES NOT EQUAL breaching, PERIOD.
--Jason
Lemme just clue you in on a few things. Anyone who's lived under the protection of a levee (as I have) or stood beside one during a hurricane (as I also have) knows quite well that "topping" and "breaching" are two COMPLETELY different things.
The levees have been topped in New Orleans once before, actually more than once. When Betsy came through the levees were "topped" and much of the city was flooded. Unlike Katrina however, after Betsy, the pumps were able to remove the water from the city in fast order.
When a levee is "breached", you can't pump the water out, because a whole section of the levee is gone and pumping is useless.
You can try to play the "topping is a form of breach" game but that's all it is, a game.
Topping and breaching are two completly different events with two completely different causes, effects and remedies.
Your "most people" comment is most telling. Yes, most people are so uninformed that they won't know the difference, and rely on the media to educate them. The left and the media obviously knows this and is INTENTIONALLY misleading the public about what this video is saying and what officials were preparing for.
Topping DOES NOT EQUAL breaching, PERIOD.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at March 02, 2006 08:01 PM (As32a)
6
Wow's point, well-taken, is that even YOU can't believe our incurious, detached president would know the distinction between breaching and topping.
And who cares? Do you think the victims in NOLA care about the distinction?
That's just silly.
Bush was caught, once again, in a "Hungry Caterpillar" moment. As the republicans indicated in their study of Katrina, Bush is simply not competent to lead in a crisis.
How many second chances does he get?
And who cares? Do you think the victims in NOLA care about the distinction?
That's just silly.
Bush was caught, once again, in a "Hungry Caterpillar" moment. As the republicans indicated in their study of Katrina, Bush is simply not competent to lead in a crisis.
How many second chances does he get?
Posted by: JAS at March 02, 2006 08:31 PM (gOmJk)
7
I guess this means Bush had it all under control after all.
Posted by: ted at March 02, 2006 08:47 PM (XErk7)
8
Jas, our "idiot" president has a bachelor's in History from Yale, and an MBA from Harvard, and was bright enough to fly a supersonic all-weather jet interceptor.
I think he might just be able to understand the difference between the equivilent of a tub overflowing, and the tub collapsing (as Jason said in his post)... even if that distinction eludes you.
I think he might just be able to understand the difference between the equivilent of a tub overflowing, and the tub collapsing (as Jason said in his post)... even if that distinction eludes you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2006 08:53 PM (0fZB6)
9
Ted said, "I guess this means Bush had it all under control after all."
Some real experts - not media pundits or politicians - sure seem to think so.
Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
Of course, that is just citing experts, and what could they know?
Some real experts - not media pundits or politicians - sure seem to think so.
Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
Of course, that is just citing experts, and what could they know?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2006 09:27 PM (0fZB6)
10
Hi Jason (and CY),
I understand the difference between breaching and topping, and I’m not trying to play a verbal game—or if I am, well, you started it. (So there.) Are you from New Orleans? Had you ever heard anyone mention that the levees might be breached, or was that truly never considered?
As for CY, I actually do not think our president is stupid. But he’s not a very crafty off-the-cuff speaker, so I think it is possible that he does not distinguish between the two terms in question.
I also think the president is not that into micromanaging and details. One more reason he might not make the distinction.
Finally, President Bush has an excellent educational pedigree. But from what I’ve read, he squandered the opportunities that places like Andover and Yale offer. (I know less about his time at Harvard.) I have some sense of just how low the bar is for a gentleman’s C. You don’t have to know much. The president has displayed an ability to make decisions and lead with decisiveness. He has always been less skilled with details, and that’s where my question comes in.
The trouble with crediting Bush for his knowledge in this area is that people had been talking about levee breaches in New Orleans. (Times-Picayune 2002?) I don’t live anywhere near New Orleans and I knew that long before Katrina. If Bush was trying to make a distinction, his facts were still wrong.
I understand the difference between breaching and topping, and I’m not trying to play a verbal game—or if I am, well, you started it. (So there.) Are you from New Orleans? Had you ever heard anyone mention that the levees might be breached, or was that truly never considered?
As for CY, I actually do not think our president is stupid. But he’s not a very crafty off-the-cuff speaker, so I think it is possible that he does not distinguish between the two terms in question.
I also think the president is not that into micromanaging and details. One more reason he might not make the distinction.
Finally, President Bush has an excellent educational pedigree. But from what I’ve read, he squandered the opportunities that places like Andover and Yale offer. (I know less about his time at Harvard.) I have some sense of just how low the bar is for a gentleman’s C. You don’t have to know much. The president has displayed an ability to make decisions and lead with decisiveness. He has always been less skilled with details, and that’s where my question comes in.
The trouble with crediting Bush for his knowledge in this area is that people had been talking about levee breaches in New Orleans. (Times-Picayune 2002?) I don’t live anywhere near New Orleans and I knew that long before Katrina. If Bush was trying to make a distinction, his facts were still wrong.
Posted by: wow at March 02, 2006 10:04 PM (EzUlq)
11
Hi CY,
Who are these folks and what makes them experts?
Reporting: Camas Davis, Nicole Davis, Christian DeBenedetti, Brad Reagan, Kristin Roth
Who are these folks and what makes them experts?
Reporting: Camas Davis, Nicole Davis, Christian DeBenedetti, Brad Reagan, Kristin Roth
Posted by: wow at March 02, 2006 10:10 PM (EzUlq)
12
wow sounds smart, his opponents sound tart
Posted by: ameriyes_et_tu_? at March 02, 2006 10:37 PM (UkocQ)
13
wow,
As a native of eastern North Carolina, I do know something firsthand of hurricanes and the flooding it can cause, but even with my experience, it only takes a minute to understand the differences between overtopping and breaching. Overtopping means water washes over the top of the levee. Breaching means the elvee fails. That complicated concept took took all of three seconds to explain, maybe five seconds if you read slow.
As for your strawmen, it doesn't matter a lot (except to them of course) who the reporters for Popular Mechanics were, because like most reporters they aren't the subject matter experts. What matters is who they talked and what they covered which you can find full coverage of here.
As a native of eastern North Carolina, I do know something firsthand of hurricanes and the flooding it can cause, but even with my experience, it only takes a minute to understand the differences between overtopping and breaching. Overtopping means water washes over the top of the levee. Breaching means the elvee fails. That complicated concept took took all of three seconds to explain, maybe five seconds if you read slow.
As for your strawmen, it doesn't matter a lot (except to them of course) who the reporters for Popular Mechanics were, because like most reporters they aren't the subject matter experts. What matters is who they talked and what they covered which you can find full coverage of here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2006 11:29 PM (0fZB6)
14
In his blind devotion to the House of Bush, Thrill brought up some excellent indictments of our Fearless Leader:
"Bush "knew" about 9/11 before it happened?": The man was on vacationing on his ranch for nearly two months, during which time the intelligence community and counter-terrorist experts were running around with their "hair on fire". He received a Presidential Daily Brief about Bin Laden and the terrorist threat which was read to him during his vacation.
"Bush was AWOL from the National Guard": He was. He has been unable to produce ANY evidence of having attended guard duty in Alabama.
"Bush is spying on Americans!": He is. And he claims he has the prerogative to do so with no oversight because he's president. I can't wait to hear you guys squeal when the next Democratic president gets that kind of power.
As for reporting "facts fairly and objectively", I don't think a right wing zealot like you would recognize a fact if it bit you in the a**
"Bush "knew" about 9/11 before it happened?": The man was on vacationing on his ranch for nearly two months, during which time the intelligence community and counter-terrorist experts were running around with their "hair on fire". He received a Presidential Daily Brief about Bin Laden and the terrorist threat which was read to him during his vacation.
"Bush was AWOL from the National Guard": He was. He has been unable to produce ANY evidence of having attended guard duty in Alabama.
"Bush is spying on Americans!": He is. And he claims he has the prerogative to do so with no oversight because he's president. I can't wait to hear you guys squeal when the next Democratic president gets that kind of power.
As for reporting "facts fairly and objectively", I don't think a right wing zealot like you would recognize a fact if it bit you in the a**
Posted by: Anonymous at March 02, 2006 11:33 PM (GytbA)
15
as i have said before, if, any of the politicians
of any party tried to combine experience with an
imagination. there would be more michael browns.
it has been over a hundred years, since, a politician was able to apply both to their work. they had to create things. show progress and keep
america moving forward.
katrina, was a disaster over night. the things hurting america, having going on for a number of
years.
thus, any politician stepping forward to take on
the responsibility of fixing the problems in america. would end up looking like another michael
brown.
let me ask you a question. have you done anything
where you live to show a level of compassion? there two kinds of people in this world. one who
thinks sorrow and one who feels compassion. which one do you think will try harder at helping people?
of any party tried to combine experience with an
imagination. there would be more michael browns.
it has been over a hundred years, since, a politician was able to apply both to their work. they had to create things. show progress and keep
america moving forward.
katrina, was a disaster over night. the things hurting america, having going on for a number of
years.
thus, any politician stepping forward to take on
the responsibility of fixing the problems in america. would end up looking like another michael
brown.
let me ask you a question. have you done anything
where you live to show a level of compassion? there two kinds of people in this world. one who
thinks sorrow and one who feels compassion. which one do you think will try harder at helping people?
Posted by: rusty at March 02, 2006 11:37 PM (BJYNn)
16
"and was bright enough to fly a supersonic all-weather jet interceptor."
OOOh, throw on some sexy adjectives. It's the plane they had in inventory that wasn't a cargo plane. Any fighter (that's not a harrier) built since.. uh, Our Dear Leader's first DUI, is a supersonic all-weather jet interceptor. OK, so he was smart enough to fly a fighter. Go get 'em, maverick.
OOOh, throw on some sexy adjectives. It's the plane they had in inventory that wasn't a cargo plane. Any fighter (that's not a harrier) built since.. uh, Our Dear Leader's first DUI, is a supersonic all-weather jet interceptor. OK, so he was smart enough to fly a fighter. Go get 'em, maverick.
Posted by: kevinR at March 03, 2006 12:39 AM (FDt8S)
17
All this parsing and "debate" really doesn't matter one whit.
As "Chief CEO", Bush did a mind-numbingly awful job dealing w/ a massive crisis. The people he was "managing" did a mind-numbingly awful job. And did he fire them? No. He did nothing. He basically nudged Brown out the door, without actually setting an example. Without taking any responsibility himself as a manager. He has eluded responsibility. [Republicans seem to like to tell other people to take personal responsibility without, you know, leading by example.]
It's time for the shareholders to fire our incompetent CEO -- impeach him.
As "Chief CEO", Bush did a mind-numbingly awful job dealing w/ a massive crisis. The people he was "managing" did a mind-numbingly awful job. And did he fire them? No. He did nothing. He basically nudged Brown out the door, without actually setting an example. Without taking any responsibility himself as a manager. He has eluded responsibility. [Republicans seem to like to tell other people to take personal responsibility without, you know, leading by example.]
It's time for the shareholders to fire our incompetent CEO -- impeach him.
Posted by: funhaus5 at March 03, 2006 05:12 AM (c2cYG)
18
Topping can lead to Breaching. With enough flowing of water (topping) over a poorly constructed structure (levy) can lead to erosion (breaching). In any case whether it was a warning, a topping or a breaching, George Bush once again looks more like Mr. Magoo rather then the competent leader of the free world.
John
John
Posted by: John at March 03, 2006 05:59 AM (ACMn1)
19
As far as I'm concerned, this is just another case of misdirection by the Bush team. What happened to the great effort to rebuild New Orleans? Where is Karl Rove? Why hasn't Rove, who is heading the rebuilding effort, said one word about the progress (or lack thereof) being made?
Bush's failure to help rescue the people of New Orleans is already known and documented. Who cares at this point... it's an old story. What's forgotten in all this is that the city still lies devastated with little being done to rebuild the neighborhoods that gave New Orleans is unique flavor of life. I'm sure there are many conservatives that prefer it that way.
And by the way Confederate Cranky... if liberalism is a persistent vegetative state, then conservatism is a persistent cancerous state.
Look to New Orleans to see just how well this silver-spoon son of a silver-spoon son can help the American people when they need it.
Good luck in the new compassionately conservative America.
Bush's failure to help rescue the people of New Orleans is already known and documented. Who cares at this point... it's an old story. What's forgotten in all this is that the city still lies devastated with little being done to rebuild the neighborhoods that gave New Orleans is unique flavor of life. I'm sure there are many conservatives that prefer it that way.
And by the way Confederate Cranky... if liberalism is a persistent vegetative state, then conservatism is a persistent cancerous state.
Look to New Orleans to see just how well this silver-spoon son of a silver-spoon son can help the American people when they need it.
Good luck in the new compassionately conservative America.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 03, 2006 07:33 AM (q/AQY)
20
Anonymous, can I have some of what you and David Gregory are smoking?
Karl Rove is not in charge of rebuilding New Orleans, moron. He's a presidential advisor.
Rebuilding efforts are underway, but thanks to the slow, inefficient and corrupt Louisiana government (which grafted away the money to create strong levees in the first place and caused this disaster), it takes time. Not surprisingly, you are either ignorant of the scope of the damage, which destroyed far more than a flooded New Orleans, or more likely you simply don't care.
Karl Rove is not in charge of rebuilding New Orleans, moron. He's a presidential advisor.
Rebuilding efforts are underway, but thanks to the slow, inefficient and corrupt Louisiana government (which grafted away the money to create strong levees in the first place and caused this disaster), it takes time. Not surprisingly, you are either ignorant of the scope of the damage, which destroyed far more than a flooded New Orleans, or more likely you simply don't care.
Posted by: Steve J. at March 03, 2006 08:42 AM (g5Nba)
21
I would much rather see a video than hear a "journalist's" spin on things. I don't care why you want to make excuses for this Pres., but from what I see and hear, he was told in advance and he chose to do nothing. I trust my eyes and my ears more than your spin cycle. It shows a President who is slow, incompetent, lazy and out of touch.
Posted by: Liz Ban at March 03, 2006 08:43 AM (YXklx)
22
If there was serious discussion about a "breech", why were there thousands of people still in New Orleans. Did the experts brief the White House only. Why didn't the mayor and or governor force evacuations, use school and city buses, and get the people out instead of using the Super Dome. If there was serious discussion of a breach why didn't the mayor and governor evacuate nursing homes and hospitals. So what happened here? Mother Nature exceeded expectations. Thats the definition of a natural disaster. This video and follow on finger pointing accomplish nothing, except the media enjoying another game of gotcha.
Posted by: Johnny H at March 03, 2006 08:58 AM (H/Tg/)
23
There seems to be some confusion on the parts of many of the contributors to this blog about the difference between facts and opinions.
While we're on the subject of facts and accuracy in reporting. It should be apparent to all but the most partisan contributors that there is a huge discrepancy between this current administrations ideologically driven presentations of reality and "just the facts".
For example; this blogs current discussion of our governments preparation for Hurricane Katrina.
Or to broaden the field a little; the rationale for the war in Iraq, citizens privacy rights vs. national security, health care, and our long term economic health to name a few.
Seems to me that the "facts" tend to support the perception that all of these endevours do have a common thread. They are idealogically conceived, publicity driven and spun, and from what I've seen so far, poorly managed and executed.
Last I heard it was the right(and duty) of every citizen to investigate their governments proposed plans, and actions further, and to make their own critical analysis and judgements.
If your not willing to take this basic step then you deserve the government you have and the blogs you read and contribute to.
While we're on the subject of facts and accuracy in reporting. It should be apparent to all but the most partisan contributors that there is a huge discrepancy between this current administrations ideologically driven presentations of reality and "just the facts".
For example; this blogs current discussion of our governments preparation for Hurricane Katrina.
Or to broaden the field a little; the rationale for the war in Iraq, citizens privacy rights vs. national security, health care, and our long term economic health to name a few.
Seems to me that the "facts" tend to support the perception that all of these endevours do have a common thread. They are idealogically conceived, publicity driven and spun, and from what I've seen so far, poorly managed and executed.
Last I heard it was the right(and duty) of every citizen to investigate their governments proposed plans, and actions further, and to make their own critical analysis and judgements.
If your not willing to take this basic step then you deserve the government you have and the blogs you read and contribute to.
Posted by: YoMama at March 03, 2006 09:07 AM (aIQyQ)
24
funhaus5, last time I checked Bush didn't have the power to fire LA's elected officials. So we had to sit by and watch Naggin and Blanco play slap and tickle. Then the Feds were able to move in and showed just how inept FEMA is and has been since its inception.
FEMA being unable to handle a disaster is nothing new; just ask the folks of Eastern NC who were affected by Hurricane Floyd (When Uncle Billy was in the White House). The main difference, the people of Eastern North Carolina pitched in to help each other, instead of adding to the mayhem by acting uncivilized.
Liz, sure I guess President Bush could have, umm, I don't know, flown down to LA and grabbed a five gallon bucket to help bail Lake Ponchatrain and later New Orleans. Or he could do what he did, which was oversee the recovery efforts for the Entire region that was destroyed, not just New Orleans.
What really gets under my skin is the folks focusing primarily on Naggin's Chocolate City, when areas from the Florida Pan Handle to Texas were completely cleared off the map. The only difference, the people outside of New Orleans have quietly gone about putting their lives back together, instead of whining, bitching, moaning and looking for another hand out.
FEMA being unable to handle a disaster is nothing new; just ask the folks of Eastern NC who were affected by Hurricane Floyd (When Uncle Billy was in the White House). The main difference, the people of Eastern North Carolina pitched in to help each other, instead of adding to the mayhem by acting uncivilized.
Liz, sure I guess President Bush could have, umm, I don't know, flown down to LA and grabbed a five gallon bucket to help bail Lake Ponchatrain and later New Orleans. Or he could do what he did, which was oversee the recovery efforts for the Entire region that was destroyed, not just New Orleans.
What really gets under my skin is the folks focusing primarily on Naggin's Chocolate City, when areas from the Florida Pan Handle to Texas were completely cleared off the map. The only difference, the people outside of New Orleans have quietly gone about putting their lives back together, instead of whining, bitching, moaning and looking for another hand out.
Posted by: phin at March 03, 2006 09:08 AM (Xvpen)
25
Last I heard it was the right(and duty) of every citizen to investigate their governments proposed plans, and actions further, and to make their own critical analysis and judgements.
So that's why Uncle Billy got it trouble he didn't get clearance to receive a hummer in the oval office.
So where was the vote prior to the Bomb being dropped to end WWII?
Maybe I skipped the day in history when they said Kennedy cleared the Bay of Pigs invasion with US Citizens.
Sorry, but there are some aspects of national security, especially in a time of war, that aren't open for public debate. Not a fan of this aspect, I hear Canada is nice this time of year or perhaps a more temperate climate, like Venezuela would be more to your liking. I'm sure Momma Cindy's got room on her next bus trip down there.
So that's why Uncle Billy got it trouble he didn't get clearance to receive a hummer in the oval office.
So where was the vote prior to the Bomb being dropped to end WWII?
Maybe I skipped the day in history when they said Kennedy cleared the Bay of Pigs invasion with US Citizens.
Sorry, but there are some aspects of national security, especially in a time of war, that aren't open for public debate. Not a fan of this aspect, I hear Canada is nice this time of year or perhaps a more temperate climate, like Venezuela would be more to your liking. I'm sure Momma Cindy's got room on her next bus trip down there.
Posted by: phin at March 03, 2006 09:16 AM (Xvpen)
26
how 60's retro...America love it or leave it.
Perhaps I missed something here, but you seem to be confusing apples and oranges.
Exactly what does critical thinking about our government actions/inactions have to do with national security and executive command decisions?
Is the best defense always an offensive counterattack?
Is phin short for pin head?
Perhaps I missed something here, but you seem to be confusing apples and oranges.
Exactly what does critical thinking about our government actions/inactions have to do with national security and executive command decisions?
Is the best defense always an offensive counterattack?
Is phin short for pin head?
Posted by: YoMama at March 03, 2006 09:36 AM (aIQyQ)
27
Is the best defense always an offensive counterattack?
Those of us on the side that actually wins elections sure think so.
Is the best defense always an offensive counterattack?
Those of us on the side that actually wins elections sure think so.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 03, 2006 09:42 AM (g5Nba)
28
Exactly what does critical thinking about our government actions/inactions have to do with national security and executive command decisions?
Shall I quote: "Or to broaden the field a little; the rationale for the war in Iraq, citizens privacy rights vs. national security,...
So you weren't making inferences to the national security and wire tapping programs?
I'm all for finding better methods, however, exposing our plans, to the general public when they are largely uninformed and terrorists we're tracking can pickup on the process, is a bad idea any way you go about it.
Is the best defense always an offensive counterattack?
In certain situations, you're damned skippy it is. In other situations we should all gather around the camp fire and sing show tunes. As citizens, we elect officials and they make the determination which scenario is right.
The coddling approach of the Clinton era didn't work so well, ask the folks in Rwanda, well the folks that are left.
Prior to your asking. Yes, I believe that we have a responsibility to the world to ensure women and children aren't raped and murdered at the whim of a dictator. If that requires military action, so be it. Sorry, but I can't see ignoring or pacifying murders and rapists as a viable option, maybe you do?
Is phin short for pin head?
Now if you wanna get to the personal attacks:
YoMama so fat she went to the movies and sat next to everyone.
YoMama so stupid when she saw the NC-17 (under 17 not admitted) sign, she went home and got 16 friends.
YoMama so stupid she told everyone that she was "illegitimate" because she couldn't read.
I've got a million of them, shall I continue?
Shall I quote: "Or to broaden the field a little; the rationale for the war in Iraq, citizens privacy rights vs. national security,...
So you weren't making inferences to the national security and wire tapping programs?
I'm all for finding better methods, however, exposing our plans, to the general public when they are largely uninformed and terrorists we're tracking can pickup on the process, is a bad idea any way you go about it.
Is the best defense always an offensive counterattack?
In certain situations, you're damned skippy it is. In other situations we should all gather around the camp fire and sing show tunes. As citizens, we elect officials and they make the determination which scenario is right.
The coddling approach of the Clinton era didn't work so well, ask the folks in Rwanda, well the folks that are left.
Prior to your asking. Yes, I believe that we have a responsibility to the world to ensure women and children aren't raped and murdered at the whim of a dictator. If that requires military action, so be it. Sorry, but I can't see ignoring or pacifying murders and rapists as a viable option, maybe you do?
Is phin short for pin head?
Now if you wanna get to the personal attacks:
YoMama so fat she went to the movies and sat next to everyone.
YoMama so stupid when she saw the NC-17 (under 17 not admitted) sign, she went home and got 16 friends.
YoMama so stupid she told everyone that she was "illegitimate" because she couldn't read.
I've got a million of them, shall I continue?
Posted by: phin at March 03, 2006 09:57 AM (Xvpen)
29
Karl Rove is not in charge of rebuilding New Orleans, moron.
actually, he is, perfesser
"Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort, which reaches across many agencies of government"
heck of a job, karl
actually, he is, perfesser
"Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort, which reaches across many agencies of government"
heck of a job, karl
Posted by: benjoya at March 03, 2006 10:10 AM (+znVC)
30
Much is being made of the President's apparent lack of curiosity during the Katrina briefing as evidenced by his asking no questions. What's new? The possibility must be considered that Bush was just being Bush, as figurehead President having no deep sense of personal responsibility or accountability, or indeed, having nothing much of his own to contribute in this presidency, he simply is not in the habit of asking questions, has no need for the kind of information anybody actually exercising the full authority of that office would find essential. The buck doesn't only not stop at this Presidents desk, it never gets there in the first place.
Perhaps the fact the President asked no questions during the Katrina briefing
Perhaps the fact the President asked no questions during the Katrina briefing
Posted by: Jay Bob at March 03, 2006 10:15 AM (GQ5cV)
31
Looks like our main blogger has decided to stop lurking and actually contribute something.
Is it for some good old fashioned bantam rooster strutting and crowing or some jim crow scare tactics...I keep getting the two confused.
Beyond winning elections, the problem I have with your "sides" mentality that the ends justify the means, is your inability to recognize that this short term tactic has a strange way of coming back to bite you in the a** when you least expect it.
Seem to recall reading somewhere "so as you sow, so shall you reap".
Being so blinded by the righteousness of your beliefs, that you fail to anticipate the long term consequences of your actions certainly meets the definition of an imature and defective mental thought process.
In order to continue to "win elections", and perpetuate your "sides" cycle of lowered, and "wedgie" distorted expectations on the parts of the American people. Your side (aka the Republican party) will have to expend ever increasing amounts of resouces and money to maintain its propaganda effort to convice the American people that screwing themselves over is in their best interests.
If your goal is to enrich the wealthiest 1% of the population, while decreasing the amount of total income the government takes in, while embarking on a massive underfunded spending spree. All the while setting up the remaing 99% of the population for a massive economic hit down the road, while doing little to secure the economic future of this country then your well on the way to accomplishing your goal.
Wonder what will happen over the course of the next two elections when the American people start to realize just who owns what in todays ownership society.
Got another old classic for you.....What comes around goes around. Welcome to the future.
The true measure of how effective a government program or action is will always be did it accomplish what it set out to do.
lowered or distorted expectations of the
Is it for some good old fashioned bantam rooster strutting and crowing or some jim crow scare tactics...I keep getting the two confused.
Beyond winning elections, the problem I have with your "sides" mentality that the ends justify the means, is your inability to recognize that this short term tactic has a strange way of coming back to bite you in the a** when you least expect it.
Seem to recall reading somewhere "so as you sow, so shall you reap".
Being so blinded by the righteousness of your beliefs, that you fail to anticipate the long term consequences of your actions certainly meets the definition of an imature and defective mental thought process.
In order to continue to "win elections", and perpetuate your "sides" cycle of lowered, and "wedgie" distorted expectations on the parts of the American people. Your side (aka the Republican party) will have to expend ever increasing amounts of resouces and money to maintain its propaganda effort to convice the American people that screwing themselves over is in their best interests.
If your goal is to enrich the wealthiest 1% of the population, while decreasing the amount of total income the government takes in, while embarking on a massive underfunded spending spree. All the while setting up the remaing 99% of the population for a massive economic hit down the road, while doing little to secure the economic future of this country then your well on the way to accomplishing your goal.
Wonder what will happen over the course of the next two elections when the American people start to realize just who owns what in todays ownership society.
Got another old classic for you.....What comes around goes around. Welcome to the future.
The true measure of how effective a government program or action is will always be did it accomplish what it set out to do.
lowered or distorted expectations of the
Posted by: YoMama at March 03, 2006 10:48 AM (B5UQ6)
32
Yomama----In order to continue to "win elections....
OK you're kidding right. This statement from the party that promises everything to everyone. The "Universal Health Care" party. "The rich suck and we should take their money and give it to the poor" party. The "job for every American" party. Please, the Dems have been promising those below the poverty line riches that they never have (and never will) delivered.
You did get it right though...what goes around comes around, and the right is paying for the Bill bashing.
OK you're kidding right. This statement from the party that promises everything to everyone. The "Universal Health Care" party. "The rich suck and we should take their money and give it to the poor" party. The "job for every American" party. Please, the Dems have been promising those below the poverty line riches that they never have (and never will) delivered.
You did get it right though...what goes around comes around, and the right is paying for the Bill bashing.
Posted by: Johnny H at March 03, 2006 11:07 AM (H/Tg/)
33
Look. Even the most diehard Bush sycophant caqnnot dimiss the pattern that is emerging with this President and his style of leadership. Let's look at that pattern:
--First, some agency head or field expert is running around with his hair on fire, predicting some calamity or bad result from some policy decision. Meetings are convened where the President confidently assures the hapless agency head or field expert that all will be taken care of. The air is filled with inspirational platitudes designed to send the official back to his office renewed with a sense of just how magnificinet this President is.
--Then, as predicted by the agency head or field expert, the calamity occurs--we are attacked by terrorist using airplanes, we are pulled into a devastating a costly insurgency and/or civil war, a monstrous hurricane results in a levee breach that destoys a major American city, and a deal goes through that turns the operation of our our major ports (which are already vulnerable to attack) over to a foreign government-owned company that has had a track record of security mishaps.
--Finally, the innocent are rounded up and punished while the guilty are rewarded with medals of freedom or extended tenures in their appointed offices. The innocent are fired, resign or pressured to resign, where ultimately they become targets of the Presidents vast propaganda machine on talk radio and in selected press outlets.
This pattern has been repeated so many times in this administration that it requires no listing of those who have resigned or been pushed out. Just go through the list yourselves and you will get it.
--First, some agency head or field expert is running around with his hair on fire, predicting some calamity or bad result from some policy decision. Meetings are convened where the President confidently assures the hapless agency head or field expert that all will be taken care of. The air is filled with inspirational platitudes designed to send the official back to his office renewed with a sense of just how magnificinet this President is.
--Then, as predicted by the agency head or field expert, the calamity occurs--we are attacked by terrorist using airplanes, we are pulled into a devastating a costly insurgency and/or civil war, a monstrous hurricane results in a levee breach that destoys a major American city, and a deal goes through that turns the operation of our our major ports (which are already vulnerable to attack) over to a foreign government-owned company that has had a track record of security mishaps.
--Finally, the innocent are rounded up and punished while the guilty are rewarded with medals of freedom or extended tenures in their appointed offices. The innocent are fired, resign or pressured to resign, where ultimately they become targets of the Presidents vast propaganda machine on talk radio and in selected press outlets.
This pattern has been repeated so many times in this administration that it requires no listing of those who have resigned or been pushed out. Just go through the list yourselves and you will get it.
Posted by: Jaxas at March 03, 2006 11:19 AM (jilyl)
34
Jaxas,
Do you have concrete examples of this pattern playing out exactly as you state? Somehow I doubt it.
Do you have concrete examples of this pattern playing out exactly as you state? Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by: Steve J at March 03, 2006 11:31 AM (g5Nba)
35
benjoya, Donald Powell is the Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding, not Karl Rove.
Sooner or later, you folks are going to learn to quit trusting the anonymous sources of the New York Times.
Sooner or later, you folks are going to learn to quit trusting the anonymous sources of the New York Times.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 03, 2006 11:35 AM (g5Nba)
36
Johnny H...
Finally an intelligent response...
Sure the Dems have been promising a chicken in every pot for as long as I've been alive.
And it is/was equally hypocritical as the Republicans a rising economy floats all boats for the same reason... it will never be delivered.
You may want to take a look at some books that provide a justification for what I believe should be our countries priorities. "End of the Line" by Barry C. Lynn, and "Off Center" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, in addition to "the World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman.
Programs that provide real answers to society's real issues;strategic economic development,funding for social security and medicare/medicaid, affordable health care, and an educational system that trains for tomorrows jobs.
The real key is to have government programs that actually are well thought out, designed to work, and can objectively state their goals and measure their progress...in close conjunction with state/local programs.
An example of how not to do this would be recently enacted Medicare drug prescriptions plan.
This is perhaps our fundamental difference in viewpoint, I believe that only on a massive scale can any government program be both benifical, effective and cost efficient.
Of course, this presumes that our legislators of both stripes will recognize the need to be more honest not only about the true cost of existing/future programs, but to actually engage in meaningful discussions over which programs should recieve priority.
So far, neither party has come up with any reasonable proposals towards addressing any of these issues. And as far as I can see, has it's collective head up its a** on many other existing issues that affect the present and future course of this country.
Finally an intelligent response...
Sure the Dems have been promising a chicken in every pot for as long as I've been alive.
And it is/was equally hypocritical as the Republicans a rising economy floats all boats for the same reason... it will never be delivered.
You may want to take a look at some books that provide a justification for what I believe should be our countries priorities. "End of the Line" by Barry C. Lynn, and "Off Center" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, in addition to "the World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman.
Programs that provide real answers to society's real issues;strategic economic development,funding for social security and medicare/medicaid, affordable health care, and an educational system that trains for tomorrows jobs.
The real key is to have government programs that actually are well thought out, designed to work, and can objectively state their goals and measure their progress...in close conjunction with state/local programs.
An example of how not to do this would be recently enacted Medicare drug prescriptions plan.
This is perhaps our fundamental difference in viewpoint, I believe that only on a massive scale can any government program be both benifical, effective and cost efficient.
Of course, this presumes that our legislators of both stripes will recognize the need to be more honest not only about the true cost of existing/future programs, but to actually engage in meaningful discussions over which programs should recieve priority.
So far, neither party has come up with any reasonable proposals towards addressing any of these issues. And as far as I can see, has it's collective head up its a** on many other existing issues that affect the present and future course of this country.
Posted by: YoMama at March 03, 2006 11:44 AM (EjXVN)
37
apparently, partisan politics have become entrenched in this country to such a degree that Bush apologists would rather hem and haw to excuse the president than address the needs arising in the aftermath of a legitimate national disaster. A few comments on what folks have said already... one, does anyobe seriously believe that W could have gained admission to two Ivy League institutions - the students of both of which can all almost certainly pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly - had his last name been anything other than what it is? (I would seriously doubt that anyone currently enrolled at the Harvard Business School was a "C" student as an undergrad.) Two, to respond to the first post by "Thrill" - of course Bush did not "know" about 09.11 before it happened. He did, however, have access to analysis by intelligence professionals warning specifically that Al Qaeda planned to use commercial airliners as missiles... remember the President's Daily Brief? (well BEFORE 09.11) And he WAS AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. And he IS spying on Americans, without a warrant. These are matters of public record, and he WAS warned - explicitly, before it happened, of the possible breach of the levees. To cite Rush Limbaugh as an authority only demonstrates the partisan, commercial nature of the information on which you rely to excuse incompetence. Lastly, "phin's" characterization of the people of New Orleans as "whining, bitching, moaning and looking for another hand out" is completely undeserved and mean-spirited. My visit to that city - in 2001 - is one i remember fondly for the friendly, generous, and fun-loving people I met there, and I cannot imagine anything more small-minded and vindictive than to blame them for their reaction to an enormous natural disaster for which they were in no way responsible. This president, and this administration, have been actively BAD for America, and Bush's indifference to this tragedy alone is grounds for impeachment on the basis of sheer incompetence.
Posted by: meuphys at March 03, 2006 12:03 PM (2jifJ)
38
Yo -
Man they got a good soldier in you. You drank your kool-aid and the guy's next to you.
Programs that provide real answers: These are almost always local not federal.
Oh yeah, your hypothesis that we have a "fundamental difference, is right on. I think that the more massive a program becomes the less likely it is to succed. The New Deal programs were of great benefit to a different era of Americans. What it created though was generations that now look to the Fed as mommy and daddy and expect, in fact they believe it a right, to be taken care of from cradle to grave.
Back to our original discussion. We've elected politicians that are growing the government, buying our votes and creating/continuing programs that foster dependance on the fed. The problem is both parties are doing it now, when it used to be only one.
Man they got a good soldier in you. You drank your kool-aid and the guy's next to you.
Programs that provide real answers: These are almost always local not federal.
Oh yeah, your hypothesis that we have a "fundamental difference, is right on. I think that the more massive a program becomes the less likely it is to succed. The New Deal programs were of great benefit to a different era of Americans. What it created though was generations that now look to the Fed as mommy and daddy and expect, in fact they believe it a right, to be taken care of from cradle to grave.
Back to our original discussion. We've elected politicians that are growing the government, buying our votes and creating/continuing programs that foster dependance on the fed. The problem is both parties are doing it now, when it used to be only one.
Posted by: Johnny H at March 03, 2006 12:17 PM (H/Tg/)
39
RE: Rove being in charge. So several of you didn't believe the original nytimes article. A quick search of Google lists hundreds of posts and articles in leading newspapers citing the same. For example, Jim Hoagland of the WP in a Feb. 2006 editorial;
..... By asking Rove, his political guru, to lead federal reconstruction efforts, Bush clearly signals that his top priorities and concerns are political in this crisis, as in so much else.
As far as Democrats being tax and spend and promising everything to people, well, it's mostly true. However, is that worse that spending and not taxing? Bush has increased spending far faster than other presidents in recent times while decreasing income. Is that a sane policy?
If the person who commented on Universal Health care was one of the 44 million without health insurance he/she might laugh out the other side of his/her mouth. Dealing with people who often have to make the decision between medicine and food is a reality check. I doubt that a democratic administration would have passed a Medicare drug plan whose chief beneficiary is the pharmaceutical industry.
But back to the video. I agree, let's wait and see if an unedited version comes out. Do we think that Rosemary Woods edited the video?
..... By asking Rove, his political guru, to lead federal reconstruction efforts, Bush clearly signals that his top priorities and concerns are political in this crisis, as in so much else.
As far as Democrats being tax and spend and promising everything to people, well, it's mostly true. However, is that worse that spending and not taxing? Bush has increased spending far faster than other presidents in recent times while decreasing income. Is that a sane policy?
If the person who commented on Universal Health care was one of the 44 million without health insurance he/she might laugh out the other side of his/her mouth. Dealing with people who often have to make the decision between medicine and food is a reality check. I doubt that a democratic administration would have passed a Medicare drug plan whose chief beneficiary is the pharmaceutical industry.
But back to the video. I agree, let's wait and see if an unedited version comes out. Do we think that Rosemary Woods edited the video?
Posted by: huffandpuff at March 03, 2006 12:27 PM (jvdfg)
40
huffandpuff,
Those "hundreds of posts and articles" you cite... did you bother to see who they claimed was their source? You got it: The New York Times and it's anonymous sources. I, on the other hand, gave you a direct link to the official White House bio of the man holding the position.
A "Reality-based" community?
Hardly.
Those "hundreds of posts and articles" you cite... did you bother to see who they claimed was their source? You got it: The New York Times and it's anonymous sources. I, on the other hand, gave you a direct link to the official White House bio of the man holding the position.
A "Reality-based" community?
Hardly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 03, 2006 12:38 PM (g5Nba)
41
Republicans - the Democrats are destroying the country. Just look at what they have been doing for years.
Democrat- the Republicans are destroying the country. Just look at what they have been doing for years.
Reality - They both are destroying the country.
What needs to be done?
1. Term limits
2. True lobbing reform
3. More Public Disclosure laws for law makers
We are being pitted against each other by both sides while they pass laws that benifit the law makers and their friends. Our rights are being eroded while we sit around and b**** about how bad the other side is.
Get a clue America
Democrat- the Republicans are destroying the country. Just look at what they have been doing for years.
Reality - They both are destroying the country.
What needs to be done?
1. Term limits
2. True lobbing reform
3. More Public Disclosure laws for law makers
We are being pitted against each other by both sides while they pass laws that benifit the law makers and their friends. Our rights are being eroded while we sit around and b**** about how bad the other side is.
Get a clue America
Posted by: Lloyd M at March 03, 2006 12:48 PM (ahGbT)
42
Sorry about the spelling. I was typing to make a point and not to impress anyone. I think our elected officials are always trying to impress someone instead of making a point.
Posted by: Lloyd M at March 03, 2006 01:06 PM (ahGbT)
43
I think our elected officials are always trying to impress someone instead of making a point.
Lloyd, I think in general you are right, but every once in a great while you'll get a person more interested in substance than posing. Right or wrong, Bush happens to be of that breed, which can be as perplexing for Republicans as it is for Democrats at times.
Bush seems to feel this Ports Dubai deal should go through and he has made his position clear even though it wildly unpopular almost across the board in both parties. He is trying to make a point at the expense of great political capital.
I think our elected officials are always trying to impress someone instead of making a point.
Lloyd, I think in general you are right, but every once in a great while you'll get a person more interested in substance than posing. Right or wrong, Bush happens to be of that breed, which can be as perplexing for Republicans as it is for Democrats at times.
Bush seems to feel this Ports Dubai deal should go through and he has made his position clear even though it wildly unpopular almost across the board in both parties. He is trying to make a point at the expense of great political capital.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 03, 2006 01:14 PM (g5Nba)
44
I think that under any objective measure we can say that the Bush Admin. has had some major screw ups. I belive it's silly to insist in the infalibility of pres. Bush. I realize that we all have our point of views and those affect our opinions, but if we take the cold facts, this administration has had some successes, and some BIG failures:
1. Osama: still laughing at us while we toil elsewhere.
2.Iraq: Mission acomplished?
3. Medicare drug plan: flat out lie about the real cost, threaten those who might reveal it, and then play dumb.
4. Budget: biggest deficit ever, this from a "fiscal conservative". Need I say more?
5. Increased gap between the super rich and everyone else. This are the figures the administration itself released. Now, in the new proposed budget, they want to eliminate the part of the census that tracks those differences, so that we won't know anymore the gap between the rich and everyone else.
6. Dubai deal. Although it is probably okay for the company to handle our ports, a serious analysis of the deal is needed. what does the admin. does? It rubber stamps it and then Bush comes out swinging against anyone who might dare question it; he is clearly uninformed about the whole mess (by the admin.'s own admision by the way), and ebarrases himself. Even the most partisan Republicans question the thoroughness of the review.
7. The spying on Americans fiasco. The admin. does it and then says it's legal, even in the face of Republican lawyers saying it isn't so. Supporters of Bush hide under the blankets and say that it isn't true, when the president himself has admitted to it.
8. Next screw up in the following three years? Who knows
These are the things I remember off the top of my head. I think that this administration, the ideological differences with the Dems aside, has taken a really extreme view of the law and of itself. It behaves as though it were above reproach. It threatens (widely documented, even by Fox News) those who dare to disagree with it, even those from the Republican party itself. If it is questioned about the legality of a certain measure or action it has taken, it answers by saying it is legal, even though it's the courts' job to determine that, not the executive. It handles everything as though perception turned things into reality; that is, if something is blue, just say it isn't so and it will cese to be blue. This might work for some things that are based on public opinion, but it does not work on everything. A clear example of this is the budget and the war in Iraq. Saying that the deficit will disappear in the following five years does not make it so, one needs to take concrete actions to make that happen; you could argue that the administration has taken such actions, but even conservative economists that support the GOP question the fiscal strategy of this administration. The same way, saying that everything is cool and dandy in Iraq does not erase all the casualties and the cost.
This attitude reminds me of something little kids do when something bad happens or they screw up: they close their eyes tight for a few seconds hoping that when they reopen them things will be different or back to normal.
Republicans have said for many years, and rightly so, that intentions and wishes do not suffice to make something happen. It seems that with this administration they forgot their own lessons.
Where is the Republican party that took a cold look at the facts? Where is the party whose base principle was that one could not spend more than one earned? Where is the party that promotes personal responsibility? Does this responsibility not apply to the president and this administration? Because, if you notice, when anything goes wrong, it always blames somebody else, like M. Brown, who stunned them by fighting back and proving that he DID tell them that things were going to be bad before the Hurricane hit. Or should I ask this in terms the machos in the White House will understand? Something along the lines of "isn't Bush man eneough to step up and say that he screwed up, and that he will try harder"? Does he feel responsible for anything, or are disasters and mistakes always somebody else's fault.
The very worst part of all this is looking at supporters of Bush, everyday people like you and me, like many friends of mine, bend over backwards and contort to to point of distorting themselves (I say this figuratively) in order to support any and everything the administration does; I have seen people comprimise deeply held principles and beliefs in order to justify this administration, more so than at almost any other point in our history. This is grave since before, we could always count on The People, that is everyone, to keep our public officials in check. It just seems that this administration has gotten a very big blank check and people refuse to recognize that. Many posters say that the media is "out to get Bush". I ask you, did the media force Bush to do any of the things he has done, good or bad? Did the media invent the budget deficit, the mistakes in Iraq, the threats, the leak of classified info in order to attack a critic? As a matter of fact, in this last case (the Valerie Plame affair) it seems the media actually helped the administration carry the attack (the Times journalist and the guy from CNN are ardent supporters of this administration).
I believe it's time for Republicans to wake up and support Bush when he deserves it, but be critical when the situation calls for criticism. Do not make yourselves into drones, and this goes for all sides, do not prostitute your ideas to support a single person. After all, we are a country of laws and institutions, not of individual leaders. Bush will be gone in three years, and when we wake up from this drunkeness that it means to blindly support him as though he were God's messenger, the hangover will be terrible. Let's not prostitue our principles for a single person.
1. Osama: still laughing at us while we toil elsewhere.
2.Iraq: Mission acomplished?
3. Medicare drug plan: flat out lie about the real cost, threaten those who might reveal it, and then play dumb.
4. Budget: biggest deficit ever, this from a "fiscal conservative". Need I say more?
5. Increased gap between the super rich and everyone else. This are the figures the administration itself released. Now, in the new proposed budget, they want to eliminate the part of the census that tracks those differences, so that we won't know anymore the gap between the rich and everyone else.
6. Dubai deal. Although it is probably okay for the company to handle our ports, a serious analysis of the deal is needed. what does the admin. does? It rubber stamps it and then Bush comes out swinging against anyone who might dare question it; he is clearly uninformed about the whole mess (by the admin.'s own admision by the way), and ebarrases himself. Even the most partisan Republicans question the thoroughness of the review.
7. The spying on Americans fiasco. The admin. does it and then says it's legal, even in the face of Republican lawyers saying it isn't so. Supporters of Bush hide under the blankets and say that it isn't true, when the president himself has admitted to it.
8. Next screw up in the following three years? Who knows
These are the things I remember off the top of my head. I think that this administration, the ideological differences with the Dems aside, has taken a really extreme view of the law and of itself. It behaves as though it were above reproach. It threatens (widely documented, even by Fox News) those who dare to disagree with it, even those from the Republican party itself. If it is questioned about the legality of a certain measure or action it has taken, it answers by saying it is legal, even though it's the courts' job to determine that, not the executive. It handles everything as though perception turned things into reality; that is, if something is blue, just say it isn't so and it will cese to be blue. This might work for some things that are based on public opinion, but it does not work on everything. A clear example of this is the budget and the war in Iraq. Saying that the deficit will disappear in the following five years does not make it so, one needs to take concrete actions to make that happen; you could argue that the administration has taken such actions, but even conservative economists that support the GOP question the fiscal strategy of this administration. The same way, saying that everything is cool and dandy in Iraq does not erase all the casualties and the cost.
This attitude reminds me of something little kids do when something bad happens or they screw up: they close their eyes tight for a few seconds hoping that when they reopen them things will be different or back to normal.
Republicans have said for many years, and rightly so, that intentions and wishes do not suffice to make something happen. It seems that with this administration they forgot their own lessons.
Where is the Republican party that took a cold look at the facts? Where is the party whose base principle was that one could not spend more than one earned? Where is the party that promotes personal responsibility? Does this responsibility not apply to the president and this administration? Because, if you notice, when anything goes wrong, it always blames somebody else, like M. Brown, who stunned them by fighting back and proving that he DID tell them that things were going to be bad before the Hurricane hit. Or should I ask this in terms the machos in the White House will understand? Something along the lines of "isn't Bush man eneough to step up and say that he screwed up, and that he will try harder"? Does he feel responsible for anything, or are disasters and mistakes always somebody else's fault.
The very worst part of all this is looking at supporters of Bush, everyday people like you and me, like many friends of mine, bend over backwards and contort to to point of distorting themselves (I say this figuratively) in order to support any and everything the administration does; I have seen people comprimise deeply held principles and beliefs in order to justify this administration, more so than at almost any other point in our history. This is grave since before, we could always count on The People, that is everyone, to keep our public officials in check. It just seems that this administration has gotten a very big blank check and people refuse to recognize that. Many posters say that the media is "out to get Bush". I ask you, did the media force Bush to do any of the things he has done, good or bad? Did the media invent the budget deficit, the mistakes in Iraq, the threats, the leak of classified info in order to attack a critic? As a matter of fact, in this last case (the Valerie Plame affair) it seems the media actually helped the administration carry the attack (the Times journalist and the guy from CNN are ardent supporters of this administration).
I believe it's time for Republicans to wake up and support Bush when he deserves it, but be critical when the situation calls for criticism. Do not make yourselves into drones, and this goes for all sides, do not prostitute your ideas to support a single person. After all, we are a country of laws and institutions, not of individual leaders. Bush will be gone in three years, and when we wake up from this drunkeness that it means to blindly support him as though he were God's messenger, the hangover will be terrible. Let's not prostitue our principles for a single person.
Posted by: R. Mendoza at March 03, 2006 01:46 PM (0KEL4)
45
Wow,
YES, I was born and raised in New Orleans, I went to school at Ferncrest in New Orleans East and lived in NO-E and Metarie for 2/3 of my life.
Ferncrest was on Haynes Blvd, which had the school on one side of the street, and the Ponchatrain levee on the other. On one side of our school was wetlands (since developed) and the other was a pumping station and canal.
We were all VERY familiar with topping versus breaching and the operation of New Orleans flood control system because the guys that ran the big pumps were like firemen to us when we were younger and they'd come to the school and explain the system to us quite frequently since if it rained and their pumps went down that meant an evacuation of the school.
In Metairie I lived next door to one of the flood control canals and we paid attention there too since any work done on the system normally had a direct effect on our quality of life.
Now, the question is. What do you, Wow, know about living behind a levee system holding back a lake on one side and river on the other? Are you from New Orleans, have you been there since the storm? Or are you merely getting all your information from the same media that FALSELY reported 10,000 dead, murders and rapes in the dome and convention center and which still tries to misrepresent almost every aspect of this event to the public.
--Jason
YES, I was born and raised in New Orleans, I went to school at Ferncrest in New Orleans East and lived in NO-E and Metarie for 2/3 of my life.
Ferncrest was on Haynes Blvd, which had the school on one side of the street, and the Ponchatrain levee on the other. On one side of our school was wetlands (since developed) and the other was a pumping station and canal.
We were all VERY familiar with topping versus breaching and the operation of New Orleans flood control system because the guys that ran the big pumps were like firemen to us when we were younger and they'd come to the school and explain the system to us quite frequently since if it rained and their pumps went down that meant an evacuation of the school.
In Metairie I lived next door to one of the flood control canals and we paid attention there too since any work done on the system normally had a direct effect on our quality of life.
Now, the question is. What do you, Wow, know about living behind a levee system holding back a lake on one side and river on the other? Are you from New Orleans, have you been there since the storm? Or are you merely getting all your information from the same media that FALSELY reported 10,000 dead, murders and rapes in the dome and convention center and which still tries to misrepresent almost every aspect of this event to the public.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at March 03, 2006 03:06 PM (As32a)
46
and JAS, I think the people in New Orleans care about the media getting the story CORRECT and telling the truth.
When the media forces misinformation down the public's throat constantly about the storm, it's effects, it's aftermath and reconstruction, it's doing a grave disservice to those trying to rebuild and those trying to help them rebuild.
I can guarantee that people in New Orleans (especially my people) would rather see the effort being used to try and "get" the President, and blame him for a natural disaster, be used instead to educate people honestly about what needs to be done from this point forward.
People IN New Orleans don't blame Bush, they blame NAGIN and BLANCO and the various LEVEE BOARDS.
New Orleans has been through this before with Betsy. I'm sure you won't begrudge Lyndon Johnson for his "flyover" when New Orleans was flooded do you?
People know that Nagin failed them first, Blanco failed them second and Federal Government was the only ones who stepped up to the plate. The third responders and the managers had to become the first responders while Blanco cried crocodile tears for the cameras and Nagin ran off.
The people affected KNOW what happened, why it happened, and who's fault it was, and they aren't wasting time trying to drum up BS like this FALSE STORY and play partisan politics, they're too busy gutting their homes and trying to rebuild the city.
--Jason
When the media forces misinformation down the public's throat constantly about the storm, it's effects, it's aftermath and reconstruction, it's doing a grave disservice to those trying to rebuild and those trying to help them rebuild.
I can guarantee that people in New Orleans (especially my people) would rather see the effort being used to try and "get" the President, and blame him for a natural disaster, be used instead to educate people honestly about what needs to be done from this point forward.
People IN New Orleans don't blame Bush, they blame NAGIN and BLANCO and the various LEVEE BOARDS.
New Orleans has been through this before with Betsy. I'm sure you won't begrudge Lyndon Johnson for his "flyover" when New Orleans was flooded do you?
People know that Nagin failed them first, Blanco failed them second and Federal Government was the only ones who stepped up to the plate. The third responders and the managers had to become the first responders while Blanco cried crocodile tears for the cameras and Nagin ran off.
The people affected KNOW what happened, why it happened, and who's fault it was, and they aren't wasting time trying to drum up BS like this FALSE STORY and play partisan politics, they're too busy gutting their homes and trying to rebuild the city.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at March 03, 2006 03:14 PM (As32a)
47
Jonnie H
Kool aid drinking huh...would that be the Ken Kesey or Jonestown brand of kool aid?
As someone who has worked in the social service field for 10+ years, with serious mental illness clients I got to agree with you that it works better at the local level when it comes to actually providing the services.
But I got to tell you with out the ever dwindling Federal support (lunch programs, medicaid payments for therapy, medicines and medical services) most of the local agencies I ever worked for and with would of folded up long ago for lack of local funding.
As for the folks who are dependent upon these essential services, well consider these long term costs of the current programs vs. a revolving door of short term treatments, incarceration, and ultimately the cost of broken lives for these individuals and their families and communities.
Dare I say act locally, but fund these programs nationally.
So I remain unconvinced that that the more massive a program becomes the less likely it is to succeed.
Perhaps if you took the time to read some of the books I recommended earler, especially "End of the Line", you would better understand that one of the paradoxes of globalization is that increasingly no one is in charge of the overall process.
Say for example health care, where companies are increasingly shifting responsiblity to the indvidual workers. Often without offering financial compensations necessary to enable them to afford their own health care.
Historically, the Federal government has been the counterweight to the huge economic and political power that industry cartels and monolopies wield. As you say the depression era model, doesn't apply any more. So what model do you think does?
In todays economy, the only things vested economic interests readily respond to are levers that affect their bottom line. And governments are currently the only entities that can effect this change thru their sheer size in select markets...
You might want to check out a very thoughtful post by a self proclaimed Republican, R. Mendoza at March 3, 2006 01:46 PM.
As he so apt puts it, "abandoning your conservative principles to win the battle" will create a political and economic chaos in this country that will take decades to unravel.
I agree with you that over the last 20 years our political process has been hijacked by both parties, bent on creating loyal groups dependent on federal progams and members of the parties.
But being afraid to question current political leadership or idealogy on either side only encourges and empowers the most radical and corrosive elements on both sides.
And ensures the present gridlocked status quo.
Kool aid drinking huh...would that be the Ken Kesey or Jonestown brand of kool aid?
As someone who has worked in the social service field for 10+ years, with serious mental illness clients I got to agree with you that it works better at the local level when it comes to actually providing the services.
But I got to tell you with out the ever dwindling Federal support (lunch programs, medicaid payments for therapy, medicines and medical services) most of the local agencies I ever worked for and with would of folded up long ago for lack of local funding.
As for the folks who are dependent upon these essential services, well consider these long term costs of the current programs vs. a revolving door of short term treatments, incarceration, and ultimately the cost of broken lives for these individuals and their families and communities.
Dare I say act locally, but fund these programs nationally.
So I remain unconvinced that that the more massive a program becomes the less likely it is to succeed.
Perhaps if you took the time to read some of the books I recommended earler, especially "End of the Line", you would better understand that one of the paradoxes of globalization is that increasingly no one is in charge of the overall process.
Say for example health care, where companies are increasingly shifting responsiblity to the indvidual workers. Often without offering financial compensations necessary to enable them to afford their own health care.
Historically, the Federal government has been the counterweight to the huge economic and political power that industry cartels and monolopies wield. As you say the depression era model, doesn't apply any more. So what model do you think does?
In todays economy, the only things vested economic interests readily respond to are levers that affect their bottom line. And governments are currently the only entities that can effect this change thru their sheer size in select markets...
You might want to check out a very thoughtful post by a self proclaimed Republican, R. Mendoza at March 3, 2006 01:46 PM.
As he so apt puts it, "abandoning your conservative principles to win the battle" will create a political and economic chaos in this country that will take decades to unravel.
I agree with you that over the last 20 years our political process has been hijacked by both parties, bent on creating loyal groups dependent on federal progams and members of the parties.
But being afraid to question current political leadership or idealogy on either side only encourges and empowers the most radical and corrosive elements on both sides.
And ensures the present gridlocked status quo.
Posted by: yomama at March 03, 2006 04:19 PM (PiVxN)
48
Apparently, you think it takes some videotape wizardry and phony editing to point people toward the obvious, i.e. that George Bush used his daddy's money and influence to get out of VietNam and that he was completely clueless as to what needed to be done in the face of a national disaster. I'm really pissed that Mary Mapes relied on on such a shaky witness to try and add one more nail to the coffin of Bush's draft-dodging past. But none of that changes the fact that he skated while others were dying. And the video took no special editing to show that Bush was, as usual, uninterested in the details of a major issue and didn't ask his staff a single probing question. So, I'm concluding that you're just a credulous fool who's enjoying the 14-1/3 minutes of fame he got from having a link on the Washington Post opinions page.
A Confederate Liberal who knows bullshit when he sees it
A Confederate Liberal who knows bullshit when he sees it
Posted by: Jim Philips at March 03, 2006 08:22 PM (B5BF7)
49
Hi again Jason,
First off, sorry about what’s happened to your hometown. Regardless of political dispositions, it’s a lousy thing to have happen to your childhood stomping grounds, and I feel for you.
My question, though, remains unanswered. (Though an answer is perhaps implicit in your post when you say, “We were all VERY familiar with topping versus breaching and the operation of New Orleans flood control system.”) I asked if you were from New Orleans because I wanted to know one thing. The president said he did not think anyone anticipated the breaching of the levees.
As a native of the area, in your experience, was that true? Had no one in New Orleans anticipated the breaching of the levees?
Look, I’ll tip my hand before you even answer. If breaches were considered, this is where I feel like this whole debate is spin—or at least missing the point. Who cares if the media is conflating breaching and topping, or even if Bush was? If breaches were under consideration, the president said something really ignorant. The stories are right to explore how much the president really understood the situation. If he got his facts wrong during a national crisis, he ought to be chastised for that.
First off, sorry about what’s happened to your hometown. Regardless of political dispositions, it’s a lousy thing to have happen to your childhood stomping grounds, and I feel for you.
My question, though, remains unanswered. (Though an answer is perhaps implicit in your post when you say, “We were all VERY familiar with topping versus breaching and the operation of New Orleans flood control system.”) I asked if you were from New Orleans because I wanted to know one thing. The president said he did not think anyone anticipated the breaching of the levees.
As a native of the area, in your experience, was that true? Had no one in New Orleans anticipated the breaching of the levees?
Look, I’ll tip my hand before you even answer. If breaches were considered, this is where I feel like this whole debate is spin—or at least missing the point. Who cares if the media is conflating breaching and topping, or even if Bush was? If breaches were under consideration, the president said something really ignorant. The stories are right to explore how much the president really understood the situation. If he got his facts wrong during a national crisis, he ought to be chastised for that.
Posted by: wow at March 04, 2006 12:37 AM (EzUlq)
50
You can skirt the real issue all you like by criticizing my motivations or by bringing up the same issues (National Guard, Bush "knew" about 9/11) but my original point is unchallenged. The mainstream media attempts to MAKE news, not just report it. They create polls with flawed internals, such as the recent CBS news poll that sought out more Democrats than Republicans to produce a result of lower approval ratings for W so that their story and every newspaper headline could say "Bush at new low point in popularity". More and more Americans no longer trust the MSM because of these shenanigans. For any of you to actually still try to argue the virtues of the National Guard story or about Bush allowing 9/11 to happen (though it's worth noting that your side is the one who won't even let us NOW do the kinds of things that would prevent another 9/11) I would remind you that even with these attacks, you still lost the 2004 election. Lesson: the American people don't respond to your reckless, hateful attacks from the fringe. What the Left learned: not a damn thing! What the MSM learned: even less. All they can do is helplessly watch the declining viewership, falling newspaper sales, and the continued rise of Fox News (and I know that you just HATE that!)
Posted by: Thrill at March 04, 2006 01:08 PM (+E47Q)
Thank You, Now Go Away
It pained me several weeks ago when a retired veteran sent me an email, telling me bluntly, "Republicans are starting to treat veterans like Democrats treat African-Americans," pandering to them during election years, and then ignoring or undercutting them the rest of the time.
Obviously, I cringed at the comparison. A quick web search turned up articles showing that healthcare costs for retirees under the military's Tricare could as much as triple in the next few years for retirees under 65, steering retirees toward their current employer's health plans, while at the same time, these same employers are pushing retirees to go to Tricare to reduce their costs. The result is that we end up with both sides trying to push veterans off on each other. It sends a great message, doesn't it? "Thank you for your service, sir. No will you please go somewhere else?" We owe our veterans their due for putting their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, and we should not drastically increase their healthcare costs, even as we recognize the fiscal fact that if left unchecked, health-care costs could balloon to make up 12% of the defense budget by 2015. The problem is complex, and I don't have a ready answer. Obviously, no one does, but as those who have always championed out commitment to our men and women in uniform, we should be the ones who find a way to best take care of them once they've put the uniform away. They've served us honorably, and we must make sure that honor is returned.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:21 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We do owe our veterans more. A promise was made to them when they signed on and a way must be found to honor that promise.
Posted by: seawitch at March 02, 2006 09:23 AM (ao+3A)
2
CY, thanks for illuminating a problem that receives very little press or attention. It affects few, so it doesn't receive widespread coverage. It does however, affect those who answered the call and served their nation in times of need. It also illuminates the response of our government toward those same few. The title you selected is right on; Thank you, now go away.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 02, 2006 09:23 AM (X2tAw)
3
The whole issue of veterans health care is one big joke. I have billed Tricare in the past and I can assure you they do not pay a thing. Yet the cost of the insurance keeps going up. I don't know how this could be as the amount they pay out is a small fraction of what they owe. The billing process is bizzare, they will loose the records as least three times before they process the claim. If you look at the VA system, it is horrible and is one of the least cost effective health delivery systems that I have ever seen. The veterans themselves add to the problem as the majority do absolutely nothing to improve their health. If you took all the money poored into these projects and gave each veteran a voucher to purchase his own insurance you would likely have a considerable amount of money left over.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 02, 2006 10:31 AM (6wTpy)
4
My experience with the VA has been mostly very favorable. My high blood pressure problem, for example, was treated far more aggressively (and successfully) than by my "civilian" practitioners.
Virtually every report I've read in recent years is that starting sometime in the Clinton administration era, the VA has become one of the best and most cost effective medical care providers in the USA.
Sadly, the Bush administration has been trying to raise the co-payment costs for us veterans and to under-fund an agency that will have major increases in responsibilities following the 20,000 (and growing) casualties from the Iraq War.
Virtually every report I've read in recent years is that starting sometime in the Clinton administration era, the VA has become one of the best and most cost effective medical care providers in the USA.
Sadly, the Bush administration has been trying to raise the co-payment costs for us veterans and to under-fund an agency that will have major increases in responsibilities following the 20,000 (and growing) casualties from the Iraq War.
Posted by: Tom Stover at March 02, 2006 11:52 AM (9apWw)
5
Tricare has been a disaster. I was in the Clinton-era Army when it was unleashed on us and remember a 'lifer' sergeant and good friend who actually took the time to inform himself about it and determined that it was time to leave. Health care was one of his major reasons for being there and with that awful coverage, it was no longer worth it. Mr President, fix this NOW!
Posted by: Thrill at March 02, 2006 12:09 PM (+E47Q)
6
Why single out veterans? Is not every American entitled to decent, affordable health care? I agree that veterans have done a very good job defending this country. However, the rest of us have done a very good job keeping this country going. We should get away from this attitude that one group is more deserving than another.
Posted by: nyrunner at March 02, 2006 12:51 PM (iLUUP)
7
Here you see the result of the application over several years, of the bedrock philosophy of the modern Republican Party.
What is that philosophy?
It's simple! To a modern Republican...., money is vastly more important than people!
That's been their guiding philsophy and their basis for all decisions and actions, public and private.
People are unimportant! Money and whatever you have to do to accumulate as much of it as possible, at whatever cost to the population and environment, is all that matters!
What is that philosophy?
It's simple! To a modern Republican...., money is vastly more important than people!
That's been their guiding philsophy and their basis for all decisions and actions, public and private.
People are unimportant! Money and whatever you have to do to accumulate as much of it as possible, at whatever cost to the population and environment, is all that matters!
Posted by: Bruce Berntzen at March 02, 2006 01:18 PM (GtvRD)
8
I think nyrunner's comments above show a major disconnect with people's thinking about the military. Does she/he really think that the military veteran is no more deserving of attention by the Federal govt over health care than the average citizen? Does he think that the effort of doing a "very good job of keeping this country going" in a safe, peaceful environment is the equivalent of risking your life to provide that environment? I hope not.
Posted by: nomad at March 02, 2006 01:28 PM (hD2A6)
9
I must comment on David Caskey's uninformed comments about Tricare and the VA. Tricare is like any other health care provider, in that they sign up DR's who agree to the payment plan. If you go to a Tricare DR there is no extra charge to the veteran, the Dr gets what Tricare pays. If you go out of the system Tricare pays the contracted fee and since last year also any charges above the contracted fee.I've had Tricare for the last six years and have had no problems. As for the VA, understand that they classify veterans two ways, service connected injury, an injury incurred while on active duty doing your job. The other classifaction is non service connected injury. This means you were injured while not on active duty and not at your job.For example being injured in a car accident after being discharged. Both can receive VA health care but the non service connected veteran must pay the VA a certain percentage based on rank and ability to pay.In addition the VA has the best prices for drugs because they buy in bulk they negotiate with the drug companies to get the lowest price possible unlike the new Medicare plan.
Posted by: r. brick at March 02, 2006 01:34 PM (6W0W1)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2006 01:35 PM (g5Nba)
11
when the current neo-cons took over, they began a WAR ON VETS by cutting $50 BILLION a year, for 10 years, from the VA healthcare system [this was part of the monies "given back" to the wealthy campaign contributors]... it has resulted in SEVERE personnel cutbacks at ALL the VA facilities, including essential support staffing from the initial in-processing right down to patient-care cycles; attitudes have degraded to the state of the 80's [under Reagan's 'trickle-down' policies], where staffers seem to show up for paychecks with that glazed-over look in their eyes... keep in mind that private industry companies have their deficiencies, too - they just get to correct them on a sooner time-frame than does government agencies [by their very nature run by political cronism NOW, vs the career bureaucrats of long-standing history - OVERSIGHT cures a lot of these ills in both sectors].
But, if you consider the Desert Storm vets who have been irradiated & forgotten, added to the current crop of maimed & disfigured victims of this current atrocity, you've got an entire population group who are being put in a long waiting line of pain, mistreatment, and destined for oblivion... these vets will try to go out into the private sector to find jobs, only to find that their "previous conditions" of service-connected ailments will probably NOT be covered under the NEWT-Congressional HMO plans that we now have in this country....
when will the citizens of this country realize that there are many things that SHOULD be treated as PUBLIC utilities???
this includes water, energy, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, etc., and that maybe - just MAYBE - private companies & government SHOULD compete with each other to provide those very essential services....
But, if you consider the Desert Storm vets who have been irradiated & forgotten, added to the current crop of maimed & disfigured victims of this current atrocity, you've got an entire population group who are being put in a long waiting line of pain, mistreatment, and destined for oblivion... these vets will try to go out into the private sector to find jobs, only to find that their "previous conditions" of service-connected ailments will probably NOT be covered under the NEWT-Congressional HMO plans that we now have in this country....
when will the citizens of this country realize that there are many things that SHOULD be treated as PUBLIC utilities???
this includes water, energy, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, etc., and that maybe - just MAYBE - private companies & government SHOULD compete with each other to provide those very essential services....
Posted by: mj at March 02, 2006 01:36 PM (FdusP)
12
That's one thing you'll get only 100% agreement from me on. If you want to read more about how we're failing to take care of our troops, read more here:
http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2006/03/story-of-soldier-and-ptsd.html
http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2006/03/cutting-back-on-treatment-for-ptsd.html
http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2005/12/cost-of-ptsd.html
Also check out this month's Texas Monthly for some great articles about Texas soldiers.
http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2006/03/story-of-soldier-and-ptsd.html
http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2006/03/cutting-back-on-treatment-for-ptsd.html
http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2005/12/cost-of-ptsd.html
Also check out this month's Texas Monthly for some great articles about Texas soldiers.
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at March 02, 2006 01:38 PM (018Z+)
13
nyrunner, get a clue. If you want health care, YOU go earn it. American veterans already have.
Posted by: lady redhawk at March 02, 2006 05:30 PM (IWM6W)
14
One of the things I really am amazed at is the way that people respond to a post. Earlier I commented on Tricare and some poor sole tells me I am uninformed. Pardon!! You sound like a patient. As such you have no idea about the inner workings of an insurance company. I have delt with Tricare for somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years and it is one of the worst in dealing with its physicians. The only reason that I signed with them initially is that several of my patients had the insurance forced on them. Now several things happen when doctors are not happy with the insurance company. Many will not take the coverage. These usually are your better physicians. The other catagory are those that are not very good docs and this is the only income they can compete with. Either way a doc will look at the company and tailor his care knowing the problems he has previously encountered. Now you will say something stupid as well your took the sorry insurance and I respond yes but I was trying to do something for some people I liked. Then you will say that is very dollar oriented thinking but then you have to understand that we all modify our activity to the almighty dollar and if we are honest with ourselves then we will recognize this human fault. The veterns signed on to their job and part of that signing process guarnteed lifetime health care, just as those who work for GM (until GM goes broke). As to national health insurance, I used to fight this issue when I was young, now I really don't care. Physicians are getting paid so bad in most cases that the government couldn't get much worse. Now before you say you don't know any docs not getting paid well understand that your local banker will tell you that all those apparently rich physicians are a hairs breath from being broke. Check your facts before you dispute this. A good example of national health care is Canada. There it takes 6 months or more to get a CT scan in which you are concerned that a cancer is present. Your pet can get a scan in 24 hours using the same machine. The difference is that the government factors in the fact you will likely die in the interm and they do not have to spring for the cost. The Canadians love the system because they can go to the US and get care and the system picks up the cost. My friends in Britian love their system. But when they really want something done they come here. Regardless, our system is dying and what you know of as medicine in the US will soon be gone.
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at March 02, 2006 09:05 PM (otCuM)
15
Tenth grade geography..., no! But....,I did spend a couple of years in a very green and humid Asian country...., almost fourty years ago...., learning a littel geography as well as geopolitics...., and finding out how badly America can treat it's military!
Fortunately my wounds healed fairly well and now add only a little to the pain of aging, but many of my freinds did not fare as well. I've seen first-hand the problems caused by lying Republican presidents and their sycophants and enablers!
Vietnam was not entirely caused by Republicans...., but Nixon was the worst of the bunch. And...., he was, by far, the worst president we've ever had the misfortune to experience...., until Bush The Younger!
This lying miscreant, backed by the arrogant and evil twins, Rumsfield and Cheney...., have been a total and complete disaster for this country!
Perhaps if you'd had the opportunity to experience actual combat, you might not be so willing to play the fool for this (mis)administration.
Fortunately my wounds healed fairly well and now add only a little to the pain of aging, but many of my freinds did not fare as well. I've seen first-hand the problems caused by lying Republican presidents and their sycophants and enablers!
Vietnam was not entirely caused by Republicans...., but Nixon was the worst of the bunch. And...., he was, by far, the worst president we've ever had the misfortune to experience...., until Bush The Younger!
This lying miscreant, backed by the arrogant and evil twins, Rumsfield and Cheney...., have been a total and complete disaster for this country!
Perhaps if you'd had the opportunity to experience actual combat, you might not be so willing to play the fool for this (mis)administration.
Posted by: Bruce Berntzen at March 03, 2006 08:03 AM (GtvRD)
16
Bruce: Hate to tell you, but Nixon got you OUT of Vietnam. In fact, his "exit strategy" bears a remarkable resembalance to Murtha's: declare victory, then run like hell while abandoning the people who trusted you to grisly fates.
Vietnam was started by Kennedy, and advanced by Johnson.
You just lost all credibility.
Vietnam was started by Kennedy, and advanced by Johnson.
You just lost all credibility.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 03, 2006 06:08 PM (vd4K1)
17
Until people learn the difference between Tricare and the VA's health care system we're not going to get anywhere on this specific issue except to perpetuate confusion.
All military retirees are veterans but only a small percentage of veterans are military retirees as well. It's military retirees that are threatened with draconian increases in Tricare premiums and other costs, not veterans in general.
All military retirees are veterans but only a small percentage of veterans are military retirees as well. It's military retirees that are threatened with draconian increases in Tricare premiums and other costs, not veterans in general.
Posted by: Al Superczynski, MSG US Army (retired) at March 04, 2006 01:17 AM (0jr6n)
18
It's a shame that an important discussion on veteran's health care could get so easily off track with the usual lefty tripe.
This is an important issue and it needs to be addressed with as little of the chronic liberal partisan palaver as possible.
This is an important issue and it needs to be addressed with as little of the chronic liberal partisan palaver as possible.
Posted by: Mike's America at March 05, 2006 10:57 PM (SHL+1)
March 01, 2006
Boomer U.
Jason Smith at Generation Why? has been tracking the Joel Hinrichs suicide bombing incident since the beginning, and passes along new information today. A Norman, OK bomb expert states he does not believe that Hinrichs' death was a suicide as widely reported, but an accidental detonation just 200 yards from a football stadium packed with 80,000 people.
There seems to be more to this story than meets the eye. Read the whole thing.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In reading the story one comment draws attention and that is that the student went to a mosque for information on the explosive. There does not seem to be information on the guys religion of choice but he clearly is hanging with the Muslim groups. I don't know about your religion but when I used to go to the Methodist church, we did not have information on how to kill people. This points to my concern about what in the hell are we doing. I have stated before and will again that our enemy is Islam. Yet our government will not state that nor will they make the effort to seperate these people from normal society. Instead every citizen in the US is subjected to repeated violation of the Fourth Amendment from the airport to the mall. Note in the description of the explosive that it is not made of gunpowder yet we spend millions on machines to find trace amounts of nitrates. It would seem that a terrorist would wash with a solvent before boarding a plane. Much effort is expended looking at all Americans in airports and elsewhere in order not to offend the people that hate us. If we are going to continue this war then it seems we need to identify the enemy and deal with them. In my mind the enemy is Islam and so all who expouse to that creed need to be isolated and restricted in movement and leave the rest of us alone! This may sound bigoted as that has been used lately but bigots are those that hate without reason, we have reason.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 02, 2006 10:23 AM (6wTpy)
2
What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam?
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 11:39 AM (Cbja3)
Which Iraq?
Hammorabi fears Iraq is burning, heading for a civil war.
Omar hears "a big bang," knows he won't be leaving for work, settlesback on the couch, and quickly becomes riveted by the Saddam Hussein trial. Two Iraqis, vastly different concerns. American news media takes an almost universal view that Iraq is on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Bill Roggio, an astute analyst of the war who has travelled on the ground in Iraq, states that the main lead indicators a full-scale civil war aren't present. Victor David Hanson states (and I agree with him) that the attack on the shrine and the ensuing violence:
Ralph Peters states unequivocally:
might be a sign of the terrorists' desperation--killers who have not, and cannot, defeat the U.S. military.
Which Iraq is real? That seems to hinge on who you think is winning.
-- THE reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period. Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Or it hinges on who you WANT to win.
Posted by: Bill at March 01, 2006 03:33 PM (LKlsp)
2
Yeah, especially if you want those theocratic iran leaners to win.
chumps.
chumps.
Posted by: matt at March 01, 2006 03:57 PM (0xJWq)
3
nothing killing obl wouldn't fix.
and executing saddam will help.
then again: what's so dang bad about an indeoendent Kurdistan and the sunniand shias kiling each iother for a decade!?
my theory: the closer we get to ousting assad and sanctioning/attacking iramn the worse the terror will get.
first the golden dome.
next??? a mosque in Kurdistan? the "al aksa"?
then again, if i was alQ i'd say it was a very good time to blow up a container ship ANYHWERE.
my point: like vdh said: the more desperate they get the worse their attacks.
SO BRACE YOURSELF!
and executing saddam will help.
then again: what's so dang bad about an indeoendent Kurdistan and the sunniand shias kiling each iother for a decade!?
my theory: the closer we get to ousting assad and sanctioning/attacking iramn the worse the terror will get.
first the golden dome.
next??? a mosque in Kurdistan? the "al aksa"?
then again, if i was alQ i'd say it was a very good time to blow up a container ship ANYHWERE.
my point: like vdh said: the more desperate they get the worse their attacks.
SO BRACE YOURSELF!
Posted by: reliapundit at March 02, 2006 12:27 AM (cHHMb)
4
I'd listen to Ralph Peters if 1) he wasn't an idiot and 2) he wasn't "dishonest" himself.
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at March 02, 2006 01:44 PM (018Z+)
Saving the Salvation Navy
Ward Brewer is tired. Exhausted. Pissed.
It took years of effort to get this far, and as it comes down to the wire, everything he's worked so hard for depends on what happens in the first tense days of March. The former emergency responder is the CEO of Beauchamp Tower Corporation, a non-profit organization with a bold and brilliant idea: convert obsolete, scrapyard-bound military vessels into a fleet of state-of-the-art disaster response ships that can be on-site after a major natural disaster like last year's Hurricane Katrina in a matter of hours instead of days. Many of the challenges Beauchamp Tower Corporation have been document Operation Enduring Service on the OES Project Weblog. Retired Navy veterans such as Mars-class combat stores ships and other obsolete but still-capable cargo ships will be refitted to provide complex emergency communications support that can replace cell phone and radio towers lost in a hurricane, so that on-shore first responders can answer rescue calls even if the local phone and radio systems are destroyed. These same ships, crewed by the Coast Guard Auxiliary and supported by disaster-aid groups, can bring in hundreds of emergency-response personnel to a disaster zone and provide them housing so that lodging on-shore can be dedicated to the victims of the storm, while bringing thousands of tons of supplies. Each ship will also be capable of distilling, bottling, and shipping thousands of gallons of water and over 100 tons of ice to shore each day. This humanitarian fleet—this Salvation Navy—will have far more disaster-response capability than anything currently in use by either FEMA or the military, and—here's the kicker—it actually saves taxpayers the tens of millions of dollars it would have taken to turn these ships into scrap. Generous corporate sponsors will underwrite the conversion and modernization of the rescue fleet. So why is Ward Brewer so upset? Politics. For want of a "germaine" bill between now and the end of March to which they can attach a rider giving these obsolete ships to his non-profit Beauchamp Tower Corporation, the entire program could be sent to the bottom. The U.S. Navy has been holding these ships, but if legislation does not come through soon, other interests and indeed other countries will be allowed to potentially scrap or salvage these ships, ships that could be saving American lives in coming hurricane seasons. We gripe about foreign nations controlling our ports, even as we give away our ships. This must not stand. Ladies and Gentlemen, kickstart your Congress. Save this Salvation Navy. Update: The OES Project Web Log has a new post up today that explains the concepts and technologies involved in far more detail.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:00 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is way too cool.
Posted by: Specter at March 01, 2006 12:29 PM (ybfXM)
2
Damn, I wanted to rail against anything I read here today, but this makes too much sense.
Expensive, maybe, but it could not be more wasteful than what we have. Staging and engaging the fleet when there's a storm(s) blowing could be problematic. But, this could be a very beneficial element in aiding the coastal regions in any type of disaster.
I hope it gets off the ground...I mean, floats.
Expensive, maybe, but it could not be more wasteful than what we have. Staging and engaging the fleet when there's a storm(s) blowing could be problematic. But, this could be a very beneficial element in aiding the coastal regions in any type of disaster.
I hope it gets off the ground...I mean, floats.
Posted by: Sr. Bojangles at March 01, 2006 02:13 PM (3UCdf)
3
That was cowardly of you to shut down the comment thread on your post yesterday. You used one borderline offensive comment to justify censoring the views of everyone who might have had something to say about your topic. That was not cool, not cool at all. If you're going to publish your stuff on the WaPo website, shouldn't you be big enough to hear what WaPo readers have to say about your postings?
Posted by: ahab at March 01, 2006 02:17 PM (sF3HF)
4
However, I still can't figure out how this...this thing is linked to the front page of the Washington Post. You should see the look on my face right now. Sort of a confused disgust, like I saw a puppy struggling in a wild animal trap, no, no wait... that's not it. It's more of a foul thing stuck to the shoe and I've nowhere to scrape it just now.
I'll leave you alone now.
I'll leave you alone now.
Posted by: Sr. Bojangles at March 01, 2006 02:20 PM (3UCdf)
5
ahab, it was not one borderline commment, but series of comments that were either off-topic, or abusive to various people commenting. I deleted some comments outright, banned several of the worst offenders, and in the end locked the thread.
I encourage Washington Post readers to leave thoughtful, engaging comments about the topic at hand, but I have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to put up with those would be rude or abusive to myself or others.
I encourage Washington Post readers to leave thoughtful, engaging comments about the topic at hand, but I have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to put up with those would be rude or abusive to myself or others.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 01, 2006 02:34 PM (g5Nba)
6
ahab,
Seriously - you could start your own blog if you don't like what CY does. After all - it is his.
Seriously - you could start your own blog if you don't like what CY does. After all - it is his.
Posted by: Specter at March 01, 2006 04:35 PM (ybfXM)
7
Just wondering how the public support of war ships to protect civilians at the cost of millions or billions of tax dollars is anything but liberalism? I mean it seems like a good idea, assuming that the logistics actually prove to be superior to an improved integrated inter-agency system, like FEMA was before a Bush crony was put in charge, then I'm all for it. I'm just saying that it's like free disaster insurance, no?
Posted by: calboxer at March 01, 2006 04:43 PM (b96e6)
8
calboxer,
The project isn't funded by tax dollars, it's funded by donations from individuals and corporations and the salvaging of ships that would otherwise be shipped overseas and scraped.
It's a free standing organization that won't have to deal with the red tape that we all witnessed during this past hurricane season.
It not only saves tax dollars by removing the dependency upon FEMA and other Governmental Organizations for relief, it creates jobs in the areas that were hardest hit by Katrina.
The project isn't funded by tax dollars, it's funded by donations from individuals and corporations and the salvaging of ships that would otherwise be shipped overseas and scraped.
It's a free standing organization that won't have to deal with the red tape that we all witnessed during this past hurricane season.
It not only saves tax dollars by removing the dependency upon FEMA and other Governmental Organizations for relief, it creates jobs in the areas that were hardest hit by Katrina.
Posted by: phin at March 01, 2006 05:36 PM (DGPlf)
9
For those who have not been to the O.E.S. websight, let me fill you in on some things. First, the ship would have been almost ready at the start of the hurricane season. When a storm threatens the US, Gulf or Atlantic, the ship will go into a standby condition. Workers will be recalled as the storm strenghtens. When the ship is ready to steam, she will pull out and go south of the storm and fall behind the hurrican, giving hourly updates on strength and speed. She will tag along at a safe distance until land fall. About 10 hours after land fall, the ship will be getting needed supplies( ice,water, food, fuel and communications) to the First Responders at the land fall area. We sure needed something like that when we were hit by Rita this past year.
The ship will give everything she has to get the affected area up and running in short time. This is just the tip of the iceburg for this project. Go and read and you judge for yourself if this would work. I have been invovled for about 3 years and is just as upset as O.E.S. on the failure of the Washington politics and MARAD. If it was your home town affected, you would jump and down and scream till something is done. Get ready, because it will be coming and if you don't get on board, you will be left out.
The ship will give everything she has to get the affected area up and running in short time. This is just the tip of the iceburg for this project. Go and read and you judge for yourself if this would work. I have been invovled for about 3 years and is just as upset as O.E.S. on the failure of the Washington politics and MARAD. If it was your home town affected, you would jump and down and scream till something is done. Get ready, because it will be coming and if you don't get on board, you will be left out.
Posted by: Dan at March 01, 2006 06:55 PM (qtJNL)
Some Will Not Go Quietly
In a Europe seemingly paralyzed by fear, a dozen brave souls speak out in this translation in the Indland Jyllands-Posten.
All freedoms worth having must be fought for to be cherished. Dine-and-dash pacifists who risk nothing, deserve nothing, and very often get exactly that. I will not go quietly into submission.
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats. Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people. We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers. We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas. We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism. 12 signatures Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:03 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field."
History is replete with events that contradict this statement. Mohammed was firmly rejected by those to whom he initially prophesized about his “vision” of a new religion. Rejecting denunciation, he drew the sword, raised an army and advanced Islam via force. The early clashes between Islam and the rest of the world resulted in the Christians responding with the Crusades. Force had to be used to counter force.
Doctrinally, Islam offers the conquered conversion, death or Dhimmi (a position subservient to Islam). The Qur’an and Hadith teach that it is okay to lie, cheat and kill for the advancement of Islam. Too many of the modern day Imams and Ayatollahs teach the violent advancement of Islam. With underpinning tenants and prophets like that, how can we overcome the struggle in the field of ideology?
Those who are counting state that there have been in excess of 4,000 Islamic terrorist attacks (violence) since 9-11 with thousands more occurring previous to 9-11. We are not in a struggle of ideology versus theology; we are in a struggle with theological despotism versus the rest of the world. Today the battlefield is violent and requires arms, and the arms will probably be required for many more years; or until the advantage is clearly against continued Islamic aggression. I believe Islam is at a point where it must change or face extinction. The rest of the world will not change and will not succumb to the religion of Islam. The sad fact is that much more blood will be spilled in the name of Allah.
History is replete with events that contradict this statement. Mohammed was firmly rejected by those to whom he initially prophesized about his “vision” of a new religion. Rejecting denunciation, he drew the sword, raised an army and advanced Islam via force. The early clashes between Islam and the rest of the world resulted in the Christians responding with the Crusades. Force had to be used to counter force.
Doctrinally, Islam offers the conquered conversion, death or Dhimmi (a position subservient to Islam). The Qur’an and Hadith teach that it is okay to lie, cheat and kill for the advancement of Islam. Too many of the modern day Imams and Ayatollahs teach the violent advancement of Islam. With underpinning tenants and prophets like that, how can we overcome the struggle in the field of ideology?
Those who are counting state that there have been in excess of 4,000 Islamic terrorist attacks (violence) since 9-11 with thousands more occurring previous to 9-11. We are not in a struggle of ideology versus theology; we are in a struggle with theological despotism versus the rest of the world. Today the battlefield is violent and requires arms, and the arms will probably be required for many more years; or until the advantage is clearly against continued Islamic aggression. I believe Islam is at a point where it must change or face extinction. The rest of the world will not change and will not succumb to the religion of Islam. The sad fact is that much more blood will be spilled in the name of Allah.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 01, 2006 09:19 AM (X2tAw)
2
There is a huge lie in the first paragraph of Old Soldier's comment, that the Crusades were a response to militant Islam. Hardly. The west wanted access to trade routes. Can you spell "economic advantage"? The religious aspect was the equivalent of Bush's weapons of mass destruction. It got volunteers to fight an ultimately losing war and had nothing to do with reality.
Also, while reading the second paragraph I got a strange image of apartment dwellers paying rent to an Imam...
Also, while reading the second paragraph I got a strange image of apartment dwellers paying rent to an Imam...
Posted by: Barbara Foster at March 01, 2006 11:06 AM (vcQNq)
3
(1) barabara foster is ALL wrong on the crusades - her's is a typically brainwashed marxist explanation. in fact it is IDIOTIC.
lookit babs baby: there were CRUSADES fought in southern farnce, too - and OVER RELIGION BABY, NOT TRADE ROUTES!
babs: i suggest that you throw out your tired old discredited ready-made ideological knee-jerk templates. THINK CRITICALLY.
islam was NOT protecting trade routes; islam doesn't want to hold onto Jerusalem for the trade, and it doesn;t want to get at LEAST half of Jeruslaem today for the trade.
WAKE UP, BABS: Marxism was ALL WRONG - as an explanatory template and a social system!
(2) It's swell that these famous Left-leaning intellectuals have taken a universalist/non-relativist stand on human rights, but the REAL issue is: What are they willing to do about it?!
Are they willing to support a proactive, bold, aggressive counter-attack - including sanctions, blockades and even preemptive military strikes?
Will they urge their own nations to do more to help the USA and the UK and the other coalition members assist the emerging Iraqi democracy?
Will they support an end to immigration without assimiliation? Will they support the deportation of radical Muslims who incite violence? Will they demand that nations which don't allow its citizens the universal human rights outlined in the UN Declaration be demoted to "observer status" at the UN?
Will they at least criticize their comrades on the Left who - at best - have been skeptical of Bush, and at worst accused him of being a lying, torturing war criminal who went to war for oil/Halliburton/family revenge?
Or do they just want to sign petitions and send strongly worded, high-minded letters?
I suspect it's the latter, and we don't need them for that - we already got Blix and Baradei and Kofi for that!
I pray they prove me wrong, and that this represents the beginning of a more unified West. If that's the case, we will be more likely to have the resolve necessary to defeat the enemy in this - THE LONG WAR.
lookit babs baby: there were CRUSADES fought in southern farnce, too - and OVER RELIGION BABY, NOT TRADE ROUTES!
babs: i suggest that you throw out your tired old discredited ready-made ideological knee-jerk templates. THINK CRITICALLY.
islam was NOT protecting trade routes; islam doesn't want to hold onto Jerusalem for the trade, and it doesn;t want to get at LEAST half of Jeruslaem today for the trade.
WAKE UP, BABS: Marxism was ALL WRONG - as an explanatory template and a social system!
(2) It's swell that these famous Left-leaning intellectuals have taken a universalist/non-relativist stand on human rights, but the REAL issue is: What are they willing to do about it?!
Are they willing to support a proactive, bold, aggressive counter-attack - including sanctions, blockades and even preemptive military strikes?
Will they urge their own nations to do more to help the USA and the UK and the other coalition members assist the emerging Iraqi democracy?
Will they support an end to immigration without assimiliation? Will they support the deportation of radical Muslims who incite violence? Will they demand that nations which don't allow its citizens the universal human rights outlined in the UN Declaration be demoted to "observer status" at the UN?
Will they at least criticize their comrades on the Left who - at best - have been skeptical of Bush, and at worst accused him of being a lying, torturing war criminal who went to war for oil/Halliburton/family revenge?
Or do they just want to sign petitions and send strongly worded, high-minded letters?
I suspect it's the latter, and we don't need them for that - we already got Blix and Baradei and Kofi for that!
I pray they prove me wrong, and that this represents the beginning of a more unified West. If that's the case, we will be more likely to have the resolve necessary to defeat the enemy in this - THE LONG WAR.
Posted by: reliapundit at March 01, 2006 11:27 AM (xwgYX)
4
Barbara, I do not knowingly make false statements. Therfore, I take exception to your poor choice of words. You may understand history differently than I, but that does not give you license to proclaim that I have fostered a "lie".
"Trade routes" are what placed the peoples of the two religions in proximity but not, from accounts I've read, the motivation for the armed aggression on either's part. It became a matter of conflicting theology and regions of historical practice versus expansion.
Seeking less dangerous trade routes is what set Columbus and others upon their ventures.
Barbara, I do not knowingly make false statements. Therfore, I take exception to your poor choice of words. You may understand history differently than I, but that does not give you license to proclaim that I have fostered a "lie".
"Trade routes" are what placed the peoples of the two religions in proximity but not, from accounts I've read, the motivation for the armed aggression on either's part. It became a matter of conflicting theology and regions of historical practice versus expansion.
Seeking less dangerous trade routes is what set Columbus and others upon their ventures.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 01, 2006 11:27 AM (X2tAw)
5
Wrong, Barbara--The trade routes had been in place and were used since 800AD. It was the problems within the Byzantine Empire and the invasion of the Seljukian Turks that became the basis for the series of wars called The Crusades. With the fall of Jerusalem in 1070 and the conquering of Diogenes in 1071 the Turks were able to overrun most all of Asia Minor.
This threatened the safety of Pilgrims who ventured to the Holy Land and cut off vital trade routes across the Continent. By 1092, Turks had conquered most of Asia Minor and not a single city or province remained Christian on the continent.
In 1095, the Pope called for the re-establishment of Christian Authority in the cities and provinces that had been conquered by the Turks...which I'm sure is what 'Old Soldier' was talking about.
And he's right.
The Turks began cutting off and limiting safe access to the Holy Land. Their militant spread across Asia Minor was what started the whole thing...The trade routes had been in use by the West since before 800AD.
Please do your homework before calling something someone says 'a huge lie'. There was 'a huge lie' in the comments section--but it was in your post, not his.
This threatened the safety of Pilgrims who ventured to the Holy Land and cut off vital trade routes across the Continent. By 1092, Turks had conquered most of Asia Minor and not a single city or province remained Christian on the continent.
In 1095, the Pope called for the re-establishment of Christian Authority in the cities and provinces that had been conquered by the Turks...which I'm sure is what 'Old Soldier' was talking about.
And he's right.
The Turks began cutting off and limiting safe access to the Holy Land. Their militant spread across Asia Minor was what started the whole thing...The trade routes had been in use by the West since before 800AD.
Please do your homework before calling something someone says 'a huge lie'. There was 'a huge lie' in the comments section--but it was in your post, not his.
Posted by: WB at March 01, 2006 12:07 PM (ZMPDo)
6
"he Qur’an and Hadith teach that it is okay to lie, cheat and kill for the advancement of Islam."
And since when has the ambition of any nation, religion or ethnic group, in practice, behaved differently?
And since when has the ambition of any nation, religion or ethnic group, in practice, behaved differently?
Posted by: Adam at March 02, 2006 01:43 AM (ay57p)
7
It's reliapundit who's all wrong. The Crusades in southern France were NOT about religion. Religion was the fig leaf that was used. What they were about was dwindling power of the Pope and french crown over the area's nobility as it oriented itself away from both of them, politically trying to gain more independence overall by seemingly orienting itself more towards Aragon than the French crown, in reality trying to straddle both and really belong to none. The Crusaders achieved material profits by, in defiance of all law of the time, being awarded the conquered areas as fiefs despite several of them technically being aragonese fiefs (The fact that the King of Aragon was killed at the battle of Muret didn't help secure Aragon's rights)
No, they were not about religion. They were about material gain through conquest for the landless lords of northern France who enriched themselves with the wealth of the south, stripping it bare to this very day, and for political influence of the Papacy which did not suffer anyone considering himself independent, let alone claiming the Pope might be wrong, or worse.
As for the manifesto, it's nice pandering to Americans with their primacy of freedom of expression. However, in most European countries, human dignity has primacy, and that includes Muslims. Europe isn't paralyzed by fear, it's asserting its priorities of values, be it in its concern about mockeries of faiths of all kinds or in the jailing of holocaust deniers such as Irving.
In that line, hate speech of any kind, especially such in a fashion fit to disturb the public peace, is frowned upon. Far from being paralyzed, several nations in Europe have been moving against Islamist hate preachers for quite a while. However, it is very disturbing that while the authors write freedom of expression on their flags, they seem to see limits themselves, but very selectively on the side of Islam. Such an attitude has nothing to do with democracy and everything with totalitarianism. If hate speech is to be condemned, then ALL hate speech.
The authors neglect to point out that the recent cartoon crap (for indeed, their quality was inferior) offended not just militant muslims, but millions and millions of peaceful modern and moderate muslims as well. It is the riots that make the media, protest notes and peaceful demonstrations aren't news. That the rioters are a negligible handful compared to the number of muslim in the world doesn't quite fit into the picture they paint.
That has nothing to do with the fight of democracy against totalitarianism. It is one totalitarianism against another. You do not achieve peace by fighting oppression with oppression, and you do not achieve peace by ignoring moderates and generalizing radical minorities. In fact, you're playing into the hands of the latter, since you sap the former of their motivation. Feeling that they can do what they want, it will not be acknowledged, they rather stay at home. This conduct, the failure to support and work with moderates, brought us Ahmadinejad not some blood-thirsty frenzy of the Iranian people.
No, they were not about religion. They were about material gain through conquest for the landless lords of northern France who enriched themselves with the wealth of the south, stripping it bare to this very day, and for political influence of the Papacy which did not suffer anyone considering himself independent, let alone claiming the Pope might be wrong, or worse.
As for the manifesto, it's nice pandering to Americans with their primacy of freedom of expression. However, in most European countries, human dignity has primacy, and that includes Muslims. Europe isn't paralyzed by fear, it's asserting its priorities of values, be it in its concern about mockeries of faiths of all kinds or in the jailing of holocaust deniers such as Irving.
In that line, hate speech of any kind, especially such in a fashion fit to disturb the public peace, is frowned upon. Far from being paralyzed, several nations in Europe have been moving against Islamist hate preachers for quite a while. However, it is very disturbing that while the authors write freedom of expression on their flags, they seem to see limits themselves, but very selectively on the side of Islam. Such an attitude has nothing to do with democracy and everything with totalitarianism. If hate speech is to be condemned, then ALL hate speech.
The authors neglect to point out that the recent cartoon crap (for indeed, their quality was inferior) offended not just militant muslims, but millions and millions of peaceful modern and moderate muslims as well. It is the riots that make the media, protest notes and peaceful demonstrations aren't news. That the rioters are a negligible handful compared to the number of muslim in the world doesn't quite fit into the picture they paint.
That has nothing to do with the fight of democracy against totalitarianism. It is one totalitarianism against another. You do not achieve peace by fighting oppression with oppression, and you do not achieve peace by ignoring moderates and generalizing radical minorities. In fact, you're playing into the hands of the latter, since you sap the former of their motivation. Feeling that they can do what they want, it will not be acknowledged, they rather stay at home. This conduct, the failure to support and work with moderates, brought us Ahmadinejad not some blood-thirsty frenzy of the Iranian people.
Posted by: European at March 02, 2006 02:37 AM (F3yaX)
8
Oh, and Reliapundit: I take it that as prioritization goes, truth isn't very high on your list, or you would by now admit that Blix was right and Bush was wrong. But hey, who am I to bother you with facts, huh? Much like you rant about whether people will support the deportation of hate preachers, when that is already happening for quite a while.
As for the universal declaration of human rights, shall I take your words to mean that the US, too, should be demoted to observer status?
Oh, by the way, I hate to tell you: No, Marxism was not all wrong. As an explanatory model, it is still widely used for various aspects.
I suggest rather than playing the western mirror image of islamism, you start concerning yourself with facts. As long as you believe slaughtering a few thousand people is "liberating" them and as long as you think telling people who they should vote for at gunpoint is "democracy", you will justly be derided.
As for the universal declaration of human rights, shall I take your words to mean that the US, too, should be demoted to observer status?
Oh, by the way, I hate to tell you: No, Marxism was not all wrong. As an explanatory model, it is still widely used for various aspects.
I suggest rather than playing the western mirror image of islamism, you start concerning yourself with facts. As long as you believe slaughtering a few thousand people is "liberating" them and as long as you think telling people who they should vote for at gunpoint is "democracy", you will justly be derided.
Posted by: European at March 02, 2006 02:48 AM (F3yaX)
9
My message is for christians and jews,: Islam is not a new religion. It is a complement to christianty and Judaism religions. This is why is said in Quran ( as an interpretation) that today your religion ( or deen) is complete. Unfortunately, Islam has been manipulated as a cover for Osama bin laden and his followers' interests ( may Allah perish them or show them the right path). At the time of prophets ( May peace be upon their souls), people of different religious backgrounds, were living in peace. So we don't we live in peace and leave this and work as one hand to fight those who want to separate religions and insite hatrd.
Mohammad Abdullah
Mohammad Abdullah
Posted by: Mohammad at March 02, 2006 04:58 AM (0p6q+)
10
I wasn't aware we had to worry about submission to totalitarian "Islamism." As for as conquests go, I'd say right now it's The West 1, Islamism 0, so we appear to be ahead of the game.
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at March 02, 2006 07:12 AM (x8jWk)
Posted by: Shawn Harmon at March 02, 2006 09:44 AM (5q0zI)
12
I have little confidence in this idea that we are in a worldwide conflict with a monolith Islamic foe. Indeed, Al Quaeda taken as a whole, seems little different to me than the Cocaine Drug Lords of the 1980s. If we learned anything from that "war on drugs" it was that it was a combination of tactics--not the least of which was reducing the demand for drugs through education, coupled with aggressive law enforcement and international cooperation--that reduced that problem down to manageable proportions.
I see similarities in the controversy we are having today over what to do about terrorism. It is notable that the main success stories against terrorism have been in Spain, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia and Britain where aggressive law enforcement, efficient and timely intelligence and legal systems have had far more impact than preemptive military actions.
Indeed, it seems that military action only increases terrorism. It is clear to me that, as it is becoming increasingly clear to top neoconservative theorists like Buckley and Fukuyama, that the so-called transformational theories that underpin the failed Bush Doctrine were way oversold. As Buckey has recently noted, our Iraq experience is a failure, and Fukuyama--a founder of many of the neoconservative tenets of the Bush Doctrine--has come out of the closet and confessed that his theories were grounded in overly optimistic assumptions about the culture of the Middle East.
I see similarities in the controversy we are having today over what to do about terrorism. It is notable that the main success stories against terrorism have been in Spain, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia and Britain where aggressive law enforcement, efficient and timely intelligence and legal systems have had far more impact than preemptive military actions.
Indeed, it seems that military action only increases terrorism. It is clear to me that, as it is becoming increasingly clear to top neoconservative theorists like Buckley and Fukuyama, that the so-called transformational theories that underpin the failed Bush Doctrine were way oversold. As Buckey has recently noted, our Iraq experience is a failure, and Fukuyama--a founder of many of the neoconservative tenets of the Bush Doctrine--has come out of the closet and confessed that his theories were grounded in overly optimistic assumptions about the culture of the Middle East.
Posted by: Jaxas at March 02, 2006 10:12 AM (yIawy)
13
No less a literary light and foreign policy gury than Robert Kaplan of the American Enterprise Institute, is making the case on the Washington Post op-ed page this morning that what you amusingly refer to on this blog as a "persistent vegetative state"--your definition of liberalism--is precisely the direction that Bush is being forced toward as he sees one by one all of the flawed groundstones of neoconservative theory on foreign policy, crumble into the dust they were composed of in the first place.
Posted by: Jaxas at March 02, 2006 10:19 AM (yIawy)
14
I agree with Old Soldier, "Islam must change or face extinction". The terrorist attacks are out of desperation; who in the year 2006 wants to regress to the year 630? What has always mystified me is that there aren't any innovations that I can connect to the Muslim world. They arm themselves with rifles designed by a Russian, and made in China, the populations of both countries hardly being co-religionists!
Posted by: Tom TB at March 02, 2006 10:30 AM (wZLWV)
15
It really would not hurt for some of the anti-"Islamism" crowd (I'm still not sure what that word means) would read a book on strategy. We do nothing for our "war on terror" by conflating violent Islam with all of Islam. It seems willful ignorance to me to not admit that Islam is a religion with a following of over 1 billion people, spread all over the world, many of whom come from very different backgrounds. Would anyone argue that a Nigerian Catholic is the same as an American Baptist? Hardly. "Islam" does not need to "change or face extinction", because there is no mono-lithic "Islam." By simply assuming that most or all Muslims are sympathetic to and underastanding of Muslim terrorists is to give the terrorists more power than they deserve. Our strategy should be to discredit and marginalize them, and treat them merely as a criminal element. To treat them as a threat to our security worthy of the marshalling of our entire armed forces, a diminishment of our essential liberties, pre-emptive invasion of other nations and the hostility of the world in general, we're only given them more power and diminishing our own. To me this seems basic strategy, and yet there are those who seem unable or unwilling to comprehend this.
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at March 02, 2006 10:41 AM (018Z+)
16
TomTB, It is precisely statements like" "Islam must change or face extinction", that drive young, impressionable Islamic men to the ramparts of more extremist Islamic beliefs. Islam is a major world religion and the vast majority of that religion--like their Christian or Jewish counterparts--are moderate and peaceful.
That does not mean that they don't share a certain distrust and suspicion of the West owing to the dark history of the Crusades. But, their reaction to the forces of secularism is not all that different from the same dillemmas that affect Christians and Jews in the face of rapid scientific and technological developments that challenge the very fundament of faith and religion itself.
I suspect that all people of faith are going to have to change as their faith in certain beliefs about the age, nature and creation of the cosmos is upheavled by the discoveries of science. After all, we once believed with great certitude that the earth was the center of the Universe and had been created literally by the hand of God some 6,000 years ago. That belief--save for a few buffoonish fundamentalists and Biblical literalists of all faiths--is no longer considered tenable.
Thus, I would say that the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world are in just as much danger of extinction unless they change as well.
That does not mean that they don't share a certain distrust and suspicion of the West owing to the dark history of the Crusades. But, their reaction to the forces of secularism is not all that different from the same dillemmas that affect Christians and Jews in the face of rapid scientific and technological developments that challenge the very fundament of faith and religion itself.
I suspect that all people of faith are going to have to change as their faith in certain beliefs about the age, nature and creation of the cosmos is upheavled by the discoveries of science. After all, we once believed with great certitude that the earth was the center of the Universe and had been created literally by the hand of God some 6,000 years ago. That belief--save for a few buffoonish fundamentalists and Biblical literalists of all faiths--is no longer considered tenable.
Thus, I would say that the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world are in just as much danger of extinction unless they change as well.
Posted by: Jaxas at March 02, 2006 10:45 AM (yIawy)
17
Jaxas,
Some interesting thoughts, but let me correct you on a few misconceptions.
First, William F. Buckley, while a leading conservative, is not a neo-conservative. I understand he is more of a foreign policy realist, and realists, in general do not believe in projecting power towards transformational efforts. Fukuyama may have been a neoconservative at some point, but the flip-flopper who called for the invasion of Iraq is hasn’t been what I would call a neo-conservative since about 2003. He has announced the end of history and the end of neo-conservatism, both of which will likely outlast him.
I also think that history will show that Bush’s overall transformative foreign policy is sound, if not immediate. The Taliban in Afghanistan were deposed, Saddam has been brought down in Iraq, and after two successful elections are working toward self rule while proving they are increasingly able to handle their own security as they have since last week's attempt to start a civil war have failed. Iraqi and Syria has been cast out of Lebanon. Regimes in Syria and Iran are teetering on the brink of revolt, and other Arab nations are openly at war with radical Islam.
Your solution to terrorism is what, exactly?
To do nothing, or treat a transnational theo-fascist political movement as a criminal enterprise, a philosophy that has only allowed terrorists networks to confidently grow and expand since at least the Ford Administration, through Democrats and Republicans alike?
You would treat a cancer by ignoring it, or by occasionally snipping off a few cells here and there while it metastasizes elsewhere in the body.
If you want to show me something better and more effective at combating terrorism than the neo-conservative transformational strategy, by all means, go ahead. If it seems viable, I’ll be among your most ardent supporters.
But don’t be an empty critic that pillories those attempting to solve a problem if you can’t propose a working solution, which is something that liberals—not true liberals of course, but those who have appropriated the name—have been completely unable to do since they took over the Democratic Party.
Running away from the problem is not a solution.
Some interesting thoughts, but let me correct you on a few misconceptions.
First, William F. Buckley, while a leading conservative, is not a neo-conservative. I understand he is more of a foreign policy realist, and realists, in general do not believe in projecting power towards transformational efforts. Fukuyama may have been a neoconservative at some point, but the flip-flopper who called for the invasion of Iraq is hasn’t been what I would call a neo-conservative since about 2003. He has announced the end of history and the end of neo-conservatism, both of which will likely outlast him.
I also think that history will show that Bush’s overall transformative foreign policy is sound, if not immediate. The Taliban in Afghanistan were deposed, Saddam has been brought down in Iraq, and after two successful elections are working toward self rule while proving they are increasingly able to handle their own security as they have since last week's attempt to start a civil war have failed. Iraqi and Syria has been cast out of Lebanon. Regimes in Syria and Iran are teetering on the brink of revolt, and other Arab nations are openly at war with radical Islam.
Your solution to terrorism is what, exactly?
To do nothing, or treat a transnational theo-fascist political movement as a criminal enterprise, a philosophy that has only allowed terrorists networks to confidently grow and expand since at least the Ford Administration, through Democrats and Republicans alike?
You would treat a cancer by ignoring it, or by occasionally snipping off a few cells here and there while it metastasizes elsewhere in the body.
If you want to show me something better and more effective at combating terrorism than the neo-conservative transformational strategy, by all means, go ahead. If it seems viable, I’ll be among your most ardent supporters.
But don’t be an empty critic that pillories those attempting to solve a problem if you can’t propose a working solution, which is something that liberals—not true liberals of course, but those who have appropriated the name—have been completely unable to do since they took over the Democratic Party.
Running away from the problem is not a solution.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2006 11:13 AM (g5Nba)
18
Jaxas, the difference is that Christians and Jews don't face a certain part of the globe when they pray five times a day, and wish death upon anyone else when their holy site is "desecrated" in their minds, when a non-believer visits. I don't understand why the American left stands up for women's rights, and the right to publish any cartoon, no matter how tasteless, but then caves when it involves Islam!
Posted by: Tom TB at March 02, 2006 11:26 AM (wZLWV)
19
To European and Babs -
david kay and charles duelfer BOTH TESTIFIED that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441 - and all preceding relevant UNSCR's which functioned as the armistice for the Gulf War.
that's a fact - THE TRUTH - and regardless of whether there were WMD stockpiles or not.
IN FACT: inspectors were meant ONLY TO AUDIT the full and final declaration by Saddam as mandated by UNSCR#1441.
IN FACT: inspoectors were NEVER supposed to functiion as detectives searching for WMD.
IN FACT Saddam filed a FALSE AND INCOMPLETE FINAL DISCLOSURE and this alone was a "casus belli."
WHY?! Becasue a mendacious final report coun't ever lead to a full and final audit.
THEREFORE: your opinion that Blix was right is INSANE and WRONG.
Saddam violated the armistice; therefore a state of war AUTIOMATICALLY existed.
I shouldn't have to remind ANYONE that deals with genocidal TYRANTS aren't worth the paper they are written on.
People who defend Saddam are scum.
david kay and charles duelfer BOTH TESTIFIED that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441 - and all preceding relevant UNSCR's which functioned as the armistice for the Gulf War.
that's a fact - THE TRUTH - and regardless of whether there were WMD stockpiles or not.
IN FACT: inspectors were meant ONLY TO AUDIT the full and final declaration by Saddam as mandated by UNSCR#1441.
IN FACT: inspoectors were NEVER supposed to functiion as detectives searching for WMD.
IN FACT Saddam filed a FALSE AND INCOMPLETE FINAL DISCLOSURE and this alone was a "casus belli."
WHY?! Becasue a mendacious final report coun't ever lead to a full and final audit.
THEREFORE: your opinion that Blix was right is INSANE and WRONG.
Saddam violated the armistice; therefore a state of war AUTIOMATICALLY existed.
I shouldn't have to remind ANYONE that deals with genocidal TYRANTS aren't worth the paper they are written on.
People who defend Saddam are scum.
Posted by: reliapundit at March 02, 2006 11:40 AM (vqJMx)
20
Many of you here seem to take a benign view of Islam, and try to separate the extremists from the multitudes.
This defies the polling data, which demonstrate the deep-seated an d widespread support of terrorism and antagonism toward the West.
It may be based on the enormity of the problem which confronts the West, once the antipathy and belligerence of Islam is fully comprehended.
The theocratic precepts of enmity toward those outside the faith of Islam, and a duty to convert or subordinate them by the sword is set forth and has been acted upon repeatedly. but the rejoinder of the Westerners is incomprehension, and as with Hitler, they respond, "They can't REALLY mean that.
Here is a recitation of Islamic doctrine based on the Koran.
"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).
This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.
But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice." http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
We may be playing the role of the three monk,eys, "See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil." But the evil intent and actions of Islam in pursuit of such goals, nevertheless does exist.
This defies the polling data, which demonstrate the deep-seated an d widespread support of terrorism and antagonism toward the West.
It may be based on the enormity of the problem which confronts the West, once the antipathy and belligerence of Islam is fully comprehended.
The theocratic precepts of enmity toward those outside the faith of Islam, and a duty to convert or subordinate them by the sword is set forth and has been acted upon repeatedly. but the rejoinder of the Westerners is incomprehension, and as with Hitler, they respond, "They can't REALLY mean that.
Here is a recitation of Islamic doctrine based on the Koran.
"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).
This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.
But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice." http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
We may be playing the role of the three monk,eys, "See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil." But the evil intent and actions of Islam in pursuit of such goals, nevertheless does exist.
Posted by: Hassan at March 02, 2006 01:55 PM (0kGop)
21
I wholeheartedly agree with the letter signed by Rushdi, Lévy, et. al.
However, I think that all religion aside, people keep on bending over backwards in order to justify anything Bush does. This from users of this forum who urge others to think critically, while they rationalize even lies and threats on the part of the administration
On the other hand, it is undeniable that there is a significant number of muslim radicals who are willing to inflict harm on innocent people in order to "make a point". I don't presume to know their motivation and I don't know what the best way to deal with those people is, but I am sure it is not by attacking Americans who disagree with your policies; I am sure it's not by curtailing the freedoms you say you protect; and I am sure it is not by lying. Those who blindly support Bush seem to have forgotten how they were pulling their hair out when Clinton lied.
I think that the point of view on both sides is "I think critically, you don't". The truth is that when you start off like that, you already disproved your assertion.
One thing that cannot be denied, I believe, is that almost never before had our country been so divided. And all because of one guy.
So, even if none of you want to do it publicly, in this forum or elsewhere, take a step back and think critically about these issues you care so much about. However, the most important exercise is TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT ONSELF AND ONE'S IDEAS. And this by the way is a never-ending process, not a one-time event.
P.S. The really ironic part of this thread is that the letter is certainly no glowing endorsement of Bush; even a cursory reading will reveal this to you. Furthermore, most of the signatories are liberal humanists that have, at one point or another, condemned the Bush doctrine, the same way they condemn radical Islam. This is a common mistake that is made when people think in terms of black and white - they can only conceive of two sides, and it seems impossible to them that there might be more than one point of view.
However, I think that all religion aside, people keep on bending over backwards in order to justify anything Bush does. This from users of this forum who urge others to think critically, while they rationalize even lies and threats on the part of the administration
On the other hand, it is undeniable that there is a significant number of muslim radicals who are willing to inflict harm on innocent people in order to "make a point". I don't presume to know their motivation and I don't know what the best way to deal with those people is, but I am sure it is not by attacking Americans who disagree with your policies; I am sure it's not by curtailing the freedoms you say you protect; and I am sure it is not by lying. Those who blindly support Bush seem to have forgotten how they were pulling their hair out when Clinton lied.
I think that the point of view on both sides is "I think critically, you don't". The truth is that when you start off like that, you already disproved your assertion.
One thing that cannot be denied, I believe, is that almost never before had our country been so divided. And all because of one guy.
So, even if none of you want to do it publicly, in this forum or elsewhere, take a step back and think critically about these issues you care so much about. However, the most important exercise is TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT ONSELF AND ONE'S IDEAS. And this by the way is a never-ending process, not a one-time event.
P.S. The really ironic part of this thread is that the letter is certainly no glowing endorsement of Bush; even a cursory reading will reveal this to you. Furthermore, most of the signatories are liberal humanists that have, at one point or another, condemned the Bush doctrine, the same way they condemn radical Islam. This is a common mistake that is made when people think in terms of black and white - they can only conceive of two sides, and it seems impossible to them that there might be more than one point of view.
Posted by: R. Mendoza at March 04, 2006 03:16 AM (0KEL4)
22
R. Mendoza, I appreciate your attitude but take issue with some of your statements. You write
"Those who blindly support Bush seem to have forgotten how they were pulling their hair out when Clinton lied." This is irrelevant.
Many of us support policies beyond those undertaken by Mr. Bush and criticize him on many matters such as his inordinate restraint. We do not "support" him, but we criticize him for the insufficient number of troops initially committed to sustaining order in Iraq, permitting the initial lawlessness which led to the establishment of militias, becoming involved with the Byzantine machinations in the region, and much else.
We criticize him for compromising by not killing al-Sadr and annihilating his militia when we were engaged in combat with those forces. They have returned to haunt us.
We need to concentrate on the problems, not the personalities. Whatever inadequacies Mr. Clinton manifested are history, and we need to refocus.
You write that "... I don't presume to know their [Muslim radicals] motivation and I don't know what the best way to deal with those people is, but I am sure it is not by attacking Americans who disagree with your policies ..."
Some of us consider the objections to use of instruments such as eavesdropping to identify and interdict operations of those intending to harm us as enabling attacks that would harm American people.
Whatever the pretext, the results are unacceptable. Many of us view the naivete of these groups as fostering a situation inimicable to the welfare of the people of this country, whatever the motivation. These people are adrift, consumed by abstractions and ignore the reality of the threat. We should not use our system to permit people to have us commit assisted suicide. We are "on edge" as we view the matter as a threatening and life or death situation, and we do not want our lives and property and well-being sacrificed to sustain ritualistic behavior based on abstract concerns.
These "objectors" are acting contrary to our interests in a situation in which we are in mortal peril.
Parenthetically, you equate a letter signed by liberal humanists criticizing Mr. Bush (of whom I am probably more critical but for other reasons) with their criticism of radical Islam.
This moral equivalency does not seem rational. But aside from that, it does not note that we are a factor in this equation, and that our place and our interests should affect our positions. We are not detached observers, but participants with interests.
"Those who blindly support Bush seem to have forgotten how they were pulling their hair out when Clinton lied." This is irrelevant.
Many of us support policies beyond those undertaken by Mr. Bush and criticize him on many matters such as his inordinate restraint. We do not "support" him, but we criticize him for the insufficient number of troops initially committed to sustaining order in Iraq, permitting the initial lawlessness which led to the establishment of militias, becoming involved with the Byzantine machinations in the region, and much else.
We criticize him for compromising by not killing al-Sadr and annihilating his militia when we were engaged in combat with those forces. They have returned to haunt us.
We need to concentrate on the problems, not the personalities. Whatever inadequacies Mr. Clinton manifested are history, and we need to refocus.
You write that "... I don't presume to know their [Muslim radicals] motivation and I don't know what the best way to deal with those people is, but I am sure it is not by attacking Americans who disagree with your policies ..."
Some of us consider the objections to use of instruments such as eavesdropping to identify and interdict operations of those intending to harm us as enabling attacks that would harm American people.
Whatever the pretext, the results are unacceptable. Many of us view the naivete of these groups as fostering a situation inimicable to the welfare of the people of this country, whatever the motivation. These people are adrift, consumed by abstractions and ignore the reality of the threat. We should not use our system to permit people to have us commit assisted suicide. We are "on edge" as we view the matter as a threatening and life or death situation, and we do not want our lives and property and well-being sacrificed to sustain ritualistic behavior based on abstract concerns.
These "objectors" are acting contrary to our interests in a situation in which we are in mortal peril.
Parenthetically, you equate a letter signed by liberal humanists criticizing Mr. Bush (of whom I am probably more critical but for other reasons) with their criticism of radical Islam.
This moral equivalency does not seem rational. But aside from that, it does not note that we are a factor in this equation, and that our place and our interests should affect our positions. We are not detached observers, but participants with interests.
Posted by: hassan at March 05, 2006 01:09 AM (0kGop)
February 28, 2006
Not Quite War
Scattered, sometimes intense sectarian fighting broke out last week in the wake of the destruction of the Askariya shrine (also known as the Golden Mosque) in Samarra at the hands of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. While the fighting appears to have abated, the Washington Post is now reporting that officials at the main Baghdad morgue put the toll at more than 1,300 dead. This is more than three times previous estimates, and should prove sobering to both those who would brush this off as a minor hurdle already overcome.
While the loss of life is tragic, the series of skirmishes and ambushes of the past few days in Iraqi are far from the "civil war" many news outlets and pundits were all too eager to declare. Civil wars tend to end with catastrophic losses and destroyed cultures after prolonged, drawn-out conflicts. This was decidedly not a civil war, but more than a riot. It was a "not quite" war where the best planning of al Qaeda and the most emotionally charged of targets failed to ignite an escalating conflagration that would spiral out of control. Instead, al Qaeda is faced with the Golden Mosque strike that was a tactical success, which may yet turn into a strategic defeat. Terrorists succeeded in initiating a short-term sectarian struggle that while intense, lasted mere days. The conflict ended with Sunni and Kurdish leaders pledging money and support to rebuild a Shia shrine. It drove politicians together for the good of all their peoples and a shared if not completely agreed-upon future. The surprising number of dead may even force the Iraqi government to address the growing concern of religious militias and rogue interior Ministry forces that seem to have been responsible for the bulk of the reprisal killings in Iraq. It was not quite war, but close enough to one, hopefully, that it forces sober thought to overcome bluster, and perhaps hard lessons will be learned.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:40 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Since the former MSM is no longer a viable news organization they are left with manufacturing stories and presenting them as fact. They assume (and rightly so in about 50% of the population) that the American people are too stupid to find out the truth (most wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the a**) As a former democrat I can't understand why they are still falling hook, line and sinker for the lies, and it's sad they they agree with the lies and back the liars strickly for political purposes. They then wonder why their children turn out to be liars, thieves, druggies and murder's. Hey people, they watched you and only expanded 'a little' on your life style. I'm listening to a police scanner right now (3 AM) and one of the rabid left wing radicals ( I know them personaly)childred are being arrested and a background check shows wants and warrents all over the east coast. Assult, robbery, drugs and booze arrest everywhere they've been. I also know their parents have been more concerned (lying, cheating) with 'getting radical left wingers elected' than taking care of their children. I think they just got caught, attempted robbery, in the wrong county, and will pull several years at taxpayer expense in the steel bar hotel. If the lefties keep it up their children will flood the prisons and the taxpayers won't be able to afford it. Maybe every prison will be forced to become like the one in Az., make them all wear pink clothes and feed them one bologna sandwich a day.
Posted by: scrapiron at February 28, 2006 03:15 AM (y6n8O)
2
You've got quite a learned following here in your comments section. I can see why the Washington Post would want to foist you and the likes of scrapiron on its online audience.
What makes you think al Qaeda had anything to do with blowing up the golden dome? And what do you think "the Iraqi government" can possibly do about rogue religious and other militias? Do you really believe that these sectarian rifts can be healed through "sober thought"?
Now I need to get back to my police scanner. It's how I keep track of my children.
What makes you think al Qaeda had anything to do with blowing up the golden dome? And what do you think "the Iraqi government" can possibly do about rogue religious and other militias? Do you really believe that these sectarian rifts can be healed through "sober thought"?
Now I need to get back to my police scanner. It's how I keep track of my children.
Posted by: ahab at February 28, 2006 10:29 AM (fSLIT)
3
Scrapiron, I have never heard such rubbish in my life. True, the media often tracks off after some trivial, irrelevant story that has little bearing on our national life. But look, mostly they simply cover the events of the day as they happen. It isn't the media's fault that George W. Bush and his obsequeious supporters have gotten pretty much everything wrong. It isn't the media's fault that there were no WMD. It isn't the media's fault that Bush didn't have a clue as to what he and his FEMA repres were supposed to do when Katrina hit. It isn't the media's fault that Bush appoints so many incompetent buffoons who have no experience in the agencies they are supposed to be leading. It isn't the media's fault that Bush nor Cheney seem to have the courage to face the American people and explain themselves when so much goes so wrong in their administration.
The media didn't appoint Harriet Meyers. The mdis didn't accidentally shoot a man in a hunting accident then clam up about it promoting the idea that there was something to hide. The media didn't bribe a partisan right wing columnists and talk show host to write favorable articles about its activities and disguise it as news. It wasn't the media who knowingly used flawed intelligence to sell a war that nobody now supports.
Noooo, scrapiron. You can't just dismiss the glaring incompetence of this administration by claiming its a media conspiracy. The same CBS poll that had Bush's approval rating in the 70% range in 2002, now has him at 34%. They are simply reporting what the American people now believe about this failed Presidency.
Don't take my word for it or the media's. Just ask William F. Buckley. Or do you think he is in on the conspiracy?
The media didn't appoint Harriet Meyers. The mdis didn't accidentally shoot a man in a hunting accident then clam up about it promoting the idea that there was something to hide. The media didn't bribe a partisan right wing columnists and talk show host to write favorable articles about its activities and disguise it as news. It wasn't the media who knowingly used flawed intelligence to sell a war that nobody now supports.
Noooo, scrapiron. You can't just dismiss the glaring incompetence of this administration by claiming its a media conspiracy. The same CBS poll that had Bush's approval rating in the 70% range in 2002, now has him at 34%. They are simply reporting what the American people now believe about this failed Presidency.
Don't take my word for it or the media's. Just ask William F. Buckley. Or do you think he is in on the conspiracy?
Posted by: Jaxas at February 28, 2006 10:36 AM (9Io4v)
4
In this age of instant information where are the 12 mosque bombers who were reportedly captured?
Why is their nationalitiy or affiliations not pasted over every internet site.
Better still where is the demand to see them?
Who is benefitting from this silence?
Why is their nationalitiy or affiliations not pasted over every internet site.
Better still where is the demand to see them?
Who is benefitting from this silence?
Posted by: bob at February 28, 2006 10:59 AM (6uSwH)
5
The Al-Qaaqa Munitions Dump which held 380 tons of RDX "plastique" explosives, was reported as "Secure and Locked" by the UN weapons inspectors only a few weeks before the invasion. By the time the Coalition Forces got around to checking on it, the doors were wide open and the contents missing.
Maybe better planning in 2003 would have included the securing of these munition dumps. "You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy."
Maybe better planning in 2003 would have included the securing of these munition dumps. "You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy."
Posted by: Jeff Moskin at February 28, 2006 11:02 AM (DyWR/)
6
can someone tell me why so many Americans are drop-dead stupid morons?
and why these morons piss and moan about the corporate media when they dont tell the 'story' the way they'd like?
Bush and Putin arent the only anti-democratic leaders, just the biggest
America=suckers
and why these morons piss and moan about the corporate media when they dont tell the 'story' the way they'd like?
Bush and Putin arent the only anti-democratic leaders, just the biggest
America=suckers
Posted by: daver at February 28, 2006 11:46 AM (SAwM/)
7
Al-Qaeda? Who says its Al-Qaeda? Where's the link?
Fact is, the entire insurgency, including the bombings targeting innocent civilians, is completely controlled by the Sunni leadership. As shown in the last election, they turn it on and off like a faucet. Perhaps they tolerate the foreign murderers in their midst as useful idiots, but the violence itself is a Sunni political tool.
It's horrible to see the sectarian killings going on in Iraq, but seeing the Shi'a finally say enough is enough and start striking back with equal force may be what it takes to get the Sunni to stop acting like monsters.
Fact is, the entire insurgency, including the bombings targeting innocent civilians, is completely controlled by the Sunni leadership. As shown in the last election, they turn it on and off like a faucet. Perhaps they tolerate the foreign murderers in their midst as useful idiots, but the violence itself is a Sunni political tool.
It's horrible to see the sectarian killings going on in Iraq, but seeing the Shi'a finally say enough is enough and start striking back with equal force may be what it takes to get the Sunni to stop acting like monsters.
Posted by: Zakariah at February 28, 2006 11:48 AM (oI37n)
8
hey Zak, why dont you go to baghdad and tell the Shi'a to empower themselves and go and kill/bomb/murder to 'stop' the Sunni (from acting like monsters)
what are you... George Bush?
what are you... George Bush?
Posted by: daver at February 28, 2006 12:00 PM (SAwM/)
9
To answer the questions asked above about al-Qeada's involvement:
Iraqi authorities have arrested 10 people linked to Al-Qaeda, including four guards, in connection with last week`s bombing of a revered Shiite shrine, a senior official said Tuesday.
"The investigation allows us to be certain that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for the attack," Iraq`s national security adviser Muwaffaq Rubaie told reporters.
"We have arrested four policemen who were responsible for guarding the mausoleum, along with six other people," he said.
"All are linked to the bombing" of the golden-domed shrine in Samarra, northern Iraq, he said after talks with top Shiite religious leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani in the holy city of Najaf.
The shrine`s dome was destroyed by powerful explosions on February 22, in an attack that led to widespread retaliatory attacks on the minority Sunni community.
So, just the country's national security advisor, nobody that would meet your high standards.
Iraqi authorities have arrested 10 people linked to Al-Qaeda, including four guards, in connection with last week`s bombing of a revered Shiite shrine, a senior official said Tuesday.
"The investigation allows us to be certain that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for the attack," Iraq`s national security adviser Muwaffaq Rubaie told reporters.
"We have arrested four policemen who were responsible for guarding the mausoleum, along with six other people," he said.
"All are linked to the bombing" of the golden-domed shrine in Samarra, northern Iraq, he said after talks with top Shiite religious leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani in the holy city of Najaf.
The shrine`s dome was destroyed by powerful explosions on February 22, in an attack that led to widespread retaliatory attacks on the minority Sunni community.
So, just the country's national security advisor, nobody that would meet your high standards.
Posted by: Justin Case at February 28, 2006 12:02 PM (g5Nba)
10
To quote Butch Cassidy, "Who are these guys?".
Killing by any name; war, civil war, sectarian war, is still killing. And this killing has occured since King George decided, in his infinite petro-wisdom, to invade a country based on faulty intelligence.
Confederate Yankee, what an oxymoron!
Killing by any name; war, civil war, sectarian war, is still killing. And this killing has occured since King George decided, in his infinite petro-wisdom, to invade a country based on faulty intelligence.
Confederate Yankee, what an oxymoron!
Posted by: w halstead at February 28, 2006 12:05 PM (r81GJ)
11
There are those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who do not see. The third group resides at the Old Exec, Heritage and the AEI.
This war was lost years ago.
There are those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who do not see. The third group resides at the Old Exec, Heritage and the AEI.
This war was lost years ago.
Posted by: chefrad at February 28, 2006 12:06 PM (aDFHl)
12
A war against an insurgency is one that the US Army can attempt to fight and conceivably delegate to homegrown security forces, but a war between militias will mark a watershed in the conflict. It will render US forces impotent -- unless, that is, they unambiguously take sides. The suggestion that they should do so is increasingly being voiced, though given the inevitable boost in US casualties that would ensue, it hardly seems like a credible option.
So far, the Lebanonization of the war is incomplete in as much as while Shia and Kurdish militias/government forces are arrayed on one side, they have thus far only been opposed by a loose mix of Sunni insurgents with diverse affiliations. Yet now the required conditions for full-blown civil war appear to be coalescing. (more...)
So far, the Lebanonization of the war is incomplete in as much as while Shia and Kurdish militias/government forces are arrayed on one side, they have thus far only been opposed by a loose mix of Sunni insurgents with diverse affiliations. Yet now the required conditions for full-blown civil war appear to be coalescing. (more...)
Posted by: Paul Woodward at February 28, 2006 12:12 PM (dREWK)
13
i have an idea...
why dont all the war-lovers suit up and get your lame asses over to iraq to assist in your war.
bleating on (in support) about it from the sidelines makes you all look quite cowardly
...like your leaders
why dont all the war-lovers suit up and get your lame asses over to iraq to assist in your war.
bleating on (in support) about it from the sidelines makes you all look quite cowardly
...like your leaders
Posted by: daver at February 28, 2006 12:12 PM (SAwM/)
14
Nice to see that you clueless buttheads still think there's a war on rather than your fear-inducing leader herding the sheep so that his familiy and friends make their profits while you Bruce Willis wannabes swim around like tadpoles in your testosterone pools...
I think all of the pro-war people should be over there carrying a gun....
thanks for your support, I ain't your fool, you're george's and put your feet in the land of sand if you think we're the for the right reason and give us a cleaner gene pool........
kay?
I think all of the pro-war people should be over there carrying a gun....
thanks for your support, I ain't your fool, you're george's and put your feet in the land of sand if you think we're the for the right reason and give us a cleaner gene pool........
kay?
Posted by: the big man at February 28, 2006 12:13 PM (3qnqE)
Posted by: daver at February 28, 2006 12:17 PM (SAwM/)
16
War is a terrible thing; innocents are maimed and killed. That's what war is; it's not about two armies facing off on a field of honor and never was. And wars tend to grow beyond the control of those who start them. That's why starting a war should not be done lightly.
But the people caught up in a war have to deal with the situation as it is. As Americans are clearly not able to shape reality in Iraq any more, the people of that country have no choice but to do it themselves. It's not war-mongering on my part to say that the Shi'a and Sunni can only come to terms when they both realize the other side will not knuckle under to the kind of criminal abuse that the Sunni used for the last three decades to stay in power. Mutually respectful, and armed, factions in Iraq coming to some kind of detente based on mutually assured destruction should either violates the truce is probably the best hope for peace at this moment, unless Donald suddenly finds another 500,000 troops to put in.
But the people caught up in a war have to deal with the situation as it is. As Americans are clearly not able to shape reality in Iraq any more, the people of that country have no choice but to do it themselves. It's not war-mongering on my part to say that the Shi'a and Sunni can only come to terms when they both realize the other side will not knuckle under to the kind of criminal abuse that the Sunni used for the last three decades to stay in power. Mutually respectful, and armed, factions in Iraq coming to some kind of detente based on mutually assured destruction should either violates the truce is probably the best hope for peace at this moment, unless Donald suddenly finds another 500,000 troops to put in.
Posted by: Zakariah at February 28, 2006 12:23 PM (oI37n)
17
His Imperial Highness Bushy Chimphitlerburton concocted a war with his pal Osama to murder Cindy Sheehan's son for free oil and Bruce Willis movies.
Does that about sum up your argument?
Does that about sum up your argument?
Posted by: Deep at February 28, 2006 12:24 PM (g5Nba)
18
Well, this War in Iraq is not quite a war.
This operation in Iraq is an occupation. The war phase was over when the armies were defeated, the capital was taken, and the government was overthrown (dare I say, "Mission Accomplished!"). What was that, about 3 weeks into the whole shebang? Since then we've been nation-building - transforming a nation politically, socially and economically and we've been asking our military to do it all.
And on top of that, this war in Iraq takes no "prisoners of war" nor does it have a declaration. I know, I know, these points are a little nit-picky, with the numerous, similar deviations from the intent of the Constitution over the years. But they're worth pointing out in response to the above nit-picky bit of writing.
I hope your taste for making distinctions isn't limited to the usual "liberal media" whining that it appears to be. Did the media make up 1,300 dead? Did the media make up that we have lost control of over 50% of Iraq and only control about 50% of Baghdad?
This liberal media crutch, on which you all rely so heavily, is getting kicked out from under you. Perhaps things in Iraq aren't as rosy as Fox News and right-wing soccer moms around the country like to pretend. Sorry...I've said too much. Baby steps.
Is there a sequel to this scribble?
This operation in Iraq is an occupation. The war phase was over when the armies were defeated, the capital was taken, and the government was overthrown (dare I say, "Mission Accomplished!"). What was that, about 3 weeks into the whole shebang? Since then we've been nation-building - transforming a nation politically, socially and economically and we've been asking our military to do it all.
And on top of that, this war in Iraq takes no "prisoners of war" nor does it have a declaration. I know, I know, these points are a little nit-picky, with the numerous, similar deviations from the intent of the Constitution over the years. But they're worth pointing out in response to the above nit-picky bit of writing.
I hope your taste for making distinctions isn't limited to the usual "liberal media" whining that it appears to be. Did the media make up 1,300 dead? Did the media make up that we have lost control of over 50% of Iraq and only control about 50% of Baghdad?
This liberal media crutch, on which you all rely so heavily, is getting kicked out from under you. Perhaps things in Iraq aren't as rosy as Fox News and right-wing soccer moms around the country like to pretend. Sorry...I've said too much. Baby steps.
Is there a sequel to this scribble?
Posted by: Sr. Bojangles at February 28, 2006 12:30 PM (3UCdf)
19
once again, Zakariah, suit up or shut up.
the "people caught up in this war" -the Americans, should commit, and do EVERYTHING it takes to end the war, or get comfy with the fact that Amerika is the fat, bad, corrupt, evil power that it is, and folks from all over the world (who arent fucked-up Conservatives) will justifiably view it as that
the "people caught up in this war" -the Americans, should commit, and do EVERYTHING it takes to end the war, or get comfy with the fact that Amerika is the fat, bad, corrupt, evil power that it is, and folks from all over the world (who arent fucked-up Conservatives) will justifiably view it as that
Posted by: daver at February 28, 2006 12:33 PM (SAwM/)
20
Well Well Well, I love all this and being I have been on the ground and still support the war hole heartedly now what is your arguement. What is happening in Iraq is really no different than what happened right here on our soil a little over 200 years ago. Each person wants to be heard and they are making there statement the only way they know how to. As far as th einsurgency yes they are behind this comeon who does it benefit the most if we fail the terrorists or us?
Posted by: 81 at February 28, 2006 12:40 PM (Mv/2X)
21
Sr. Bojangles said:
Did the media make up 1,300 dead? Did the media make up that we have lost control of over 50% of Iraq and only control about 50% of Baghdad?
They didn't make it up, but apparently, their source was wrong:
An Iraqi government spokesman said Tuesday that 379 people have died and 458 others have been wounded since Wednesday's bombing of the gold-domed Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad.
The head of Baghdad's morgue said 246 bodies have been brought to the facility, 53 people have been killed in nearby Baquba and dozens more have died in other Iraqi cities.
He disputed newspaper reports that put the death total at a much higher figure during the same time.
I'd be interested in seeing your source that says we have lost control "of over 50% of Iraq and only control about 50% of Baghdad."
That assessment seems to run counter to the kind of experiences Iraqi bloggers on the ground report, and the MSM's reporting as well.
Did the media make up 1,300 dead? Did the media make up that we have lost control of over 50% of Iraq and only control about 50% of Baghdad?
They didn't make it up, but apparently, their source was wrong:
An Iraqi government spokesman said Tuesday that 379 people have died and 458 others have been wounded since Wednesday's bombing of the gold-domed Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad.
The head of Baghdad's morgue said 246 bodies have been brought to the facility, 53 people have been killed in nearby Baquba and dozens more have died in other Iraqi cities.
He disputed newspaper reports that put the death total at a much higher figure during the same time.
I'd be interested in seeing your source that says we have lost control "of over 50% of Iraq and only control about 50% of Baghdad."
That assessment seems to run counter to the kind of experiences Iraqi bloggers on the ground report, and the MSM's reporting as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2006 12:43 PM (g5Nba)
22
i confused as usual. are you saying it is not a civil war because it hasnt ended with great losses and suffering like a civil war should.
or did someone edit your thought. i agree with your point, i am just stumbling on the connection between comparing a start with a finish. thanks for the great blog. (everyday)
or did someone edit your thought. i agree with your point, i am just stumbling on the connection between comparing a start with a finish. thanks for the great blog. (everyday)
Posted by: jackson80 at February 28, 2006 12:53 PM (FdYxb)
23
Daver,
You may be an intelligent, nuanced think; but your postings are nothing but an incoherent scream. Do you have any solutions to offer, or just more "you suck, he sucks, you all suck" ranting?
Just curious.
And yes, Justin Case is right--Al-Qaeda is in Iraq now. But it still seems true that they operate their only by the consent and cooperation of the distressed Sunni community who sees them as useful idiots to deploy as tools in the short-term. Al-Qaeda's longterm political aims would seem antithetical to Iraqi Sunni's history of secularism.
You may be an intelligent, nuanced think; but your postings are nothing but an incoherent scream. Do you have any solutions to offer, or just more "you suck, he sucks, you all suck" ranting?
Just curious.
And yes, Justin Case is right--Al-Qaeda is in Iraq now. But it still seems true that they operate their only by the consent and cooperation of the distressed Sunni community who sees them as useful idiots to deploy as tools in the short-term. Al-Qaeda's longterm political aims would seem antithetical to Iraqi Sunni's history of secularism.
Posted by: Zakariah at February 28, 2006 01:00 PM (oI37n)
24
Zak, i never said anything of the sort.
i said, suit up or shut up... how's that for a solution to offer? you all dont suck (to use your words) you're just cowardly Americans
so, Zak, you gonna suit up or stay behind your monitor?
we're waiting to hear from you
i said, suit up or shut up... how's that for a solution to offer? you all dont suck (to use your words) you're just cowardly Americans
so, Zak, you gonna suit up or stay behind your monitor?
we're waiting to hear from you
Posted by: daver at February 28, 2006 01:08 PM (SAwM/)
25
Daver,
Did you pump your chest up a lot on the playground, too? Now you're just being silly. You have no idea who I am or what I do to try to make a difference in this world any more than I know anything about you and your long history of dedication to social justice.
"Suit up or shut up" means what exactly? All Americans should be under arms? I thought our supposedly militaristic approach to the world was what you had a problem with in the first place? Just being anti-American doesn't mean you stand for anything yourself; it barely even makes you trendy.
With your mastery of empty rhetoric, maybe there's a future for you an as a UN ambassador from where ever it is you that hold a passport.
Good day.
Did you pump your chest up a lot on the playground, too? Now you're just being silly. You have no idea who I am or what I do to try to make a difference in this world any more than I know anything about you and your long history of dedication to social justice.
"Suit up or shut up" means what exactly? All Americans should be under arms? I thought our supposedly militaristic approach to the world was what you had a problem with in the first place? Just being anti-American doesn't mean you stand for anything yourself; it barely even makes you trendy.
With your mastery of empty rhetoric, maybe there's a future for you an as a UN ambassador from where ever it is you that hold a passport.
Good day.
Posted by: Zakariah at February 28, 2006 01:38 PM (oI37n)
26
A blogger that claims to write columns based on “facts” and uses, as his slogan “Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state” must derive his “facts” for some unpublished abridged versions of Cliff’s Notes.
What is more evident is that his knowledge of the conflict in Iraq is based solely on the singular “embedded” news reporting that permeates the conservative media, where illusionary hopes of a Democratic Iraq continue to be dispensed to the American public.
Imperialist hawks, be they Zionists, neocons or illusionary fools have one thing in common, they never experienced military service having evaded the draft for self-serving reasons including weak knees, ingrown nails, et al.
These paper patriots love slogans such as “Support the Troops” as long as I’m not one of them being killed or maimed. “Victory is at hand” with death tolls mounting daily or some other eunuch platitudes to imply they are tough and manly.
Has their house of cards, based on hot air “conservative/liberal” ranting, continues to crumble they continue to do their best to denigrate others based on lies, deceit and a peculiar mental obsessions about Clinton, homosexuals, teen sex, unmarried black teens as the source of poverty and other fabricated social calamities.
Pawns of the corporate exploiters, they actively support the transfer of jobs and technologies to Communist China, the deterioration of the American middle class, the elimination of their responsibility to the disadvantage and the elderly as they wave their fundamentalist bibles claiming to be disciples of Jesus.
So rather than actively support a unifying dialogue between Americans they prefer to encourage polarization. Perhaps had they served in an integrated military they would understand the meaning of “ Et Pluribus Unum.”
Fortunately, Americans have limited patience for fads and hot air so the future of America may not be as bleak as their propaganda.
What is more evident is that his knowledge of the conflict in Iraq is based solely on the singular “embedded” news reporting that permeates the conservative media, where illusionary hopes of a Democratic Iraq continue to be dispensed to the American public.
Imperialist hawks, be they Zionists, neocons or illusionary fools have one thing in common, they never experienced military service having evaded the draft for self-serving reasons including weak knees, ingrown nails, et al.
These paper patriots love slogans such as “Support the Troops” as long as I’m not one of them being killed or maimed. “Victory is at hand” with death tolls mounting daily or some other eunuch platitudes to imply they are tough and manly.
Has their house of cards, based on hot air “conservative/liberal” ranting, continues to crumble they continue to do their best to denigrate others based on lies, deceit and a peculiar mental obsessions about Clinton, homosexuals, teen sex, unmarried black teens as the source of poverty and other fabricated social calamities.
Pawns of the corporate exploiters, they actively support the transfer of jobs and technologies to Communist China, the deterioration of the American middle class, the elimination of their responsibility to the disadvantage and the elderly as they wave their fundamentalist bibles claiming to be disciples of Jesus.
So rather than actively support a unifying dialogue between Americans they prefer to encourage polarization. Perhaps had they served in an integrated military they would understand the meaning of “ Et Pluribus Unum.”
Fortunately, Americans have limited patience for fads and hot air so the future of America may not be as bleak as their propaganda.
Posted by: Camus at February 28, 2006 01:43 PM (veIg3)
27
Bush should have done this and he shouldn't have done that etc. That's really helping matters isn't it? It's as if they had found WMD, then everything would somehow be better. Wrong, it would the same. Woulda shoulda coulda's aren't going to solve anything. The US cannot remake Iraq, only the Iraqis can do that and there is real proof many want to do so. It only takes a few hundred people to blow up many civilians and create havoc. Should the US turn and run from this small group and leave the innocent Iraqis to fend for themselves?
Posted by: Dakar at February 28, 2006 02:32 PM (NrWYG)
28
Zakariah,
You're evading the question posed to you and other supporters of this war. Why not volunteer and show the conviction of your beliefs?
If you look at the dwindling few college age students who support this adventure, a tiny fraction are willing to give up dorm life for a tent in the Iraqi sand.
If you truly believe this war is important for American national security, suit up and defend the nation. That's why we have a volunteer army (among other reasons). It's the arm chair generals complaining about the anti-war movement whom I find particularly disgusting. And cowardly.
manise
You're evading the question posed to you and other supporters of this war. Why not volunteer and show the conviction of your beliefs?
If you look at the dwindling few college age students who support this adventure, a tiny fraction are willing to give up dorm life for a tent in the Iraqi sand.
If you truly believe this war is important for American national security, suit up and defend the nation. That's why we have a volunteer army (among other reasons). It's the arm chair generals complaining about the anti-war movement whom I find particularly disgusting. And cowardly.
manise
Posted by: manise at February 28, 2006 02:59 PM (08UFn)
29
Dave: Why don't I suit up and get my lame ass to Iraq and support my war? I've been there, buddy. Three times, and Afghanistan twice. I guess combat-wounded veterans who support the war don't count in this country, right? Iraq, like all wars, is not static. What was true on the ground in 2003 is not necessarily so in 2006 -in the way that the situation in Europe in 1943 hardly resembled that of May 1945.
Yet while things have changed in Iraq, the pessimistic tone of reporting remains calcified. Little is written about the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces or the changing role of the American forces.
Just remember, Dave - I defend your right to be an ignorant ass, and to call me mindless and brainwashed. Say something like that in China or Iran and see where it gets you.
Yet while things have changed in Iraq, the pessimistic tone of reporting remains calcified. Little is written about the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces or the changing role of the American forces.
Just remember, Dave - I defend your right to be an ignorant ass, and to call me mindless and brainwashed. Say something like that in China or Iran and see where it gets you.
Posted by: Steve at February 28, 2006 03:15 PM (INoTp)
30
Manise,
Where did I say the Iraqi war is important for U.S. national security? What I said was it's important for Iraqi Shi'a to show the Iraqi Sunni that they aren't going to be their patsies any more (really, read my post.) Long-term stability in Iraq will depend on factors that make the continued American presence there of questionable importance.
The bugbear of Al-Qaeda exists in Iraq under the protection of a Sunni minority jealously guarding their legacy of privilege. The first demand of the Shi'a should be for the Sunni turn the terrorists out. But this hasn't got anything to do with Al-Qaeda being the sworn enemy of America; it's because Al-Qaeda is a "Sunni Supremecist" organization dedicated to wanton, global murder of Shi'a (read about the Hazara in Afganistan, it's awful) and there's no place for Al-Qaeda or their supporters in Iraq. What I said, in my first post, was that the war is horrible, but I will add that the war is now being sustained largely by the Iraqi Sunni and their convenient allies and that the only long-term solution is a Shi'a population willing and able to protect itself from their predations. That is the main prerequisite for peace.
As for Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al., their incompetence is pretty well established; another reason for all indigenous parties in Iraq to look after their own futures without expecting any help from America. This is unfortunate, but I think self-evident.
Where did I say the Iraqi war is important for U.S. national security? What I said was it's important for Iraqi Shi'a to show the Iraqi Sunni that they aren't going to be their patsies any more (really, read my post.) Long-term stability in Iraq will depend on factors that make the continued American presence there of questionable importance.
The bugbear of Al-Qaeda exists in Iraq under the protection of a Sunni minority jealously guarding their legacy of privilege. The first demand of the Shi'a should be for the Sunni turn the terrorists out. But this hasn't got anything to do with Al-Qaeda being the sworn enemy of America; it's because Al-Qaeda is a "Sunni Supremecist" organization dedicated to wanton, global murder of Shi'a (read about the Hazara in Afganistan, it's awful) and there's no place for Al-Qaeda or their supporters in Iraq. What I said, in my first post, was that the war is horrible, but I will add that the war is now being sustained largely by the Iraqi Sunni and their convenient allies and that the only long-term solution is a Shi'a population willing and able to protect itself from their predations. That is the main prerequisite for peace.
As for Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al., their incompetence is pretty well established; another reason for all indigenous parties in Iraq to look after their own futures without expecting any help from America. This is unfortunate, but I think self-evident.
Posted by: Zakariah at February 28, 2006 03:22 PM (oI37n)
31
You wrote:
"Civil wars tend to end with catastrophic losses and destroyed cultures after prolonged, drawn-out conflicts. This was decidedly not a civil war, but more than a riot. It was a "not quite" war where the best planning of al Qaeda and the most emotionally charged of targets failed to ignite an escalating conflagration that would spiral out of control."
That is an asinine comment. You are asserting that this event was "decidedly not a civil war". Add up the facts:
1. 1500 dead and coutning in a span of days, a rate that would roughly equal 400,000 a year if it continues at the current rate. Think about this, more people died in a span of days than it took for us to lose in over a year.
2. People being dragged out of their houses and then beaten, shot or dissappearing,
3. Armed militia roaming the streets, siezing territory, setting up checkpoints and targetting their opposition.
4. Beggining stages of ethnic cleansing.
The facts are loud and clear. This is the start of a civil war along the lines of what has been seen in places like Columbia, Bosnia and Lebanon. You are clearly mistaken in your assertions. You are blatantly wrong on the facts to such a degree that you lack credibility. You are a typical right winger, you live in a fantasy world.
"Civil wars tend to end with catastrophic losses and destroyed cultures after prolonged, drawn-out conflicts. This was decidedly not a civil war, but more than a riot. It was a "not quite" war where the best planning of al Qaeda and the most emotionally charged of targets failed to ignite an escalating conflagration that would spiral out of control."
That is an asinine comment. You are asserting that this event was "decidedly not a civil war". Add up the facts:
1. 1500 dead and coutning in a span of days, a rate that would roughly equal 400,000 a year if it continues at the current rate. Think about this, more people died in a span of days than it took for us to lose in over a year.
2. People being dragged out of their houses and then beaten, shot or dissappearing,
3. Armed militia roaming the streets, siezing territory, setting up checkpoints and targetting their opposition.
4. Beggining stages of ethnic cleansing.
The facts are loud and clear. This is the start of a civil war along the lines of what has been seen in places like Columbia, Bosnia and Lebanon. You are clearly mistaken in your assertions. You are blatantly wrong on the facts to such a degree that you lack credibility. You are a typical right winger, you live in a fantasy world.
Posted by: pjv at February 28, 2006 03:22 PM (NVLPf)
32
CF,
What the heck happened while I was out visitin' other places? Did someone open the door to the asylum and let the idiots in?
What the heck happened while I was out visitin' other places? Did someone open the door to the asylum and let the idiots in?
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 03:40 PM (ybfXM)
33
pjv,
how many were killed today? Or in the last four days? was it another 1500? Wow...you must have great sources over there. Does Dan Rather call you personally to let you know what is going on?
how many were killed today? Or in the last four days? was it another 1500? Wow...you must have great sources over there. Does Dan Rather call you personally to let you know what is going on?
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 03:41 PM (ybfXM)
34
OOOPS...I meant CY....LOL
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 03:42 PM (ybfXM)
35
We all know that the middle east situation is more unstable than before the Iraq war. We also know that we must look forward. That said, can we trust an administration that has made a series of bad decisions? We need good decisiions as we go forward. Like it or not the past does count.
One of the problems that the US faces is that we have backed away from the goals/promises made to the Iraqi people. In affect, cutting and running. War is more than a messy business. And the Iraqi's may be willing to forgive the US for the 100,000 or so folks that have died. But that will require that the US keep its original goals. If not, we'll our troops will not be supported by the current administration. The rubber does meet the road.
One of the problems that the US faces is that we have backed away from the goals/promises made to the Iraqi people. In affect, cutting and running. War is more than a messy business. And the Iraqi's may be willing to forgive the US for the 100,000 or so folks that have died. But that will require that the US keep its original goals. If not, we'll our troops will not be supported by the current administration. The rubber does meet the road.
Posted by: john cook at February 28, 2006 03:58 PM (ASvqa)
36
pjv wrote:
Add up the facts:
1. 1500 dead and coutning [sic] in a span of days, a rate that would roughly equal 400,000 a year if it continues at the current rate. Think about this, more people died in a span of days than it took for us to lose in over a year.
2. People being dragged out of their houses and then beaten, shot or dissappearing [sic],
3. Armed militia roaming the streets, siezing [sic] territory, setting up checkpoints and targetting [sic] their opposition.
4. Beginning [sic] stages of ethnic cleansing.
This is the start of a civil war along the lines of what has been seen in places like Columbia, Bosnia and Lebanon. You are clearly mistaken in your assertions. You are blatantly wrong on the facts to such a degree that you lack credibility. You are a typical right winger, you live in a fantasy world.
And yet, all of your facts are wrong, and the rest of your claims you do not substantiate with supporting evidence.
Not a single source that I've seen claims 1500 dead, and the 1,300 claimed by the Post is now being disputed by the very source they cited, as evidenced in a CNN link above. The actual number is 379, according to the Iraqi government spokesman that spoke with CNN. To get your wild estimate of 400,00 dead, you use bad data to make a false estimate based upon an invalid theory that would make a student in the first week of a statistics course blush for you in embarrassment.
The daytime curfew has been lifted. al-Qaeda leader Abu al-Farouq al-Suri has arrested along with five other terrorists. Iraqis bloggers report firsthand that things are slowly returning to normal, despite several terrorist attacks.
Pjv, it is fine to have a fantasy life, and I’m glad you enjoy yours. Just don’t confuse your sick fantasies of large-scale genocide with the reality the rest of us share.
Add up the facts:
1. 1500 dead and coutning [sic] in a span of days, a rate that would roughly equal 400,000 a year if it continues at the current rate. Think about this, more people died in a span of days than it took for us to lose in over a year.
2. People being dragged out of their houses and then beaten, shot or dissappearing [sic],
3. Armed militia roaming the streets, siezing [sic] territory, setting up checkpoints and targetting [sic] their opposition.
4. Beginning [sic] stages of ethnic cleansing.
This is the start of a civil war along the lines of what has been seen in places like Columbia, Bosnia and Lebanon. You are clearly mistaken in your assertions. You are blatantly wrong on the facts to such a degree that you lack credibility. You are a typical right winger, you live in a fantasy world.
And yet, all of your facts are wrong, and the rest of your claims you do not substantiate with supporting evidence.
Not a single source that I've seen claims 1500 dead, and the 1,300 claimed by the Post is now being disputed by the very source they cited, as evidenced in a CNN link above. The actual number is 379, according to the Iraqi government spokesman that spoke with CNN. To get your wild estimate of 400,00 dead, you use bad data to make a false estimate based upon an invalid theory that would make a student in the first week of a statistics course blush for you in embarrassment.
The daytime curfew has been lifted. al-Qaeda leader Abu al-Farouq al-Suri has arrested along with five other terrorists. Iraqis bloggers report firsthand that things are slowly returning to normal, despite several terrorist attacks.
Pjv, it is fine to have a fantasy life, and I’m glad you enjoy yours. Just don’t confuse your sick fantasies of large-scale genocide with the reality the rest of us share.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2006 04:00 PM (g5Nba)
37
Re the number of dead: What we know is that there are different numbers from different sources. There is no reason to believe that the report of the Iraqi government is more accurate than the report of the Washington Post. In fact, I would argue that the Iraqi government has less reason to be accurate in that it is motivated to make it seems like things are not so bad. But, again, the fact is we don't know.
Posted by: THS at February 28, 2006 04:06 PM (oHUqL)
38
I just double-checked the basis of the Post's report that 1300 people had died. Their source was Baghdad's main morgue. That would seem to be a relatively reliable source of information. I'm sure the staff there can count.
Posted by: THS at February 28, 2006 04:10 PM (oHUqL)
39
I didn't read carefully enough the info you posted, so I didn't realize that the report you were giving was also based on info given out by the morgue.
So, we'll see which numbers hold up. In either case, it's a lot of dead people.
So, we'll see which numbers hold up. In either case, it's a lot of dead people.
Posted by: THS at February 28, 2006 04:13 PM (oHUqL)
40
Hey 81,
I hate to break this to you, sir, and I do thank you for your service, seriously, BUT if you're going to bring up this argument that "they're like we were 200 years ago" YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE that WE WERE THE TERRORISTS!!!
I don't mean to ruin your day or anything but WE threw out the rules of war and fought them with any means available. WE were called barbarians and worse by the Brits, and the civilized world, the whole time.
Pull it together, sir, and take a deep breath. We were the rogues, the civilized world was against us.
In the end, we began this great journey and soon inspired the French and eventually the rest of the West, and how many hundred countries now have followed us, on this great experiment called democracy. These terrorists in Iraq see themselves in the same righteous struggle.
Don't kid yourself. We were not the patsy government of the superpower, we were the down and dirty, do whatever it takes, force fighting for freedom from oppression by the world's superpower.
It's our ignorance of this reality that has been our biggest obstacle in our strategy against terrorism.
Peace.
I hate to break this to you, sir, and I do thank you for your service, seriously, BUT if you're going to bring up this argument that "they're like we were 200 years ago" YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE that WE WERE THE TERRORISTS!!!
I don't mean to ruin your day or anything but WE threw out the rules of war and fought them with any means available. WE were called barbarians and worse by the Brits, and the civilized world, the whole time.
Pull it together, sir, and take a deep breath. We were the rogues, the civilized world was against us.
In the end, we began this great journey and soon inspired the French and eventually the rest of the West, and how many hundred countries now have followed us, on this great experiment called democracy. These terrorists in Iraq see themselves in the same righteous struggle.
Don't kid yourself. We were not the patsy government of the superpower, we were the down and dirty, do whatever it takes, force fighting for freedom from oppression by the world's superpower.
It's our ignorance of this reality that has been our biggest obstacle in our strategy against terrorism.
Peace.
Posted by: Sr. Bojangles at February 28, 2006 04:38 PM (3UCdf)
41
Jackass,
It isn't the media's fault that there were no WMD
Well...no I wouldn't blame the media on that. But you need to qualify your time frame. Because there were WMD there - for many, many years. And we are just now starting to translate and declassify hundreds of thousands of documents that were siezed during the war. The latest tapes show that just before the war, Saddam and crew were talking about their WMD programs. And you might also want to check out the work being done at the Combating Terrorism Center at Westpoint where they are translating thousands of documents from the Hussein regime. You can find it (A HREF="http://www.ctc.usma.edu/default.asp" REL="nofollow">here. And while there were no specific weapons found (but residuals of weapons were), we might just find out through all this work how close we actually came to finding them. Add that to the fact that two of Hussein's generals say the weapons were moved to Syria in the days leading up to the war....well...you get it. Or maybe it was just a conspiracy, right?
And interesting side note - I wonder why Fitzgerald is fighting so hard not to have the PDBs released in Plamegate? We heard all along that the info in the PDBs was so much more alarming than what was given the Intelligence Committees. What if it turns out that the "twisting" was done by the CIA - who in reality is the SP's client....That would make news...Probably not - because it was all a right wing conspiracy, right?
It isn't the media's fault that Bush didn't have a clue as to what he and his FEMA repres were supposed to do when Katrina hit.
Right again - it wasn't the media's fault. But tell me this Jackass - who is the designated first responder in a disaster such as this? Got an answer yet? Is it FEMA? The answer is "no". It is the local governments. Look at it this way. Each locale has an "emergency preparedness plan". Certainly where you live these first responder groups have had drills to practice? The problem with Katrina was that it did not just hit one specific area - it hit tens of thousands of square miles - and devastated homes, lives, and businesses. There was no power, no gas, in many places impassable roads. How were the first responders - who rely on help from neighboring districts - supposed to get there, let alone FEMA? There is no person who could have adequately prepared for this storm. Even Nagin didn't call for evacuation until a day later than he was told to do it.
The unfortunate part is that people are still suffering. But I heard a news conference with a local Congressman from NO and he said that there is money to do the rebuilding (courtesy US gov), but people are afraid to come back until the local governments have finished their rebuilding and protection plans.
The media didn't appoint Harriet Meyers.
You are right. They did not. Bush did on the basis of input from many sources. Did you know that one of the biggest supporters of her nomination was Harry "I got $68K; Didn't Take Any Money And I'm Not Giving It Back" Reid? You might want to get over that one - she didn't get appointed. But Alito did - you know the one the press and Schumer and Biden and Splash Kennedy painted as "evil conservative". But what does Alito do - first decision out of the gates he sides with the liberal side of the bench. Imagine that.
The mdis didn't accidentally shoot a man in a hunting accident then clam up about it promoting the idea that there was something to hide.
No the media did not do the shooting here. Cheney did and he admitted it. But let me ask a couple of questions Jackass. Did Cheney get help for his friend right away - I mean were the local authorities notified? Yes. Did Cheney block any investigation? NO - you should read the official police report from the Sheriff before you spout. You can find it here. Not only did they get help for Whittington, but they notified the Sheriff within minutes. Later the Secret Service called the Sheriff back to ask if he was going to send someone to the ranch to take statements and the Sheriff, not Cheney or his group, decided to wait until the next morning. Get a grip...but oh..that's right...it was a conspiracy wasn't it Jackass?
More questions for you. How much roar and complaint of "hiding" and "promoting the idea there was something to hide" did you make when Splash Kennedy hid for 9 hours before even calling the police about Chappaquiddick? And that while she slowly suffocated. And how much did you complain when Hillary Clinton held on to Vince Foster's suicide note for more than 36 hours without notifying the press. Surely you were just as outraged then, right?
The same CBS poll that had Bush's approval rating in the 70% range in 2002, now has him at 34%.
Well...that is true and that is the media's fault. Let me explain. Did you just read the article Jackass or did you take the time to look at the poll itself? To begin with - here are the demographics of the respondents:
Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 272, 289
Total Democrats 409, 381
Total Independents 337, 348
Now let's examine these numbers first. The first number is the actual count, the second is the weighted. In the actual it shows 40% Democrat, 27% Republican, and 33% Independent. Does that reflect a bias? Considering that in the last national election the Dems and Repubs were split 37% each, I'd say it does. But that is why they weighted it so we better look at those numbers. Dems 37%, Independents 34%, and Repubs 29%. Ok - the statistical population used is INVALID - it was biased against Bush from the beginning. That means that any question asked specifically about Bush or the administration has a clear bias to the left.
Nevertheless we can get some interesting information from the poll even though it is biased - and probably more interesting because it is:
VIEWS OF CHENEY’S HUNTING ACCIDENT…
Understandable it could happen 76%
No excuse for it to happen 20
Imagine that - the majority of the-biased-to-the-democrats statistical population think it was an accident that was understandable. Funny - I did not see that on any of the recent contributions from the unbiased MSM.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF CHENEY HUNTING ACCIDENT
Too much time 66%
Right amount of time 22
Too little time 9
Well what do you know. People think the media is full of it.
The problem here Jackass is that you hve bought totally into the MSM bias (80% of journalists vote Democrat and hate Bush - just look at Pompadour Gregory and his shouting at the press conference). If only people like you would study something rather than just spout life would be better. Get a grip.
And to that conspiracy stuff - Quick look under your bed. Take apart your computer and phone. Cut all the lines of communitcations to your home and certainly don't use and wireless technologies. We are watching your every move.....
LOL
It isn't the media's fault that there were no WMD
Well...no I wouldn't blame the media on that. But you need to qualify your time frame. Because there were WMD there - for many, many years. And we are just now starting to translate and declassify hundreds of thousands of documents that were siezed during the war. The latest tapes show that just before the war, Saddam and crew were talking about their WMD programs. And you might also want to check out the work being done at the Combating Terrorism Center at Westpoint where they are translating thousands of documents from the Hussein regime. You can find it (A HREF="http://www.ctc.usma.edu/default.asp" REL="nofollow">here. And while there were no specific weapons found (but residuals of weapons were), we might just find out through all this work how close we actually came to finding them. Add that to the fact that two of Hussein's generals say the weapons were moved to Syria in the days leading up to the war....well...you get it. Or maybe it was just a conspiracy, right?
And interesting side note - I wonder why Fitzgerald is fighting so hard not to have the PDBs released in Plamegate? We heard all along that the info in the PDBs was so much more alarming than what was given the Intelligence Committees. What if it turns out that the "twisting" was done by the CIA - who in reality is the SP's client....That would make news...Probably not - because it was all a right wing conspiracy, right?
It isn't the media's fault that Bush didn't have a clue as to what he and his FEMA repres were supposed to do when Katrina hit.
Right again - it wasn't the media's fault. But tell me this Jackass - who is the designated first responder in a disaster such as this? Got an answer yet? Is it FEMA? The answer is "no". It is the local governments. Look at it this way. Each locale has an "emergency preparedness plan". Certainly where you live these first responder groups have had drills to practice? The problem with Katrina was that it did not just hit one specific area - it hit tens of thousands of square miles - and devastated homes, lives, and businesses. There was no power, no gas, in many places impassable roads. How were the first responders - who rely on help from neighboring districts - supposed to get there, let alone FEMA? There is no person who could have adequately prepared for this storm. Even Nagin didn't call for evacuation until a day later than he was told to do it.
The unfortunate part is that people are still suffering. But I heard a news conference with a local Congressman from NO and he said that there is money to do the rebuilding (courtesy US gov), but people are afraid to come back until the local governments have finished their rebuilding and protection plans.
The media didn't appoint Harriet Meyers.
You are right. They did not. Bush did on the basis of input from many sources. Did you know that one of the biggest supporters of her nomination was Harry "I got $68K; Didn't Take Any Money And I'm Not Giving It Back" Reid? You might want to get over that one - she didn't get appointed. But Alito did - you know the one the press and Schumer and Biden and Splash Kennedy painted as "evil conservative". But what does Alito do - first decision out of the gates he sides with the liberal side of the bench. Imagine that.
The mdis didn't accidentally shoot a man in a hunting accident then clam up about it promoting the idea that there was something to hide.
No the media did not do the shooting here. Cheney did and he admitted it. But let me ask a couple of questions Jackass. Did Cheney get help for his friend right away - I mean were the local authorities notified? Yes. Did Cheney block any investigation? NO - you should read the official police report from the Sheriff before you spout. You can find it here. Not only did they get help for Whittington, but they notified the Sheriff within minutes. Later the Secret Service called the Sheriff back to ask if he was going to send someone to the ranch to take statements and the Sheriff, not Cheney or his group, decided to wait until the next morning. Get a grip...but oh..that's right...it was a conspiracy wasn't it Jackass?
More questions for you. How much roar and complaint of "hiding" and "promoting the idea there was something to hide" did you make when Splash Kennedy hid for 9 hours before even calling the police about Chappaquiddick? And that while she slowly suffocated. And how much did you complain when Hillary Clinton held on to Vince Foster's suicide note for more than 36 hours without notifying the press. Surely you were just as outraged then, right?
The same CBS poll that had Bush's approval rating in the 70% range in 2002, now has him at 34%.
Well...that is true and that is the media's fault. Let me explain. Did you just read the article Jackass or did you take the time to look at the poll itself? To begin with - here are the demographics of the respondents:
Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 272, 289
Total Democrats 409, 381
Total Independents 337, 348
Now let's examine these numbers first. The first number is the actual count, the second is the weighted. In the actual it shows 40% Democrat, 27% Republican, and 33% Independent. Does that reflect a bias? Considering that in the last national election the Dems and Repubs were split 37% each, I'd say it does. But that is why they weighted it so we better look at those numbers. Dems 37%, Independents 34%, and Repubs 29%. Ok - the statistical population used is INVALID - it was biased against Bush from the beginning. That means that any question asked specifically about Bush or the administration has a clear bias to the left.
Nevertheless we can get some interesting information from the poll even though it is biased - and probably more interesting because it is:
VIEWS OF CHENEY’S HUNTING ACCIDENT…
Understandable it could happen 76%
No excuse for it to happen 20
Imagine that - the majority of the-biased-to-the-democrats statistical population think it was an accident that was understandable. Funny - I did not see that on any of the recent contributions from the unbiased MSM.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF CHENEY HUNTING ACCIDENT
Too much time 66%
Right amount of time 22
Too little time 9
Well what do you know. People think the media is full of it.
The problem here Jackass is that you hve bought totally into the MSM bias (80% of journalists vote Democrat and hate Bush - just look at Pompadour Gregory and his shouting at the press conference). If only people like you would study something rather than just spout life would be better. Get a grip.
And to that conspiracy stuff - Quick look under your bed. Take apart your computer and phone. Cut all the lines of communitcations to your home and certainly don't use and wireless technologies. We are watching your every move.....
LOL
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 04:52 PM (ybfXM)
42
Sorry...the link to Westpoint Combating Terrorism Center is here
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 04:55 PM (ybfXM)
43
Dakar,
you hit the nail on the head. We have to stay now. We've helped the Iraqi's get the start and now we need to support them while they sort out how their government is going to take shape. We can not "cut and run" like in Viet Nam.
you hit the nail on the head. We have to stay now. We've helped the Iraqi's get the start and now we need to support them while they sort out how their government is going to take shape. We can not "cut and run" like in Viet Nam.
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 05:09 PM (ybfXM)
44
john cook,
Why is it our fault that so many have died? I keep hearing this, but have not seen a coherent answer to the question. And please don't spout that there would be no "insurgency" if we were not there. It might be correct, but Saddam would still be killing his own people - sometimes thousands at a time.
Why is it our fault that so many have died? I keep hearing this, but have not seen a coherent answer to the question. And please don't spout that there would be no "insurgency" if we were not there. It might be correct, but Saddam would still be killing his own people - sometimes thousands at a time.
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 05:11 PM (ybfXM)
45
Confederate Yank:
I appreciate you counting me down on my facts. I can not find their source right now so I'll rescind them. I am sure that I read recently that Baghdad was 50-60% controlled by the coalition and that after the mosque bombing that we seemed to only control about 30% of the country (I was trying to be conservative since I didn't have a source). There may be anecdotal evidence that suggests that these are true, BUT, since I cannot find their source I'll walk away from them. Consider them gone, until I can back them up.
HOWEVER, the POINTs of my response remain, the operation in Iraq is not a war, the facts on the ground are consistently worse and worse and yet you right-wingers like to imagine that things are better than the dirty media makes them seem, and you use the "liberal media" tag line like a mental crutch.
Question for you: if it turns out that 1,300 is a lot closer to reality than the 379 you keep citing, are you going to come clean, like I just did? Are you going to post an acknowledgment of your error in judgement, here on your blog?
I appreciate you counting me down on my facts. I can not find their source right now so I'll rescind them. I am sure that I read recently that Baghdad was 50-60% controlled by the coalition and that after the mosque bombing that we seemed to only control about 30% of the country (I was trying to be conservative since I didn't have a source). There may be anecdotal evidence that suggests that these are true, BUT, since I cannot find their source I'll walk away from them. Consider them gone, until I can back them up.
HOWEVER, the POINTs of my response remain, the operation in Iraq is not a war, the facts on the ground are consistently worse and worse and yet you right-wingers like to imagine that things are better than the dirty media makes them seem, and you use the "liberal media" tag line like a mental crutch.
Question for you: if it turns out that 1,300 is a lot closer to reality than the 379 you keep citing, are you going to come clean, like I just did? Are you going to post an acknowledgment of your error in judgement, here on your blog?
Posted by: Sr. Bojangles at February 28, 2006 05:28 PM (3UCdf)
46
We were the terrorists?
Banastre Tarleton was the closest thing to a terrorist I'm aware of in the Revolutionary War, butchering American soldier's in what becuase known as the "Waxhaw massacre."
Re-read your history.
As for the fatalities invloved to that date (2/27) ineh recent sectarian violence in Iraq, I have no vested interest in the numbers gleaned from professional news sources, so I would have no issue with admitting someone else was wrong. Why would I?
Banastre Tarleton was the closest thing to a terrorist I'm aware of in the Revolutionary War, butchering American soldier's in what becuase known as the "Waxhaw massacre."
Re-read your history.
As for the fatalities invloved to that date (2/27) ineh recent sectarian violence in Iraq, I have no vested interest in the numbers gleaned from professional news sources, so I would have no issue with admitting someone else was wrong. Why would I?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2006 05:53 PM (0fZB6)
47
CY,
It's obvious you're from a revisionist school of thought, so I was surprised you could not come up with a nice one-word euphemism that best captures your passage "This was decidely not a civil war, but more than a riot." Yeah, several car bombings a month does not a civil war make. How about "weekend conflagration?" What planet do you live on? Irregardless of the actual death toll over the past weekend, many more Iraqis have died since the "Top Gun" POTUS announced the end of major combat operations. Why don't you go read material from someone who knows something about the area:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9957/lang.html
Earth to CY: A civil war started a long time ago...
It's obvious you're from a revisionist school of thought, so I was surprised you could not come up with a nice one-word euphemism that best captures your passage "This was decidely not a civil war, but more than a riot." Yeah, several car bombings a month does not a civil war make. How about "weekend conflagration?" What planet do you live on? Irregardless of the actual death toll over the past weekend, many more Iraqis have died since the "Top Gun" POTUS announced the end of major combat operations. Why don't you go read material from someone who knows something about the area:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9957/lang.html
Earth to CY: A civil war started a long time ago...
Posted by: Planet Earth at February 28, 2006 06:36 PM (VePNM)
48
Yes CY,
We were the equivalent of terrorists in our day. The parallels are resounding.
Our error is in imagining that terrorism requires some subhuman being, who is totally without civility or morals. What would you do if you felt your family, friends, and way of life were in jeopardy? Would you sacrifice your life to defend them? Would you attack on a religious holiday (ie. Washington crossing the Delaware)? Would you do whatever it takes to defend your family?
Terrorism is the tactic of the poor. If they had a navy, we'd fight them at sea. If they had an airforce, we'd fight them in the air. They have a little money and their witts. When people have no other means they resort to whatever they can think of, whatever might be effective. Arab terrorists have families and they think they're protecting them. They didn't attack us because "they hate our freedoms." They attacked us because of why they said they did, because they think we support oppressive regimes that keep Arabs down in the world (ie. Saudi Arabia, for one) and because of our support for Israel re: Palestine. If you think their lying, is anyone so stupid that they'd lay down their lives and not make VERY clear why they're doing it? I don't think anyone is that stupid.
New question: Why do we keep building nuclear subs and missle defense shields in response to terrorism?
If the Wash Po's number is right (on deaths), I'll look for an admittance of poor judgement on your part. Why did you seem to believe the lower number and attack the higher one? The Wash Po' isn't backing away from theirs. Or at least, you could provide an acknowledgement that the media wasn't blowing things out of proportion, or something. One must aspire to the truth, you know.
We were the equivalent of terrorists in our day. The parallels are resounding.
Our error is in imagining that terrorism requires some subhuman being, who is totally without civility or morals. What would you do if you felt your family, friends, and way of life were in jeopardy? Would you sacrifice your life to defend them? Would you attack on a religious holiday (ie. Washington crossing the Delaware)? Would you do whatever it takes to defend your family?
Terrorism is the tactic of the poor. If they had a navy, we'd fight them at sea. If they had an airforce, we'd fight them in the air. They have a little money and their witts. When people have no other means they resort to whatever they can think of, whatever might be effective. Arab terrorists have families and they think they're protecting them. They didn't attack us because "they hate our freedoms." They attacked us because of why they said they did, because they think we support oppressive regimes that keep Arabs down in the world (ie. Saudi Arabia, for one) and because of our support for Israel re: Palestine. If you think their lying, is anyone so stupid that they'd lay down their lives and not make VERY clear why they're doing it? I don't think anyone is that stupid.
New question: Why do we keep building nuclear subs and missle defense shields in response to terrorism?
If the Wash Po's number is right (on deaths), I'll look for an admittance of poor judgement on your part. Why did you seem to believe the lower number and attack the higher one? The Wash Po' isn't backing away from theirs. Or at least, you could provide an acknowledgement that the media wasn't blowing things out of proportion, or something. One must aspire to the truth, you know.
Posted by: Sr. Bojangles at February 28, 2006 07:06 PM (3UCdf)
49
Fortunately the WaPo numbers are not right. Any number is too high, but considering how shabby MSM reportage has been, I don't know why anyone would read anything printed therein and not take it with a grain of salt.
Of course, if the press is reporting what you want to believe, then I suppose that makes it easier to swallow. We Bushies have learned that the only way we can be satisfied with the press is to change our political affiliations and learn to love Hillary and Nancy. Which simply won't do.
Of course, if the press is reporting what you want to believe, then I suppose that makes it easier to swallow. We Bushies have learned that the only way we can be satisfied with the press is to change our political affiliations and learn to love Hillary and Nancy. Which simply won't do.
Posted by: Lizzie at February 28, 2006 07:14 PM (hDwif)
50
Uh, hold on a second there, sparky.
300 people died on 9/11 and that resulted in the announcement of a INTERNATIONAL, GLOBAL WAR (on terror.)
Add a thousand more dead and the criteria for "war" actually decreases?
I guess you are saying that a dead brown person is only worth 0.23% of a dead American. Gotta love that math.
300 people died on 9/11 and that resulted in the announcement of a INTERNATIONAL, GLOBAL WAR (on terror.)
Add a thousand more dead and the criteria for "war" actually decreases?
I guess you are saying that a dead brown person is only worth 0.23% of a dead American. Gotta love that math.
Posted by: Mark Spittle at February 28, 2006 07:40 PM (OhOyJ)
51
Actually, the Iraqi blogger Healinginiraq, Zayed, whose reported on the scale of the insurgency on his site -- he's located in Baghdad -- nails it when he compares the current government spokesmen to the spokesmen under Saddam Hussein -- both are liars, and both have threatened papers that "exaggerate" i.e. that actually try to look at the number of the dead and the extent of the fighting.
I'm glad Confederate Yankee swallows a bunch of codswallop from the Iraqi ministry. I'm sure, in another life, he was an ardent Pravda reader. "Gee, us Russians invented baseball. The sports minister said so!"
I'm glad Confederate Yankee swallows a bunch of codswallop from the Iraqi ministry. I'm sure, in another life, he was an ardent Pravda reader. "Gee, us Russians invented baseball. The sports minister said so!"
Posted by: roger at February 28, 2006 07:54 PM (BZHuI)
52
Confederate Yankee,
Take your ignorent white ass to Baghdad and tell some Iraqis your theories on civil war. Take whoever decided to link your nonsense from the Post site with you. Dont come back until you get a good sense of reality; you'll know when that happens when you start losing extremities.
Take your ignorent white ass to Baghdad and tell some Iraqis your theories on civil war. Take whoever decided to link your nonsense from the Post site with you. Dont come back until you get a good sense of reality; you'll know when that happens when you start losing extremities.
Posted by: George at February 28, 2006 08:03 PM (1mRXX)
53
George=Angry Troll
Posted by: Specter at February 28, 2006 08:07 PM (ybfXM)
54
As this conversation seems to be running towards personal attacks instead of substance, I guess it's time to lock 'er up.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2006 08:10 PM (0fZB6)
February 27, 2006
Scariest Interview Title Ever
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:38 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Here via phin to say congrats! Great interview!
Posted by: Theresa at February 27, 2006 07:45 PM (EBrPa)
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 09:32 PM (TwSjW)
3
Pretty cool, Bob! To heck with those Duke, NCSU, and Chapel Hill grads. ECU Rules!
Posted by: William Teach at February 27, 2006 10:00 PM (V5vwb)
4
Here via phin. Congrats!
Posted by: seawitch at February 27, 2006 11:52 PM (5jn+e)
5
Congrats in person! Glad to find out phin isn't one of the enemy! (Please see my humble apology and lame explaination.)
Posted by: Lone Pony at February 28, 2006 08:08 AM (dI4NX)
6
Longtime reader in Raleigh says "Atta' boy!"
Keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at February 28, 2006 09:15 AM (W7Snj)
7
Congrats to sir!! The Washington Post, my, my.
Posted by: Barry at February 28, 2006 06:51 PM (6US6t)
8
Congrats! Can we commoners still come around? Glad to see you recognized for the obviously top quality postings you are known for. Well wishes for your future endeavors, too.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 01, 2006 08:11 AM (X2tAw)
This Treason Brought to You By...
As they want to protest illegal occupations by performing an illegal occupation, I guess we should be thankful they are not protesting the clubbing of baby seals.
UPFJ:Sweetness and Light notes UFPJ is a Teresa Heinz Kerry-supported organization calling for the illegal overthrow of the duly-elected government.
Storm the White House
Multi-Day Event, Beginning March 15, come when you can and stay as long as you can - we are taking over the White House until they leave. Torture, Occupation, Genocide - Must End Now.
Wednesday, March 15th 2006 12:00 AM
Washington, DC USA TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM - Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation U.N. SOS - We need your help to end the reign of international criminals. It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators. Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against humanity. If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country's military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president's office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW. There is no meeting with Congress that is going to change what they are doing. We must put the power of the people into action and stay there until they leave!
Inviting everyone to the White House for a protest rally to show that we do not accept the criminal government, illegal wars and the permanent occupation planned for Iraq and Afghanistan. For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others - We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer. Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars? We are calling on all citizens and governments in every country to stand with us. We are calling on all Member Nations of the U.N.; All Representatives and Justices in the World Court and International Criminal Courts; All Human Rights Advocates; All Soldiers and CIA agents and government officials who have been blackmailed or are in fear of the dictators to join us in ending this reign of corporate terror in our government. The World Criminal Courts need to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for admitted crimes and known crimes of international scope. The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity. We need all of you to save U.S. victims and global victims from their ongoing criminal activity. We are calling on the military, police, citizens and religious organizations to stand with us and help us to bring democracy back to the United States and by doing so, free the world from the wrath, occupation, theft, torture, blackmail and assassination by the Criminals in the United States Government. What they have done all over the world is much worse than what Saddam Hussein has done, so why are they not in jail too? They have admitted to international and national crimes, so why have they not been taken to Court too?
Location:
White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say. Ride Share and Room Share Plans can be made here: http://www.citysites.com/travel/tiki-view_tracker.php?trackerId=3 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500 Contact:
Darrow Boggiano
admin@politicalcooperative.org
415.409.2611 Sponsored By:
We are requesting participation from all members of the United Nations, PFAW, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Code Pink, police, soldiers, ACLU, CIA, NSA and International Courts of Justice/World Court.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What really gets me (and it's the current administration's fault) is that they own't arrest or try any of these idiots for treason or sedition, whilst their activities are every bit as damaging to American morale as a terror attack would be to lives. They encourage the enemy and behave irresponsibly. It is only the hope that the public is rational and intelligent enough to disregard these antics that allows me to believe that we can still win the battle against ourselves.
Posted by: Marshall Neal at February 27, 2006 10:52 AM (WabmA)
2
Treason? Sedition? What country do you think you live in, meth-head? Hitler's Germany? Stalin's Russia? Pinochet's Chile?
In the good old U. S. of A, people still have the right to assemble, march, and protest policies with which they disagree.
Given that the approval ratings of your dictator hover around 40%, are you advocating that the 60% of respondents who oppose your lying, incompetent, sociopathic, petro-dollar mad, corrupt, idiot of a Fuhrer, should be imprisoned for treason and sedition?
YOU are the traitors. You are betraying democracy and all the principles that this country has stood for since its birth. YOU should be imprisoned.
In the good old U. S. of A, people still have the right to assemble, march, and protest policies with which they disagree.
Given that the approval ratings of your dictator hover around 40%, are you advocating that the 60% of respondents who oppose your lying, incompetent, sociopathic, petro-dollar mad, corrupt, idiot of a Fuhrer, should be imprisoned for treason and sedition?
YOU are the traitors. You are betraying democracy and all the principles that this country has stood for since its birth. YOU should be imprisoned.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at February 27, 2006 11:02 AM (eo/3J)
3
When the government is criminal, the good become criminals in its - and its supporters' - eyes.
There were many who criminalized the opposition to Hitler, to Mao, to Stalin.
Maybe the republicans would like to set up some 're-education camps' for liberals?
There were many who criminalized the opposition to Hitler, to Mao, to Stalin.
Maybe the republicans would like to set up some 're-education camps' for liberals?
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 11:41 AM (VmbVS)
4
Oh - they've already got the plans for the "re-education camps". Back in Iran-Contra days, Ollie North admitted working on a plan called Rex 84, which called for dividing up the country into "military governance districts" where they would imprison protesters when the US invaded Nicaragua. You don't think Poindexter and the other totalitarians working for Bush haven't already dusted off those plans?
Having been at Kent State in 1970, when 4 students were murdered for exercising their 1st amendment rights, I will not be surprised at anything this government - which is arguably more corrupt and illegal than Nixon at his worst - tries to get away with. However, the worm has turned, and Bush, like Charles I in 1649, will end his reign ended in disgrace.
Having been at Kent State in 1970, when 4 students were murdered for exercising their 1st amendment rights, I will not be surprised at anything this government - which is arguably more corrupt and illegal than Nixon at his worst - tries to get away with. However, the worm has turned, and Bush, like Charles I in 1649, will end his reign ended in disgrace.
Posted by: robert lewis at February 27, 2006 12:26 PM (+J4wd)
5
Yeah, they should round up all those Demonstrators: Pro Life, Pro War, Pro Woman, Anti-Drug, whatever they're protesting they should be rounded up and shot. We live in the Perfected States of America, where to protest is to say you aren't happy with things the way they are, and we all know that that's treason! America has been perfect since 2001, and you can shut your seditious mouth if you feel otherwise.
Posted by: Seditious at February 27, 2006 12:29 PM (fcGkj)
6
So in liberal minds (and I realize that is something of an oxymoron), long-standing, clearly-defined laws against sedition, treason and insurrection should not be upheld if they run counter to your personal beliefs.
UPFJ is not calling for a peaceful march, they are calling for the overthrow of a democratically-elected United States government and the installation of an appointed foreign government.
This is highly illegal, authoritarian, and seditious.
It is pathetic that your collective grasp of democracy is so weak, your own principles so shallow and superficial, that you would advocate destroying the Constitutional government and the rule of law to support those that have clearly stepped over the line.
I’d ask your opinion of assassinating those who stand in your way, but I think that since you are willing to destroy a more than 220-year-old government of 300 million over the actions of a single administration, I don’ t think I want to know the answer.
UPFJ is not calling for a peaceful march, they are calling for the overthrow of a democratically-elected United States government and the installation of an appointed foreign government.
This is highly illegal, authoritarian, and seditious.
It is pathetic that your collective grasp of democracy is so weak, your own principles so shallow and superficial, that you would advocate destroying the Constitutional government and the rule of law to support those that have clearly stepped over the line.
I’d ask your opinion of assassinating those who stand in your way, but I think that since you are willing to destroy a more than 220-year-old government of 300 million over the actions of a single administration, I don’ t think I want to know the answer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 27, 2006 12:39 PM (g5Nba)
7
Wow, That one opened up a can of dumb-ass.
Constitution does allow people to PEACEFULLY assemble. To storm the WH with the elected (and they DID win) officials is an attempted coup. Illegal by any standards.
What they are saying to do to the US capitol is exactly what we are doing in IRAQ. Stopping Genocide, Torture and Occupation of a criminal that used fear to keep control. What, is it not good enough for them but ok for those that drink the kool-aid???
Just what rock are you people hiding under that gets no political light? Try varying your news sources some and look at what is really going on in the world. I normally don't post much because I'm not up on the information as well as OS and CY but man, this is just rediculous. If I didn't think they were serious I would have laughed my rear off at the satirical post. Please people, look at all the news, not just the far left stuff and see what's really going on.
Constitution does allow people to PEACEFULLY assemble. To storm the WH with the elected (and they DID win) officials is an attempted coup. Illegal by any standards.
What they are saying to do to the US capitol is exactly what we are doing in IRAQ. Stopping Genocide, Torture and Occupation of a criminal that used fear to keep control. What, is it not good enough for them but ok for those that drink the kool-aid???
Just what rock are you people hiding under that gets no political light? Try varying your news sources some and look at what is really going on in the world. I normally don't post much because I'm not up on the information as well as OS and CY but man, this is just rediculous. If I didn't think they were serious I would have laughed my rear off at the satirical post. Please people, look at all the news, not just the far left stuff and see what's really going on.
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 27, 2006 01:03 PM (cqZXM)
8
UPFJ is not calling for a peaceful march, they are calling for the overthrow of a democratically-elected United States government and the installation of an appointed foreign government.
Um,
Location:
White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say.
Bring signs. Overthrow the government with signs! No government can withstand the threat of hippies armed with rhetoric!
You're an idiot, CY.
Um,
Location:
White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say.
Bring signs. Overthrow the government with signs! No government can withstand the threat of hippies armed with rhetoric!
You're an idiot, CY.
Posted by: mantis at February 27, 2006 01:07 PM (Qg9Yk)
9
Uh . . . hate to burst the blissful bubble of ignorance surrounding CY, but seditious behavior is specifically permitted by the constitution - i.e., free speech - and the last time "sedition" was an issue, many Americans questioned the constitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act. Indeed, public opposition was so great that it was responsible for the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency in 1800. Once in office, Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Sedition Act, while Congress restored all fines paid with interest.
Posted by: robert lewis at February 27, 2006 01:14 PM (+J4wd)
10
Gee, the title of this little get together is "Storm the White House."
Their stated goal is to storm the White House and depose a duly-elected government, throwing them in jail to be replaced by a government of their choosing made up of foreign agents and fringe activist groups. They invite law enforcement and the military to join their little coup.
How could I have interpreted that as insurrection?
Silly me...
Their stated goal is to storm the White House and depose a duly-elected government, throwing them in jail to be replaced by a government of their choosing made up of foreign agents and fringe activist groups. They invite law enforcement and the military to join their little coup.
How could I have interpreted that as insurrection?
Silly me...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 27, 2006 01:19 PM (g5Nba)
11
I call Godwin's Law on Marshall Neal, Devil's Advocate, and the rest of the Lefty posters...
Game over, CY wins by default.
Game over, CY wins by default.
Posted by: DaveP. at February 27, 2006 01:25 PM (RcA37)
12
Hey, all you leftist/communist/seditionist, when you promote an overthrow of our freely elected government in a time of war that is considered high treason and punishable by death.... mantis it's you and moron dumb a#$@s like you that put this country at risk. Hey, I'm sorry CA but I got to let it fly. Shitheads like this and their pals put my friends and family at risk. Do you think that Al Queda and others do not monitor these types of websites. This is what kind of idiot's that are produced from liberal colleges and universities. There is free speech and then there is this tripe. I live in the D.C area. please show up and when 3/4,s of the state of VA.,PA. & MD. shows up we'll be more than glad to show you and your friends a good time. P.S. please write your blood type on your shoe.... put SSN on your arm for identification. Because whether you believe it or not Main Stream America is tired of taking bullshit from the likes of you and your friends. The U.N. is the biggest violator of human rights on the planet your buddies rape and pillage at will with the blessings of the U.N. leadership. I for one wish we would get out of the U.N. and kick their asses out of our country. Because as an organization they are useless. You may not like G.W. thats fine. But I can't express how happy I am that Al(I invented the Internet)Gore and John ( I wrote myself up for three medals) Kerry are not our Commander in Chief.
So all you leftist whiners "PISS OFF"
So all you leftist whiners "PISS OFF"
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 27, 2006 01:35 PM (Mv/2X)
13
Wow, CY, they came out from under the rocks for this post, didn't they? Sorry I was delayed until now.
When you Dhimmicrats come to the table with some viable ideas, we'll listen; and that does NOT include storming the White House. Until then, be mindful of the fact that we have not been attacked again.
When you Dhimmicrats come to the table with some viable ideas, we'll listen; and that does NOT include storming the White House. Until then, be mindful of the fact that we have not been attacked again.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 27, 2006 01:44 PM (X2tAw)
14
Wow, to think if these Dimwhitted idiots lived in the countries so they desperatley want to be like, they would all be thrown in jail or executed for saying such things. Yet here we are in the US and its ok?? Just wondering whats its like to live life under a rock and then consider yourself the all knowing end all be all of human rights? I for one think let em come on out lets set up some gallows (need to save the cost of bullets you know since we're so broke) and hang them for treason!
Posted by: 81 at February 27, 2006 01:53 PM (BuYeH)
15
Yeah, the call is to storm the WH with SIGNS! That sounds really seditious to me.
CY, Retired Navy, and Faithful Patriot, pee their pants every time the Dear Leader they so blindly adulate utters the word "terror". What a bunch of pathetic mamma's boys! They are so terrified, so cowardly, and insecure, that they need a "leader" to protect them...That's how Hitler gathered crowds of supporters in the late 30s: you can feed any old tripe to frightened losers, they'll swallow it.
Sedition, treason, my foot. While those clowns goosestep in unison for the benefit of their "Dear Leader", their "Dear Leader" is robbing the country blind, and channeling taxpayers' money (those morons' included) to the likes of Haliburton's executives, past, present, and future.
Nobody advocates throwing out this government violently. "Storming the WH" is a figure of speech. But again, the Bush robots have long ago lost the ability to think for themselves. Their brains have long ago dessicated to the size of a shriveled pea.
Idiots!
CY, Retired Navy, and Faithful Patriot, pee their pants every time the Dear Leader they so blindly adulate utters the word "terror". What a bunch of pathetic mamma's boys! They are so terrified, so cowardly, and insecure, that they need a "leader" to protect them...That's how Hitler gathered crowds of supporters in the late 30s: you can feed any old tripe to frightened losers, they'll swallow it.
Sedition, treason, my foot. While those clowns goosestep in unison for the benefit of their "Dear Leader", their "Dear Leader" is robbing the country blind, and channeling taxpayers' money (those morons' included) to the likes of Haliburton's executives, past, present, and future.
Nobody advocates throwing out this government violently. "Storming the WH" is a figure of speech. But again, the Bush robots have long ago lost the ability to think for themselves. Their brains have long ago dessicated to the size of a shriveled pea.
Idiots!
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at February 27, 2006 01:59 PM (fY4fP)
16
The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?
Your right devils advocate where does it say they must storm in and show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government I must have over read that part?
Your right devils advocate where does it say they must storm in and show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government I must have over read that part?
Posted by: 81 at February 27, 2006 02:07 PM (BuYeH)
17
Hmmm... someone's been doing laps in the Kool Aid pond i see. I've never said I agree with everything Bush has done, for the record I don't but this isn't what the post is about, it's about a bunch of unhinged on the left talking about storming the White House.
"Storm´ing
a. & n. 1. a. & n. from Storm, v.Storming party
(Mil.) a party assigned to the duty of making the first assault in storming a fortress. "
Let's just go with the "only wiht signs" meme. well, the Constitution does give the right to Peaceably assemble, however, this isn't exactly written out to be peaceful.
By the way, if you join them and "Storm" the WH. My money is on the Secret Service guys. It'll be the shortest coup attempt in history.
"Storm´ing
a. & n. 1. a. & n. from Storm, v.Storming party
(Mil.) a party assigned to the duty of making the first assault in storming a fortress. "
Let's just go with the "only wiht signs" meme. well, the Constitution does give the right to Peaceably assemble, however, this isn't exactly written out to be peaceful.
By the way, if you join them and "Storm" the WH. My money is on the Secret Service guys. It'll be the shortest coup attempt in history.
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 27, 2006 02:16 PM (Mv/2X)
18
D.A the only thing that's shriveled is what you PEE WITH. Our young BRAVE men and women that protect US All deserve more respect than that. I know thats a term that you are probably unfamiliar with DUTY, HONOR, SACRAFICE. Why don't people like you that can't say anything good, just keep their mouths shut. See, all you are is a bag of hot air. Your groups always have the answer's but can never logically present them. What you don't relize is if your party was in office we would probably be attacked every other week. You on the left are so pathetic. You have to invent ways to try to bolster your position. All B.S. no substance. I served my counrty. DID YOU? I doubt it... When are the Dhimmacrats going to figure out that you can't hold hands and sing Kume by ya. with terrorists. We needed a leader to protect us. WELL, WE GOT ONE. At least he's not worried about if the new intern uses scothguard or not.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 27, 2006 02:20 PM (JSetw)
19
On the bad side:
Some folks can't seem to grasp that championing insurrection is illegal.
According to U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2381. Treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The law is quite clear on this point; once we kill you for treason, you are no longer eligible for government employment.
But this is the section that most clearly applies.
According to U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2383. Rebellion or insurrection.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I think this loon's manifesto, while not legally satisfying the definition of treason until further actions have been undertaken, certainly seem to meet the definition of someone that "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof."
The again, Bush is Hitler, so who needs those silly old federal laws?
Some folks can't seem to grasp that championing insurrection is illegal.
According to U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2381. Treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The law is quite clear on this point; once we kill you for treason, you are no longer eligible for government employment.
But this is the section that most clearly applies.
According to U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2383. Rebellion or insurrection.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I think this loon's manifesto, while not legally satisfying the definition of treason until further actions have been undertaken, certainly seem to meet the definition of someone that "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof."
The again, Bush is Hitler, so who needs those silly old federal laws?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 27, 2006 02:46 PM (g5Nba)
20
"storm the Whitehouse" uh - its called a metaphor - you might want to look it up.
"dimwhitted" and "desperatley" - 81 (age or i.q.?)learn to f***ing spell.
Nobody has a problem with "brave young men and women" you moron, we have a problem with the cowardly, draft-dodging, lying sack of manure shit-for-brains who got us into Iraq after ignoring the advice of the uniform services, to wit: George "AWOL" Bush, Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, and Donald "Dumbass" Rumsfeld.
"dimwhitted" and "desperatley" - 81 (age or i.q.?)learn to f***ing spell.
Nobody has a problem with "brave young men and women" you moron, we have a problem with the cowardly, draft-dodging, lying sack of manure shit-for-brains who got us into Iraq after ignoring the advice of the uniform services, to wit: George "AWOL" Bush, Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, and Donald "Dumbass" Rumsfeld.
Posted by: robert lewis at February 27, 2006 02:59 PM (+J4wd)
21
RL,
Boy it takes a real man to use such big words, I know I dont type well see I dont sepnd all day drooling over a computer screen thinking of how bad Bush. I instead spend my days defending sorry asses like you so you have the right to blurt out your bullshit for all to hear.
Oh jack ass by the way the 81 is the unit number of my first unit in the military.
Boy it takes a real man to use such big words, I know I dont type well see I dont sepnd all day drooling over a computer screen thinking of how bad Bush. I instead spend my days defending sorry asses like you so you have the right to blurt out your bullshit for all to hear.
Oh jack ass by the way the 81 is the unit number of my first unit in the military.
Posted by: 81 at February 27, 2006 03:08 PM (JSetw)
22
Sorry CY but that guy pushed me over the edge
Posted by: 81 at February 27, 2006 03:09 PM (BuYeH)
23
The right-wing posters here fall below the level needed for a rational response.
They're simply unhinged.
I could take apart the few arguments that escape their rabid foam for example:
Al Gore invented the internet: that old one? It's an embarrassment to the right, not the left.
Gore was successful in being a leader among leaders to make the funding of the internet's development something he was among the furthest ahead on in Congress, if not the furthest among them all. Not to mention he never even said the misquoted text of the poster.
It's the frothing right who can't use the common sense and try to argue the nonsensical here.
Had Eisenhower said the same thing about 'taking the initiative in the creation of the federal highways', the right wing's version would say he lied because he didn't personally pour all the cement. It's a *lie* how the right misquotes Gore and misrepresents his admirable work.
Number 2 example - the 'we'd probably be attacked every other week under democrats' claim.
Utterly irrational lie. Clinton developed a war plan against Al Queda after the Cole bombing in 2000 was shown to be done by them, and out of courtesy did not go to war but handed it to Bush - who shelved it and made anti-terrorism a low priority for his first 9 months.
But it keeps the right-wing cultists believing their lies.
But apart from the specifics, it's just irrational spewing, not subject for discussion.
They're simply unhinged.
I could take apart the few arguments that escape their rabid foam for example:
Al Gore invented the internet: that old one? It's an embarrassment to the right, not the left.
Gore was successful in being a leader among leaders to make the funding of the internet's development something he was among the furthest ahead on in Congress, if not the furthest among them all. Not to mention he never even said the misquoted text of the poster.
It's the frothing right who can't use the common sense and try to argue the nonsensical here.
Had Eisenhower said the same thing about 'taking the initiative in the creation of the federal highways', the right wing's version would say he lied because he didn't personally pour all the cement. It's a *lie* how the right misquotes Gore and misrepresents his admirable work.
Number 2 example - the 'we'd probably be attacked every other week under democrats' claim.
Utterly irrational lie. Clinton developed a war plan against Al Queda after the Cole bombing in 2000 was shown to be done by them, and out of courtesy did not go to war but handed it to Bush - who shelved it and made anti-terrorism a low priority for his first 9 months.
But it keeps the right-wing cultists believing their lies.
But apart from the specifics, it's just irrational spewing, not subject for discussion.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 03:11 PM (ZT5er)
24
DA I feel slighted. You were irresponsibly disrespectful to CY, Retired Navy and Faithful Patriot, but left me out.
I'm curious, DA, how many years, months, weeks, minutes? have you spent actively defending this country you love? For all the damage the right is doing to this country, the voters just keep coming our way. Guess they are hearing your message after all - AND REJECTING IT!
I spent 31 years defending your right to speak out, and it has been worth every minute. Your bitter hatred is driving more voters to the right of center than we could've ever hoped for. Keep up the good work. It won't be much longer before you will become the party of extinction.
I'm curious, DA, how many years, months, weeks, minutes? have you spent actively defending this country you love? For all the damage the right is doing to this country, the voters just keep coming our way. Guess they are hearing your message after all - AND REJECTING IT!
I spent 31 years defending your right to speak out, and it has been worth every minute. Your bitter hatred is driving more voters to the right of center than we could've ever hoped for. Keep up the good work. It won't be much longer before you will become the party of extinction.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 27, 2006 03:12 PM (X2tAw)
25
Oh, and the insanity of the right could hardly be more clearly shown than when they, in this thread, try to turn what is obviously a peaceful protest - BRING YOUR SIGNS - into some sort of thing it's not, an armed insurrection.
I hate to tell you, but saying you would like to see the criminals in government put in jail is not an armed insurrection. It's called freedom of speech.
Now, if they were saying something really violent, such as arguing that 'the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots' and that 20 years should not go by without blood being spilled to keep liberty healthy -
Oh wait, Thomas Jefferson is the traitor who said that.
I hate to tell you, but saying you would like to see the criminals in government put in jail is not an armed insurrection. It's called freedom of speech.
Now, if they were saying something really violent, such as arguing that 'the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots' and that 20 years should not go by without blood being spilled to keep liberty healthy -
Oh wait, Thomas Jefferson is the traitor who said that.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 03:15 PM (ZT5er)
26
Wait a minute.
THAT pushed you over the edge, 81?
Christ, take a step back, because that was entirely too easy.
Maybe, you're just a bit on edge already because your commander in chief is putting profits and personal relationships in front of the security of our nation? Yeah, that might be it.
You've got to be getting tired of explaining to everybody why they're wrong about what a total douchebag that guy is.
You sound like an intelligent adult, 81, so tell me, would you buy a used car from George Bush?
I didn't think so.
Next issue- working together in 2008.
THAT pushed you over the edge, 81?
Christ, take a step back, because that was entirely too easy.
Maybe, you're just a bit on edge already because your commander in chief is putting profits and personal relationships in front of the security of our nation? Yeah, that might be it.
You've got to be getting tired of explaining to everybody why they're wrong about what a total douchebag that guy is.
You sound like an intelligent adult, 81, so tell me, would you buy a used car from George Bush?
I didn't think so.
Next issue- working together in 2008.
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 03:16 PM (yFm36)
27
Rober Lewis, how many minutes have you spent in military uniform?
Craig, where's your brilliant ideas? I don't want counter arguments; I want viable ideas and solutions. Your ideology has been consistantly devoid of such.
Craig, where's your brilliant ideas? I don't want counter arguments; I want viable ideas and solutions. Your ideology has been consistantly devoid of such.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 27, 2006 03:17 PM (X2tAw)
28
Blue Parrot,
Nice absence of substance; where's the ideas? Socialism is NOT the answer; neither is giving away the farm.
Nice absence of substance; where's the ideas? Socialism is NOT the answer; neither is giving away the farm.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 27, 2006 03:20 PM (X2tAw)
29
Old Soldier, thanks for your service.
I will use the freedom to say what I like, and if you have a problem with that, too bad. I'd rather you NOT serve if your service does not include the right for others to tell you you're completely wrong.
As for your claims of how hatred is driving people to the right:
Get a clue. First, have you seen the pools? The majority is AGAINST the people in power.
Second, you misattribute the support they do have: the republicans have co-opted groups, especially the corporate by selling out the public interest (pay up, and write your own legislation - heck, we'll put your own lobbyist in charge of regulating you) - and religious groups by pandering to them and convincing them they're persecuted, to get their votes.
Third, You aren't getting the votes you think you are - it's a fact that Gore had more votes than Bush in 2000, and it's unarguable that he was the people's choice even in the electoral system, when you look at the issues such as the butterfly ballot that caused thousands of Gore votes to go to Buchanan in a race officially decided by 537 votes.
And finally, the hatred is from the right. The left loves the world and the US, and is fighting against the corruption and attacks on our great country by the snake oil salesmen who have hikacked so-called conservatism, duping the easily misled.
I will use the freedom to say what I like, and if you have a problem with that, too bad. I'd rather you NOT serve if your service does not include the right for others to tell you you're completely wrong.
As for your claims of how hatred is driving people to the right:
Get a clue. First, have you seen the pools? The majority is AGAINST the people in power.
Second, you misattribute the support they do have: the republicans have co-opted groups, especially the corporate by selling out the public interest (pay up, and write your own legislation - heck, we'll put your own lobbyist in charge of regulating you) - and religious groups by pandering to them and convincing them they're persecuted, to get their votes.
Third, You aren't getting the votes you think you are - it's a fact that Gore had more votes than Bush in 2000, and it's unarguable that he was the people's choice even in the electoral system, when you look at the issues such as the butterfly ballot that caused thousands of Gore votes to go to Buchanan in a race officially decided by 537 votes.
And finally, the hatred is from the right. The left loves the world and the US, and is fighting against the corruption and attacks on our great country by the snake oil salesmen who have hikacked so-called conservatism, duping the easily misled.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 03:22 PM (ZT5er)
30
OS,
Thank you for your 31 years of service, but I've got a question:
How many times did you question authority in those 31 years?
Can you count them on one hand?
That's called a lack of critical thinking skills.
Now, that's what makes the military work, but it is totally at odds with what makes democracy thrive. Our leaders must be questioned at every instance, because their men, no better and in some cases actually worse than you and me.
No offense meant, but your background doesn't lend your argument any additional weight.
BP
Thank you for your 31 years of service, but I've got a question:
How many times did you question authority in those 31 years?
Can you count them on one hand?
That's called a lack of critical thinking skills.
Now, that's what makes the military work, but it is totally at odds with what makes democracy thrive. Our leaders must be questioned at every instance, because their men, no better and in some cases actually worse than you and me.
No offense meant, but your background doesn't lend your argument any additional weight.
BP
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 03:23 PM (yFm36)
31
BP,
Yes I would and drive it quite comfortably see I was sent off the coast of Iraq so many times when Clinton was in office bit nothing was done, the one time we thought he had some balls he tell Saddam comply or we will bomb you, oh yeah we loaded the aircraft were ready to launch and the dealine came and went, we were put on a hold so Saddam could rethink. Come on are you kidding me we drew and line in the sand and walked away form it. See I was there so this isnt right or left wing BS this is truth.
Dont question my service I have served for both Dem's and Rep's and have not waivered in any way.
One last thing to say here I love the way all the Dem's say Bush is so bad then how in the hell did he get voted back into office. If we all hate him and his a a "douche bag" how did he stay in office?
Craig the article clearly states we must storm in and show them. Now does that sound peaceful to you?
Yes I would and drive it quite comfortably see I was sent off the coast of Iraq so many times when Clinton was in office bit nothing was done, the one time we thought he had some balls he tell Saddam comply or we will bomb you, oh yeah we loaded the aircraft were ready to launch and the dealine came and went, we were put on a hold so Saddam could rethink. Come on are you kidding me we drew and line in the sand and walked away form it. See I was there so this isnt right or left wing BS this is truth.
Dont question my service I have served for both Dem's and Rep's and have not waivered in any way.
One last thing to say here I love the way all the Dem's say Bush is so bad then how in the hell did he get voted back into office. If we all hate him and his a a "douche bag" how did he stay in office?
Craig the article clearly states we must storm in and show them. Now does that sound peaceful to you?
Posted by: 81 at February 27, 2006 03:24 PM (y67bA)
32
To Confederate Yankee: The real oxymoron is the term "Conservative Christian."
Posted by: bonaparte at February 27, 2006 03:27 PM (cISnH)
33
Old Soldier, you say the left lacks ideas. You are wrong.
That's a right-wing parrot point for its minions, and you swallowed it whole.
The first thing we need to do is to get rid of the criminals in power, so that the left's ideas are relevant, not just words on paper - so that's why you will see the left talk against the right to get voters opposing them.
But the left is the idea party, not the right.
Consider all the great accomplishments in the last century, and who was responsible? The left.
Women voting? The end of child labor and dangerous workplaces with 12 hour 6 day weeks? The minimum wage? The civil rights movement for races, for women, for the disabled? Supporting public education being more widely available, for less cost? Putting a man on the moon?
You pick it and the left did it mostly. I'll give a few exceptions - Ike and federal highways.
There are books and books and books filled with the left's constructive plans.
I can list many of them here, but you wouldn't read them, so why waste the time?
But just for others, or to prove the point, read recent books by James Carville.
Tons of specific positive suggestions for policy.
That's a right-wing parrot point for its minions, and you swallowed it whole.
The first thing we need to do is to get rid of the criminals in power, so that the left's ideas are relevant, not just words on paper - so that's why you will see the left talk against the right to get voters opposing them.
But the left is the idea party, not the right.
Consider all the great accomplishments in the last century, and who was responsible? The left.
Women voting? The end of child labor and dangerous workplaces with 12 hour 6 day weeks? The minimum wage? The civil rights movement for races, for women, for the disabled? Supporting public education being more widely available, for less cost? Putting a man on the moon?
You pick it and the left did it mostly. I'll give a few exceptions - Ike and federal highways.
There are books and books and books filled with the left's constructive plans.
I can list many of them here, but you wouldn't read them, so why waste the time?
But just for others, or to prove the point, read recent books by James Carville.
Tons of specific positive suggestions for policy.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 03:28 PM (ZT5er)
34
OS,
[Laughing] Blue Parrot... You GOPhers and your command of puns. Just amazing!
Whoo, that's good stuff.
Hey, would it make you feel better if every time you called a liberal or Democrat or progressive a "commie" or a "Socialist", you were in turn called a "Fascist"? It's as true as your statement.
BP
[Laughing] Blue Parrot... You GOPhers and your command of puns. Just amazing!
Whoo, that's good stuff.
Hey, would it make you feel better if every time you called a liberal or Democrat or progressive a "commie" or a "Socialist", you were in turn called a "Fascist"? It's as true as your statement.
BP
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 03:31 PM (yFm36)
35
Just a quick question:
When someone talks about the "War on Poverty" (admittedly, an old term) do you imagine troops strafing soup kitchen or gov't cheese lines? Next thing you know you'll want Operation "Enduring Freedom" to bring freedom (of the enduring sort) to the Middle East!?! How's that going, anyway?
Neo-cons throw the word "treason" around so much it will soon lose all of its meaning. So far today, I've read right-wing "treason" screeds against the NYT, Joe Biden, and now, war protestors. Meanwhile, Halliburton gets to bilk the American taxpayer for millions (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/international/middleeast/27contract.html?amp;en=8930bc6384bc57a9&ei=5094&hp=&ex=1141102800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) yet Dick Cheney is not only free to walk around, but apparently to shoot people with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever. It's called "war profiteering" people, and it's really against the law!
When someone talks about the "War on Poverty" (admittedly, an old term) do you imagine troops strafing soup kitchen or gov't cheese lines? Next thing you know you'll want Operation "Enduring Freedom" to bring freedom (of the enduring sort) to the Middle East!?! How's that going, anyway?
Neo-cons throw the word "treason" around so much it will soon lose all of its meaning. So far today, I've read right-wing "treason" screeds against the NYT, Joe Biden, and now, war protestors. Meanwhile, Halliburton gets to bilk the American taxpayer for millions (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/international/middleeast/27contract.html?amp;en=8930bc6384bc57a9&ei=5094&hp=&ex=1141102800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) yet Dick Cheney is not only free to walk around, but apparently to shoot people with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever. It's called "war profiteering" people, and it's really against the law!
Posted by: JT at February 27, 2006 03:32 PM (HJ32c)
36
81, yes storm in and shows them sounds peaceful, because common sense says exactly what the plan is: 'storm' Washington to protest by carrying signs.
It takes an amazing level of craziness to interpret their plan as armed revolt.
You really need to think about how wrong you are to argue the point.
One of us will be proven right in March - either it'll be a protest without armed revolt, or it'll be a heck of a news story. I've no doubt you will be the one left to face being wrong.
Though you will likely just say they changed their minds because of Bush's leadership.
It takes an amazing level of craziness to interpret their plan as armed revolt.
You really need to think about how wrong you are to argue the point.
One of us will be proven right in March - either it'll be a protest without armed revolt, or it'll be a heck of a news story. I've no doubt you will be the one left to face being wrong.
Though you will likely just say they changed their minds because of Bush's leadership.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 03:32 PM (ZT5er)
37
How anybody can read that overwrought hyperbolic invitation for a protest and interpret it as an insurrection is beyond me. They're planning to show up with signs. Do you honestly think anyone can literally "storm" the White House with SIGNS?
I went to the UPFJ website, because I had no idea what it was, and what I discovered was that first, there is a disclaimer above this notice that events listed are not necessarily endorsed or oganized by UPFJ, and second, that on their calendar, this event is described as a "peaceful event." So those of you concerned that a handful of sign-wielding protesters are an actual threat to the government, or even to anyone in the vicinity of the White House on March 15 can rest assured. No overthrow of the government is being called for here. Just a protest. With lots of hyperbole.
I went to the UPFJ website, because I had no idea what it was, and what I discovered was that first, there is a disclaimer above this notice that events listed are not necessarily endorsed or oganized by UPFJ, and second, that on their calendar, this event is described as a "peaceful event." So those of you concerned that a handful of sign-wielding protesters are an actual threat to the government, or even to anyone in the vicinity of the White House on March 15 can rest assured. No overthrow of the government is being called for here. Just a protest. With lots of hyperbole.
Posted by: Give it a rest at February 27, 2006 03:35 PM (Ro0yu)
38
81,
"How did Bush get re-elected?"
Simple, 81.
Half of the country just isn't paying any GD attention,
OR, they're voting because they fell for the "Jesus told me so" bullsh!t,
OR, they thought that a guy who was so coked up that he couldn't take his DODMERB exam was a better choice for a POTUS than a guy who went to Nam and then had the audacity to speak his mind when he got back.
Does that clear it up for you?
-BP
"How did Bush get re-elected?"
Simple, 81.
Half of the country just isn't paying any GD attention,
OR, they're voting because they fell for the "Jesus told me so" bullsh!t,
OR, they thought that a guy who was so coked up that he couldn't take his DODMERB exam was a better choice for a POTUS than a guy who went to Nam and then had the audacity to speak his mind when he got back.
Does that clear it up for you?
-BP
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 03:39 PM (yFm36)
39
United States Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Release date: 2005-08-03
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Release date: 2005-08-03
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Posted by: just_the_facts at February 27, 2006 03:44 PM (pLTLS)
40
"Nobody advocates throwing out this government violently. "Storming the WH" is a figure of speech."
So these are figures or speech too?
-"We need your help to end the reign of international criminals"
-"It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators."
-"Remove the traitors..."
Here's the deal. Either the kooks really want to violently overthrow the government by "storming the White House" and "ending the reign", "rescuing the world from the U.s. dictators" and "removing the traitors"... or they're just a bunch of whining pansies that think sit-ins and picketing will cause such a crushing blow to the morale of the President that he'll step down in shame and hand the keys to a bunch of unbathed socialists.
This is why I'm not worried should the lefty kooks ever threaten civil war. Can you imagine the scene if a bunch of hippies with signs charged 2nd Amendment-loving conservatives?
You liberals/socialists/communists are a friggin' joke.
So these are figures or speech too?
-"We need your help to end the reign of international criminals"
-"It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators."
-"Remove the traitors..."
Here's the deal. Either the kooks really want to violently overthrow the government by "storming the White House" and "ending the reign", "rescuing the world from the U.s. dictators" and "removing the traitors"... or they're just a bunch of whining pansies that think sit-ins and picketing will cause such a crushing blow to the morale of the President that he'll step down in shame and hand the keys to a bunch of unbathed socialists.
This is why I'm not worried should the lefty kooks ever threaten civil war. Can you imagine the scene if a bunch of hippies with signs charged 2nd Amendment-loving conservatives?
You liberals/socialists/communists are a friggin' joke.
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 03:47 PM (TwSjW)
41
I have truly failed.
Posted by: Mahatma Gandhi at February 27, 2006 03:55 PM (fcGkj)
42
Jason,
You have a daunting command of stereotypes. All the pervert commies (who happen to be American citizens and probably include some of your own family members) shake in their boots from your awesome rhetorical skills. You are a total tough-ass.
Well done, sir. That'll learn'em.
You have a daunting command of stereotypes. All the pervert commies (who happen to be American citizens and probably include some of your own family members) shake in their boots from your awesome rhetorical skills. You are a total tough-ass.
Well done, sir. That'll learn'em.
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 03:55 PM (yFm36)
43
No, Jason, you are the joke.
You are so manipulated to support others' interests over your own that you don't even see how you are falling for it. They make you look at phony issues, and distract you from real issues, and you thank them. *Sucker*. P. T. Barnum was right.
You identify yourself as a 'loyal American', all the while doing so under the Bush/republican banner that represents the great harming of the United States.
Under the people YOU vote for, the US has lost immense international power and prestige with probably every other nation, has seen the citizenry harmed by gross selling out of the public interest to special interest donors, has seen corruption between government and corporations skyrocket, has seen the debt explode to pay all these special interests off, has weakened our system of democracy, the ability of the public to oversee its government with all the secrecy, on and on.
You are supporting the people who harm our great country, and you are seduced by the 'right' cult.
It's not about your childish nonsense of hippies trying an armed revolt.
It's about the things above - the very notion of the public having the power to rule its own nation that's in danger, as this radical movement undermines democracy.
You are so manipulated to support others' interests over your own that you don't even see how you are falling for it. They make you look at phony issues, and distract you from real issues, and you thank them. *Sucker*. P. T. Barnum was right.
You identify yourself as a 'loyal American', all the while doing so under the Bush/republican banner that represents the great harming of the United States.
Under the people YOU vote for, the US has lost immense international power and prestige with probably every other nation, has seen the citizenry harmed by gross selling out of the public interest to special interest donors, has seen corruption between government and corporations skyrocket, has seen the debt explode to pay all these special interests off, has weakened our system of democracy, the ability of the public to oversee its government with all the secrecy, on and on.
You are supporting the people who harm our great country, and you are seduced by the 'right' cult.
It's not about your childish nonsense of hippies trying an armed revolt.
It's about the things above - the very notion of the public having the power to rule its own nation that's in danger, as this radical movement undermines democracy.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 03:58 PM (ZT5er)
44
If this "dangerous and seditious" protest is what it takes to get you over-wrought, you wouldn't last a week in DC during protest flier season.
Posted by: Maimonides at February 27, 2006 04:09 PM (fcGkj)
45
Yeah, Craig, before Bush won in 2000, islamofascists loved America, liberals loved conservatives and we were all singing kumbaya around worldwide campfires.
Why don't go plant a flower in the name of peace and leave the real defense of this country to the grownups.
But please don't call me when the phony issue shows up at your doorstep to behead you for being an infidel, despite your praise and tolerance of his warped sense of religion and your tinfoil fear of government conspiracies and evil corporations.
You are right about the public having the power to rule its own nation... and 60,000,000+ of us did so in November, 2004. The fact you guys can't get over it says a lot.
And the fact that our government can still fully function in the face of the Lefts' irrational behavior since shows just how damned well our democratic republic works.
Why don't go plant a flower in the name of peace and leave the real defense of this country to the grownups.
But please don't call me when the phony issue shows up at your doorstep to behead you for being an infidel, despite your praise and tolerance of his warped sense of religion and your tinfoil fear of government conspiracies and evil corporations.
You are right about the public having the power to rule its own nation... and 60,000,000+ of us did so in November, 2004. The fact you guys can't get over it says a lot.
And the fact that our government can still fully function in the face of the Lefts' irrational behavior since shows just how damned well our democratic republic works.
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 04:11 PM (TwSjW)
46
The fact that our great democracy still functions even as the POTUS is "talking with God" and the VP is totally beholden to a huge company like Haliburton, with his "deferred salary" and $millions in options, goes to show how robust the institution is.
Grownups, huh Jason? Are those the same type of grownups that fantasize about mowing down a charging line of unarmed hippies.
You infantile jackass. Shame on you.
Now, go back to your video games, or better yet, read a history book.
Grownups, huh Jason? Are those the same type of grownups that fantasize about mowing down a charging line of unarmed hippies.
You infantile jackass. Shame on you.
Now, go back to your video games, or better yet, read a history book.
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 04:18 PM (yFm36)
47
The fact that you are so totally unaware of the price you and the rest of the public is paying shows how the democracy is NOT working, Jason. Your fear of the terrorists which leads you to not institute the rational protections we need, but instead lead you to bizarre fantasies about head choppers showing up at your door and supporting evil, corrupt people to lead the country are the problem.
You're in a dream world, correction, a nightmare world.
Hopefully you will someday develop some critical thinking skills, and use them to get informed, and learn how you're being manipulated against your own interests, and stop being one of the '60 million' who screwed up so badly this last time.
But I will agree with you that the fact that Al Gore got more votes, and was the clear choice of the people in 2000, does speak well to the health of our democracy.
You must be proud, though, that the right has gained in power by co-opting the racists since 1968, when the 'southern strategy' flipped the key votes in the south from democrat to republican by using 'code phrases' to show the republicans opposed all these 'equal rights'.
You're in a dream world, correction, a nightmare world.
Hopefully you will someday develop some critical thinking skills, and use them to get informed, and learn how you're being manipulated against your own interests, and stop being one of the '60 million' who screwed up so badly this last time.
But I will agree with you that the fact that Al Gore got more votes, and was the clear choice of the people in 2000, does speak well to the health of our democracy.
You must be proud, though, that the right has gained in power by co-opting the racists since 1968, when the 'southern strategy' flipped the key votes in the south from democrat to republican by using 'code phrases' to show the republicans opposed all these 'equal rights'.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 04:22 PM (ZT5er)
48
Since we're all on the subject, maybe one of you fine Republican-Americans can explain to us commies why the GOP has a hard-on for voting machines that give absolutely no verifiable paper receipt whatsoever. None. No way to make sure there isn't a bug in the system.
Absolutely against the idea of verification, like they're trying to hide something.
Why is that, again?
Is it because you love democracy so much, or is it a "Faith-based initiative"?
Absolutely against the idea of verification, like they're trying to hide something.
Why is that, again?
Is it because you love democracy so much, or is it a "Faith-based initiative"?
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 04:24 PM (yFm36)
49
But wait, BP, I thought you guys knew a "figure of speech" when you saw one.
Your conspiracy theories about Bush's faith and Cheney's FORMER occupation are typical of the rabid, mindless left in this country. I'm sure the same brain you use to deconstruct Cheney's salary doesn't quite do the same math for the wealth amassed by Kerry, Kennedy, the Clintons or any other liberal in the stratosphere of the "wealthiest one percenters". The "machine" you refer to is called capitalism and it's a damn fine machine. As long as you keep your socialism and communism the hell away from it.
Your conspiracy theories about Bush's faith and Cheney's FORMER occupation are typical of the rabid, mindless left in this country. I'm sure the same brain you use to deconstruct Cheney's salary doesn't quite do the same math for the wealth amassed by Kerry, Kennedy, the Clintons or any other liberal in the stratosphere of the "wealthiest one percenters". The "machine" you refer to is called capitalism and it's a damn fine machine. As long as you keep your socialism and communism the hell away from it.
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 04:25 PM (TwSjW)
50
Jason,
You ignorant slut. (See? I do know about a figure of speech)
Cheney is still receiving payment from Haliburton. He still owns options that he will make millions on.
Does that sound like a "former occupation" to you? Do you have former employers still sending you checks? Other than the hush money from your sexpeddling days with Jeff Gannon, that is...
See, it's not a conspiracy theory, if the damned IRS reports it. Just because you're uninformed on the subject, doesn't make the subject invisible. Kinda like the Dem's not having any plans- No, they have them, you're just ignorant of them.
Talk about mindless, you're the f'ing posterboy, Jason.
You ignorant slut. (See? I do know about a figure of speech)
Cheney is still receiving payment from Haliburton. He still owns options that he will make millions on.
Does that sound like a "former occupation" to you? Do you have former employers still sending you checks? Other than the hush money from your sexpeddling days with Jeff Gannon, that is...
See, it's not a conspiracy theory, if the damned IRS reports it. Just because you're uninformed on the subject, doesn't make the subject invisible. Kinda like the Dem's not having any plans- No, they have them, you're just ignorant of them.
Talk about mindless, you're the f'ing posterboy, Jason.
Posted by: Blue Patriot at February 27, 2006 04:31 PM (yFm36)
51
Wow!!!!!! It sure is easy to stir up the pattiotic juices of 101 fighting keyboarders, yup, yup those war protesters are gunna storm the WH and pillage and rape Scot oops Laura. They should be shot, tried for treason, whatever -if you can do that bring it on, KBR has been building holding facilities all over for an "immigration emergency". But you can't and you know why -"cause WE are the majority that's why and this government can't afford to imprison that many of the people who really pay taxes. So, if one of these red goppers shows up and actually hurts someone does that mean CY can be tried inciting a crime, I think the Patriot Act allows for something like this or would that only apply to those against the war.
Hey guys that's the GOP the passive-aggresive ports gambit is going well, for quit while your ahead.
Hey guys that's the GOP the passive-aggresive ports gambit is going well, for quit while your ahead.
Posted by: delenn at February 27, 2006 04:37 PM (V0RKm)
52
What conspiracy theories about Bush's faith?
The man has said he learned how to seduce the Christian vote during his father's senate campaign, and he's used those skills to continue to get support for his campaigns, by pandering and convincing the Christians they're victims and threatened.
What conspiracy theories about Cheny and Halliburton?
We have a huge problem with the revolving door between government that's support to represent the public interest OVER private interests, and the corporate interests who love to get that oversight not to occur, with cushy positions offered and such.
Go read the news, and see the recent examples where some former private sector people admit that one of the first things they'd do it make it clear to the government people that nice things awaited them soon.
But the right, in its cultish behavior, can't see the problem - they blindly support 'the right'. Not that this is only a problem of the right; it exists on the left too, but less so, and without the blind ignoring of it.
Cheney was hired as CEO of Halliburton because of his ability to get them business. He did: their government work increased hundreds of percent. Why is that - is it all legitimate? Does anyone in the right cult care?
These people know that they can take care of each other. We need strong separation of the two - such as Kerry's plan to require a five year waiting period before government people go to companies they had public responsibilities with - one of the 'ideas' the left has.
I don't know if Cheney has any more relationship with Halliburton than the fixed, deferred income.
But I do see that Halliburton is getting these billions in no-bid contract dollars, and that they are terribly over-billing the American taxpayers.
Funny, the right hates 'government waste', but as long as it's the government causing the taxpayers' money to be wasted into the pockets of the private sector's corrupt people, then it's fine with them.
You make unsupported, baseless, nonsensical charges Jason. Enjoy your cult.
The man has said he learned how to seduce the Christian vote during his father's senate campaign, and he's used those skills to continue to get support for his campaigns, by pandering and convincing the Christians they're victims and threatened.
What conspiracy theories about Cheny and Halliburton?
We have a huge problem with the revolving door between government that's support to represent the public interest OVER private interests, and the corporate interests who love to get that oversight not to occur, with cushy positions offered and such.
Go read the news, and see the recent examples where some former private sector people admit that one of the first things they'd do it make it clear to the government people that nice things awaited them soon.
But the right, in its cultish behavior, can't see the problem - they blindly support 'the right'. Not that this is only a problem of the right; it exists on the left too, but less so, and without the blind ignoring of it.
Cheney was hired as CEO of Halliburton because of his ability to get them business. He did: their government work increased hundreds of percent. Why is that - is it all legitimate? Does anyone in the right cult care?
These people know that they can take care of each other. We need strong separation of the two - such as Kerry's plan to require a five year waiting period before government people go to companies they had public responsibilities with - one of the 'ideas' the left has.
I don't know if Cheney has any more relationship with Halliburton than the fixed, deferred income.
But I do see that Halliburton is getting these billions in no-bid contract dollars, and that they are terribly over-billing the American taxpayers.
Funny, the right hates 'government waste', but as long as it's the government causing the taxpayers' money to be wasted into the pockets of the private sector's corrupt people, then it's fine with them.
You make unsupported, baseless, nonsensical charges Jason. Enjoy your cult.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 04:42 PM (ZT5er)
53
First of all all you folks should take a valium,
I consider myself to the right of Temujin and I gotta tell you that George is doing a lot wrong and if the cretins on the left want to overthrow him that is fine with me.
Makes it a lot easire to round them up and ship them out. I get to shoot a few in the process.
On the other had I suggest you folks stop reading the constitution and reread the Declaration of Independence again.Especially that second paragraph.
I am not quite sure we are there yet but Leaving our borders un-secure and outsourcing our work sure helps.
I leave you with this. How is signing a trade treaty free market capitalism?
I mean if wages are based on supply and demand. that means with out illegal immigration the wage would rise to meet the demand. Free markets mean govt stays out and not signs treaties.
By the way both Al Gore and Kerry are guilty of treason and sedition. Al Gore commits it regularly.
I consider myself to the right of Temujin and I gotta tell you that George is doing a lot wrong and if the cretins on the left want to overthrow him that is fine with me.
Makes it a lot easire to round them up and ship them out. I get to shoot a few in the process.
On the other had I suggest you folks stop reading the constitution and reread the Declaration of Independence again.Especially that second paragraph.
I am not quite sure we are there yet but Leaving our borders un-secure and outsourcing our work sure helps.
I leave you with this. How is signing a trade treaty free market capitalism?
I mean if wages are based on supply and demand. that means with out illegal immigration the wage would rise to meet the demand. Free markets mean govt stays out and not signs treaties.
By the way both Al Gore and Kerry are guilty of treason and sedition. Al Gore commits it regularly.
Posted by: Warlord at February 27, 2006 04:45 PM (b1TDU)
54
"Cheney is still receiving payment from Haliburton. He still owns options that he will make millions on."
Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998. Do you know what "deferred compensation" means? It means he already earned it...
And about his stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity. This means he will donate the money, AFTER PAYING TAXES THEREON OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET, to charity. He will not "earn millions", the charities will. In fact, since he's paying taxes on the money as well, he's actually going to be losing some on those exercised options.
Ever tried to research your conspiracy theories before spouting them off in public?
and you're calling me ignorant?
Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998. Do you know what "deferred compensation" means? It means he already earned it...
And about his stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity. This means he will donate the money, AFTER PAYING TAXES THEREON OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET, to charity. He will not "earn millions", the charities will. In fact, since he's paying taxes on the money as well, he's actually going to be losing some on those exercised options.
Ever tried to research your conspiracy theories before spouting them off in public?
and you're calling me ignorant?
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 04:45 PM (TwSjW)
55
"The fact that you are so totally unaware of the price you and the rest of the public is paying shows how the democracy is NOT working, Jason. Your fear of the terrorists which leads you to not institute the rational protections we need, but instead lead you to bizarre fantasies about head choppers showing up at your door and supporting evil, corrupt people to lead the country are the problem. You're in a dream world, correction, a nightmare world."
I was on a plane over Baltimore on 9/11/01. I had friends and business associates killed in both the WTC and the Pentagon. It's hardly a fantasy to me.
"But I will agree with you that the fact that Al Gore got more votes, and was the clear choice of the people in 2000, does speak well to the health of our democracy."
Do you guys think that incessantly repeating this crap will somehow turn the clocks back and change the outcome?
We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic. The fact Gore stole enough votes to give the appearance of a popular win is irrelevant, and has been since the introduction of the electoral college system. The first we complaints we start hearing about the EC system being "flawed" is when the leftwingers lose an election. Big surprise.
"You must be proud, though, that the right has gained in power by co-opting the racists since 1968"
I wouldn't know about co-opting racists as I don't live in West Virginia and am unable to vote for Robert Byrd or any other Democrats who filibustered the civil rights act.
But hey, thanks for trying to switch topics so abruptly... I was starting to see how negatively you guys were being impacted by facts.
I was on a plane over Baltimore on 9/11/01. I had friends and business associates killed in both the WTC and the Pentagon. It's hardly a fantasy to me.
"But I will agree with you that the fact that Al Gore got more votes, and was the clear choice of the people in 2000, does speak well to the health of our democracy."
Do you guys think that incessantly repeating this crap will somehow turn the clocks back and change the outcome?
We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic. The fact Gore stole enough votes to give the appearance of a popular win is irrelevant, and has been since the introduction of the electoral college system. The first we complaints we start hearing about the EC system being "flawed" is when the leftwingers lose an election. Big surprise.
"You must be proud, though, that the right has gained in power by co-opting the racists since 1968"
I wouldn't know about co-opting racists as I don't live in West Virginia and am unable to vote for Robert Byrd or any other Democrats who filibustered the civil rights act.
But hey, thanks for trying to switch topics so abruptly... I was starting to see how negatively you guys were being impacted by facts.
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 04:55 PM (TwSjW)
56
You're frothing again Jason.
The fact you knew people killed on 9/11 is sad - and adds zero of the credibility to your opinions on our policies which you think that it adds. I sympathize on a personal level, and don't let you milk it on a political level.
Your very style in posting is terrible - you ignore the points you are least able to answer, and attempt to cherry pick the few you think you can defend, rather than listening for where you might be wrong. Bad for you, bad for the readers.
But you're even weak on the issues you pick.
You can spew more than I care to answer, but that doesn't make it more than spewing garbage.
But I'll again pick a couple examples.
You allege that Gore's margin of victory can be entirely accounted for by his stealing votes.
Evidence? You present none. Complete crap.
And to any rational, informed person, it's clear that Gore won the *electoral* election too, in terms of how people intended to vote. Even Pat Buchanan admits this, as the recipient of the 'butterfly ballot' votes. There were many other ways the people's choice was thwarted.
You ask if it's repeated to change the outcome? No, just to note the truth, which *we* value.
On the 1968 southern strategy:
Let me say this slowly for you.
There were racists in the south. They opposed the civil rights act. They had voted as democrats for a long time, rooted way back when democrats were the opposition to Lincoln, who they were mad at for helping blacks then. But times changed and the democratic party became the party leading the fight for civil rights, because it was right, at their own political expense.
Look at the votes on the 1964 civil rights bill. The group highest in favor: non-southern democrats (led by their democratic president, who fought for the bill's passage). The group most opposed? Southern politicians - who were democrats.
And those same racists who were democrats before, were targetted by the republican party in the 1968 'southern strategy', which as I said involved sending 'coded messages' to the racists so as not to be held accountable by the rest of the country, to get their support, and it worked.
It's a matter of history; the strategy was designed by Nixon's campaign head, Kevin Phillips, who I've met, and who by the way has since renounced the republican party because of the direction it's taken under the Bushes.
The democratic party gets the credit for pushing the civil rights bill through (the republicans get some secondary credit for not uniting against it). The bad guys are the southerners who voted against the bill, their party and their president - and then becamee republicans who are responsible for the national shift from democratic to republican presidents. You must be proud.
The fact you knew people killed on 9/11 is sad - and adds zero of the credibility to your opinions on our policies which you think that it adds. I sympathize on a personal level, and don't let you milk it on a political level.
Your very style in posting is terrible - you ignore the points you are least able to answer, and attempt to cherry pick the few you think you can defend, rather than listening for where you might be wrong. Bad for you, bad for the readers.
But you're even weak on the issues you pick.
You can spew more than I care to answer, but that doesn't make it more than spewing garbage.
But I'll again pick a couple examples.
You allege that Gore's margin of victory can be entirely accounted for by his stealing votes.
Evidence? You present none. Complete crap.
And to any rational, informed person, it's clear that Gore won the *electoral* election too, in terms of how people intended to vote. Even Pat Buchanan admits this, as the recipient of the 'butterfly ballot' votes. There were many other ways the people's choice was thwarted.
You ask if it's repeated to change the outcome? No, just to note the truth, which *we* value.
On the 1968 southern strategy:
Let me say this slowly for you.
There were racists in the south. They opposed the civil rights act. They had voted as democrats for a long time, rooted way back when democrats were the opposition to Lincoln, who they were mad at for helping blacks then. But times changed and the democratic party became the party leading the fight for civil rights, because it was right, at their own political expense.
Look at the votes on the 1964 civil rights bill. The group highest in favor: non-southern democrats (led by their democratic president, who fought for the bill's passage). The group most opposed? Southern politicians - who were democrats.
And those same racists who were democrats before, were targetted by the republican party in the 1968 'southern strategy', which as I said involved sending 'coded messages' to the racists so as not to be held accountable by the rest of the country, to get their support, and it worked.
It's a matter of history; the strategy was designed by Nixon's campaign head, Kevin Phillips, who I've met, and who by the way has since renounced the republican party because of the direction it's taken under the Bushes.
The democratic party gets the credit for pushing the civil rights bill through (the republicans get some secondary credit for not uniting against it). The bad guys are the southerners who voted against the bill, their party and their president - and then becamee republicans who are responsible for the national shift from democratic to republican presidents. You must be proud.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 05:11 PM (ZT5er)
57
Just because I don't spend the next 4 hours educating you on every little topic you feel the need to bring up, doesn't mean I'm lacking in skill, knowledge or credibility.
"You allege that Gore's margin of victory can be entirely accounted for by his stealing votes. Evidence? You present none. Complete crap."
I'm sure you one of the tens of people who think the fact that Gore's campaign manager was the son of the Chicago Mayor that orchestrated Kennedy's questionable victory in 1960.
The first recount demanded by Gore went to Bush. So did the second, hand recount. So Gore's team began trying to change the definition of "votes" and "voter intent". To say nothing of the numerous ballots spoiled by simple handling of them for weeks. Gore supporters never seemed a single bit concerned about the thousands of chads that littered the floors of the recount centers. Democrats even continued to recount long after the decision was final and still Bush won. All this in the face of Gore tossing thousands of military overseas ballots and the networks declaring Gore the winner before polls closed in the panhandle of Florida, where Bush would've certainly picked up a larger majority of votes than Gore.
Of course, we've also two other elections since then, including another presidential election and instead of Americans revolting from the "stolen election"... the President won re-election and his party actually made GAINS in Congress. So now you guys shift focus from alleging election theft and blame it on "60+ million dumb voters".
I'm sure after this November you'll have a new line to toe.
"You allege that Gore's margin of victory can be entirely accounted for by his stealing votes. Evidence? You present none. Complete crap."
I'm sure you one of the tens of people who think the fact that Gore's campaign manager was the son of the Chicago Mayor that orchestrated Kennedy's questionable victory in 1960.
The first recount demanded by Gore went to Bush. So did the second, hand recount. So Gore's team began trying to change the definition of "votes" and "voter intent". To say nothing of the numerous ballots spoiled by simple handling of them for weeks. Gore supporters never seemed a single bit concerned about the thousands of chads that littered the floors of the recount centers. Democrats even continued to recount long after the decision was final and still Bush won. All this in the face of Gore tossing thousands of military overseas ballots and the networks declaring Gore the winner before polls closed in the panhandle of Florida, where Bush would've certainly picked up a larger majority of votes than Gore.
Of course, we've also two other elections since then, including another presidential election and instead of Americans revolting from the "stolen election"... the President won re-election and his party actually made GAINS in Congress. So now you guys shift focus from alleging election theft and blame it on "60+ million dumb voters".
I'm sure after this November you'll have a new line to toe.
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 05:25 PM (TwSjW)
58
words are magically disappearing when posting...
that last post should read:
I'm sure you are one of the tens of people who think the fact that Gore's campaign manager was the son of the Chicago Mayor that orchestrated Kennedy's questionable victory in 1960 was just a coincidence.
that last post should read:
I'm sure you are one of the tens of people who think the fact that Gore's campaign manager was the son of the Chicago Mayor that orchestrated Kennedy's questionable victory in 1960 was just a coincidence.
Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 05:28 PM (TwSjW)
59
Jason, you seem to have caused the water level to rise with all the progressive liberal tears of whining that are hitting the comment stream.
Did you realize all the significant accomplishments of the last century were because of progressive socialists, eh, I mean liberals? I wasn't aware there was a sniveler, eh, I mean Dhimmicrat in the WH when the Cold War ended. We did get credit for the interstate highway system, though. Wasn't that benevolent of our Dhimmicrat commenters? I guess Ike, Patton, MacCarther, Marshall and all the rest of the fine Generals of WWII were liberals, too. I guess Ike must have switched parties after the war, heh?
It is sad to realize that the party of JFK is gone; hijacked by progressive socialists intent on losing elections. And doing a dang fine job, too.
I don't recall the last time I've seen so much liberal dribble in one location. CY must have his BS filter turned off.
Did you realize all the significant accomplishments of the last century were because of progressive socialists, eh, I mean liberals? I wasn't aware there was a sniveler, eh, I mean Dhimmicrat in the WH when the Cold War ended. We did get credit for the interstate highway system, though. Wasn't that benevolent of our Dhimmicrat commenters? I guess Ike, Patton, MacCarther, Marshall and all the rest of the fine Generals of WWII were liberals, too. I guess Ike must have switched parties after the war, heh?
It is sad to realize that the party of JFK is gone; hijacked by progressive socialists intent on losing elections. And doing a dang fine job, too.
I don't recall the last time I've seen so much liberal dribble in one location. CY must have his BS filter turned off.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 27, 2006 07:52 PM (owAN1)
60
Uh, I believe it was Eisenhower, a great Republican, who warned us so thoughtfully about the rise of the military industrial complex. He is rolling over in his grave when GWB likens his bogus war to WWII.
Anyone who thinks a bunch a bleeding heart protestors are actually going to storm the whitehouse when they say thats what they are going to do in a protest recruitment email is a BIG DUMMY. Y'ALL repub hicks are jist a buncha BIG DUMMIES! Git yer high school diplomas and come back to the table when you can think gooder!
Anyone who thinks a bunch a bleeding heart protestors are actually going to storm the whitehouse when they say thats what they are going to do in a protest recruitment email is a BIG DUMMY. Y'ALL repub hicks are jist a buncha BIG DUMMIES! Git yer high school diplomas and come back to the table when you can think gooder!
Posted by: lazerlou at February 27, 2006 08:32 PM (pBKzg)
61
Jason, what you lack isn't the time to answer the question. You lack the facts to back up your phony claim, and you lack the intellectual honesty to say that instead of making up an excuse about time.
But you do go on to offer some case for your claim that Gore 'stole' his majority.
Your first point: someone in his campaing was the son of someone who was involved in a corrupt election 40 years ago. Wow, that's solid proof that there was fraud by Gore of that magnitude.
To you, anyway, but not to anyone with the ability to seperate nonsense from logic.
Your second point: Gore opposed the introduction of some military votes which were illegally to count because of the postmark requirements not being met. First, these were not enough to begin to erase his majority. Second, that's not him stealing votes: it's him following the law.
You might have a beef with the military not collecting votes in a timely manner, but that's a far cry from Gore stealing votes, and goes nowhere in proving your claim.
You go on with one of the most inaccurate recountings (pun intended) of the 2000 election vote counting I've ever seen - for just one example, the fact that the Florida State Supreme Court had ordered the recount appears nowhere in your telling, only Gore's lawyers, who apparently took over the election offices - maybe they stormed them in one of these armed revolts you see everywhere. Oh wait, it was the *republicans* who flew GOP staffers from Washington to Florida, who literally did riot to try to disrupt the lawful vote counting - another fact you fail to mention.
Having then failed to utterly make any case for your claim, you move on to putting words in my mouth about such things as what I would say after the next election if democrats lose - because you don't argue with reason, you argue as someone who just makes things up.
The righties are sure predictable - stupid name calling, for example, fill their posts, filling the vacuum created by a lack of having any idea what they're talking about.
For example, we then get treated to 'old soldier's inane 'water level' comment.
All he proves, as always with such things, is his own inability to say something relevant.
He sort of parrots back the same thing I said but disagreeing, just without much on why.
His only fact appears to be that the generals who led WWII were not all liberals - which not only has nothing to do with the point of discussion about the *elected* officials, particularly presidents, but misses the irony that it was a democratic president in office.
And he continues to show his impressive ignorance with the all too common whine by the right about the 'good old days of demoracts like JFK'. What they don't realize of course is that the right has simply been unable to demonize JFK, and so they try to hijack him.
They'll take a couple of facts out of context - his support for a strong military, his tax cut - and mistake them for agreeing with their policies, unaware of his main policies, and why those prove no such thing.
For example, JFK built up the military at a far different time in US history, at the peak of the cold war when our needs were far different; and republicans were generally horrified by Kennedy's economic policies, as he was a student of why limited deficits were a good idea, using spending to stimulate the economy - very successful policies at odds with the republicans.
Things you fail to note - and I can only pick a small sampling - include his standing up to big business in the interest of the country, such as with the steel companies ("My father used to tell me all businessmen were pricks, but I never believeed him until now.") His programs to greatly increase federal aid for the poor, to increase social security, to increase government medical programs, to be the first president in a century to launch a big battle for civil rights (and the progress before him was largely another democrat, Truman), his attempts to end the cold war with the Soviet Union by pursuing peaceful co-existence against the strong opposition of the right (see his June 10, 1963 American University speech for very liberal, dovish views which Pravda printed in full and Kruschev called the greatest American speech in decades), his refusing constant demands by the Pentagon for combat troops in Viet Nam, his fights against colonialism by our European allies (reversing republican policy) and for economic reforms in South America for the poor against the wealthy - and many more.
All of this is against your right-wing ideology - and he was a great president, not your type.
But you do go on to offer some case for your claim that Gore 'stole' his majority.
Your first point: someone in his campaing was the son of someone who was involved in a corrupt election 40 years ago. Wow, that's solid proof that there was fraud by Gore of that magnitude.
To you, anyway, but not to anyone with the ability to seperate nonsense from logic.
Your second point: Gore opposed the introduction of some military votes which were illegally to count because of the postmark requirements not being met. First, these were not enough to begin to erase his majority. Second, that's not him stealing votes: it's him following the law.
You might have a beef with the military not collecting votes in a timely manner, but that's a far cry from Gore stealing votes, and goes nowhere in proving your claim.
You go on with one of the most inaccurate recountings (pun intended) of the 2000 election vote counting I've ever seen - for just one example, the fact that the Florida State Supreme Court had ordered the recount appears nowhere in your telling, only Gore's lawyers, who apparently took over the election offices - maybe they stormed them in one of these armed revolts you see everywhere. Oh wait, it was the *republicans* who flew GOP staffers from Washington to Florida, who literally did riot to try to disrupt the lawful vote counting - another fact you fail to mention.
Having then failed to utterly make any case for your claim, you move on to putting words in my mouth about such things as what I would say after the next election if democrats lose - because you don't argue with reason, you argue as someone who just makes things up.
The righties are sure predictable - stupid name calling, for example, fill their posts, filling the vacuum created by a lack of having any idea what they're talking about.
For example, we then get treated to 'old soldier's inane 'water level' comment.
All he proves, as always with such things, is his own inability to say something relevant.
He sort of parrots back the same thing I said but disagreeing, just without much on why.
His only fact appears to be that the generals who led WWII were not all liberals - which not only has nothing to do with the point of discussion about the *elected* officials, particularly presidents, but misses the irony that it was a democratic president in office.
And he continues to show his impressive ignorance with the all too common whine by the right about the 'good old days of demoracts like JFK'. What they don't realize of course is that the right has simply been unable to demonize JFK, and so they try to hijack him.
They'll take a couple of facts out of context - his support for a strong military, his tax cut - and mistake them for agreeing with their policies, unaware of his main policies, and why those prove no such thing.
For example, JFK built up the military at a far different time in US history, at the peak of the cold war when our needs were far different; and republicans were generally horrified by Kennedy's economic policies, as he was a student of why limited deficits were a good idea, using spending to stimulate the economy - very successful policies at odds with the republicans.
Things you fail to note - and I can only pick a small sampling - include his standing up to big business in the interest of the country, such as with the steel companies ("My father used to tell me all businessmen were pricks, but I never believeed him until now.") His programs to greatly increase federal aid for the poor, to increase social security, to increase government medical programs, to be the first president in a century to launch a big battle for civil rights (and the progress before him was largely another democrat, Truman), his attempts to end the cold war with the Soviet Union by pursuing peaceful co-existence against the strong opposition of the right (see his June 10, 1963 American University speech for very liberal, dovish views which Pravda printed in full and Kruschev called the greatest American speech in decades), his refusing constant demands by the Pentagon for combat troops in Viet Nam, his fights against colonialism by our European allies (reversing republican policy) and for economic reforms in South America for the poor against the wealthy - and many more.
All of this is against your right-wing ideology - and he was a great president, not your type.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 08:44 PM (ZT5er)
62
You uneducated cons need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and open your eyes to the lies. We are no longer living in a free country. It may seem like one to the untrained eye, but to progressives such as myself it's just like Nazi Germany. Only instead of sending Jews to the gas chambers, Bush is giving tax cuts to the rich. In the end, they both have the same outcome - millions of people dead in New Orleans because of a racist federal government indifferent to the plight of inner city blacks.
Well enough is enough. No more half measures. No more vainly trying to convince the useless American idiots to join together with the useful ones and vote us into power. No more typing "now" in lowercase letters! We must act NOW to save our democracy by throwing out the unelected fascist occupiers of the White House and having the Political Cooperative appoint new ones. They will remain in power only until after the purge, and will cross their hearts and hope to die if it isn't so. For Martin, Coretta, George, Weezy, Lionel, and the rest of the cast of The Jeffersons - we will not allow the murdering Slaveholder Nazi Plutocrat Conquistadors to destroy any more innocent lives without the assistance of a licensed physician!
And by "we", I mean "you". I'll be watching the riots from the balcony of my condo.
Well enough is enough. No more half measures. No more vainly trying to convince the useless American idiots to join together with the useful ones and vote us into power. No more typing "now" in lowercase letters! We must act NOW to save our democracy by throwing out the unelected fascist occupiers of the White House and having the Political Cooperative appoint new ones. They will remain in power only until after the purge, and will cross their hearts and hope to die if it isn't so. For Martin, Coretta, George, Weezy, Lionel, and the rest of the cast of The Jeffersons - we will not allow the murdering Slaveholder Nazi Plutocrat Conquistadors to destroy any more innocent lives without the assistance of a licensed physician!
And by "we", I mean "you". I'll be watching the riots from the balcony of my condo.
Posted by: Liberal Larry at February 27, 2006 08:58 PM (btrOu)
63
Boy, that was weak satire, 'Liberal Larry', too weak for any more substantive response.
I guess to do it justice someone could mirror it with 'why we must invade Canada to get rid of WMD', 'it may look like an ally to the untrained eye, but to the wingnut, it's clearly a threat', but why?
I guess to do it justice someone could mirror it with 'why we must invade Canada to get rid of WMD', 'it may look like an ally to the untrained eye, but to the wingnut, it's clearly a threat', but why?
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 09:06 PM (ZT5er)
64
Liberal Larry..you said:
"Only instead of sending Jews to the gas chambers, Bush is giving tax cuts to the rich."
You are insane.When you can equate tax cuts to exterminating Jews, you have not only gone insane but have gone into a very dark place known as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
When you believe such idiocy Larry..and when you write such idiocy you reveal yourself to be a complete loon and you demean every Jewish person murdered by the Nazis you sick and bitter man.
Google gas chamber and take a look at the pictures you fool.
I pity you.
"Only instead of sending Jews to the gas chambers, Bush is giving tax cuts to the rich."
You are insane.When you can equate tax cuts to exterminating Jews, you have not only gone insane but have gone into a very dark place known as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
When you believe such idiocy Larry..and when you write such idiocy you reveal yourself to be a complete loon and you demean every Jewish person murdered by the Nazis you sick and bitter man.
Google gas chamber and take a look at the pictures you fool.
I pity you.
Posted by: Tara at February 27, 2006 09:11 PM (zINrD)
65
"...the overthrow of a democratically-elected United States government..."
When did you get one of those?
When did you get one of those?
Posted by: Railroad Stone at February 27, 2006 09:15 PM (51E0l)
66
Tara,
You need to be able to recognize satire when confronted with it, very poor satire at that. You see Liberal Larry is anything but! He is a conservative trying to be funny! Ha! What a satirical genius! To be expected from conservative too dumb to see how similar Bush is to facists. Unjust wars based on lies and ex post justifications and spying on your citizens is a good start. And blaming the Semites to justify a money grab by military industrial war machine is downright similar to ol' adolph.
You need to be able to recognize satire when confronted with it, very poor satire at that. You see Liberal Larry is anything but! He is a conservative trying to be funny! Ha! What a satirical genius! To be expected from conservative too dumb to see how similar Bush is to facists. Unjust wars based on lies and ex post justifications and spying on your citizens is a good start. And blaming the Semites to justify a money grab by military industrial war machine is downright similar to ol' adolph.
Posted by: lazerlou at February 27, 2006 09:45 PM (J7EvK)
67
Tara, I read his post as an attempt at satire, but a weak one because it showed he misunderstand the liberal position. *Millions* killed in New Orleans?
There was a sliver of truth: the republican policies are killing people. Because it's not bullets in their head, it's easily ignored, but it's true.
BTW, I define Bush derangement syndrome as supporting him in a cult-like fashion.
Which is about the only way left at this point.
There was a sliver of truth: the republican policies are killing people. Because it's not bullets in their head, it's easily ignored, but it's true.
BTW, I define Bush derangement syndrome as supporting him in a cult-like fashion.
Which is about the only way left at this point.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 09:47 PM (ZT5er)
68
Hahaha! A bunch of hippie punks threaten to "storm the White House"; now you have to admit this is funny. I wish the hell they would try to overthrow the government, because I'm sick and tired of their stupid rhetoric. Do something, start the revolution, please start your fricking revolution, you potheads.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 27, 2006 09:59 PM (rUyw4)
69
Pothead? I oppose the use of marijuana.
(I favor looking at decriminalization for many reasons, but oppose its use).
But our revolution is started, fought with words, to overcome the corruption of the right.
It's only aimed at the masses on the right insofar as helping them get 'un-fooled'.
Rather, it's aimed at preventing the selfish bastards who would destroy our democracy for selfish gain, to strengthen our systems to protect from corruption, and to help citizens be better informed and therefore vote out the criminals.
Hey, most Americans opposed the revolution against England at first, too.
Turns out they were short-sighted, though not as much as the right wing today.
(I favor looking at decriminalization for many reasons, but oppose its use).
But our revolution is started, fought with words, to overcome the corruption of the right.
It's only aimed at the masses on the right insofar as helping them get 'un-fooled'.
Rather, it's aimed at preventing the selfish bastards who would destroy our democracy for selfish gain, to strengthen our systems to protect from corruption, and to help citizens be better informed and therefore vote out the criminals.
Hey, most Americans opposed the revolution against England at first, too.
Turns out they were short-sighted, though not as much as the right wing today.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 10:15 PM (ZT5er)
70
Just as I thought, nothing but a bunch of whining cowards. If you at least had the guts to do something, I could at least admire you for being a man. Luckily, we didn't have to depend on people of your ilk to gain our independence.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 27, 2006 10:22 PM (rUyw4)
71
Yes, you did.
It's people like you who didn't get democracy and fought for the King.
More blather from the right - just pathetic.
It's people like you who didn't get democracy and fought for the King.
More blather from the right - just pathetic.
Posted by: Craig at February 27, 2006 10:36 PM (ZT5er)
72
Yes, Jesusland, I wonder who would have been the one to stand up to aristocracy and domination by executive power. Progressives who feared and hated the exercise of irrational authority, or the conservatives who wanted to preserve the status quo?Your inorance is laughable. And luckily because progressive people with a soul have stood up to reactionary conservative types, women, and minorities vote and contribute to society, the elderly have some dignity as they grow old, and poor people don't have to rot on the street id they don't want to. But Conservatives have done great things too. Like wage war.
God is dead Jesusland, and you have killed him.
God is dead Jesusland, and you have killed him.
Posted by: lazerlou at February 27, 2006 10:37 PM (J7EvK)
73
Folks, this post has devolved into little more than each side calling the other names, without much more of substance being said.
Bring it back on topic: Is this called for protest legal or illegal?
If we can't get back to this, I'll be forced to lock the thread.
Bring it back on topic: Is this called for protest legal or illegal?
If we can't get back to this, I'll be forced to lock the thread.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 27, 2006 10:44 PM (0fZB6)
74
"Is this called for protest legal or illegal?"
Legal. The language used in organizing the protest is just very rhetorically charged as you would find with many far left/right demonstrations.
They won't be doing anything illegal but protesting. If they do there are police that can handle it, I'm sure.
I've read that political discourse these days is highly emotional and lacking in logic and rationality - this thread is a perfect example. Nobody has made any decent insight about anything, instead attacking and insulting total strangers.
Lame.
(of course as a lefty i have to add the comment about gunning down hippies is just sheer stupidity - get some help, man)
Legal. The language used in organizing the protest is just very rhetorically charged as you would find with many far left/right demonstrations.
They won't be doing anything illegal but protesting. If they do there are police that can handle it, I'm sure.
I've read that political discourse these days is highly emotional and lacking in logic and rationality - this thread is a perfect example. Nobody has made any decent insight about anything, instead attacking and insulting total strangers.
Lame.
(of course as a lefty i have to add the comment about gunning down hippies is just sheer stupidity - get some help, man)
Posted by: angryflower at February 27, 2006 11:12 PM (vWpVS)
75
Yes, yes, CY, the Left always wins the name-calling game, but they have nothing. I have no fear of them, and neither should you. They are about as likely as a snowball in hell to try to "storm the WH". A sorrier bunch of humanity has never existed.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 27, 2006 11:21 PM (rUyw4)
76
Yankee you probably should have closed it a long time ago.
Liberals are the biggest hypocrites in the world and will never change until the ship starts to sink.
ON the other had us republicans etc will probably have to buy or lease that ship back from someone else just to get back on board so we can jump ship before they do.
Be Well
Liberals are the biggest hypocrites in the world and will never change until the ship starts to sink.
ON the other had us republicans etc will probably have to buy or lease that ship back from someone else just to get back on board so we can jump ship before they do.
Be Well
Posted by: Warlord at February 27, 2006 11:36 PM (b1TDU)
77
Craig, the butterfly ballot (designed by democrats) caused Algore to lose the election by giving votes to Pat Buchanon?????
Well how about the people who actually did push those chads out for Pat Buchanon? Do they have any responsibility for their vote? The butterfly ballot WAS used in previous elections and we did not hear of any problems!
The rules have ALWAYS been that the president is elected by the Electoral College. Algore lost, he couldn't even win his own home state! Get over it!
So when was the last time a major presidential candidate didn't win his own home state?
Well how about the people who actually did push those chads out for Pat Buchanon? Do they have any responsibility for their vote? The butterfly ballot WAS used in previous elections and we did not hear of any problems!
The rules have ALWAYS been that the president is elected by the Electoral College. Algore lost, he couldn't even win his own home state! Get over it!
So when was the last time a major presidential candidate didn't win his own home state?
Posted by: nstrdnvstr at February 27, 2006 11:54 PM (5Xwg8)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 27, 2006 11:56 PM (0fZB6)
Slitting Their Own Throats
So much for the "civil war" in Iraq the media and American anti-war demonstrators have been all but hoping for:
The attack on the al-Askariya shrine was probably al Qaeda's last best hope of triggering a sectarian civil war in Iraq. Instead of ripping the nation apart however, it seems to have had the opposite effect, driving the leaders of Iraq's various ethnic groups closer together in a conflict against a common enemy. al Qaeda, already growing unpopular with the Sunni tribes that once supported them, can be expected to start falling in greater numbers, as seen in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda Military Emir of Northern Baghdad three days ago. al Qaeda had only a slim chance to prevail in this conflict when it started. Continued strategic and tactical blunders such as these exacerbate their problems. Faster, please.
Iraq lifted an extraordinary daylight curfew in three governorates on Sunday as the wave of violence that followed Wednesday's destruction of a Shia shrine appeared to ebb outside the capital. But the ban on traffic in Baghdad – which last night suffered a mortar attack that killed 15 and wounded at least another 30 people – remained in place. In other sporadic violence on Sunday another seven people died, including two US soldiers. The apparent absence of organised reprisals at the weekend, however, suggests that while the destruction of the dome of the al-Askariya shrine and the ensuing wave of Shia attacks on Sunnis has brought the country the closest it has come to sectarian civil war, key religious and political leaders on both sides have this time been both willing and able to de-escalate the crisis.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:37 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The MSM must be really upset by this turn of events. They are just now getting over their disappointment that Harry Whittington didn’t die after being shot by Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Ernie G at February 27, 2006 02:25 PM (NTpud)
2
Without a sense of honor, however defined, there is no incentive to behave
Posted by: Sissy Willis at February 27, 2006 07:37 PM (FU1id)
Specter's Greasy Fingers
Paper elephant and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is showing more of his hand than he knows regarding the NSA program created by President Bush's executive order to conduct terrorist communications intercepts, as he presents a baffling new set of rules:
Self-appointed FISA expert Glenn Greenwald, like many liberal commentators, is utterly baffled by Specter's proposal:
The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago. Specter's plan could put him at odds with the administration, which has praised a rival proposal that would exempt the NSA program from the surveillance law. Specter's proposal would also require the administration to give a handful of lawmakers more information about the program than they now receive, such as the number of communications intercepted and a summary of the results.
Actually Glenn, you are quite wrong. Again. The Justice Department, the FISA Court of Review, and quite a few other learned folks have explained both in public and apparently in more detail in front of closed congressional hearings on the matter, FISA does not cover this NSA program (though it does cover others). Glenn has never been able to get his head around the fact that FISA is not all-encompassing. After the confidential review of the program that silenced the majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans, Specter must have also ultimately come to the same conclusion that current FISA law does not apply to program of this nature. Read the nature of Specter's proposal again:
It is, of course, so disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA.
This one sentence tells us that this program is currently legal outside of the control and competencies of FISA. Specter wants to expand the reach of FISA with new rules so that the program created by Bush would fall under a Congressional sphere of influence. From the beginning, the President, White House Counsel, The Justice Department and NSA lawyers familiar with the intimate details of this program have all maintained that the program was well within the Executive's Article II powers (and outside of FISA's domain), and they also maintained that the AUMF also granted a statutory exemption to FISA as well. If I am interpreting this properly, the deal Specter appears to be trying to make is offering the Executive Branch a far broader range of available actions in exchange for more direct Congressional involvement. ”We'll let you do more,” the words slither forth, ”but we want to be involved, too…” This would appear to be a tremendously bad deal, all the way around. Liberals and libertarians alike may complain about an “imperial presidency,” but President Bush has not used any more of his Constitutionally-mandated Commander-in-Chief authority than any other previous wartime executive, and the powers granted to him by Article II to capture foreign intelligence are well-established. Specter would make a deal to expand powers that don't need expanding, as long as he can have greasy Congressional fingers in the proverbial pie as well. The founders would not be amused.
Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
February 26, 2006
Image Is Everything
Here's an interesting screenshot comparison from the front page of the Washington Post.
The captures are of the exact same stories, one story by Dana Hedgpeth and Neil Irwin, the other story by Jim VandeHei and Paul Blustein. The screen captures were made just minutes apart.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What a difference a camera angle makes! To show political bias, you always portray an official with a packed house, if you're fer, or show empty seats, if you're agin. I don't think today many people can be suckered the way they used to be, there are too many sources of news out there.
Posted by: Tom TB at February 26, 2006 10:33 AM (y6n8O)
2
I went there just now and the two pictures are much different. Now one is of a worker and one is of a politician.
Posted by: Suzi at February 26, 2006 09:37 PM (dFNyu)
February 25, 2006
The War On Reality Continues
CNN issued this hysteric report late Friday:
Not surprisingly, the lefty blogs were ready with their vast suppository of knowledge about military operations. You can read what they have to excrete via memeorandum. A representative sample is provided by Daily Kos diarist Susan G:
The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday. The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military. The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.
Of course you don't sweetheart. You never miss a chance to try to lose, do you? What Susan G. and the rest of the omni-impotent left either isn't bright enough to know (or honest enough to admit) is that this unit is still afield, still fighting terrorists, and still winning even while undergoing what appears to be a major shift. CNN provides a hint as to the level of transition:
So much for fearless leader's repeated recounting of how great that training of Iraqi forces is going... Funny, just last month, Bush said, "Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead. That's progress." What he forgot to tell us in January was that only one of those battalions was capable of fighting without U.S. support. And as of today, there are zero. Somehow I don't think our troops will be coming home for Christmas ... even Christmas 2008.
It is not uncommon in our own military for units to be temporarily downgraded when similar changes in force structure, support, and command are made. In many instances, a recalibration of a unit to this level will not even occur in the field, and so the fact that they had enough faith in the ability of the unit to keep it deployed while undergoing such a transition speaks to its strength and professionalism, not to any real or lasting weaknesses. Buried far down in the CNN article is this bit of information that you won't find liberal blogs discussing:
Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.
17 Iraqi battalions went up a readiness level, and the media focuses on the top Iraqi unit's ability to affect a battlefield reorganization as if it represents failure instead of a high level of confidence in their abilities. I wish the news media could display a level of competence on par with the Iraqi military, but of course, that would be hoping for far too much.
According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:01 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Didn't various media outlets try to pull this little trick several months ago? What do they do, cycle through various themes and hammer them until they die down, then switch back later when they presume people have forgotten what happened the last time?
Posted by: Patrick Chester at February 25, 2006 04:48 PM (MKaa5)
2
C-Yank - you said "...vast suppository of knowledge about military operations". Heh heh. You may have meant "repository" but I think this is more apt.
I enjoy your POV.
I enjoy your POV.
Posted by: Dave in CO at February 25, 2006 06:04 PM (o5Pl/)
3
OK, so CNN is hysterical just for reporting this, even though they gave balanced information even you found palatable. Then you turn your attack to lefty bloggers.
Here's the big news, Yankee: the Iraqi army is nowhere near ready to fight on its own, which says something about our troop return time if we are to do this thing right. Pace says the institutions just don't exist yet for them to support themselves in the field. And they probably won't for some time.
I'd say you're the one acting hysterical, since you seem to think there's an organized campaign to disinfom all around you.
Here's the big news, Yankee: the Iraqi army is nowhere near ready to fight on its own, which says something about our troop return time if we are to do this thing right. Pace says the institutions just don't exist yet for them to support themselves in the field. And they probably won't for some time.
I'd say you're the one acting hysterical, since you seem to think there's an organized campaign to disinfom all around you.
Posted by: RonB at February 25, 2006 06:07 PM (Z8Zlt)
4
Ron,
No, I think we generally attribute this kind of thing to unorganized stupidity coupled with lefty wishful thinking. After all, the press votes about 80/20 Dem.
For them, reporting good news is unf0rgivable warmongering jingoism. If you do it, all the other reporters pee in your coffee.
17 battalions is probably about 10,000 more troops, now able to fight reliably with only logistical and air support. I'm sure that's more level 2 troops than any other country besides the UK is providing. You would think that's good news.
No, I think we generally attribute this kind of thing to unorganized stupidity coupled with lefty wishful thinking. After all, the press votes about 80/20 Dem.
For them, reporting good news is unf0rgivable warmongering jingoism. If you do it, all the other reporters pee in your coffee.
17 battalions is probably about 10,000 more troops, now able to fight reliably with only logistical and air support. I'm sure that's more level 2 troops than any other country besides the UK is providing. You would think that's good news.
Posted by: TallDave at February 25, 2006 07:11 PM (H8Wgl)
5
I have two questions:
1. Is the ranking influenced by the eqipment they have?
2. How does a first rank Iraqi battalion compare with other fighting forces?
1. Is the ranking influenced by the eqipment they have?
2. How does a first rank Iraqi battalion compare with other fighting forces?
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at February 25, 2006 08:10 PM (+ifd0)
6
Ron,
I think you also need to look at the fact that it has been a remarkably short time to rebuild a military organization from the ground up, train over 100 batallions, and have them actively fighting in combat - effectively.
The Iraqis are doing very, very, very well and no one on the left wants to do anything but nit-pick. They're dishonest in their approach from start to finish and I think you know that, deep down.
Orion
I think you also need to look at the fact that it has been a remarkably short time to rebuild a military organization from the ground up, train over 100 batallions, and have them actively fighting in combat - effectively.
The Iraqis are doing very, very, very well and no one on the left wants to do anything but nit-pick. They're dishonest in their approach from start to finish and I think you know that, deep down.
Orion
Posted by: Orion at February 25, 2006 09:11 PM (zRTin)
7
But all of you don't get it. Ron wants us to cut and run. Instead of seeing the progress that has been made in such a short time - he sees that it isn't fast enough for him. Too bad! Let's call a WAAAAAHHHHHMBULANCE for him. Maybe Rob is from the DFL in Minnesota - you know the demoncratic party in that state that is trying to get ads removed from the airwaves because they show that there has been progress in Iraq....
Posted by: Specter at February 25, 2006 10:49 PM (ybfXM)
8
I love this site, is the only one that agree with my point of view. America is winning in Iraq, 99% of the Iraqis love the American occipation, they all want to visit Disneyland and work in our field harvesting our produce for less than minimal wages. Thousand of Iraqis volunteer to serve in the Army because they love their country and what better show of patriotism than to collaborate with the occupying forces? I bet if Mexico invades USA all of the people in this site will run to the recruitment office to be part of the new Ejercito de ocupacion.
Posted by: CrazyHorse at February 26, 2006 10:51 AM (5mTTN)
9
CrazyHorse: Oh wow, that strawman again.
Yep, because you know Saddam's Iraq was exactly like the USA's current political landscape so if Mexico invaded the USA the situation would be exactly like it is in Iraq.
Are you that foolish, or are you just hoping the people reading your screeds are?
Yep, because you know Saddam's Iraq was exactly like the USA's current political landscape so if Mexico invaded the USA the situation would be exactly like it is in Iraq.
Are you that foolish, or are you just hoping the people reading your screeds are?
Posted by: Patrick Chester at February 26, 2006 03:51 PM (MKaa5)
10
Is the glass half empty or is it half full? It all depends on your point of view. If you are part of the hate Bush and hate America crowd, all you can see is doom and gloom. For instance, they are still complaining about the economy even though it is setting growth records. Don't expect any honest perspective from people who have begun to believe their own lies and propaganda.
Posted by: bindare4u at February 26, 2006 10:34 PM (c9BMC)
11
I have to say I'm not sure if the glass is half empty or half full and I love America, but Bush I could do without. As far as the economy goes I may believe that there is job growth but I don't believe that those jobs are as high paying or with as good of benefits as the one's that were lost. A person making 16 to 27 dollars an hour isn't going to be able to make it on Burger King wages. Everyone has their own reality but then there are some things that you just can't help but see as they hit you in the face. America has a number of problems that we as a nation have to face and deal with before it's too late. The first of many is securing our ports, borders, and transportation systems. No I'm not just talking about a company from Dubai buying out a British company to run our ports, more to my surprise is that a Chinese and Russian company are already running some west coast ports. I guess I wasn't in class the day they told us that foreign companies were allowed to come in and operate in areas that could be sensitive to attack. But then the fact that our borders are so open it really doesn't matter that much anyway. What I am talking about is that we need to address making sure that every American has health insurance, that every American has the opportunity to have affordable housing, and the one's that can't afford it on their own get help for some type of housing and I am not talking about just giving it to them but maybe some type of workfare program so that they can feel like productive citizens. We need to make child care available to those that need it so that they can work and make ends meet without having to worry about their kids. We need to get a true fix on social security. We need to change the way that companies are trying to get out of commitments for pensions that people have already earned. And last but not least we need to make changes in Washington and our state governments, it seems now that whatever President Bush wants he gets from both the republican and democratic parties. The deal with the east coast ports is the first time in a long time that I have seen both sides agree and fight the President on anything. Last of all I really hope that the Democrats don't let Hillary run for president because she is scary!
Posted by: Timothy Stephenson at February 27, 2006 04:47 AM (iYD3J)
12
Specter; stop with the cut and run talk, it's getting old.Is there really a serious thinker out there who thinks this war is going well? I mean give me a break. The country is damm near in the middle of a civil war and you morons are still drinking the neo-con KOOL AID.
Let's get out of that hell hole, and leave those miserable people to do what they want with their country.(Pat Buchanan was right) Because even when they vote on a government, I guarantee you it won't be a true democracy, but a theocracy, friendly to radical Islam and Iran. Those are the facts my friends, not spin.
Let's get out of that hell hole, and leave those miserable people to do what they want with their country.(Pat Buchanan was right) Because even when they vote on a government, I guarantee you it won't be a true democracy, but a theocracy, friendly to radical Islam and Iran. Those are the facts my friends, not spin.
Posted by: wayne's world at February 27, 2006 05:45 PM (TzDq4)
13
Wayne's World:
You may discover over time that there are conflicts in that region that are older than Islam. Many Iraqi Shiites look at Iran with fear and distrust, because Iraqis are Arabs (mostly) and Iranians are not.
Even though Baathists and Kurds both practice the Sunni faith, Saddam still waged war on Kurdistan (am I allowed to call it that?) for many years.
We in the West are not likely to understand these things without study. And by study, I mean something a little deeper than the "editorials with pictures" that masquerades as news in our world.
You may discover over time that there are conflicts in that region that are older than Islam. Many Iraqi Shiites look at Iran with fear and distrust, because Iraqis are Arabs (mostly) and Iranians are not.
Even though Baathists and Kurds both practice the Sunni faith, Saddam still waged war on Kurdistan (am I allowed to call it that?) for many years.
We in the West are not likely to understand these things without study. And by study, I mean something a little deeper than the "editorials with pictures" that masquerades as news in our world.
Posted by: uncleTom at March 01, 2006 11:02 AM (grwWU)
14
Sorry guys, but you are missing the big picture and I need only quote that lefty? Willian F. Buckley, Jr. in the Feb 28th Conservative Review "And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
Posted by: Dave Staszak at March 01, 2006 12:40 PM (ImG1q)
15
Who is "Willian F. Buckley, Jr.?" I know of a William F. Buckley, Jr., who is a foreign policy "realist" like Pat Buchanan, but he does not speak for many moderates or neo-conservatives.
It may surprise you, but there are many shades of conservatism. Buckley, while famous, doesn't speak for us all.
It may surprise you, but there are many shades of conservatism. Buckley, while famous, doesn't speak for us all.
Posted by: Steve Marsh at March 01, 2006 12:47 PM (g5Nba)
16
I think that Buckley's pronouncement could be the Cronkite Moment of this war. True he doesn't have the prime time weight that Uncle Walter had but still he is a towering intellecutual and very well respect for his conservative credentials. Let me ask you, who would it take to come out and say we lost and need to get out for you to come around? Buckley can't be brushed off as a Democrat like Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa) was. For me the only opinion I am still waiting on is Tom Friedmand's, who I would classify as being in your "moderate" category..
Posted by: Dave Staszak at March 01, 2006 01:33 PM (ImG1q)
17
Before you have to ask, I meant Tom Friedman of the NY Times.
Posted by: Dave Staszak at March 01, 2006 01:55 PM (ImG1q)
18
How is this for a dose of reality: "A first-ever survey of U.S. troops on the ground fighting a war overseas has revealed surprising findings, not the least of which is that an overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year." (Le Moyne College/Zogby)
I am a Vietnam Vet, a retired Lt. Colonel who has always believed that supporting the troops was a separate issue from supporting our leaders. Kipling said of WWI "And if they should ask why we died, tell them it is because our fathers lied". Some things never change.
I am a Vietnam Vet, a retired Lt. Colonel who has always believed that supporting the troops was a separate issue from supporting our leaders. Kipling said of WWI "And if they should ask why we died, tell them it is because our fathers lied". Some things never change.
Posted by: Dave Staszak at March 02, 2006 12:04 PM (ImG1q)
19
Thanks for your service, Dave, but put a little effort in presenting the entire story, will you?
...29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”
It was a loaded question, in a poll built for Zogby by one anti-war group, and funded by another one Zogby will not name.
Your fellow officers say this is poll is full of fertilizer, and I agree.
...29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”
It was a loaded question, in a poll built for Zogby by one anti-war group, and funded by another one Zogby will not name.
Your fellow officers say this is poll is full of fertilizer, and I agree.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2006 12:17 PM (g5Nba)
What Did I Step In?
It must be Bush's poll numbers:
Bush may very well have had valid questions with his versions of "If not them, who? If not now, when?" when discussing the pending Dubai Ports World deal, but that time is now passed. At this point, opportunistic Democrats and some reactionary, uneducated congressional Republicans have painted those who would be more reflective into a corner, creating a situation where a serious, logical discussion of the situation is not longer possible. As Joe Gandelman notes:
Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed. Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure. From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.
Dubai is one of our better Arab allies, and if we can't work with them, it seems to send the message we are unwilling to work with any Arab countries, at least when it directly affects us. Instead of having them literally buy into America, we sell them what our enemies have been whispering the entire time, "See? They will not accept you. Come back to us..." I have no stake in Dubai. I know some there have had their hands in terrorism, and I know that some still may. I know they don't recognize Israel, and that bothers me. At this point, there aren't a lot of good "outs." If Bush stands his ground, then most rest of the Republican Party will break with him to chase the polls in what has become a surprise election year turkey. If Bush backs down, we could lose some of the fragile trust we've tried to develop in Arab countries since 9/11. Thanks, Congress.
Polls reflect perceptions and mood, not necessarily the validity or worth of an issue or policy. If the White House had done better prep with the Congress and public before the news of this deal came out the poll numbers — and controversy — would probably be a bit different.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is IMPORTANT that the Pres does not back down. If he does, all of the people calling him a schill for extremists, will gain power. If he doesn't he will take a "political" hit, which is inconsequential during a second term. If the Dem's Fight Bush now, then it gives the 'Pubs an easy in about how they love their good free vote nigga's, no arabs allowed.
Eventually, the racial aspects of Dem profiling for VOTES, rather than security will be obvious. Bush is making the right decision, after all, as has been pointed out by man, this is a brittish company, running our ports, being bought out by an Arab company (with significant governmental control true) So this is not a question of US infrastructure, cuz there would have been no argument about a brittish company CONTINUING! to do what it had done, but there is SIGNIFICANT issue with an Arab based (and subsidized) company doing the same thing. If it is okay for the UK, who has MAJOR issues with islamic Extremism to run the ports (you think there are no islamic extremists that the UK hiers? if so you are a fool) but it is NOT OKAY with an Arab Nation like the UAE(they have their prollems, but you think they are gonna F up a good thing, KNOWING we are hawkeying arab nations?) is silly.
In truth? this is a BRILLIANT pro-free trade move. Let the alarmists prove their racism, their anti-culturalism when it comes to proffit.
LET THEM! Take a poll today, what is the % of US employee's at the port, and do so again 1 year after the take over, it will be the same.
the UAE doesn't wanna dick up a good thing.
Eventually, the racial aspects of Dem profiling for VOTES, rather than security will be obvious. Bush is making the right decision, after all, as has been pointed out by man, this is a brittish company, running our ports, being bought out by an Arab company (with significant governmental control true) So this is not a question of US infrastructure, cuz there would have been no argument about a brittish company CONTINUING! to do what it had done, but there is SIGNIFICANT issue with an Arab based (and subsidized) company doing the same thing. If it is okay for the UK, who has MAJOR issues with islamic Extremism to run the ports (you think there are no islamic extremists that the UK hiers? if so you are a fool) but it is NOT OKAY with an Arab Nation like the UAE(they have their prollems, but you think they are gonna F up a good thing, KNOWING we are hawkeying arab nations?) is silly.
In truth? this is a BRILLIANT pro-free trade move. Let the alarmists prove their racism, their anti-culturalism when it comes to proffit.
LET THEM! Take a poll today, what is the % of US employee's at the port, and do so again 1 year after the take over, it will be the same.
the UAE doesn't wanna dick up a good thing.
Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:37 AM (QTv8u)
2
I think one thing being missed in all this is everyone is sure the WH did not see this coming, I disagree think about it last week the news was 24 hour Cheney birdshotgate, Abramhoff, Scooter Libby, Abu Graib was making a come back and the NSA thing was still going on like the energizer bunny. Now we have portgate and we are going to have hearings on it and the DEMS are going to lose what little credibility they had when the facts are layed on the table, you can already see this happening even in the LIB MSM. I may be crazy but I smell a setup. The Republican Congressman and Senators can show they are against this and Bush will take the hit for letting it go thru after all he is not running for office again.
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 25, 2006 01:38 AM (GBYkE)
3
This episode pretty much demonstrates that there isn't much trust for Arab countries in the first place, doesn't it?
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at February 25, 2006 02:09 AM (RvTAf)
4
There is not one good reason any foriegn company is running our ports. After 9-11, our nations security is too improtant to outsource. If the UAE is offended, so be it.
Posted by: lip at February 25, 2006 08:42 AM (EJHD4)
5
The corporation that is running the ports is a group of men without specfic association with Islam. The Muslim country that is of concern has a majority of the stock and apparently does not exercise a controling hand at this point. However, still knowing the apparent innocence of the situation, if we are to subject ordinary Americans to searches that breach the Fourth Amendment then we will not sell interest in running the ports to Arab Muslims. We do not have friends in that region, only people who see us as an opportunity. If you think otherwise go visit the area, they hate us!! As to Bush's political problems, be has the left hating the air he breathes and has lost or is losing the right as I believe him to be on of the more liberal presidents we have had.
Posted by: David Caskey at February 25, 2006 10:56 AM (q2kih)
6
What happened is that the White House created a culture of fear to justify the invasion of Iraq. That culture has come around and is bitting them back. Statements like, "You're either with us or against us." or, "Any nation that harbors terrorists will be treated as the terrorists." have set up a stage where Americans won't trust a nation that has done so (UAE).
On top of all of this, the US coast guard has to share secrets about how it plans to handle discovery and interception of dangerous materials with UAE.
The reaction is purely rational even if it is unfair to Dubai itself.
On top of all of this, the US coast guard has to share secrets about how it plans to handle discovery and interception of dangerous materials with UAE.
The reaction is purely rational even if it is unfair to Dubai itself.
Posted by: Brian at February 25, 2006 12:27 PM (wUinO)
7
Oh I get it now, it was the White House that created a culture of fear by crashing airliners into buildings, and the White House that beheaded Nick Berg, and the White House that murdered Theo Van Gogh, and burned Paris, and it was the White House that that bombed London and Madrid. It was also the White House than condemned a girl to death recently for killing the man who raped her, and the White House who forced a school fll of gilrs to burn alive rather than have them seen in public less than fully clothed. It is the White House that wants every Jew in Israel brutally slaughtered, every last man, woman, and child.
It was the White House at the gates of Vienna. It the White House that named a mountain range after their greatest genocide, and is is the devout followers of the White House that wish to impose seventh century Dark Age morality on the rest of the world.
Islam only has Islam to blame, through both action and inaction. Maybe they don't deserve a shot after all, but you can't hang this on Bush.
It was the White House at the gates of Vienna. It the White House that named a mountain range after their greatest genocide, and is is the devout followers of the White House that wish to impose seventh century Dark Age morality on the rest of the world.
Islam only has Islam to blame, through both action and inaction. Maybe they don't deserve a shot after all, but you can't hang this on Bush.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 25, 2006 02:12 PM (0fZB6)
8
We do not have friends in that region, only people who see us as an opportunity. If you think otherwise go visit the area, they hate us!! As to Bush's political problems,
Posted by David Caskey at February 25, 2006 10:56 AM
I have been to the ME many many times and have been to the U.A.E. Many many times, Veteran of Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom(Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom and the majority do not hate us. The U.A.E. specifically Abu Dabie and Dubei are the best places for liberty in the ME they are very modern and liberal. I have been to many PUBS and night clubs in these cities and I can tell you that the average U.A.E citizen is not hostile to the U.S.A. Let me ask you in this country there are many places such as Compton California where you could not walk down the street without getting physically harmed because of your skin color does that mean all Californians hate white people? Answer no, your argument is stupid and specious.
Posted by David Caskey at February 25, 2006 10:56 AM
I have been to the ME many many times and have been to the U.A.E. Many many times, Veteran of Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom(Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom and the majority do not hate us. The U.A.E. specifically Abu Dabie and Dubei are the best places for liberty in the ME they are very modern and liberal. I have been to many PUBS and night clubs in these cities and I can tell you that the average U.A.E citizen is not hostile to the U.S.A. Let me ask you in this country there are many places such as Compton California where you could not walk down the street without getting physically harmed because of your skin color does that mean all Californians hate white people? Answer no, your argument is stupid and specious.
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 25, 2006 02:53 PM (GBYkE)
9
Responce to Oldcrow. I have visited the region as well. I have helped Arab students enter the US and enroll in graduate education. I currently teach a mix of Muslims from various countries. I was as open minded as any even after 9/11. But actions speak lounder than words and represent more of our thoughts and true intent than anyting else. Over the last several years as events have unfolded around the world and watching the action of those that are my peers and happen to be Muslim, I have to feel that we are at war with the religion itself. As in a war against a specfic country there will be people who may actually have something in common with you and your beliefs but if they take a stand for their country or religion then they must be viewed as the equivilant of the more radical elements. In WWII we did not differentiate between German and Nazi. Our war is with Islam. We need to take off the blinders and the gloves and begin being truthful about what we are doing. Stop bothering me in the airport or other transportation area and zero in on those that can be identified as Muslim and specifically Arab.Restrict Muslim movement and encourage their return to their homeland. I for one have not been satisfied with the responce of Islam to the events of the last several years. Thus quit playing games and get mean. Or streets are another issue and you do not want my opinion there.
Posted by: David Caskey at February 25, 2006 04:04 PM (iTBP2)
February 24, 2006
We'll Have a Gay Old Time
It looks like events are conspiring to bring us a "theme post."
First, the bad:"Of course, where they were discharging was part of the problem to begin with." *rimshot* Thanks folks, I'll be here all week... I have always supported the idea that any able-bodied American willing to serve their country should have the opportunity. It is unfair to exclude gays from the armed forces or make them hide who they are, while simultaneously telling them they should be proud of the character the military is supposed to have helped them develop. It was and is an intellectually dishonest position. American soldiers who have the mettle to handle withering enemy fire can handle the sexuality of their fellow soldiers. I suspect it's the generals and the politicians who aren't mature enough to handle cope. It is important to note that the seven soldiers in this story disgraced in their uniforms not by being gay, but by participating in pornography and prostitution. They also embarrass the homosexual community as well, reinforcing a horrible stereotype held in some minds. They deserved to be branded with a dishonorable discharge, though odds are that anyone willing to whore themselves for petty cash on camera doesn't have much honor to loose. * * * In other news, Ohio Democratic State Sen. Robert Hagan is looking for a co-sponsor to his bill that would ban Republicans from adopting:
The Army has charged seven members of the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex for money on a Web site, authorities said Friday. Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and wrongfully engaging in sexual acts for money while being filmed, according to a statement released Friday by the military. Four other soldiers, who were not named, received nonjudicial punishments. The Army has recommended that all be discharged.
Holding up the flashing neon "I don't get it" sign is Matt Margolis at GOPBloggers:
Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious. Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption. "We need to see what we are doing," said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill "homophobic." Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender. To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."
What Margolis doesn't to be able to grasp is that any attempted parallel between sexual orientation and good parenting is far more absurd than any comparison between sexual and political orientations. Hagan's bill rightly mocks the stupidity of a handful of small-minded homophobes that would rather children end up in a series of foster homes or in an orphanage than be adopted into an atypical but loving and supportive home environment. Quite frankly, I'd like to see several of Ohio's Republican senators cross the aisle and sign on as co-sponsors for Hagan's bill, as there are clearly at least eight Republican senators in Ohio that are more worried about the image of parenting than the substance of it. We should stand for family values, whatever the family looks like. Perhaps Hagan's bill, applied selectively, isn't such a bad idea after all.
For Hagan to even suggest there is any parallel between political orientation and sexual orientation is beyond absurd. Principled Republicans are trying to hinder the efforts those who seek to redefine marriage and family, and all Democrats can do and whine and accuse them of being homophobic. Hagan has taken things a step further by trivializing the debate with a ridiculous mockery of a bill.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:28 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I support gays in the military, specificaly gay men. MAYBE legislative acts on the part of the congress, or political pressure by a presidents base might be able to ram open gays down the throat of the military, as it did with women, but I think it is best done from within, as was done with blacks. Blacks now, though once hated, are not different in any way from the rest of the military, they are equals, and they are equal for one reason, and one reason only. The Blacks, stood, fought, and proved themselves in segregated units, and their valor could not have been argued. There are still minute tensions, but those tensions are meaningless, cuz everyone has learned from history, and personal experience that they can stand with any or above white man against any enemy. Homosexuals have already served, and still serve, and I think it is important for them to come out to their fellow servicemembers, and recruit the "breeder" servicemembers to come out with them. If you have entire platoons, companies and batallions standing up and saying "I don't care if he takes, or gives it in the ass, I want him in my fighting hole(FIGHTING hole 
." you will see a drastic change in popular culture.
The fact that in the Service, especially the ground services (Marine Corps and Army) you spend so much time with your fellow servicemember, if this happens, ESPECIALLY in the Marine Corps, the attitude of the nation will change. In my short time in the service I had ONE argument against gays serving, and it had nothing to do with the gays, it had to do with the little dicked hicks who are willing to bash gays, even though every gay man I knew who wore a uniform (I knew a couple) was much better at their job than them. I'm worried FOR those who come out, not because they come out.
It will be an unpleasant start, but I think it is time that distinguished servicemembers of alternate sexual proclivities come out, and I think it is LONG pass time for those distinguished servicemembers who aren't gay, to support them. Truth is, who you Fuck doesn't make you a Marine (I turn everything into Marine, cuz I was) It's how you ACT as a Marine. REAL Men, know that, REAL Soldiers know that, and Real Marines know that.
." you will see a drastic change in popular culture.
The fact that in the Service, especially the ground services (Marine Corps and Army) you spend so much time with your fellow servicemember, if this happens, ESPECIALLY in the Marine Corps, the attitude of the nation will change. In my short time in the service I had ONE argument against gays serving, and it had nothing to do with the gays, it had to do with the little dicked hicks who are willing to bash gays, even though every gay man I knew who wore a uniform (I knew a couple) was much better at their job than them. I'm worried FOR those who come out, not because they come out.
It will be an unpleasant start, but I think it is time that distinguished servicemembers of alternate sexual proclivities come out, and I think it is LONG pass time for those distinguished servicemembers who aren't gay, to support them. Truth is, who you Fuck doesn't make you a Marine (I turn everything into Marine, cuz I was) It's how you ACT as a Marine. REAL Men, know that, REAL Soldiers know that, and Real Marines know that.
Posted by: wickedpinto at February 24, 2006 11:42 PM (QTv8u)
2
But army members who do straight porn, that's perfectly legal and ok, right????
Please explain that one for me.
How about all of the army men who hire prostitutes? Should we crack down on them.
Last time I checked - sodomy is no longer a crime. Neither is pornography.
Seems like the army has zero problem with pornography. They just have a problem with gay pornography.
I call bullshit.
Please explain that one for me.
How about all of the army men who hire prostitutes? Should we crack down on them.
Last time I checked - sodomy is no longer a crime. Neither is pornography.
Seems like the army has zero problem with pornography. They just have a problem with gay pornography.
I call bullshit.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 24, 2006 11:54 PM (bOeAD)
3
Obviously, DTL, you're reading what you want to, not what I said. Anyone who does porn and/or is guilty of prostitution while in the uniform services deserves to get tossed out, regardless of orientation or partner. Is that clear enough?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 25, 2006 12:04 AM (0fZB6)
4
Actually, a few years ago there were several discharges for the "SandWrestling" party.
The idea behind these discharges is that to DISPLAY hedonism be it Gay, or hetero in nature is unimportant. The FACT, is that if you have ever taken the Oath, you know that you stand for something VERY big, in fact, When you take the oath? You SWEAR! to stand above The President of The United States of America. The US Military MUST swear, a willingness to stand against all enemies of the Constitution foreign and domestic. To live up to that call, you need a certain set of personal dicipline, dignity moral certitude. It is NECESSARY to LOOK for the great man, within every private, because it takes Good men to do the horrible things necessary in war.
If you can't keep your crank in your pants? fine, as long as noone knows. That is why Adultery is still a prison offense. CURSING AT WOMEN can land you in the brigg. PUNCHING! a fellow servicemember who is guilty of adultery with YOUR wife, still lands you in the brigg.
It is impossible to achieve perfectly, however, it is absolutely necessary that the willingness of the US military make an honest, and cognizant effort to be above all others moraly. Otherwise, they are just highered killers.
The idea behind these discharges is that to DISPLAY hedonism be it Gay, or hetero in nature is unimportant. The FACT, is that if you have ever taken the Oath, you know that you stand for something VERY big, in fact, When you take the oath? You SWEAR! to stand above The President of The United States of America. The US Military MUST swear, a willingness to stand against all enemies of the Constitution foreign and domestic. To live up to that call, you need a certain set of personal dicipline, dignity moral certitude. It is NECESSARY to LOOK for the great man, within every private, because it takes Good men to do the horrible things necessary in war.
If you can't keep your crank in your pants? fine, as long as noone knows. That is why Adultery is still a prison offense. CURSING AT WOMEN can land you in the brigg. PUNCHING! a fellow servicemember who is guilty of adultery with YOUR wife, still lands you in the brigg.
It is impossible to achieve perfectly, however, it is absolutely necessary that the willingness of the US military make an honest, and cognizant effort to be above all others moraly. Otherwise, they are just highered killers.
Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:07 AM (QTv8u)
5
In Addition, one more thing that I have learned from every successful individual, at least the Good/great Marines that I knew while I was in, was a sort of Startlement. Even if you leave after 4 years, or get into trouble, everyone is proud of being a Marine, Hell, even the washouts still talk about being Marine, even though they never were, but the ability to re-enlist, to earn a boatspace, to succeed enough just to move on to 4-6 more years, is a point of pride that EVERY Marine holds close to the heart. Those who make it pass 16 years (pretty much guaranteeing a "Career Marine" retirement) are so euphoric, that they grow greater than many priests who are accepted by god into their cloister/covey, whatever they are called. Marines, who make 20 years as enlisted, are more zealottous than Simon.
Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:13 AM (QTv8u)
6
These are not rules that I have created; but they are values I hold dear, because they are founded upon truth, not my feelings. First and foremost, I am a Christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe in the trinity; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and died an atoning sacrificial death. I do not condemn sin; God does through His righteousness (not through hatred, because God does not possess that attribute). I cannot undo His condemnation. I can choose to accept what society accepts; but that does not change God’s judgment or pronouncement.
I want to address this black person / homosexual analogy. Can a black person choose his/her race? Is homosexuality a race? If the answers are “no”, then any logical relationship between them is broken and so is the analogy; so drop the argument. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that for many centuries was viewed by society as deviate behavior that was outlawed much like theft. I know, there have been great societies that have condoned and practiced homosexuality; like Rome and Athens, and before them; Sodom and Gomorrah. (There is a lesson there about great societies and the decay of morals.)
As I said, I do not condemn homosexuality, but I do not condone it, either. Am I a homophobe? I do not consider myself one. Would I avoid contact with known homosexuals? No. Would I treat them differently? Subconsciously, I might, but not intentionally. (How would you treat a person you knew to be a thief?) They are human beings who have made an immoral choice; it is not my place to judge.
As for homosexuals in the military; I do not agree with allowing known homosexuals to serve in uniform. That statement is based solely upon my adherent to the fact that homosexuality is a chosen immoral and deviant behavior. (If necessary reread my first paragraph.) Thievery in the military is punished. Disobeying an order in the military is punished. Murder in the military is punished. Conduct non-becoming in the military is punished. Why, because discipline in the military is an absolute necessity for success. Our military chooses to live in a caste society that is much more restrictive than society in general.
Society is changing and is much more accepting of homosexual behavior now than in bygone eras. Is that change for the better? Not in my estimation. Frivolous lawsuits are way up; crime in general is way up; entitlement programs are way up; personal responsibility is way down, blame others is way up; and I believe morals have declined, too. All of that is generally accepted in today’s society. Does it make it right?
I want to reiterate; I DO NOT condemn homosexuality; but I REFUSE to be made to condone it.
I want to address this black person / homosexual analogy. Can a black person choose his/her race? Is homosexuality a race? If the answers are “no”, then any logical relationship between them is broken and so is the analogy; so drop the argument. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that for many centuries was viewed by society as deviate behavior that was outlawed much like theft. I know, there have been great societies that have condoned and practiced homosexuality; like Rome and Athens, and before them; Sodom and Gomorrah. (There is a lesson there about great societies and the decay of morals.)
As I said, I do not condemn homosexuality, but I do not condone it, either. Am I a homophobe? I do not consider myself one. Would I avoid contact with known homosexuals? No. Would I treat them differently? Subconsciously, I might, but not intentionally. (How would you treat a person you knew to be a thief?) They are human beings who have made an immoral choice; it is not my place to judge.
As for homosexuals in the military; I do not agree with allowing known homosexuals to serve in uniform. That statement is based solely upon my adherent to the fact that homosexuality is a chosen immoral and deviant behavior. (If necessary reread my first paragraph.) Thievery in the military is punished. Disobeying an order in the military is punished. Murder in the military is punished. Conduct non-becoming in the military is punished. Why, because discipline in the military is an absolute necessity for success. Our military chooses to live in a caste society that is much more restrictive than society in general.
Society is changing and is much more accepting of homosexual behavior now than in bygone eras. Is that change for the better? Not in my estimation. Frivolous lawsuits are way up; crime in general is way up; entitlement programs are way up; personal responsibility is way down, blame others is way up; and I believe morals have declined, too. All of that is generally accepted in today’s society. Does it make it right?
I want to reiterate; I DO NOT condemn homosexuality; but I REFUSE to be made to condone it.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 25, 2006 10:50 AM (owAN1)
7
Old Soldier,
You "chose" to be a Christian. I didn't choose to be gay. You "chose" to believe in a stupid cult, that believes some stupid fart was actually "resurrected". Hey - that's ok. If you want to "choose" to believe in a bigoted religion, one whose sole focus is based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, and anyone who doesn't choose to believe your "hocus pocus" that is your choice. But don't ask me to respect your ignoramous choice.
I believe in science and reason. You choose to believe some "story" just because your parents told you its true. Anyone who actually studies history knows that Christianity is based on lies, and was only spread through violence and threats, i.e. evil.
Sorry - but I refuse to "condone" Christianity. It's pure evil.
You "chose" to be a Christian. I didn't choose to be gay. You "chose" to believe in a stupid cult, that believes some stupid fart was actually "resurrected". Hey - that's ok. If you want to "choose" to believe in a bigoted religion, one whose sole focus is based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, and anyone who doesn't choose to believe your "hocus pocus" that is your choice. But don't ask me to respect your ignoramous choice.
I believe in science and reason. You choose to believe some "story" just because your parents told you its true. Anyone who actually studies history knows that Christianity is based on lies, and was only spread through violence and threats, i.e. evil.
Sorry - but I refuse to "condone" Christianity. It's pure evil.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 25, 2006 01:42 PM (bOeAD)
8
Confederate Yankee,
Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I'm really interested in seeing that rule. Pornography is NOT the same as prostitution. Otherwise - the government could easily arrest anyone who is doing porn for a living.
I'm not saying I approve of what these guys do for a living. But then again - unlike stupid Old Soldier, I'm not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.
People have liberty. As long as they are not breaking the law, you can't prosecute people for something you morally disagree with. Sodomy might be a "crime" as the military defines it, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that be unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas.
And according to the Supreme Court, pornography is protected by the First Amendment. They can bring up whatever charges they want against these guys. I expect the courts to find them innocent.
What's next? Court martialling soldiers because they're Jewish?
Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I'm really interested in seeing that rule. Pornography is NOT the same as prostitution. Otherwise - the government could easily arrest anyone who is doing porn for a living.
I'm not saying I approve of what these guys do for a living. But then again - unlike stupid Old Soldier, I'm not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.
People have liberty. As long as they are not breaking the law, you can't prosecute people for something you morally disagree with. Sodomy might be a "crime" as the military defines it, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that be unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas.
And according to the Supreme Court, pornography is protected by the First Amendment. They can bring up whatever charges they want against these guys. I expect the courts to find them innocent.
What's next? Court martialling soldiers because they're Jewish?
Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 25, 2006 01:47 PM (bOeAD)
9
Downtown Lad, boy, you sure make a strong argument for accepting the behavior of a homosexual, don’t you. At least you delayed to your third sentence before the attack started. Your perception of Christianity is warped at best, but I’ll not engage you there except to say Christianity is NOT based upon bigotry or hatred of homosexuals. If you are upset by the precepts of Christianity, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps your conscience is speaking to you. I will admit that some professing Christians confuse the sinner with the sin – that’s not biblical. ”Sorry – but I refuse to “condone” Christianity. It’s pure evil.” Do you have any idea how juvenile that statement is?
”…unlike stupid Old Soldier, I’m not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.” You’re the one that gave me an authoritative position in that statement; however, I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I have no desire to change your or any other homosexual’s behavior. Where in my comment did I state that homosexuals must stop their behavior? Where did I advocate persecuting or prosecuting homosexuals? I merely stated my opinion, which I believe is similar to what you did (only I did not use ad hominem attacks).
”I did not choose to be gay.” Unless you have been homosexual under threat to your life, you “chose” the behavior. Denying a decision was made only serves to avoid responsibility and thereby avoid consequences and sooth a conscience. Yes, I chose Christianity. Yes, I chose to serve in the U.S. Army for 31 years. Yes, I chose heterosexuality (although that one was easy for me). Every waking moment of your life you make choices; some good, some bad – but they are your choices. To deny that is dishonest and is your problem, not mine.
One more time; I do not condemn homosexuality or homosexuals – but I refuse to condone the behavior. And I resent the attempt to force me to accept the behavior.
” Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I’m really interested in seeing that rule.” CY doesn’t have the background to answer that question but I do. Google the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and look up “Conduct.”
”…unlike stupid Old Soldier, I’m not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.” You’re the one that gave me an authoritative position in that statement; however, I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I have no desire to change your or any other homosexual’s behavior. Where in my comment did I state that homosexuals must stop their behavior? Where did I advocate persecuting or prosecuting homosexuals? I merely stated my opinion, which I believe is similar to what you did (only I did not use ad hominem attacks).
”I did not choose to be gay.” Unless you have been homosexual under threat to your life, you “chose” the behavior. Denying a decision was made only serves to avoid responsibility and thereby avoid consequences and sooth a conscience. Yes, I chose Christianity. Yes, I chose to serve in the U.S. Army for 31 years. Yes, I chose heterosexuality (although that one was easy for me). Every waking moment of your life you make choices; some good, some bad – but they are your choices. To deny that is dishonest and is your problem, not mine.
One more time; I do not condemn homosexuality or homosexuals – but I refuse to condone the behavior. And I resent the attempt to force me to accept the behavior.
” Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I’m really interested in seeing that rule.” CY doesn’t have the background to answer that question but I do. Google the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and look up “Conduct.”
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 25, 2006 10:24 PM (owAN1)
10
”…stupid Old Soldier…”
DL, that phrase had its desired effect; it upset me. I wore this country’s uniform for 31 years including: Vietnam, a covert Central America mission and the first Gulf War; three potentially lethal assignments. In those three instances, I packed my gear and left my wife and family to answer the call of duty. My service was in the defense of the rights of all citizens of this great nation; not just those that agreed with my ideology or theology.
You made not one statement that supports your opinion that your homosexuality was not by choice. Instead you said Christianity was: ”a stupid cult, a bigoted religion… based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, a “story”, based on lies, evil,” and it was ”spread through violence and threats…” You even called Christ a ”…stupid fart…”
I responded to CY’s post with my opinion backed by reasons for said opinion and you responded to me with crass vitriol; absent of any supportive reasons or logic. I still support your right to make whatever choices you desire. However, your actions bear consequences and if you are not prepared to take responsibility and accept them; then perhaps you should rethink your choices.
DL, that phrase had its desired effect; it upset me. I wore this country’s uniform for 31 years including: Vietnam, a covert Central America mission and the first Gulf War; three potentially lethal assignments. In those three instances, I packed my gear and left my wife and family to answer the call of duty. My service was in the defense of the rights of all citizens of this great nation; not just those that agreed with my ideology or theology.
You made not one statement that supports your opinion that your homosexuality was not by choice. Instead you said Christianity was: ”a stupid cult, a bigoted religion… based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, a “story”, based on lies, evil,” and it was ”spread through violence and threats…” You even called Christ a ”…stupid fart…”
I responded to CY’s post with my opinion backed by reasons for said opinion and you responded to me with crass vitriol; absent of any supportive reasons or logic. I still support your right to make whatever choices you desire. However, your actions bear consequences and if you are not prepared to take responsibility and accept them; then perhaps you should rethink your choices.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 26, 2006 09:53 AM (owAN1)
11
Don't be upset OS, You have the respect of many of us around here. His comments were out of line, they weren't discussion type, they were inflamitory and didn't do his side any good, just the opposite as a matter of fact.
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 27, 2006 06:24 AM (PJ4Iq)
12
I certanly must agree with Retired Navy and Old Soldier; Downtown Lad's comments were far out of line and discredited him.
Politeness and temper are a must in any discussion, whoever strongly you feel about the topic.
* * *
I find it quite fascinating that people keep on and on about Christianity being a homophobic religion, just as I do about people who even mention the posibility of choosing to be homosexual or not and choosing to BEHAVE homosexual...
I'm heterosexual myself, but I can assure you it was not an intelectual decision made by me at a certain turning point in my life, I simply like women from the begining. I very much doubt anyone here chose to like or dislike anything (be it music, food, paintings,...).
I must thank my Christian breeding for the moral bases it's provided me. Saying Christianity is based on hatred for homosexuals is ridiculous, it's just about interpretation of the Scriptures made by certain people. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong (no, it doesn't; Genesis-19 talks about LUST, which is a Capital Sin, while homosexuality isn't cited by God anywhere as a Sin. Interpretation also applies to Levitic, which is a code of conduct only to be followed by the Tribe of Levi (historically the second tribe of priests in Israel and the dominating tribe when this text was written) -from where the text gets its name- if it weren't, we should apply all its rules to ourselves and give up, for example, eating rabbit. And I can't remember Jesus saying a word about homosexuality... you'd think God's son would have been a bit more explicit talking about such a horrible Sin if it were so).
Science (for the ones who, like me, ALSO believe in it) has already brought light upon how "liking" and "disliking" work on our brains, and it's just a chemical reaction to outside stimula (which, let me remind you, you cannot control, much as I'd sometimes like to).
Now, this should make some here understand that there's no moral wrong in being homosexual, so why should it be morally wrong to behave homosexual? At what point do you assume it is morally or physically wrong and on what basis?
* * *
Going back to the main topic.
Anyone who's seen the army from inside must admit that there's a lot of hypocrisy in court-martialing the kids for "engaging in sex for money"... unless, of course, the wrong act is recieving money for sex, as we all know that giving money for sex isn't condemnable (or hasn't been so until now).
If it's a new posture of the executive to keep the Army clean of prostitution, whatever the nature of the sex trated, I must applaud it heartfully; if it proves to be an attack on homosexuality... how sad and un-constitutional.
I wonder what would happen if all the gay military quit at the same time.
Politeness and temper are a must in any discussion, whoever strongly you feel about the topic.
* * *
I find it quite fascinating that people keep on and on about Christianity being a homophobic religion, just as I do about people who even mention the posibility of choosing to be homosexual or not and choosing to BEHAVE homosexual...
I'm heterosexual myself, but I can assure you it was not an intelectual decision made by me at a certain turning point in my life, I simply like women from the begining. I very much doubt anyone here chose to like or dislike anything (be it music, food, paintings,...).
I must thank my Christian breeding for the moral bases it's provided me. Saying Christianity is based on hatred for homosexuals is ridiculous, it's just about interpretation of the Scriptures made by certain people. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong (no, it doesn't; Genesis-19 talks about LUST, which is a Capital Sin, while homosexuality isn't cited by God anywhere as a Sin. Interpretation also applies to Levitic, which is a code of conduct only to be followed by the Tribe of Levi (historically the second tribe of priests in Israel and the dominating tribe when this text was written) -from where the text gets its name- if it weren't, we should apply all its rules to ourselves and give up, for example, eating rabbit. And I can't remember Jesus saying a word about homosexuality... you'd think God's son would have been a bit more explicit talking about such a horrible Sin if it were so).
Science (for the ones who, like me, ALSO believe in it) has already brought light upon how "liking" and "disliking" work on our brains, and it's just a chemical reaction to outside stimula (which, let me remind you, you cannot control, much as I'd sometimes like to).
Now, this should make some here understand that there's no moral wrong in being homosexual, so why should it be morally wrong to behave homosexual? At what point do you assume it is morally or physically wrong and on what basis?
* * *
Going back to the main topic.
Anyone who's seen the army from inside must admit that there's a lot of hypocrisy in court-martialing the kids for "engaging in sex for money"... unless, of course, the wrong act is recieving money for sex, as we all know that giving money for sex isn't condemnable (or hasn't been so until now).
If it's a new posture of the executive to keep the Army clean of prostitution, whatever the nature of the sex trated, I must applaud it heartfully; if it proves to be an attack on homosexuality... how sad and un-constitutional.
I wonder what would happen if all the gay military quit at the same time.
Posted by: Daniel Kushrenada at March 01, 2006 07:54 PM (vFb6W)
13
DK
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
The bible is quite clear about ANY sexual immorality. Humans with the aid and assistance of Satan are beginning to accept as normal many sexual immoral activities. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure God hasn't changed His mind about what He called wrong.
It is up to Christians to love sinners and lovingly witness to them about the love and forgiveness of God, regardless of the sin.
I believe any sexual activity is by choice. Yes it is pleasure driven, by there is a decision made; an exercise of choice. To proclaim otherwise exonerates the actor of the act. To say the homosexuality is not of choice exonerates the homosexual of any responsibility for the choice. With no responsibility, there is no consequences that have to be accepted. Without responsibility we are reduced to an animal of instincts and pleasure; which we are not. When we were created we were given the ability to make choices and decisions.
The services are a caste system that requires better morals than the general populace, partly because the general populace demmands that of service people. Additionally, it amplifies the exercise of discipline which is extremely important to a military organization. The services are governed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice as well as local and federal statutes. It is in essence a doble jeopardy system. The highest standard of conduct is expected among the military. A breakdown of that conduct is a breakdown of discipline.
Sooner or later homosexuality will probably be forced upon the military services because it is receiving less consternation from the public and is becoming more widley accepted as "normal". When the day arrives that homosexuals may openly serve in the military it will not be the leaders that will be resistant; it will be the young infantry soldiers in the squad rooms that will have to accept the new norm.
One more time; I do not condemn homosexuals; however, I do not condone the behavior, either. I do resent attempts to force me to accept the behavior as normal.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
The bible is quite clear about ANY sexual immorality. Humans with the aid and assistance of Satan are beginning to accept as normal many sexual immoral activities. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure God hasn't changed His mind about what He called wrong.
It is up to Christians to love sinners and lovingly witness to them about the love and forgiveness of God, regardless of the sin.
I believe any sexual activity is by choice. Yes it is pleasure driven, by there is a decision made; an exercise of choice. To proclaim otherwise exonerates the actor of the act. To say the homosexuality is not of choice exonerates the homosexual of any responsibility for the choice. With no responsibility, there is no consequences that have to be accepted. Without responsibility we are reduced to an animal of instincts and pleasure; which we are not. When we were created we were given the ability to make choices and decisions.
The services are a caste system that requires better morals than the general populace, partly because the general populace demmands that of service people. Additionally, it amplifies the exercise of discipline which is extremely important to a military organization. The services are governed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice as well as local and federal statutes. It is in essence a doble jeopardy system. The highest standard of conduct is expected among the military. A breakdown of that conduct is a breakdown of discipline.
Sooner or later homosexuality will probably be forced upon the military services because it is receiving less consternation from the public and is becoming more widley accepted as "normal". When the day arrives that homosexuals may openly serve in the military it will not be the leaders that will be resistant; it will be the young infantry soldiers in the squad rooms that will have to accept the new norm.
One more time; I do not condemn homosexuals; however, I do not condone the behavior, either. I do resent attempts to force me to accept the behavior as normal.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 01, 2006 09:00 PM (owAN1)
14
Yeah, Leviticus is a very complete set of rules of which we ALL mainly ignore except when it does not concern us.
Leviticus also sais, right BEFORE getting into inmoralities, that you cannot eat anything with blood (and I very much doubt you haven't eaten any steak with not a drop of blood unless you eat kosher), rabbit, and some other commonly eaten animals. How terribly inmoral and impure I must be after having eaten a delicious bood-pudding.
Why do some people apply only the rules that fit them and ignore the rest?
In fact, why does anyone apply rules not made for us. Do you belong to the Tribe of Levi? I don't, I'm quite sure about my ascendency, so I would certanly not apply rules made for priests to myself, just like I don't keep chastity.
Talking about inmorality; I can depict Jesus standing in front of a mob that was trying to throw stones at an adulterer and saving her.
Do you think what he was trying to tell us is: "Mind your own business and don't dare you jugde what God considers inmoral or doesn't. HE will be the one to judge when HIS time comes"?
Corinthians and Thimothy are letters written by the Apostles, not God's word (thank God... if we had to follow St.Paul's line of thought we would still be in the Dark Middle Ages, just like our radical muslim friends). Don't try to tell me their words are more important that Jesus' actions.
So, it's all Satan's work... hmmm... what a terrible little creature. That, of course, explains it all.
I wonder why God set him free, let him walk all over Earth corrupting us.
Furthermore, I wonder if you might not be Satan's agent trying to corrupt us and make us think that some of our fellow humans are second rank humans that don't deserve the same rights we already have.
Yes, I do agree that actions depend on choices, but if the basis of the choice is not bad and the action hurts no one, there's nothing you can condemn about it.
So, homosexuality is NOT a choice, but having sex with men IS; up to that, we have an agreement... I still can't see why or how that make homosexuals second rank people.
Agreed, also, that public service demands highest standards of honour, courage, rectitude,... but what are BETTER morals? WHO'S better morals?
Moral is something created by each culture, in a period of time. In Europe, not long ago, death penalty was OK, now it's highly inmoral and they look upon us just like we would look upon the cavemen.
If you are refering to God's moral, He will judge us all in due time.
And not only do you, as you say, not condemn homosexuality, but you must, following Jesus, condemn, forgive and love those who BEHAVE homosexual.
Have to be going... I'll follow this line of thought later when I can get back online and will try, not to convince you, for that is just as impossible as your convincing me, but to refute your arguments.
Leviticus also sais, right BEFORE getting into inmoralities, that you cannot eat anything with blood (and I very much doubt you haven't eaten any steak with not a drop of blood unless you eat kosher), rabbit, and some other commonly eaten animals. How terribly inmoral and impure I must be after having eaten a delicious bood-pudding.
Why do some people apply only the rules that fit them and ignore the rest?
In fact, why does anyone apply rules not made for us. Do you belong to the Tribe of Levi? I don't, I'm quite sure about my ascendency, so I would certanly not apply rules made for priests to myself, just like I don't keep chastity.
Talking about inmorality; I can depict Jesus standing in front of a mob that was trying to throw stones at an adulterer and saving her.
Do you think what he was trying to tell us is: "Mind your own business and don't dare you jugde what God considers inmoral or doesn't. HE will be the one to judge when HIS time comes"?
Corinthians and Thimothy are letters written by the Apostles, not God's word (thank God... if we had to follow St.Paul's line of thought we would still be in the Dark Middle Ages, just like our radical muslim friends). Don't try to tell me their words are more important that Jesus' actions.
So, it's all Satan's work... hmmm... what a terrible little creature. That, of course, explains it all.
I wonder why God set him free, let him walk all over Earth corrupting us.
Furthermore, I wonder if you might not be Satan's agent trying to corrupt us and make us think that some of our fellow humans are second rank humans that don't deserve the same rights we already have.
Yes, I do agree that actions depend on choices, but if the basis of the choice is not bad and the action hurts no one, there's nothing you can condemn about it.
So, homosexuality is NOT a choice, but having sex with men IS; up to that, we have an agreement... I still can't see why or how that make homosexuals second rank people.
Agreed, also, that public service demands highest standards of honour, courage, rectitude,... but what are BETTER morals? WHO'S better morals?
Moral is something created by each culture, in a period of time. In Europe, not long ago, death penalty was OK, now it's highly inmoral and they look upon us just like we would look upon the cavemen.
If you are refering to God's moral, He will judge us all in due time.
And not only do you, as you say, not condemn homosexuality, but you must, following Jesus, condemn, forgive and love those who BEHAVE homosexual.
Have to be going... I'll follow this line of thought later when I can get back online and will try, not to convince you, for that is just as impossible as your convincing me, but to refute your arguments.
Posted by: Daniel Kushrenada at March 02, 2006 02:13 AM (vFb6W)
15
DK, if you do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, then we do not have common ground within which to have a discussion. Yes the pen was put to parchment by man, but was done so under God's conviction and purpose. Therefore the Word is His.
As for the food anology read Acts 10:9-16.
I have not and do not consider homosexuals to be subhuman or second class citizens. They are children of God who are to be loved the same as anyone else. God, not me, said that the homosexual act is sinful. Do you profess to argue with God? You may reason away, but His word does not change.
Yes, Satan is real. Jesus told us we are at war with principalities (Satan). Denying the existance of and the work of Satan is a head in the sand dodge of reality.
Jesus saved the woman from stoning by convicting her accusers of their sins. He said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He saved Mary the prostitute at the well by saying, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more." Jesus was not about absolution or exoneration, He was about love, repentence and forgiveness. He loves the sinner, but condemns the sin. I have no problems with loving the homosexual (in a Christian sense) and witnessing about God's grace and Jesus' atoning death, etc. But my Christian love does equal God's forgiveness, that's God's business.
Got to run, perhaps more latter.
As for the food anology read Acts 10:9-16.
I have not and do not consider homosexuals to be subhuman or second class citizens. They are children of God who are to be loved the same as anyone else. God, not me, said that the homosexual act is sinful. Do you profess to argue with God? You may reason away, but His word does not change.
Yes, Satan is real. Jesus told us we are at war with principalities (Satan). Denying the existance of and the work of Satan is a head in the sand dodge of reality.
Jesus saved the woman from stoning by convicting her accusers of their sins. He said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He saved Mary the prostitute at the well by saying, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more." Jesus was not about absolution or exoneration, He was about love, repentence and forgiveness. He loves the sinner, but condemns the sin. I have no problems with loving the homosexual (in a Christian sense) and witnessing about God's grace and Jesus' atoning death, etc. But my Christian love does equal God's forgiveness, that's God's business.
Got to run, perhaps more latter.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 02, 2006 07:43 AM (X2tAw)
Blowout
From the NY Times:
Pajamas Media's own Iraq the Model:
After a day of violence so raw and so personal, Iraqis woke on Thursday morning to a tense new world in which, it seemed, anything was possible. The violence on Wednesday was the closest Iraq had come to civil war, and Iraqis were stunned. In Al Amin, a neighborhood in southeast Baghdad, a Shiite man said he had watched gunmen set a house on fire. It was identified as the residence of Sunni Arab militants, said the man, Abu Abbas, though no one seemed to know for sure who they were. "We all were shocked," said Abu Abbas, a vegetable seller, standing near crates of oranges and tomatoes. "We saw it burning. We called the fire department. We didn't know how to behave. Chaos was everywhere."
Two different snapshots remind us that in such fluid events, nothing is certain. Whether triggered by al Qaeda or Iranian proxy al-Sadr who was just too conveniently out of the country for my tastes, the bombing of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine ignited a firestorm in Iraq. The question on everyone's mind is if it is possible to bring this situation back under control. I strongly suspect that it can and will be brought back under control, because it is not in the interests of the three major groups--Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds--for this situation to devolve into a civil war. The only groups that have something visibly to gain are Zarqawi's al Qaeda, which have sought from the beginning to destabilize the Iraqi government, and Iranian puppets like Muqtada al-Sadr. I think that if authorities can bring Shiite reprisal attacks under control within the next few days without too much further damage, then the violence might serve as a wakeup call to the major groups. This attack, if traced back to al Qaeda, could bring a rapid end to the remaining Sunni support for an insurgency that is already at war with itself. Blowing up the Askariya shrine might prove to be the equivalent of detonating dynamite to blow out a burning well fire. al Qaeda in Iraq might have just blown out their own flickering flame.
In our neighborhood the Sadr militias seized the local mosque and broadcast Shia religious mourning songs from the mosques loudspeakers.
In several other cases, worshippers were turned away by "gunmen in black" who surrounded the closed mosques. Other mosques are encircled by razor-wire to stop anyone from approaching them. The sense in the streets and the statements given by some Shia clerics suggest that retaliation attacks are organized and under control and are focusing on mosques frequented by Salafi and Wahabi groups and not those of ordinary Sunnis. Looking at the geographic distribution of the attacked mosques, I found they were mostly in areas adjacent to Sadr city forming a line that extends from the New Baghdad district in the southeast to al-Hussayniya in the northeast.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There are now reports saying that Sadr's militias are defending Sunni mosques in areas that his militias operate, and there's been an underreporting of demonstrations held by Sunni and Shia jointly to protest the destruction of the mosques.
You're right that this is still a fluid situation, but the NYT and other media outlets appear to have a vested interest in trying to spin things into the worst case scenario that Iraq is devolving into a civil war. It flies in the face that none of the groups other than al Qaeda and external forces like Iran want continuing violence and bloodshed to maintain their presence there. Shia, Kurd, and Sunni appear to want to make things work - and the government's curfew may be working to stop the violence.
You're right that this is still a fluid situation, but the NYT and other media outlets appear to have a vested interest in trying to spin things into the worst case scenario that Iraq is devolving into a civil war. It flies in the face that none of the groups other than al Qaeda and external forces like Iran want continuing violence and bloodshed to maintain their presence there. Shia, Kurd, and Sunni appear to want to make things work - and the government's curfew may be working to stop the violence.
Posted by: lawhawk at February 24, 2006 11:58 AM (eppTH)
2
Lawhawk is right. I found a very intersting post this morning over at 24 steps to liberty. He is an Iraqi blogger that says the news in Iraq is very different from what we are hearing here in the US.
I have an excerpt and a link to his post here
I have an excerpt and a link to his post here
Posted by: The Ugly American at February 24, 2006 10:26 PM (hS6ZA)
3
Check out Gateway Pundit's article entitled: After Shock of Golden Mosque Bombings, Iraqis Hold Unity Protests
It goes through some of the information on the showing of unity over there.
It goes through some of the information on the showing of unity over there.
Posted by: Specter at February 24, 2006 11:03 PM (ybfXM)
February 23, 2006
Deep Thinker
Ninth District Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) sent a letter to the White House regarding "regarding the sell [sic] of US Ports to the United Arab Emerites[sic]" yesterday that shows the amount of thought most Congress critters have applied so far to the Ports Dubai bid.
She wrote:
In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO—but HELL NO! Sincerely,
Myrick is certainly representative of most critics of the Dubai Ports bid, as she doesn't bother to grasp the most basic of facts before spouting off an ignorant opinion. Ignoring her staff's basic linguistic incompetence, ("sale" not "sell," "Emirates," not "Emirites," and 12 hours later, not a soul on her staff is bright enough to notice), we can look at the simple truth that the ports are not being sold. The only thing potentially changing is the port management, and if Myrick is so concerned about foreign management of American ports, she should have raised a stink six years ago when the first foreign company took control of these exact same ports. Instead, we get muddled thinking and bad grammar. Too bad only one of those is relatively easy to correct. Update: I'm glad to see someone is capable of acting like an adult in this situation. Unsurprisingly, once again, it isn't Congress.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:52 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I haven't heard alot out of Sue about the massive amount of foreign owned business' in Charlotte, including by Islamic companies.
Posted by: William Teach at February 23, 2006 10:21 PM (V5vwb)
2
Their is something about this deal that bothers me. I really do not care if a foreign country runs our ports or any other aspect of the infrastructure as they currently do. However, the ports have been listed as a potential area of concern in the way we are fighting this "war on terror". Now the people we are fighting are Muslim and the reason we are fighting is the clash of our concepts and their religion. Yet we will not come out and say that we have a problem with Islam. Instead I have to have my Fourth amendment rights shattered when I try to fly, or take a subway train, or walk in a mall. I am as WASP as you can get and not inclined to be a suicide bomber. Now we are allowing the tranfer of aspect of port control to not a foreign country, but to a Muslim country in the middle east. Sure we have a good relationship with them presently, but even though the more radical elements of the religion are the ones that wish us the most harm. In reality, the whole religion has difficulties in whatever country they are not predominent and they have not worked with the necessary single purpose to erradicate the radical elements in their religion. My attitude and I suspect the attitude of many Americans is that we need to begin a different thought process in this war. We need to directly address to problem Islam presents to us and irradicate that problem. If in the process innocent people are harmed then that is the cost of war. I for one am getting sick and tired of the idiotic way security is presently being handled in such a broad base manner and the port deal makes me think that we need to center on the Muslim problem or quit trying altogether.
Posted by: David Caskey at February 24, 2006 10:54 AM (6wTpy)
3
Some points to ponder:
UAE recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
UAE banks were used by Al-Qaeda in moving the money used to fund the 9-11 attacks.
The UAE UN voting record for 2004 reveals the following:
62 votes opposing the US
5 votes in favor of the US
10 abstained
2 absences
Would we contract Mexico to control our southern border?
We can be internationally trade friendly with UAE without allowing them to lease/manage terminals within our sea ports. Our sea ports, air ports and borders should be controlled by US entities (either private or government).
I'm not anti-UAE. I am pro-US; especially when it comes to our national security and that includes enter points for people and cargo.
UAE recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
UAE banks were used by Al-Qaeda in moving the money used to fund the 9-11 attacks.
The UAE UN voting record for 2004 reveals the following:
62 votes opposing the US
5 votes in favor of the US
10 abstained
2 absences
Would we contract Mexico to control our southern border?
We can be internationally trade friendly with UAE without allowing them to lease/manage terminals within our sea ports. Our sea ports, air ports and borders should be controlled by US entities (either private or government).
I'm not anti-UAE. I am pro-US; especially when it comes to our national security and that includes enter points for people and cargo.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 24, 2006 06:09 PM (owAN1)
4
On the other hand, the deal for the P&O terminals is for Dubai Ports to take over 24 terminals of 829 total in the six ports....
Posted by: Specter at February 24, 2006 10:58 PM (ybfXM)
Prayers for the Assassin
Last night marks the first time in a long time that I didn't hop on the computer to either read or blog, and I blame it all on Robert Ferrigno.
Instead, I churned through the firt twelve chapters of my advance copy of Prayers for the Assassin. The pacing is excellent in this novel set in a future America divided between the Islamic Republic in the North, and a Christian Bible Belt South. I won't ruin it for anyone, but Ferrigno (who has a blog) has written a book that holds the reader's attention. You know you've got a good one when you keep promising yourself that you'll read "just one more" chapter before you put the book down for the night. The 2036 edition of the online news portal Republic World News is an interesting companion site. I'm hoping to finish it up this evening. 2/23 Update: While my blogging may have suffered a bit in the past 24 hours, I think it was worth it. Ferrigno did a nice job of storytelling, leaving just enough hanging that you might think a follow-up book must be somewhere on the horizon.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:20 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
you got me. the followup is in the works. next time, we go into the Bible Belt. fun ensues.
thanks for the kind words
robert
thanks for the kind words
robert
Posted by: robert ferrigno at March 01, 2006 12:53 PM (zVEB7)
February 22, 2006
Color Blind
"...not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963
George Bush will never be half as eloquent as the late Dr. King, but the sentiment remains the same: judge people by what they do, and not because of cultural stereotypes or the color of their skin. The UAE have been an ally to this country, and I think our initial knee-jerk response on this (mine included) was wrong. This may not play well domestically at first, but the rest of the world is watching, and the President is sending the right message.
"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port... "Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through." George W. Bush February 21, 2006
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:05 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
UAE has cooperated with the War on Terror to a degree--but only to a degree. The same can be said about SA. But neither country can be counted on when the chips are down...that's not opinion--that is a fact.
Sorry, but until they stop blocking off investigations into terrorist's bank accounts (among other things they do to protect radical Islamic beliefs and practices) and come out denouncing radical Islam (which they have never done), I cannot condone giving their stock market and Sukuk global acceptance through this port deal. I know the Port Authority (both management and Unions) in Baltimore too and I deal with them concerning our ships. There would be far more influence by the UAE company over the ports than anyone is willing to admit or discuss. Those bids they will manage have influence and farther reaching tentacles.
Furthermore, this isn't about who's going to be running the ports--it never was (or shouldn't have been to those who know about how ports operate). This is about boosting Arab stocks on a world market and strengthening their holdings in the US. It's about SUKUS, and about adding several BILLION dollars worth of influence to an Arab global market exchange that is trying to find its feet. The UAE sukus would be the largest paper written in the Arab would and would further strengthen their newly established stock markets and global corporate peddling. This one fact alone is something that is NOT in our best interests.
Nope, can't go with Bush on this and won't...not until he comes clean about what is really behind the deal--and there is a LOT more going on behind the scenes--and a LOT more at stake here than just a "business contract" with some ports.
Judging by actions and not by skin color may be a great thing theory, but in reality, things like racial profiling work for a reason. And there is not a country in the Middle East (except Israel) that we can depend upon when things get rough. And that lack of dependence is due to the Arab Middle East's ACTIONS. These Arab countries are NOT OUR ALLIES...never have been and probably never will. Our relationship with the Arab states is one of convenience--on both sides--and that has been shown to time and again be something that simply cannot be depended upon or trusted.
Trust is earned, not given...and certainly not given as a "goodwill gesture" in times such as these. It's a different world than it was during MLK and JFK's speeches. Especially since today there is so much more at stake than there was back then.
Sorry, I've personally dealt with SA and the Kuwait governments--including the SA embassy in DC. It is unbelievable how they do business and what they support. Their ethics and morals are nearly opposite those of the West. There is not a single Arab country that can be trusted--no matter what Bush or anyone else says. I've seen how the Arab Middle East works firsthand--as have some of my close friends with the FBI and none have ever had anything good to say about they have seen or experienced.
I wish I had the time to tell you all the things I've seen and had to deal with just concerning SA--and the UAE is not much different. They are all cut from the same mold, like it or not.
I will NEVER turn my back on them.
EVER...and the less business we have to do with them, the better we are. I'd rather deal with China anytime than with an Arab state.
Sorry, but this UAE thing is way too close to home with me due to the ships we're getting and the ports we are dealing with--I've worked with Middle East businesses and know of what I speak. I just had to vent a little.
Sorry, but until they stop blocking off investigations into terrorist's bank accounts (among other things they do to protect radical Islamic beliefs and practices) and come out denouncing radical Islam (which they have never done), I cannot condone giving their stock market and Sukuk global acceptance through this port deal. I know the Port Authority (both management and Unions) in Baltimore too and I deal with them concerning our ships. There would be far more influence by the UAE company over the ports than anyone is willing to admit or discuss. Those bids they will manage have influence and farther reaching tentacles.
Furthermore, this isn't about who's going to be running the ports--it never was (or shouldn't have been to those who know about how ports operate). This is about boosting Arab stocks on a world market and strengthening their holdings in the US. It's about SUKUS, and about adding several BILLION dollars worth of influence to an Arab global market exchange that is trying to find its feet. The UAE sukus would be the largest paper written in the Arab would and would further strengthen their newly established stock markets and global corporate peddling. This one fact alone is something that is NOT in our best interests.
Nope, can't go with Bush on this and won't...not until he comes clean about what is really behind the deal--and there is a LOT more going on behind the scenes--and a LOT more at stake here than just a "business contract" with some ports.
Judging by actions and not by skin color may be a great thing theory, but in reality, things like racial profiling work for a reason. And there is not a country in the Middle East (except Israel) that we can depend upon when things get rough. And that lack of dependence is due to the Arab Middle East's ACTIONS. These Arab countries are NOT OUR ALLIES...never have been and probably never will. Our relationship with the Arab states is one of convenience--on both sides--and that has been shown to time and again be something that simply cannot be depended upon or trusted.
Trust is earned, not given...and certainly not given as a "goodwill gesture" in times such as these. It's a different world than it was during MLK and JFK's speeches. Especially since today there is so much more at stake than there was back then.
Sorry, I've personally dealt with SA and the Kuwait governments--including the SA embassy in DC. It is unbelievable how they do business and what they support. Their ethics and morals are nearly opposite those of the West. There is not a single Arab country that can be trusted--no matter what Bush or anyone else says. I've seen how the Arab Middle East works firsthand--as have some of my close friends with the FBI and none have ever had anything good to say about they have seen or experienced.
I wish I had the time to tell you all the things I've seen and had to deal with just concerning SA--and the UAE is not much different. They are all cut from the same mold, like it or not.
I will NEVER turn my back on them.
EVER...and the less business we have to do with them, the better we are. I'd rather deal with China anytime than with an Arab state.
Sorry, but this UAE thing is way too close to home with me due to the ships we're getting and the ports we are dealing with--I've worked with Middle East businesses and know of what I speak. I just had to vent a little.
Posted by: WB at February 22, 2006 01:16 AM (kkWeo)
2
I think it's funny that people still quote MLK when his name wasn't Martin Luther, but Michael King, and all of his speaches were stolen from someone else. Too bad his police files are sealed for several more years, what a shock it would be to the idiots of today that made him a hero to read what a low life he really was. He wasn't a hero, he was a con man one step ahead of the law, and his crimes would have gotten the average person 25 to life. The nut that shot him saved him from dying in prison.
Get off the crook and write about something more important, maybe a pee wee ball game.
Get off the crook and write about something more important, maybe a pee wee ball game.
Posted by: scrapiron at February 22, 2006 02:28 AM (wZLWV)
3
"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port..."
Except that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE and none were from Great Britain.
Except that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE and none were from Great Britain.
Posted by: Jason at February 22, 2006 07:27 AM (YHqK/)
4
I'm agin this one. I don't support: unchecked immigration, unchecked spending, unchecked federal government expansion, and allowing UAE to manage some of our largest sea ports. GWB gets failing marks on these four issues.
Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades)" by Robert Spencer and what WB wrote will make a lot more sense. Islam (Mohammed) teaches (via the Qur'an and Hadith) that it is perfectly natural to lie, cheat, steel and kill for the advancement of Islam. I am not willing to trust people with those philosophical/theological underpinning tenants.
Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades)" by Robert Spencer and what WB wrote will make a lot more sense. Islam (Mohammed) teaches (via the Qur'an and Hadith) that it is perfectly natural to lie, cheat, steel and kill for the advancement of Islam. I am not willing to trust people with those philosophical/theological underpinning tenants.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 22, 2006 08:01 AM (X2tAw)
5
I totally reject the idea of allowing the security of our ports to fall into the hands of the Moslems.
Also, please don't compare GW with MLK in any way. The above description of the con man, Michael King is accurate. When will the truth about this man come out and the worship of his name come to an end?
Also, please don't compare GW with MLK in any way. The above description of the con man, Michael King is accurate. When will the truth about this man come out and the worship of his name come to an end?
Posted by: Dorothy at February 22, 2006 10:44 AM (5tKV2)
6
Jason, you are right. Two UAE citizens did participate in carrying out the terror attacks of 9/11. But since 9/11, at least 14 British citizens (four suicide bombers on 7/7, the four failed bombers from 7/21 and their supporters) have carried out terror attacks against western targets. Hmmmm...
In addition, this is, I think folks are beginning to realize, a paper transfer. The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to provide port security, and U.S. Customs will continue to provide inspections. None of that changes. The same AFL/CIO union members will still do the work.
The only thing I can see changing is who the mob is shaking down.
Abdul, meet Michael, Anthony, and Vinnie...
As for those of you who slam Dr. King, I'm frankly ashamed. He was not a perfect human being. He had his faults, but that proves what, exactly? He did a lot more good than bad, and I doubt most of us, myself included, could come close to meeting that standard.
As for perfect heroes, as I recall, the last time we had one, we killed him, too. Of course, we didn't use a rifle.
A cross and three nails did it just fine.
In addition, this is, I think folks are beginning to realize, a paper transfer. The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to provide port security, and U.S. Customs will continue to provide inspections. None of that changes. The same AFL/CIO union members will still do the work.
The only thing I can see changing is who the mob is shaking down.
Abdul, meet Michael, Anthony, and Vinnie...
As for those of you who slam Dr. King, I'm frankly ashamed. He was not a perfect human being. He had his faults, but that proves what, exactly? He did a lot more good than bad, and I doubt most of us, myself included, could come close to meeting that standard.
As for perfect heroes, as I recall, the last time we had one, we killed him, too. Of course, we didn't use a rifle.
A cross and three nails did it just fine.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 22, 2006 11:06 AM (g5Nba)
7
And while we're at it, why don't we look at the evil arabs running this company, shall we?
COO: Mr. Edward Bilkey, US Navy (ret), graduate of Yale and Harvard
General Counsel: Mr. George Dalton, a graduate of Fordham
Senior VP Operations: Mr. Joost Kruijning, a native of the Netherlands
Mr. Matt Leech, graduate of Georgetown
Senior VP Commercial: Mr. Michael Moore, a man who started in trucking in the US
CFO: Mr. Vijay Sharma, a native of India.
Courtesy of Flopping Aces.
COO: Mr. Edward Bilkey, US Navy (ret), graduate of Yale and Harvard
General Counsel: Mr. George Dalton, a graduate of Fordham
Senior VP Operations: Mr. Joost Kruijning, a native of the Netherlands
Mr. Matt Leech, graduate of Georgetown
Senior VP Commercial: Mr. Michael Moore, a man who started in trucking in the US
CFO: Mr. Vijay Sharma, a native of India.
Courtesy of Flopping Aces.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 22, 2006 11:11 AM (g5Nba)
8
The only problem I have with this transaction taking place is that it wasnt run by Americans in the first place. If we have already sold this port to the British what does it matter who runs it now. Like Confedrate Yankee said this is a paper transfer it doe not affect who runs the security. The Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and Port Authority will still have control over securing this port. If Bush is trying to help our international image (which so many Dems think he doesnt do) then I applaud him. But this port shoul dhave been under US control the whoel time and this wouldnt be an issue.
Posted by: 81 at February 22, 2006 11:16 AM (Mv/2X)
9
George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on March 24, 2004. The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan.Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said. How is it a good idea to hand over AMERICAN ports to Bin Laden's pals?
Posted by: whocares at February 22, 2006 02:34 PM (BJYNn)
10
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan.
Really? Funny you should say that, because the 9/11 Commission Report says something differently:
According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155 Clarke wrote to Berger's deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.157
No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot.158
Some folks - the same Richard Clarke mentioned above - also told Tenet they thought the intelligence was of dubious value, anyway.
If you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story.
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan.
Really? Funny you should say that, because the 9/11 Commission Report says something differently:
According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155 Clarke wrote to Berger's deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.157
No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot.158
Some folks - the same Richard Clarke mentioned above - also told Tenet they thought the intelligence was of dubious value, anyway.
If you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 22, 2006 03:08 PM (g5Nba)
11
Whoa folks, I am as concerned as the next person but, if this transaction does not go thru we are in serious trouble in the Mid-East. I know we are already seen as the "Great Satin" but this is cannon fodder for the radicals to use in there hate mongering. If you see this as a transferrence of security of our ports, you are wrong they are going to be the adminstrators not the gate keepers. No different that the Brits or Chinese.We are still going to have the say so on what comes into our ports. We control all security ie. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs. 99.9% of the work force are going to be Americans. This will bolster our standing and will give real "meat and potaoes" to our claims of equality and disproving the myth that we hate all muslims. Trust me there will be more oversight on this than you can believe.
Posted by: Fathful Patriot at February 22, 2006 03:21 PM (FzhYM)
12
I guess my concern in the first place was that this operation was run by a foreign company to begin with. I'm not so much profiling UAE as would-be attackers, but I'm not as confident in their ability to keep out infiltrators who would use their management of the ports for terror ops.
And yes, CY, I did see that there were some Americans holding high positions in the company... but then again, can a handful of executives prevent the infiltration of middle management or lower?
"But since 9/11, at least 14 British citizens (four suicide bombers on 7/7, the four failed bombers from 7/21 and their supporters) have carried out terror attacks against western targets. Hmmmm..."
British citizens attacking British targets. Hmmm... that doesn't bode well for your next statement regarding Americans being in charge of the company.
And yes, CY, I did see that there were some Americans holding high positions in the company... but then again, can a handful of executives prevent the infiltration of middle management or lower?
"But since 9/11, at least 14 British citizens (four suicide bombers on 7/7, the four failed bombers from 7/21 and their supporters) have carried out terror attacks against western targets. Hmmmm..."
British citizens attacking British targets. Hmmm... that doesn't bode well for your next statement regarding Americans being in charge of the company.
Posted by: Jason at February 22, 2006 03:28 PM (6suck)
13
*sigh*
It's not about direct port control...It is about the ability to INFLUENCE the operations of a port and strengthening the SUKUS of UAE...and anyone who says that can't happen in this deal has NO CLUE as to how a port operates and how much money is involved here.
Even thought the Unions are in control of the Stevies (and that control according to the agreement is strained), the ports can be shut down or crippled by the UAE company. They don't have to do it (and lose money), they just have to IMPLY that certain decisions could hinder port efficiency.
Furthermore, there are a number of things within the port operational structure in which they would have a voice. That is NOT something we want right now. I'm telling you this is a major mistake and we have created a mess by allowing it to get this far. Now, no matter what is decided, we are in for some problems.
It's not about direct port control...It is about the ability to INFLUENCE the operations of a port and strengthening the SUKUS of UAE...and anyone who says that can't happen in this deal has NO CLUE as to how a port operates and how much money is involved here.
Even thought the Unions are in control of the Stevies (and that control according to the agreement is strained), the ports can be shut down or crippled by the UAE company. They don't have to do it (and lose money), they just have to IMPLY that certain decisions could hinder port efficiency.
Furthermore, there are a number of things within the port operational structure in which they would have a voice. That is NOT something we want right now. I'm telling you this is a major mistake and we have created a mess by allowing it to get this far. Now, no matter what is decided, we are in for some problems.
Posted by: WB at February 22, 2006 04:07 PM (ch8ZP)
14
CY, For the natural life of me, I cannot see any good thing coming out of this deal. Islam is the problem here. Can anyone tell me why a, whatever you want to call it, system based on lies and deceit should be our friend? I have no experience with ports, but the vision of 911 is with me. What does CAIR say about this deal? If they like it, which they do, then should we be with them? WB, I vote with you. btw, W called the border watchers "vigilantes." Now he calls these guys our friends? Yours truly, Islamophobe for life.
Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at February 22, 2006 06:44 PM (6ldTE)
15
I know all of you points seem to be valid but the only one thats really important is that the security is still being taken care of by our people. Plus one point to add as a member of the military I see things a little differently do you know how much more dangerous it would be to try to port or Naval Ships anywhere in the gulf if this does not go thru?? Its already bad enough but you add the hate this deal not going thru would create and we end up with another USS Cole on our hands. The only thing I dont like about it like I said before is that the port shoul dhave never been turned over to foreigners in the first place, but since it was already sold out but a Dem then why are all their panties in a wad now?
Posted by: 81 at February 23, 2006 09:27 AM (WGcw3)
16
If DPW runs our ports like the run the ones in UAE, watch out. Those ports are used by terrorists, gun runners, and smugglers to move their stuff in and out of the middle east.
Posted by: Dick Tuck at February 24, 2006 02:17 AM (STPIj)
February 21, 2006
"No One Deserves This"
From "the Sandbox," a soldier speaks out on the false Christians of Westboro Baptist Church that protest at soldier's funerals, and the rough-and-tumble bikers that support our soldier's families during the hardest of times.
"No One Deserves This," from Mind in the Qatar.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:22 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I cannot write what I feel and you leave it posted. Phelps and crew are lower than whale s*#t. They can not claim to be Christians and propagate a message that God "hates". And for them to choose the funeral of soldiers is beyond the pale – I find that contemptible. However, one day they will be required to give an account of their actions. On that day they will learn the difference between righteous punishment and hate.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 22, 2006 07:37 AM (X2tAw)
2
One day, some of these fuckers will protest at the funeral of one of my friends and they will leave the event minus pints of blood...
Dawnfire = soldier
Dawnfire = soldier
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at February 22, 2006 10:14 AM (RvTAf)
3
This is beyond comprehension that any person or organization could do something as un-christian and despicable as this. They cannot call themselves Christians they are no more than a ugly hate group. I personally do not believe in a homosexual lifestyle but, using a fallen Hero's funeral as a platform for there hatred is inexusable. They should lose there tax status and should be arrested for there action's. This goes way over the line of free speech. I guess they forgot who fought and died to give them that.
May God Bless all who have made the Ultimate Sacrafice and may God bless the families of the loved and lost and May God Bless the United States of America....AMEN
May God Bless all who have made the Ultimate Sacrafice and may God bless the families of the loved and lost and May God Bless the United States of America....AMEN
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 22, 2006 03:01 PM (cqZXM)
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.4199 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3688 seconds, 346 records returned.
Page size 378 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.