Monday, February 06, 2006

THE MORE YOU BLEED IN PEACE, THE LESS YOU BLEED IN WAR

Personally, I think Cheney, Bush, Rove used the secrets they found spying in order to blackmail and intimidate good people like Richard Clarke and Scott Ritter so they would be less ready to talk. I wonder how many others....

Questions: what do you think the possibilities are for impeachment, based on the spying program, if it's proven to be illegal? How about the Jack Abramoff scandal? Valerie Plame? The United Nations plane incident when Bush was overheard suggesting they paint the plane in U.N. colors?

I am opening this forum to hear from Recovering Republicans. You can leave anonymous messages if you don't want your identity leaked. I'm quite serious. I used to be a Republican, then I got sober on September 11, 1994. It's as if I woke up. I suddenly started looking at the world around me and put myself in others' shoes. I literally grew a new heart: did a turnaround on the death penalty, and stopped judging and fearing others. I also gradually started being less self-centered. I started giving things away. If we all just took care of our own side of the street and started nurturing those less fortunate instead of judging them, we could build an amazing world. We're all the same color and the same tribe.

Stuart Smalley is right; "It's easier to wear slippers than to carpet the whole world.

Remember, Sadaam was the one assurance that Osama Bin Laden's Al Quaeda would never get a foothold in Iraq. They were enemies and polar opposites: Sadaam was a secularist; Osama a religious fundamentalist.

There were many more creative ways to keep Sadaam from functioning. As long as we were "inspecting, hovering, talking and questioning the WMD program, we could have played this card until we smoked him out of his bunker. With our precision satellite technology -- you don't think we could have eventually made a surreptitious direct hit or contact? Or at least kept him in his luxury underground bunker for a few years, paranoid of coming outside? What good would he be then? With proper CIA plants, we could have made friends in the underground, won them over with ideas -- there had to be one or two Iraqis who eventually would turn against their leader. With satellite photos, we could see any WMD action, trucks leaving large facilities. It's one thing to bomb inanimate objects if you absolutely have to, but to announce to the world that you are going to assassinate a human being, even if he's an unofficial dictator, is not only UN-CHRISTIAN but gives the enemy a heads-up and makes us look like malicious invaders. No wonder more terrorism was created! The more we fight these guys, the more of them we create! It's like Lynn Woolsey said the other day, if you shoot at a worm, he splits in two. Wouldn't you get your cousins, aunts and uncles together to fight an invader who carpet bombs your city, and destroys schools, universites and the sewage system, to say nothing of creating toxic chemica air and a few "civilian casualties now and then." This is BARBARIC and we can't possibly be hearing the whole story. Are all the Iraqis really grateful to us as liberators? No wonder the whole world hates us. No human on earth of sound mind, thought this was a good plan! We must get together and pray for Bush to gain wisdom (which is compassion WITH intelligence.) And pray for the good in people to rise. Maybe it would be wise to understand our enemy: Al Qaeda was a fringe group, not a majority of Muslims. Not all Muslims believed all non-Muslims should be wiped out. This was not the part of the Koran normal people followed. Osama had a personal vengeance and a rinky-dink operation: terrorist hits on the WTC is not the same as missles. But now he has more friends: we've given the fence-sitting Muslims actual cause to hate us.

This blog is a 2005 Koufax Award Double Nominee!! Thanks to everyone who nominated us!
BEST POST: Cornell's BradBlog article Death Is Sexier than Sex, to Ann Coulter

BEST NEW BLOG 2005 Koufax Award Nominee LydiaCornell.com

BEST POST voting will start soon at: Wampum (vote here for BRADBLOG: Death is Sexier than Sex)
BEST NEW BLOG voting at: Wampum

Be sure to check out this wonderfully generous website (Wampum) and all the nominees.

A CALL FOR A TRUCE: I want to open up a dialogue with people who support this war. I sincerely want to know why you believe this war in Iraq is a good thing. From the bottom of my heart, I am pleading for real answers, not vicious attacks. We are all Americans here, and we have to bridge this chasm. We cannot be enemies anymore. Fopr my part, I am a mother with two sons and I never want them to fight in a war like this -- against people who are willing to blow themselves up and who "eat nuclear waste for breakfast" as I said in a prior blog. I cry almost everyday for the precious lives of our brave soldiers. These are just children we are sending off to die for a cause I honestly don't think is guaranteeing our freedom at all. Please reassure me that there is a good reason for this. Thank you and God Bless.

Regarding Iran: It is absolutely possible to prevent a world war. We must be vigilant, and you may not be ready to accept this, you may not believe me, but prayer tangibly changes things. Prayer is putting your thoughts on the good in people so intensely, that fear and negative influences are driven out. This is a "thought-universe" and what we focus on grows. Prayer is not begging some anthropomorphic (man-like) god for favors. It's actually dwelling persistently on the good, love. If you try this, you will see miraculous changes in your own life.

Commenter Moo Moo -- I've been writing two books and didn't mean to ignore you. You questions will be answered in these books and blogs coming soon, I just haven't had time to read all these comments yet as I'm raising children and am overwhelmed with work lately. Also getting ready to do standup comedy opening for Paul Rodriguez show -- with Destiny, my girlfriend. I'll keep you posted on this and our Vegas calendar.

Listen, seek and you shall find. If you're really interested in spiritual growth and the secrets of the universe, you will find them. I haven't begun to share with anyone what I absolutely know to be true yet -- but I will. But many others have: read Wayne Dyer, "You'll See it When you Believe It" Also, the BEST BOOK I HAVE EVER READ ABOUT THE TRUE CHRIST IS: EMETT FOX "The Sermon on the Mount" In very simple terms, he tells us how to get results from prayer, and the real meaning of Christ's mission. It is a crime what the current believers (Pharisees) have done to pervert Christ's real mission. I also love Mary Baker Eddy (very advanced spiritual thought, but it is absolutely the truth) and I love the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know". Please Google "The Miracle in the Water" and study this amazing way to put your thoughts on love. If love can change a water molecule, and we are 95% water, this is something to think about.

Thoughts are things. You say I haven't answered your questions, but if you read all my posts more will be revealed. Why don't you ask me another question, I'm not sure what it is you want answered. I will say this: I do not believe in a man-like God outside of ourselves. It's WITHIN.

I am talking about consistently taking the higher ground, resisting fighting, learning the key to life: that what we focus on expands. You don't need to fight your enemies if your thoughts are focused on your own business and the good in the "other". Charity involves stepping outside your own view and having real empathy for others' suffering. Breaking the grip of fear and depression takes a shedding of doubt, and a leap in consciousness. You can't see it until you believe it.

684 comments:

  1. Lydia, I have sensed your extremely busy between meeting the deadlines for your books and spending time with your family, and in light of that i've been really making an effort to not direct questions at you that require lots of thought or long complex answers, however after watching TCFC Saturday evening I just wanted to ask this one quick question before i forget, anyone else feel free to jump in as well.

    I was watching the episode were the guy was wearing a black Russian hat, and you were commenting that your father wore a hat like that also, that brought back alot of memories for me, because my father used to wear a hat like that, and I absolutely hated it, I used to tell him he looked like a geek and that this wasnt Russia and I even used to hide it on him. My question was were those hats ever popular, was that some kind of fad or weird style, just curious?


    Also please keep us informed about your books and any interviews you might be doing, and just as an idea, if you have the time I think it would be really cool if after your books came out you created a blog for a brief time for questions and answers about the books or even accepted letter or e-mail questions kind of like Tolkien and C.S. Lewis did.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lydia said "A CALL FOR A TRUCE: I want to open up a dialogue with people who support this war. I sincerely want to know why you believe this war in Iraq is a good thing."

    i think this is a fantastic question, i'd really like to hear REAL reasons for supporting the war, however maybe i'm being cynical here, but i think we are just going to get the typical "lets kill them before they kill us rhetoric" but we'll have to see.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are my favorite writers! How did you know. I also love Ann LaMotte. Genius funny.

    The hat episode -- I have to go back and look at it, do you know what it's called? Funny you should mention that: my dad wore a Russian hat too. I think they were popular in New York and other cosmopolitan cities. Of course he was born in Russia, grew up in Shanghai, China. He was not a Communist, but a white Russian. (In case any McCarthyites spying on me want to know.) His father was an admiral in the Tsar's Imperial fleet.

    I will keep you posted on the books and interviews, and will have a Q & A, great idea!
    Keep your eyes on the Good and it will increase. xoxo,
    Lydia

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:34 PM

    I'm a recovering neo-con. You are starting to make me think. I will keep reading more if you keep writing. You speak a truth I don't often hear. thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think I'll stay out of this one :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. czar prophet2:54 PM

    Admiral Cornell? Never heard of him....

    ReplyDelete
  7. take care in the quest for answers, that the quest does not itself become the goal, and ultimately replace the answers it intended to deliver

    - anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lyd

    I have read every post ever written by you including some not on this site. I too, am a dedicated father who drives my offspring around constantly like a taxi service.

    I completely read the Viktor Fankl book as well. And, while you may not believe this, I really didnt learn anything new. I amazed my mother years ago by telling her : "As human beings, we have the power to choose how we react to any given situation or circumstance no matter how difficult." In other words, I can convince myself (If I choose to) that the most extreme harsh reality of life is nothing more than a pleasureable learning experience; I have learned this on my own.

    Though very helpful, logotherapy has its limits and is certainly no absolute. Nevertheless, Frankl's book is an excellent, inspiring read.

    You said :

    " If your really interested in spiritual growth and the secrets of the universe, you will find them."

    I cant believe you said this. Thats like me saying to you: "Are you really interested in Jesus." I too, have found many secrets and my journey into the rabbit hole is one you would not care to hear because the truth would crush you, therefore you prefer the blue pill which provides illusion and false comfort.

    Seriously Lydia, I am very proud of myself for not seeking external illusions in my most desperate hour.

    Additonally, you make it sound as if I have never experienced or attempted love or something . I was with the same girl for 18 years which is more than you. I have learned you can love someone too much or too little. Therfore, once again, my question to you is:

    Where does one draw that fine line between expressing to much or too little love so that the world may live in total harmony, without conflict, thereby allowing the second coming?

    I feel this is a reasonable question for someone who wants world love so desperately.

    Take all the time you need to answer this one. Your gonna need it.

    Im not being mean to you. In fact, I hope someone may wipe me out some day with logic and fact... not.. "I seen the Virgin Mary's face on the bottom of my neighbours lawnmower.

    P.S. I will check out what you recommended.

    Take Care

    ReplyDelete
  9. By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 1 minute ago

    HENDERSON, Nev. - Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

    "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters.

    "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Moo Moo - Now I see what you're asking. I keep hinting but you may not like my answer, so I have to wait and get it out there in the book. But a good start is to see the world as not material, there is no struggle between two opposing forces, good and evil - that is the illusion we've invented. There is no "original sin"; this is a construct and that sets all of our lives up for pain. Once you jump out of this box and change your foundational perspective, mind-boggling things begin to open up. This is what is hard to get people to see, they are not ready. You can't kill anyone really. Regarding war and nations: how many have tried returning love for hate (as Christ instructed) because we simply won't believe it will work. And then when the evidence of our material senses proves someone dies a bloody death, we think love doesn't work. But there is much more. And it takes conscious concentration to see beyond physical evidence to the whole picture. I don't have all the answers but I do know this: if we had not invaded Iraq, we'd have a safer world, and terrorism would have diminished by our withdrawing our attention from it. Read Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science textbook. It is in old language but it explains it all. Einstein knew this, but said it was far ahead of its time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't mean withdraw from looking for Osama. But there is a big difference in what we're doing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Moo Moo said: "Where does one draw that fine line between expressing to much or too little love so that the world may live in total harmony, without conflict, thereby allowing the second coming?"

    What a great question, Johnny. But I don't think that the consequence of drawing the line in the right place will necessarily cause the world to live in total harmony, without conflict. And I certainly don't believe in a second coming-- or are you guys speaking metaphorically about that?

    Conflict is, I feel, an essential part of life. But the key is to have civility in conflict and grow from it. Mind you ... civility does not necessarily mean politeness; sometimes truth hurts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kirk said

    "Conflict is, I feel, an essential part of life. But the key is to have civility in conflict and grow from it. Mind you ... civility does not necessarily mean politeness; sometimes truth hurts."

    Excellent Kirk! Finding/Defining that fine line is virtually impossible; the rabbit hole is bottomless.

    Lydia means well though and I respect her quest. I am, however, a little freaked out by her 6:08 pm post; shes a little deeper than I assumed.

    I guess Ill just be patient and wait for her books...the curiosity is killin me though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lydia said

    ..."there is no struggle between two opposing forces, good and evil - that is the illusion we've invented. There is no "original sin"; this is a construct and that sets all of our lives up for pain."

    Hmmmmm....good one Lydia, but, even if your right, you now have to convince billions to recognize this. Good luck!

    Thanx Lydia for sharing your thoughts/beliefs with me yet again. Always a pleasure to hear from a fellow philosopher.

    P.S. Dont bring your comedy show around here otherwise I will heckle you unmercifully...hee hee hee

    ReplyDelete
  15. Johnny, man i'm pissed, I wrote a long post attempting to define what I think the is line and kind of tie it in to what you Kirk and Lydia are saying and it got deleted when the board went down. oh well ill try and repost the gist of it later.

    About what you said yesterday though what is the name of the blog in the archive where you posted your thoughts on the TCFC commentary.

    My two favorites were Lydia and Ted, and I think they were probably the most popular as well, although I liked everyone and thought the whole cast was fantastic, and while I agree with you that Ted was the most well known actor on the show and could probably be considered the star, I think a reunion would be sucessful without him and I think the fans would be interested. I'm not even a big sitcom guy and I really loved the show the only sitcoms I really liked and took the time to watch were Gilligans island, Happy Days, Threes Company, Too Close For Comfort, Welcome Back Kotter, and that new one with John Ritter that 8 Simple Rules, that I really stated watching because I was a big John Ritter fan, I really liked the entire cast of this show also, but I kind of lost interest and stopped watching after John Died.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Moo Moo -- It sounds too intellectual, esoteric. I have to tell you how it works in parables and true stories that happened to me that I would never have believed "before".

    I love that you are on the path. I saw your name over at Shadows of Divine Things. I think we spend way too much time on the dogma of religion, instead of actually applying spiritual principles. I have some spine-tingling proof to tell you about. But this is not to freak you out, it's actually a law of the universe. We just don't expect miracles, but we should. They are perfectly natural. we'll only see it when we believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike I can't wait to read your post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think we’re back to the Hornet’s nest analogy, I promise I will be relatively brief Kirk, I just
    want to make a point and tie it in with the last few posts. I think NECESSARY is a more
    appropriate choice of words than essential. Essential implies we cant do without it and I think that
    while conflict is at times unavoidable and necessary, it is definately something we can live without
    and thus not essential. Now bear with me here, my point isnt just semantic, while I agree that
    conflict is at times necessary, I think that is only a small portion of the time, much less than people
    actually think. The only times I think conflict is truly unavoidable is when you are in a real “life or
    death” or “us or them” type situation or when greater evil will come from doing nothing. The vast
    majority of the time being open minded and trying to see things from the other sides perspective
    or point of view or showing kindness or compassion can allow things to be resolved without
    conflict or deadly force.

    Now while I think dealing with the REAL terrorists is definately an “us or them” type situation, I
    don’t think the war in Iraq is, we are occupying these people’s homeland against their will, many
    of these people have had friends and family killed and houses destroyed by our bombings, many
    have been accidently shot or blown up by both our troops and by insurgents. I think that the
    majority of Iraqi’s are just poor simple people whose main focus is to survive and get enough to
    eat, not to attack and destroy a group of people they don’t even know on the other side of the
    world, however if we keep giving them reasons to hate us and adding fuel to the fire that could
    change.

    One more distinction, to these people we are invaders and bullies and they are freedom fighters,
    and although there may be some REAL terrorists attempting to enter the country due to the chaos
    we created, the vast majority are not, even though they may use terrorist type tactics much like
    our forefathers did against the British during the Revolutionary War, in their eyes they are
    defending their homeland. I have several friends in the military and have a huge amount of respect
    for our soldiers, however from the Iraqi’s perspective our soldiers are legitimate military targets.
    All this “might makes right” philosophy does is stir up hate and create more enemies, till
    eventually the bully messes with the wrong person, or all of the little people band together to deal
    with the bully. I have to say that I agree with Lydia and Worfeus in that I think the world would
    be a safer place if we didnt invade Iraq, much of the world views us as a bully, mainstream
    moderate muslims are being converted to the terrorist cause, I think if we tried to see things from
    their perspective and put the wheels in motion for a pullout we could turn things around, if not,
    where does it end, its like the Hatfields and the McCoys if one side doesnt blink or attempt to take
    the high road the killing will never stop and both sides will lose, theres no winning a quagmire like
    this, This administration is still caught up in the past fighting the last War, they think its the Cold
    War part 2 .

    Another example would be on this Blog, a small portion of the time when a troll makes a hateful
    annoying post, a response is warranted, but the majority of the time its more appropriate to just
    ignore them, instead of perpetuating the hate by responding, ignoring them and not giving them
    the attention they crave will make them and other trolls go away, although it is sometimes difficult
    to do, we all (myself included) need to make the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lydia, it was actually Ted wearing the Russian hat, for some reason i thought it was Wendel, The episode was "A Policeman's Wife Is Not A Happy One" and you and Deb were doing the Commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lydia said "Personally, I think Cheney, Bush, Rove used the secrets they found spying in order to blackmail and intimidate good people like Richard Clarke and Scott Ritter so they would be less ready to talk. I wonder how many others...."

    I think these guys tried intimidating and threating lots of people, there were a great many people who tried speaking out and were silenced including Paul O'neil and Colin Powell, O'Neil spoke out a little about what was going on in his book, it was an interesting read.

    BTW Worf, I got See No Evil today by Bob Baer, it looks good i'll read it this week.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I hope you paid cash for it. :|

    ReplyDelete
  22. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    -Ronald Reagan

    Appeasers who clamor to see us fail to sustain lasting freedom in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East -- those who urge us to abandon the Iraqis to Saddam's bloody successor-- do not deserve to be known by the proud title of American.

    ReplyDelete
  23. For a minute I didnt get that Worf, but I get it now. :D

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mike: When I talked about conflict being essential I was referring more to interpersonal relationships than to politics or international relations. But I do see your point as it relates to the world at large.

    As far as FF's post on Iraq and the Middle East......

    1. The US had NO legitimate right to invade iraq......just as we would have no right to invade say Cuba.... a nation in our own backyard with a terrorist dictator in charge, who once actually did have WMD and "NEW CUE LUR" weapons pointed at us. { That is unless geologists find oil beneath Havana... then all bets are off and let's hit the beach!!!!!}

    2. Having said that.... if you're gonna invade... then do it with enough troops to win the peace. If Bush and his morons had listened to General Shinseki instead of castrating him we may actually be looked on favorably today as essential services and security would have been turned on in Iraq. But no, General Shinseki's assertions that it would take 300,000 troops to secure the borders and turn on power and water; and keep security were "B.S. from a Clintonite" according to Wolfowitz.

    3. As far as abandoning Iraq to "Saddam's bloody successor" didn't they vote for the successor? And as to freedom in the Middle East.... what are we doing to assist maybe a friendly country in the middle east... say Saudi Arabia..... how are we assisting them in their democratic reforms so they can transition to democracy and human rights peacefully? Oh that's right we ARENT.....and how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's again?

    4. As to your pseudo-patriotic assertion that "appeasers" do not deserve to be called American....... I'll let Thomas Jefferson respond......

    "DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM"

    ReplyDelete
  25. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    -Ronald Reagan

    Are'nt we handing our children a watered down version of freedom when it includes warrant-free spying? just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Great posts Kirk, i'll write a response later as well, but I couldnt of said things better. BTW its funny you mentioned that general because for some reason I thought about that as well last night, he said something like we needed a minimum of 250,000 to 300,000 troops to do it right and he was immediately silenced and discredited as are all people who hold opposing views to the current administration, because they knew we didnt have 300,000 troops and they just wanted to make the war happen any way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That was a pretty good string of posts Kirk.

    ReplyDelete
  28. George8:54 AM

    Firstly I have to say I had a big crush on Lydia and Deborah back in the early 80's after seeing them on TV. (Probably still do ) The advent of the internet and actually talking to someone you admire is truly fascinating, but on topic.....

    This war thing. I don't like war and I do not think that anyone does, but sometimes it cannot be averted. This "holy war" is a means to convert non believers to the right way. That is the view of the "other side" , right ? Their actions in 2001 with respect to the World Trade center is evidence in their commitment to a form of action other than peaceful to bring about what they think is right.

    Likewise with such harsh situations seemingly the way of North America is to fight wars on soil other than their own, even holy wars. To do nothing may invite more ill actions were we live, in North America, is that what we really want?

    There are no right ways with war; it is much too blunt an action to be close to just. Only the end of war with the willingness by both sides to meaningful discussion would bring about a new hope for the future. Hope that a new understanding will be forged to maintain a respectful tolerance with each other. A lesson to be re learned when history is forgotten or taken for not.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lydia9:27 AM

    Mike said: Now while I think dealing with the REAL terrorists is definately an “us or them” type situation, I
    don’t think the war in Iraq is, we are occupying these people’s homeland against their will, many
    of these people have had friends and family killed and houses destroyed by our bombings, many
    have been accidently shot or blown up by both our troops and by insurgents. I think that the
    majority of Iraqi’s are just poor simple people whose main focus is to survive and get enough to
    eat, not to attack and destroy a group of people they don’t even know on the other side of the
    world, however if we keep giving them reasons to hate us and adding fuel to the fire that could
    change.

    One more distinction, to these people we are invaders and bullies and they are freedom fighters,
    and although there may be some REAL terrorists attempting to enter the country due to the chaos
    we created, the vast majority are not, even though they may use terrorist type tactics much like
    our forefathers did against the British during the Revolutionary War, in their eyes they are
    defending their homeland. I have several friends in the military and have a huge amount of respect
    for our soldiers, however from the Iraqi’s perspective our soldiers are legitimate military targets.

    BRILLIANT MIKE!

    ReplyDelete
  30. George said : "This "holy war" is a means to convert non believers to the right way. That is the view of the "other side" , right ? Their actions in 2001 with respect to the World Trade center is evidence in their commitment to a form of action other than peaceful to bring about what they think is right."

    George, are you linking 9/11 with Saddam and Iraq? I thought we'd gotten past that. What we've done in Iraq is like invading China after Pearl Harbor.

    As far as fighting them there instead of here....... they've attacked here. They've killed 2200 or so Americans since we invaded Iraq. Bombs have gone off in places like Martin, TN; McKenzie,TN; Cincinnati, Cleveland, and any other town that has had soldiers killed.

    Al Qaeda will attack us again..... welcome to the world the Israelis have been living in for 30+ years. The question to ask is how much freedom do we want to give up to TRY to stop them? I prefer the answer to be NONE. I'd rather spend $$$ on port security than allow warrantless wire taps, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous11:26 AM

    Worfeus Said "HENDERSON, Nev. - Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

    "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters.

    "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."


    Sorry I didnt respond to this last night, but I was a little frustrated that my post got deleted, like I said on the last blog, I think this a great start, i'm finally seeing some signs of life from some prominent and influential people, whereas before they were either afraid to speak out or indifferent. That being said I think we have a long way to go to get him impeached and get his thoughtless policies overturned, but at least the ball is rolling and things are in motion and the Bush administration will know that the opposition is not dead and they have a fight on their hands, and with an election coming up they have to watch what they do and who they step on and temper the arrogance a little or it just may come back to bite them in November.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous11:44 AM

    Kirk said "The question to ask is how much freedom do we want to give up to TRY to stop them? I prefer the answer to be NONE. I'd rather spend $$$ on port security than allow warrantless wire taps, for example. "

    Agreed kirk, i'm not willing to give up any freedom either, and you are absolutely right the money should be spent on Port security and securing our Borders (something the Bush Admin has done little or nothing to do) instead of the riddiculous wire Taps, I mean the terrorists arent stupid do you really think they are going to say "the bombs ready, now lets go blow up everyone at the superbowl." I mean come on they are pretty sophisticated i'm sure they talk in code, if we havent been able to catch OSAMA in 4 1/2 years what makes you think this fishing exercise will catch anything worth sacrificing our freedom over.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  33. George said : "This "holy war" is a means to convert non believers to the right way. That is the view of the "other side" , right ?

    Wrong.

    They could care less about converting us to anything.

    They want us out of their countries, and out of their affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Last night Bill O'lielly said that Liberals are not concerned with border security.

    Wrong again bobblehead man.

    It is the right who has had power for the last 6 years.

    And it is the right that spent billions to stir up trouble in the middle east while ignoring our nations wide open borders.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mike said: "I mean the terrorists arent stupid do you really think they are going to say "the bombs ready, now lets go blow up everyone at the superbowl."

    Agree Mike. Sometimes I think the average American thinks Al-Q is like the Crimson Jihad from True Lies. If we spy enough, at some point we will hear.. "Tomorrow Allah will rain fire down on the infidels" And then we can send in Arnold to save the day. Totally ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous1:52 PM

    Exactly Worf, these guys just keep spewing their rhetoric like liberals are not concerned with border security or are unpatriotic and people actually believe them because they are on tv, so therefore they MUST ne credible, people have to start calling them on their lies and deceptions or more and more people will be deceived into believing these liars. I'm starting to see people wake up and start speaking out, like Jimmy Carter,Murtha and others, but we need more, these guys have stuck their neck out with some pretty indefensible points, we need people to keep the pressure on and call them on their lies and inconsistencies and shine the light of truth onto the dark path these guys are trying to lead us down, and hopefully their house of cards will come crashing down and we can get this nation back on the right track.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  37. Personally I would have locked down the country right after 911.

    I would have spent Billions in border security. Hundreds of Billions.

    And I would have restricted entrance into the country for travellers originating from Middle Eastern countries from where the hijackers originated from, the surrounding countries and regions, and any country or nationality or group of people openly friendly and or sympathetic with the idea of terrorisim and Islamic Fundementalism.

    My no fly list would be printed on a globe.

    The US has a right to protect itself. Entrance into the US is not a right for foriegners, it is a privilege.

    And like any other privilege if it is abused by a few, it can be restricted for many.

    By denying entrance into the country for all non essential travel, we could have controlled the replenishing of terrorist cells while we rooted out the ones already embedded into the country.

    If we had done this then, we would be much safer now.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now your talkin Ghost of Worf! This ant farm needs more solutions and less finger pointing.

    Remember, Kwai Chang Cane didnt simply lurk the land and point his finger at people.

    And Worf, I feel you have always been the sharpest one in this room since November. No Contest! Your perseverance is amazing and must surely be tiring sometimes.

    Keep up the OUTSTANDING work :)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous5:07 PM

    Johnny said "And Worf, I feel you have always been the sharpest one in this room since November. No Contest! Your perseverance is amazing and must surely be tiring sometimes.

    Keep up the OUTSTANDING work :)

    4:51 PM

    Ditto!!, you got my respect buddy.


    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  40. Problem with that plan Johnny, too many Dems want to oppose it thinking it will make them look erudite with regards to race.

    Its not a racial issue. Its a national issue.

    Making soccer moms from Iowa drink their own breast milk does not only notmake us safer, it makes us look stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The 9 dollar an hour Burger King throwbacks manning TSA are an embarrassment to us all.

    The task of airport security should have been farmed out to the highest bidder, not the lowest.

    That is if our government is really concerned with our safety.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous5:16 PM

    FREEDOM FAN:

    "There are vast differences between Christianity and other religions. The uniqueness of Christianity stands out boldly in the way we treat our enemies. Nikita Khrushchev understood this and graphically illustrated the difference between Communism and Christianity with this paraphrased remark: “The difference between Christianity and Communism is great. When someone strikes you on the face, you turn the other cheek. If you strike me on the face, I’ll hit you so hard your head will fall off.”

    Revenge does not encourage peace but incites men to hostility (verse 18). Peace68 is a priority for the Christian. When Jesus came to the earth, born as a baby, the angels sang, “… on earth peace among men, with whom He is well pleased” (Luke 2:14). Jesus taught His disciples, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). Peace was to govern the conduct of His disciples (Mark 9:50). Our gospel is the gospel of peace (Luke 19:42; Acts 10:36; Ephesians 2:14-17; 6:15). God is a God of peace (Romans 16:20; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Hebrews 13:20). Peace should characterize the Christian (1 Corinthians 7:15; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Galatians 5:22). Because peace is a priority for the Christian and revenge promotes hostility, pursuing peace is the antidote to revenge. Pursing peace lays revenge to rest.

    Even in the church, the vigilante spirit is alive and well. Christians sometimes attempt to sanctify their anger calling it righteous indignation, but we too are tempted to retaliate against those who mistreat us. Piously, we may pretend to resist evil supposing that God is on our side as we seek to “even the score” by causing hurt or harm to those who have mistreated us. We may even try to use Romans 12:9 as a proof text for our revenge—as long as we read no further in Romans. Our text calls for much more, requiring death to the flesh and the subordination of our personal interests to those of others.

    As clear, consistent, and emphatic as the teaching of our text may be, it is not popular for it runs contrary to the inclinations of our flesh.

    Paul tells us in verse 14 that the Christian should respond exactly the opposite from the natural man and the inclinations of the flesh. Instead of cursing, we are instructed to bless those who persecute us.

    If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thousands of Katrina Victims Evicted
    AP - Tue Feb 7
    NEW ORLEANS

    Hauling everything he owned in a plastic garbage bag, Darryl Travis walked out of the chandeliered lobby of the Crowne Plaza, joining the exodus of Hurricane Katrina refugees evicted from their hotel rooms across the country Tuesday.

    More than 4,500 evacuees were expected to check out of their government-paid hotel rooms Tuesday as the Federal Emergency Management Agency began cutting off money to pay for their stays.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Speaking of stupid - I like Kirks story about the genius who made a Molotov cocktail out of a plastic 2 litre bottle of soda. Now thats funny!

    Molotov, must be chuckling in his grave at this fathead.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Billions for the war,

    None for the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Almost two years ago the Washington Post predicted on a front page story that if Bush were re-relected, he would introduce massive spending cuts for domestic programs and agencies, like health and education spending.

    2006 Cuts In Domestic Spending On Table
    By Jonathan Weisman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, May 27, 2004
    Page A01

    The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year.


    This week, those predictions came true with a vengence.

    Massive across the board cuts were ordered for domestic programs, mostly programs geared to the poorer amongst us, like Medicaid, that so many seniors like my folks rely on, while his war chest continues to grow.

    Right now we are an embarrassment not just to America, but to the Human Race.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Not to mention turning out almost 5000 Katrina victims into the street.

    A real tribute to the humanity, or lack thereof, in this President, and this administration.

    These men were corrupt out of the gate.

    And they played America like a 50 Cent Banjo.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Worf I think FEMA will probably blame Jimmy Carter for all the recent problems...... If he'd stop complaining about the spying or spending his time watching elections; and get down to N.O. and start building houses there wouldn't be a problem. But you know it really looks like FEMA is dong a hell of a job down there still!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thats right Kirk.

    Well, at least ole "Brownie" made out ok.

    I hear he gets a cool hundred grand for speaking to groups about disaster management.

    I guess he uses his brief experience in the field to teach them what not to do.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I heard there will be another 20- 25000 cut off at the end of the month. You'd think with all the "jobs" the administration has created they could find some for these folks

    But you know....... "most of these people are poor anyway, so this is working out pretty well for them." to quote a former first lady. The 21st century answer to "let 'em eat cake"

    And thanks Babs..... what a wonderful parenting job you've done. You should write a book... " How to raise spoiled brats."

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think if the government is going to profile us all, they should make a list of everyone who attends one of his lectures, and then make sure that person is never hired into FEMA.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Well the lunacy here, is there were jobs.

    Plenty of them.

    Courtesy of the storm named Katrina.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Unfortunately Mr. Bush didn't think the people impacted by the storm deserved to rebuild their own homes and businesses.

    The government should have set up a vehicle to offer all the work to local companies only.

    Local workers should have been employed to rebuild their own towns. Who cares what it costs? We throw hundreds of Billions at a war that more than half the American people don't agree with.

    Couldn't we go nuts and make sure our people get the best? Only the best?

    But instead, spitting in their faces Mr Bush handed a huge portion of the work to Haliburton, and other companies, and even farmed it out to foriegn business!

    Peeing on us and calling it rain.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Feed the war, screw the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.


    Washington Post Page A01
    Thursday, May 27, 2004

    ReplyDelete
  56. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The $78 million funding increase that Bush has touted for a homeownership program in 2005 would be nearly reversed in 2006 with a $53 million cut.

    National Institutes of Health spending would be cut 2.1 percent in 2006, to $28 billion, after a $764 million increase for 2005 that brought the NIH budget to $28.6 billion

    ReplyDelete
  58. Even homeland security -- a centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign -- would be affected.

    Funding would slip in 2006 by $1 billion

    ReplyDelete
  59. President's plan calls for cuts to domestic spending, record defense budget for fiscal 2007.
    February 6, 2006: 11:53 AM EST

    CNN-WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush proposed a $2.77 trillion budget for 2007 Monday that cuts domestic programs from Medicare to community policing while bolstering security spending, even as he seeks to tame a soaring deficit.

    Facing election-year pressure from conservative Republicans to get tougher on spending, Bush asked Congress to virtually freeze discretionary programs outside national security.

    Bush proposed a record $439.3 billion defense budget for 2007 aimed at fighting both unconventional terrorism and major conflicts with other nations if necessary.

    But the Pentagon budget did not include tens of billions of dollars in proposed new financing for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the White House will seek separately.

    At the same time the president renewed his call for Congress to make his tax cuts permanent even as his blueprint projected a widening of the federal deficit to $423 billion this year, up more than $100 billion from fiscal 2005.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Really, it's not horse manure, its meatloaf.

    Everybody just pour some ketchup on it, dig in and take a bite.

    Then say, mmmmmmmmm gooood meatloaf...mmmmm

    ReplyDelete
  61. America has so many great salesmen because we have so many great patsy's.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ich gebe Ihnen recht Worf. Wahnsinnig!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Apparently, according to several GOP Senate staffers, Karl Rove is strong-arming Republican Senators to vote their way on the illegal surveillance program. And Rove is threatening to withold all support for their re-election campaigns. Sounds like extortion to me.

    We'll have to see which ones have a conscience and which ones are willing to be tools of the Bush crime syndicate.

    These people are pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
  64. We are paying for BOTH sides of the war in Iraq everytime we fill up at the pump. Oil funds both sides.

    Former CIA Agent James Woolsey On The Colbert Report

    ReplyDelete
  65. Karl Rove, Drewl?

    Don't you mean, TurdBlossom?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oops, there I go again.

    I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

    I just can't help myself. :|

    ReplyDelete
  67. The US had NO legitimate right to invade iraq.
    -Kirk12

    Just as the U.S. had no legitimate right to attack nazi Germany. After all, they didn't attack us. Sure they were gassing millions of Jews and butchering our friends but oh well.

    Here's a little background since you liberals have such short memories (proly the weed at work):

    Between 1975 and 1990, saddam hussein spent $65 billion on military arms; he was one of the largest purchaser of arms in the world. His ultimate dream was to possess nuclear bombs; he fervently was pursuing this dream.

    In 1980 saddam hussein attacked Iran which began a bloody war that lasted eight years and cost about a million lives. In 1988 he dumped poison gas on his own dissident people, resulting in the deaths of over 100,000 mostly civilian Kurds. In 1990 hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation; he also launched missle attacks against Israel, because just like hitler he despises all Jews.

    Having attacked his neighbors to the east, then his neighbors to the south, without a doubt he would have attacked his rich, weak neighbors to the west. Then with saddam in possession of the oil of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, he would control over 70% of the world’s oil. He easily would become the richest man on earth. He could dictate world oil prices; triple, quadruple the price and we still would have to pay. While this evil dictator was enriching himself and building weapons of mass destruction, the rest of the world would plunge into desperate economic depression and collapse into third world nation status, or be consumed in thermo-nuclear fire.

    This is what we Conservatives dare to call a “threat to our national security”. Perhaps you do not believe or feel threatened by this scenario. Apparently you see no parallel between saddam’s plans and hitler’s; you feel that we should have appeased his ambitions, like chamberlain in WWII. Do you think we stopped saddam because of his skin color? Did we really invade Iraq to enrich Haliburton? How utterly stupid does someone have to be to display, or wink at people who display, signs proclaiming “End War and Racism” and “No Blood For Oil”?

    Nahle Sabet was once a pretty Iraqi architecture student from a respected Christian family. Then she was abducted, raped, tortured, and finally fed alive to uday’s starving dogs. uday was next in line to be dictator of Iraq.

    Today in Iraq, the long, dark reign of terror, rape and murder is over. My heart swells when I see the Iraqis' purple fingers of freedom. Thousands of people will live, who would have died under saddam. Millions more will breathe the sweet air of freedom and justice.

    Liberals wring their hands over the relatively small number of unintentional civilian deaths, invent bogus statistics about how 15,000 U.S. troops had their arms and legs blown off, lecture us on how to properly fight a war--as if they know anything about it, smooch repulsive traitors like ward churchill while wearing roosting chicken hats, giggle at michael moore "documentaries", and pretend to "support our troops" while doing everything in their power to destroy our courageous military and undermine its noble, selfless mission.

    Real Americans are patriots who proudly cheer the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world, courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.

    Kirk12, no doubt you and "anon" the nameless "Christian" wonder weenie, favor "turning the other cheek" when evil bullies threaten civilization. Dubya does not. Neither do I.

    Sometimes it is necessary to fight to protect our great nation, its values, and its legacy of freedom. Sometimes we must fight to protect the people we love.

    Greater love hath no man than this: That a man lay down his life for his friends.
    -John 15:13

    ReplyDelete
  68. Freedom Fan

    You have raised some important points that simply cannot be ignored; my memory did actually need refreshing.

    Eric and I pointed out previously that appeasement does not work as in the case of Chamberlain. Hitler did not want war with America and only declared it after Pearl Harbor in an effort to get the Japanese to attack Russia from the east.

    However, I think everyone here is suggesting that a full out, costly invasion on the sacred soil of Iraq was not absolutely neccesary; things did seem to be under resonable control before invasion.

    I suggest, a well planned, U.N backed rebellion, by the people of Iraq was a realistic option that may have produced excellent results without burdening America with unnecessary expense and casualties... nor pissing off the rest of the Middle East for that matter.

    Do you not feel alternate options were worth a try?

    I dont know man, playing war in the Middle East just plain makes me uneasy.

    ReplyDelete
  69. FF you bring up a lot of valid points.... but I disagree with you on one thing...... We weren't appeasing Saddam. We had driven him out of Kuwait. (After we told him we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait, by the way). We had kept him from attacking the Kurds in the north or the Shiites in the south. Throughout 2001 people like Colin Powell and Condi Rice were quoted as saying things like "Saddam is powerless". He was contained and didn't have WMD or Nukes..... we now know he wasn't even working toward them. The only reason he was acting tough is because he didn't want Iran to know how little fire power he really "had."

    As far as the "turn the other cheek stuff" How had Saddam hit us again? I thought it was mostly Saudi Arabians with help from Al Q that did that? Saddam was a nobody.... the only reason anyone thought he had weapons is because we had the receipt from all the sales we transacted with him thruout the 70's and 80's.

    As far as liberals not knowing how to fight. Read "The Wild Blue" by Stephen Ambrose. You won't believe (and will probably refuse to acknowledge) who one of the greatest heroes of WW II was... according to Ambrose.

    ReplyDelete
  70. And by the way FF.... I'm curious to hear what you feel about Clintons use of bombing in the Balkans........ were you for or against?

    ReplyDelete
  71. FF you did bring up another pint I wanted to acknowledge...... the 15000 or so wounded. I do wonder how many of those did actually have "Max Cleland" v "John Kerry" type injuries.... if you get my meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Oh And it was "THe WIld Blue" sorry about that.... not "The Blue Wild"...... I guess it was the weed at work.

    ReplyDelete
  73. FF Said

    Just as the U.S. had no legitimate right to attack nazi Germany. After all, they didn't attack us. Sure they were gassing millions of Jews and butchering our friends but oh well.

    Well since dr. Einstein here has less than a 10 year memory span, we did do something when Saddam attacked his neighbors.

    We, and the world with us, stopped him, and we drove him out of their country.

    In 2003, Saddam was hiding, sleeping in a different location every night, because he was so afraid of us taking him out with a bunker buster.

    He had no power, he had little international support or favor, and he was not threatening any of his neighbors.

    As former CIA Agent Bob Baer said, Saddam was in a box.

    Only a complete idiot would compare our 2003 incursion with the the great and terrible war my father and his brothers fought in WW2.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Freedom Fairy said;

    Kirk12, no doubt you and "anon" the nameless "Christian" wonder weenie, favor "turning the other cheek" when evil bullies threaten civilization. Dubya does not. Neither do I.

    Well you're right about one thing Frightened Fighter.

    I do favor turning the other cheek to bullies like you.

    After you have kissed my right ass cheek, I will turn to you the other other one, so you can kiss the left one too.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Freedom Fan said "Just as the U.S. had no legitimate right to attack nazi Germany. After all, they didn't attack us. Sure they were gassing millions of Jews and butchering our friends but oh well."

    Riddiculous comparison FF, Germany and Japan were allies in WW2 known as the Axis powers in case you didnt know, one of the Axis Powers Japan (which was a sovreign nation not a renegade terrorist group like Al Queda) attacked our homeland and we entered WW2 on the side of the Allies, sure we retaliated against Japan, but we entered WW2 in an alliance with the Allies who where fighting against the Axis Powers which included Germany.

    Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. as for him trying to conquer the Middle East and corner the world's oil supply, we dealt with that during the first Gulf War, before we attacked Saddam in 2003, he was contained and effectively neutered, had no weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat to our homeland. the whole world actually supported us in keeping him contained, and if we had wanted to depose him there were better ways we could have done it than making our troops targets in Iraq's civil War.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Freedom Fan Said "Liberals wring their hands over the relatively small number of unintentional civilian deaths, invent bogus statistics about how 15,000 U.S. troops had their arms and legs blown off, lecture us on how to properly fight a war--as if they know anything about it, smooch repulsive traitors like ward churchill while wearing roosting chicken hats, giggle at michael moore "documentaries", and pretend to "support our troops" while doing everything in their power to destroy our courageous military and undermine its noble, selfless mission.
    Real Americans are patriots who proudly cheer the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world, courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.
    Kirk12, no doubt you and "anon" the nameless "Christian" wonder weenie, favor "turning the other cheek" when evil bullies threaten civilization. Dubya does not. Neither do I.
    Sometimes it is necessary to fight to protect our great nation, its values, and its legacy of freedom. Sometimes we must fight to protect the people we love.
    Appeasers who clamor to see us fail to sustain lasting freedom in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East -- those who urge us to abandon the Iraqis to Saddam's bloody successor-- do not deserve to be known by the proud title of American."

    1:11 AM

    Freedom Fan if your so brave and believe in your cause (fighting in Iraq) so adamantly then how come your not over there fighting and putting your money where your mouth is, I mean you have some great examples to follow, lets see Bush and Rove have never fought in a war, Cheney not only has he never fought in a war but he runs and hides in a rabbit hole at the first sign of trouble while telling the rest of the nation to be brave. Oh forgive me, I guess your to important to be over there putting your life on the line with the common Riff Raff and the serfs and peasants, after all your important enough to decide who gets to call themselves Americans and who is Patriotic and who isnt, next you'll be saying who gets to live or die as well.

    You are clearly out to deceive the people who dont know any better and i'm not going to stand for it. How dare you marginalize our soldiers deaths, regular civilian deaths, imply I dont support our troops and am unpatriotic or in any way supportive or in league with real terrorists. And i'll throw your own question right back at you, what does a guy who talks brave while hiding behind the keyboard of his computer actually know about war (I think i'll be waiting a long time for this answer) I think you are some one with bad intentions that is out to deceive people who dont know any better and stir up trouble, a troll in other words and i'm not going to sit back while you spread your poison and attempt to deceive people with your partisan rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous11:15 AM

    BRAVO MIKE!!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Johnny said "I suggest, a well planned, U.N backed rebellion, by the people of Iraq was a realistic option that may have produced excellent results without burdening America with unnecessary expense and casualties... nor pissing off the rest of the Middle East for that matter"

    Johnny I agree completely, even if the rebellion wasnt backed by the UN it would have been a much better idea than the chaos we have now. This administration had their minds set on war from the beginning and didnt want to hear any other options or think things through and consider the ramifications or an exit strategy it was tunnel vision with the usual "my way or the highway" mentality and now we are paying the price for their lack of forethought

    ReplyDelete
  79. Guess I wasn't exactly in the spirit of this thread ay?

    Oh well.

    Least I'm only a ghost.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The rich on the right send the poorest Americans off to fight and die in a war to kill the poorest Iraqi's, while they sit back and reap the profits.

    Cheney had his chance for war, and he ran and hid.

    And the right wants to call him a Patriot?

    Guess Jesus was right all along.

    By their fruits you'll know em.

    ReplyDelete
  81. FF Said "Today in Iraq, the long, dark reign of terror, rape and murder is over. My heart swells when I see the Iraqis' purple fingers of freedom. Thousands of people will live, who would have died under saddam. Millions more will breathe the sweet air of freedom and justice. "

    What about all the other poor countries in Africa and Asia that have oppressive dictators, how come we havent gone in there to save and liberate them?? i'll tell you why because they dont have any oil or other natural resources we need to make it worth our while, give it up, its painfully clear you and the Bush Administration have an Agenda and ulterior motives in trying to justify this corrupt war.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Worf I think you were absolutely right about FF on the last blog, I dont think he is what he seems or pretends to be if you get what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  83. And by the way..... and I'm sure this is totally coincidental.... but Halliburton stock was @ 11 dollars a share after 9/11. It was over 74 dollars a share today. Not that there's anything wrong with making money.... or doing business with Iran when it's illegal. It would be unpatriotic of me to question the President's motives for war.... just like it was unpatriotic for the right to question Clinton when he tried to end the genocide in Kosovo ( How could he have done that.... there's no natural resources there for us to exploit!!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  84. You're absolutely right Mike,

    DR Congo, Rawanda, none even raise a blip on Bush's radar screen.

    But like you said, theres no oil there.

    And yes, your right about Frightened Fighter. He clearly lives under a bridge.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Seriously though..... when FF comes on and starts with his pseudo patriotic BS.... it gets kind of boring shooting him down. Kind of like Barry Bonds taking batting practice. Sometimes I like it better battling with Worf. THe ideas are a lot more fleshed out and while he may make me feel stupid when I'm wrong @ something he doesn't question whether I should be allowed to be called an American.

    NAAAAHHH! I take that back.... Batter Up!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  86. 74 Dollars a share? Up from 11?

    Hmmm....lemme see....

    carry the 2...... :|


    WOW. Thats a LOT! The stock is worth 7 times more than it was a few years ago.

    I could see that for an new start up firm, but for an established firm?

    That war thingy is a great money maker ain't it?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Yeah and that "bird flu " thingy will be one too. Tamiflu for everyone!!!!!!!!!

    CHA-CHING!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  88. get a load of this, remember when they claimed we should all Duck Tape our windows and doors, the first thing that popped into my head is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or someone in our Government owns stock in 3M. I still think that was a pump and dump scam for 3M, bet they had a monster quarter after that ridiculous statement. too bad we dont have someone like Elliot Spitzer heading the SEC, because then I think we'd know the answer to this question. someone actually has to start calling them on all the riddiculous rhetoric and corruption, once that happens the house of cards may start to crumble.

    ReplyDelete
  89. LOL, the 3M thing may be a strech Mike :D.

    There are many manufacturers of duct tape so one benefiting over the other is a reach, but I get your point, LOL.

    The duct tape was a monument to the absolute bungling incompetence by these keystone cops.

    Here, here is the rights idea of citizen prepardness.

    Tape up your windows, bend over and kiss your rosy red behinds goodbye. :D

    ### This message was approved by George "dubya" Bush ###

    ReplyDelete
  90. Records Show Boehner Rents From Lobbyist

    LARRY MARGASAK
    Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 38 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader John Boehner rents a basement apartment from a lobbyist whose clients had an interest in legislation overseen or sponsored by Boehner, according to lobbying records.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Meet the new boss...... same as the old boss!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Worf: I thought I told you to stay away from the brown acid.....

    ReplyDelete
  93. Because of all,

    The'

    Beautiful and new,

    Things, I'm

    Learning about you,

    Day....

    By

    Day.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Ok, so I forgot to mention Avery Dennison also, either way think how riddiculous taping up your windows sounds, against a nuclear bomb,thats like if a damm were breaking and they said to plug the holes with your fingers and seal the cracks with playdough, does having these guys in charge of our country make you feel any safer????. maybe we should all wear bullet proof vests in case a sniper strikes or live in underground bunkers just in case there is a Nuclear War, or carry our lucky rabbit foot to protect us

    ReplyDelete
  95. Everythings getting all glittery and wavy like Kirk. :o

    ReplyDelete
  96. Mike,

    All I can say is you are on a roll lately big guy.

    You are now officially, "da man".

    I hope all your family and friends are hearing this stuff from you too.

    Darkness always runs from the light.

    ReplyDelete
  97. And in answer to your semi rhetorical question about do I feel safer with these guys?

    I can honestly say I am 1000 times more afraid of my own government than I am from ANY terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  98. All the terrorists can do is kill me.


    :|


    My government can do far worse things to me than that.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I also would like to take a moment in my perpetual venting to nominate the million or so Muslims around the world violently protesting that stupid cartoon for the biggest waste of flesh and breathing space Award.

    Its kinda like a Tony, only you wear it around your neck while jumping into a large body of water.

    :D

    Congrats!

    ReplyDelete
  100. HOLY FREAKING CRAP.

    Did anyone just see Chris Matthews take Torie Clarke out for a ride on HARDBALL?

    HOLY FREAKING CRAP!!!!!

    I have never seen a better, more coherent rant on the lies that led to the war in Iraq by a news reporter, EVER!

    It was unbelievable. Anyone who missed it, should really try and see the repeat.

    NOW THATS HARDBALL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  101. Freedom Fan said:
    "Between 1975 and 1990, saddam hussein spent $65 billion on military arms; he was one of the largest purchaser of arms in the world. His ultimate dream was to possess nuclear bombs; he fervently was pursuing this dream.

    In 1980 saddam hussein attacked Iran which began a bloody war that lasted eight years and cost about a million lives."

    What "Freedom Fan" fails to recall is that Saddam Hussein's biggest supplier of arms and money in his fight against Iran was the United States! We were well in bed with him, and there are plenty of photos of Saddam meeting with a variety of U.S. leaders, including Rummy.

    In addition, let's not forget the incredible irony that, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the mujahedeen insurgency - led by none other than Osama bin Laden - was heavily funded and supported by the U.S. In fact, it's largely accepted that the tide turned in that conflict after the U.S. provided surface-to-air missiles that allowed the mujahedeen to shoot down the powerful Soviet helicopter gunships that had been so effective.

    As they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Seems we were supporting freedom fighters in 1980s Afghanistan while today we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. The Soviets were the vile aggressors back then while we are spreading freedom today.

    Yes, it all just drips irony, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  102. You made some great points Drewl. thought provoking and interesting as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Worfeus said "Massive across the board cuts were ordered for domestic programs, mostly programs geared to the poorer amongst us, like Medicaid, that so many seniors like my folks rely on, while his war chest continues to grow."

    I think this will come back and bite the Right Wing come election time, they control the White House and Congress and justifying spending for a war in Iraq while cutting spending for domestic programs to help our own citizens is a slippery slope that will come back and bite them. Trouble is the War in Iraq is the Bush Administrations crusade and they wont back off of, so they've basically painted themselves in a corner.

    ReplyDelete
  104. You mean painted us in a corner.

    Bush and staff have Air Force One and a bunker a mile underground in a Mountain to run to.

    ReplyDelete
  105. BrokeBush Mountain :|

    ReplyDelete
  106. Mike

    Remember, I only have season two. The post where I share my thoughts about Lydias commentary are at the bottom of "Blessed are the Peacemakers."

    Your sitcom choices are similiar to mine except for "8 Simple Rules." I could not watch John Ritter without thinking of Jack Tripper.

    I dont know Mike....think about it. I cannot envision a reunion of Threes Company without John Ritter; I feel the same applies to TCFC.

    Did you know a religious group tried to persuade people not to watch Threes Company because they felt it was immoral.... Fatheads!

    BTW, was Larry a diamond cutter, movie producer, or car salesman :D

    Remember the Bionic Man? Oscar Goldman should have sent Steve Austin into Iraq :D

    I thought you guys had the technology.

    ReplyDelete
  107. George :)5:30 AM

    You can get so caught up in your own microcosm that, you don't realise this has happened before ok --well try reading this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna
    or this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

    military victory that led to peace in those generations , sometimes you gotta learn to respect your foes , especially when all they read and belive is only what they want to

    its gonna happen cause someone wants it to ,,, you can't even joke about it

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous5:43 AM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/

    wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

    thats the link

    ReplyDelete
  109. OK I'm convinced. After reading about a battle 400 years ago I finally see the light. Let's do it. Let's all sign up and annihilate them. Kill them in the name of the Lord. Dehumanize them first. They're animals, ragheads, sandni22ers. Better yet, just send in Colonel Kurtz and "Drop the BOMB, exterminate them all." Of course then Halliburton would have to pay for radiation suits for their workers and they wouldn't want that kind of overhead because of what it would do to the bottom line.

    The point is that the Muslim world and the Christian world both have traditions of conquest, rape, pillaging, etc that no reasonable member of either sect (cult?) should be proud of. And they go back over a thousand years. And yes, there are those whose hatred of moslems was increased b/c of 9/11. But for the most part, reasonable people saw it as an attack perpetrated by a fringe group(which was probably supported financially by a government in the area--Saudi Arabia), and not an attack by the entire muslim people.

    So our response should have been to find and arresr or kill the perps. And if we wanted to throw our weight around..... it should have been done in Saudi Arabia (politically) and Afghanistan (militarilly). Not in Iraq. And not half assed either. We would probably be looked at more favorably, as I have said earlier, if we had sent in enough troops to actually "nation-build" and keep electricity, water, and security going.

    ReplyDelete
  110. What "Freedom Fan" fails to recall is that Saddam Hussein's biggest supplier of arms and money in his fight against Iran was the United States!
    -Drewl

    False! The biggest suppliers of arms to Iraq were the Soviet Union, China, France and Egypt. Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 per Wikipedia

    Demonstrating once again that liberals just routinely invent "facts" to support their warped world view and America-hatred.

    Facts to liberals are like kryptonite to superman
    -Larry Elder

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous9:21 AM

    Nice try leaving of that letter S O Duke of Deception. But It appears your the one who bends the facts at will , first of all you are comparing the USA to about 10 countries, Drewl said Supplier not SUPPLIERS in the plural, nice try maybe you'll have better luck inventing facts to suit YOUR deluded and warped world view and America hatred next time when people are sleeping or not paying attention but not today. Your analogies are sorely lacking.

    Batter Up!!! :D

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  112. I dunno guys..... FF may have a point here about where Saddam got most of his arms from in the 70's and 80's......

    So, having conceeded that point to FF, how does that change any assertion that after 9/11 we should have put our energies into 1st getting Bin Laden, and second into using our political and economic muscle to start effecting change in Saudi Arabia?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous10:28 AM

    I agree with most of what you are saying Kirk, as for Saudi Arabia I'm really not sure wether we should have taken action against them or not, they have us over a barrel so to speak (pun fully intended) and I think if we pushed the would have pushed back and turned off the oil spigot and that could have been disasterous for our economy. In addition there was a lot of political instability with the possibility of a civil war and a crazy fundamentalist coming to power.

    While I dont support the war I will say that if the decision was to go to war then we should have at least done it right with enough troops and proper equipment. Would it have changed their perception of us if we had done this, possibly, but we'll never truly know the answer to this.

    as for FF yes the USA may not have been the biggest weapon supplier but FF tried to pull a fast one and conpare the USA to the USSR which FF's own site categorizes a a bunch of separate countries and he failed to address Drewls point about us funneling money to him.Money is the same as weapons, if you got the money you can buy the weapons anywhere.

    mike

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anonymous10:45 AM

    I guess I didnt make that clear, according to FF's site the USSR includes all the nations that nornally comprise the USSR plus the Warsaw Pact or Eastern European nations, thats alot of nations to compare to the USA which is just one nation, not completely an apples to apples comparison, he also failed to address the money we funneled to Saddam, this money was i'm used to by weapons, as I dont think he used it for the public good.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  115. My only point @ Saudi Arabia is that they (more than any other nation except Afghanistan) seem to behind all of this. And if we're gonna upset the apple cart, we might as well have done it to the guilty apple cart. Remember all those pages of the 9/11 commission which referred to the foreign "un named" country, and were blackened out? But you may be right..... there's nothing we can do from a political standpoint about Saudi Arabia it seems.

    Mike also said: "In addition there was a lot of political instability with the possibility of a civil war and a crazy fundamentalist coming to power."

    I think we're headed there in Iraq, Mike. The phrase "Muslim extremist" seems redundant lately.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Mike said : "this money was i'm used to by weapons, as I dont think he used it for the public good."

    Well how do you know that Mike? I'll bet he built alot of really neat statues with the money we shipped him.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I dunno guys..... FF may have a point here about where Saddam got most of his arms from in the 70's and 80's

    Don't let him buffalo you Kirk.

    Repugs like the Frightened Fighter love to try and catch someone on a small detail or technicality while overlooking the bigger picture.

    Who gives a crap from where their army purchased weapons and armour.

    The US, particularly Don "Rummy" Rumsfeld and Reagan helped Saddam rise to power and provided WMD technoglogy to him, and Frightened Fighter knows this.

    Hes just trying to buffalo you by drawing the debate to minutia, rather than acknowledging the bigger picture.

    It's called not seeing the forest through the trees, or as Jesus called it, straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

    ReplyDelete
  118. There has been VOLUMES published on the subject, and there is no way Frightened Fighter does not know this, he just wants to argue about where they picked up a few AK's and some outdated UN tanks.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Voltaire11:22 AM

    Kirk said:

    "The point is that the Muslim world and the Christian world both have traditions of conquest, rape, pillaging, etc that no reasonable member of either sect (cult?) should be proud of."

    the difference is that Christians gave it up a long time ago, heard of Pat Robertson beheading anyone lately?....

    ReplyDelete
  120. [The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show.

    The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

    The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran.

    Matt Kelly
    Associated Press
    October 1, 2002

    ReplyDelete
  121. Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq’s 1996 accounting of its nuclear program.

    Iraq’s report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

    It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction.

    Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments.

    In 1985–90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses.

    Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

    Asscoiated Press
    December 17, 2002

    ReplyDelete
  122. Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam’s regime as “a grave and gathering danger,” it’s important to remember that the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration officials are now citing as justification for Saddam’s forcible removal from power.

    Chris Bury
    ABC NEWS
    September 18, 2002

    ReplyDelete
  123. Yet here we are, on the eve of what could turn into a $100-billion war to disarm and dismantle the Iraqi dictatorship.

    U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them.

    And here’s the strange part, easily forgotten in the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place.

    From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.


    Tom Drury
    St. Petersburg Times
    March 16, 2003

    ReplyDelete
  124. Anonymous11:37 AM

    Worfeus said "Repugs like the Frightened Fighter love to try and catch someone on a small detail or technicality while overlooking the bigger picture."

    Exactly Worf, thats how FF operates, noticed how he didnt try and refute or respond to any other points, he just jumped on the technicality and shot one of his childish insults and left.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  125. A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

    Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter’s questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988.

    Iraq’s use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for regime change in Iraq.


    Patrick E. Tyler
    New York Times
    August 18, 2002

    ReplyDelete
  126. "not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs."

    Norm Dixon
    How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
    June 17, 2004

    ReplyDelete
  127. By 1984, America was actively sharing military intelligence
    with Saddam’s army.

    This aid included arming Iraq with potent weapons, providing satellite imagery of Iranian troops deployments and tactical planning for battles, assisting with air strikes, and assessing damage after bombing campaigns


    Alex Dawoody
    “Reagan and Saddam: The Unholy Alliance"
    June 8, 2004

    ReplyDelete
  128. State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense.

    The new information on the policy shift toward Iraq, and Rumsfeld’s
    role in it, comes as The New York Times reported Sunday that the United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan — even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons
    .

    MSNBC
    Robert Windrem
    Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift
    August 18, 2002

    ReplyDelete
  129. So I tried to give FF a little love and grant him a point... so sue me. Like I said later in the post, whether or not he got his arsenal from Santa Claus doesn't change the fact that he was a nobody (like Kaddafi had become) by the time we invaded Iraq.

    As to Voltaire, and his assertion that: "the difference is that Christians gave it up a long time ago, heard of Pat Robertson beheading anyone lately?....".

    No. Pat just calls for assassinations of Commies. While Falwell calls us to "Kill in the name of the Lord!!!"

    Is this serious? I mean really I do feel that the Muslim Wacko is a little more "Wacko" than the Christian Wacko. And there seem to be more as well on the muslim side. At least lately anyway. But to assert that Christians gave it up a long time ago? What the hell kind of nonsense is that?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports.

    It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.


    CBS NEWS
    U.S. and Iraq Go Way Back
    December 31, 2002

    ReplyDelete
  131. Kirk,

    I don't want to sue you buddy, I just wanted to make clear that the basic prinicpal you were advocating was not diminished by Frightened Fighters technicality.

    You were right.

    The US did build up the Iraqi military and defenses, and even provided the building blocks for Atomic Bombs, Anthrax, and other Bio Chemical and Nuclear WMD's.

    FF thinks he won a point, but he did not.

    And his little technicality from Wilkapedia just got shot down by the volumes of data I just posted demonstrating the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Voltaire1:03 PM

    Oh lordy!, this is rich!

    Hey worf, want a date with your dream girl?

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6034322259

    ReplyDelete
  133. And FF I'm still curious.... WHAT did you think of Clinton's committing troops to the Balkans in the mid '90's?

    I'm sure that as Commander in Chief he got your full support in helping to spread freedom and democracy; and also helping to stop the genocide. Furthermore, I'm also fairly certain that anyone who disagreed with this was unpatriotic.... Like Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity, Trent Lott, and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Jesus Voltaire, how did you find that? That's hilarious. Are Harry Belafonte and Hugo Chavez the opening act? I'll be curious to see if this gets around and the bidding doesn't go up. You'd think Barbara Streisand or someone would kick in 10000 or so for this.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Nice topic change.


    Feed the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Voltaire...I just bid 2000 iraqi dinars for "Win a date with Cindy"

    ReplyDelete
  137. Voltaire1:21 PM

    Sorry worf, it was just too funny to pass up.

    Go ahead, you were saying something about how rotten your country was?...

    ReplyDelete
  138. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Kirk said "And FF I'm still curious.... WHAT did you think of Clinton's committing troops to the Balkans in the mid '90's? "

    He wont answer you Kirk, you dont know how many legitimate questions like this i've asked him or how many times I called him on a lie or inconsistency in one of his statements and he never answered the question or defended his position, he just flung a few insults and went and hid for a week until things died down. then came back with a few more trollish insults or to point out a minor inconsistency real or imaginary in someone else's statement while failing to respond to any of the other major points in the post.

    he really has nothing of substance to add, he just comes here to take pot shots at people, disrupt legitimate discussion and act like a wannabe smart guy, he really believes that hes some kind of intellectual and hes much smarter than all of us. In other words a Troll.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  139. Voltaire said: "Go ahead, you were saying something about how rotten your country was?... "

    See this is the problem.... liberals don't think the country is rotten. Liberals are like a coach.... even when the team is winning they still bitch about all the little things the team does wrong because they want it to be better. Conservatives, on the other hand, interpret this wrong, and make it sound like liberals aren't grateful to be American. It seems to me the liberals (the ones I've talked too) ARE very grateful, while the conservatives are proud. Too proud in many cases.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Well, I was going to answer that Voltiare, but Kirk took the words right out of my mouth.

    Just because you criticize the men running your country, does not mean you don't honor your country.

    Wanting the country to be all that it can be seems to me to be somewhat patriotic.

    On the other hand, whitewashing your countries sins seems to me to be the ultimate of treasons.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anonymous1:54 PM

    Whitewashing and turning a blind eye is exactly what it is, if a Democrat was in the white house doing the same things, Conservatives wouldnt be supporting everything he did, they would be crying bloody murder.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  142. It is common knowledge that parents who ignore a childs negative behavior, actually help to facilitate it.

    Those on the right who make apologies for the crimes of this administration are assualting the goodness of our country, because of their cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I don't know if FF and Voltaire are watching the news this week, but if they are, I can understand the pathos of their posts.

    What a miserable time to be a right winger. Nothing but greed, corruptions, lies and abuse of the American people.

    Like I have been saying for the last 3 months, time for honoring yourselves is about up.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Anonymous2:18 PM

    I agree Worf, it looks like the tide might finally be turning, I think these guys are trying to deflect the heat, dammage control so to speak, like i've said before I hope this is only the beginning, its about time these guys are held accountable for their actions.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  145. Mike Said: " if a Democrat was in the white house doing the same things, Conservatives wouldnt be supporting everything he did, they would be crying bloody murder."

    Actually a lot of democrats would be upset at this as well Mike. Didn't the party pretty much split in '68 over Vietnam?

    And hey, I knew Clinton was a sinner as well. I wouldn't let him within 100 feet of my wife. But he can run the Oval Office again as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Anonymous2:30 PM

    Sorry Kirk, I guess I wasnt clear and you missed my point I meant the Right Wingers who blindly support the War and everything Bush does would not be supporting the exact same things if Clinton or any Democrat were doing them, I was trying to say that I dont really think they believe in the principles they claim to stand for, I think its purely partisan loyalty and they are hippocrites, I wasnt making any reference to the Dems, and I think your right they would be split if the President were doing what Bush is doing because I think they are slightly less partisan and blindly loyal.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  147. Prime example.

    For the last two weeks the White House has been denying the President knew Abramoff.

    Photos of the President with Abramoff were claimed by Scott "bitchboy" Mcllelan, to be nothing more than line photos, where the President took hundreds of photos with others at a gathering or event.

    And of course since the White House said thats all they were, they of course REFUSED to let the American people decide for themselves by releasing the photographs.

    This week we find out that the pictures may be much more informal than what we were lead to believe.

    Apparently emails sent by Abramoff detail Bush laughing and joking with Abramoff and asking about his Children, calling them by name.

    And it looks like the photos, when they finally come out, are going to show Abramoff sitting down with the President, not just shaking hands in line like Punkface Mcllelan led us to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Look at little Scotty, dancin up a storm.


    Dance Scotty dance. :D

    ReplyDelete
  149. MSNBC
    DAVID SHUSTER
    HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT:
    Jan. 19, 2006
    Two weeks ago, the White House acknowledged that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff may have met President Bush a few years ago during holiday parties.

    Today the president's press secretary added that Abramoff also attended White House staff meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  150. DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:

    Was it senior staff he met with? Would you qualify it as senior staff that he met with here?

    MCCLELLAN:

    Staff level meetings is a way I would describe it.

    I mean, if you have anything specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it. Well, if there's any reason for me to check into it, please bring it to my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Former Fema Director Michael "heckuvajob" Brown threatened the White House publically today, stating that unless the White House provides Brown with Legal Defense, he will testify to the committee and volunteer emails between himself and Bush.

    Apparently the Bush administration does not want the public to see these emails, just like they don't want us to see the photgraphs of Bush with Abramoff.

    I wonder what Brownie knows is in these emails that could be so damaging to Bush?

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  152. The US Department of Transportation proposed a rule change to allow FOREIGN COUNTRIES to have ownership in US Airlines.

    That oughta make us safer ay?

    Ahh, the United States Government hard at work protecting us.

    Hmmmmmmmmm....

    ReplyDelete
  153. Our troops are transported by US Airlines.

    And the US Government wants to now introduce a bill to allow foreign Countries to own US Airlines?

    Hmmmmmmm......

    ReplyDelete
  154. As Dumbua would say, its been a hell-uva-week.

    ReplyDelete
  155. And of course it was released today that Scooter Libby testified to prosecuter Pat Fitzgerald that Vice President Dick Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to reporters.

    Problem is, only the National Security Director has the authority to declassify classified information.

    Looking grim boys, looking grim.

    ReplyDelete
  156. The divine comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Whitewashing and turning a blind eye is exactly what it is, if a Democrat was in the white house doing the same things, Conservatives wouldnt be supporting everything he did, they would be crying bloody murder.

    Mike

    There is one major difference between a partisan Dem and a partisan Rep., which side they blindly follow. 90% of the people complaining now would love it if Clinton had done this, and about 70% of the Republicans blindly following Bush would bitch if it was a Democrat. Considering Clinton put forward the basic gameplan that Bush is following, and the Dems cheered him like crazy, one would think they'd follow Bush too. And you'd think that all those skeptical Republicans would give Bush crap for following a Clinton-esque plan.....hmmm...curious.

    Bottom line: Both sides need to shut the hell up about "If it was a Republican..." or "If it was a Democrat..." We've seen your party (whichever side you're on) in action and we know exactly how you operate. Most of you're just as double standarded as the next guy, so stop trying to take the moral high road.

    And as for Kirk, I know your question was intended for FF, but let me answer it. I'm a conservative Republican, and you're damn right I supported Clinton in the Balkans. And Bosnia. The office deserves some respect. Not blind respect, but respect nonetheless. If it were Clinton invading Iraq, I'd support him too. My major beef with Clinton is his refusal to help out in Rwanda. May not've been a good man or a good husband, but he was a pretty good president.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Kenny Said;

    90% of the people complaining now would love it if Clinton had done this

    I don't know which orifice you pulled that statistic out of, but its a load of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  159. But I agree with you about Clinton in Rawanda.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  160. And as far as dems and repubs?

    I ain't no democrat, and half the people in here are not either.

    I am just one really pissed off American.

    And I was never political until someone helped these corrupt morons steal the office of President, and turn our country into the feared laughing stock we are now in the world.

    Hey, I got an idea.

    How about instead of ordering everyone to honor the office of President, how about insisting the President honor the office of President?

    Lets give that a try for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  161. You know, its funny how right wingers come in and just ignore more than a dozen posts demonstrating overwhelming evidence of corruptions, misdirection, scandals, crimes and lies of the Bush administration that I just posted.

    Over a dozen of them and people just skim on buy.

    Hell I even posted VIDEO of little punkface Mcllelan giving Dancing Lessons!

    Guess its easier to try and change the subject, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Your last 2 posts were fantastic Worf, I couldnt have said things better.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Thanks Mike.

    The fact is there were half a dozen new stories reinforcing the corruption rampant in the Bush administration and those who support it and all the right can do is come in with the same old dribble.

    This week we learned that the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States testified under oath to a federal prosecutor that the Vice President of the United States authorized CRIMINAL actions to try and smear his political enemies.

    Of course, I can understand why they would want to avoid that one.

    Because that one is the ball game.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Voltaire7:19 PM

    "Problem is, only the National Security Director has the authority to declassify classified information."

    so basically you're saying here that a cabinet officer has MORE power than one of his bosses?...I don't know about where YOU work, but I've never been able to overule MY boss....

    a little sarcasm there... actually both Bush and Chenney have the authority to release classified information...

    And more to the point, Bob Woodward recently commented that he knew about Plame way before the others did, and that info DID NOT come from scooter....

    Also, how about the New York Slimes releasing classified info, should someone go to jail over that?

    ReplyDelete
  165. Tell it to the judge schmuko.

    Because right now your boy Cheney is looking at a Federal rap.


    :D

    ReplyDelete
  166. By TONI LOCY,
    Associated Press Writer
    4 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers.

    Now if you are saying thats legal,,,well, then I have a beachfront property in Florida I'd like you to take a look at.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Voltaire7:32 PM

    NEWS FLASH!

    Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show...
    Senate Democratic Leader Reid's Staff Routinely Met With Abramoff Team

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1599896

    ReplyDelete
  168. See slappy, the President or Vice President can't declassify classified information on their own, without vetting it first.

    It has to be approved by the National Security Director in order to be sure that declassifying the information does not endanger any programs or agents associated with the intelligence.

    Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I saw that about Reid.

    From what we understand he did not directly do anything, but if hes corrupt, then DOWN HE GOES!

    Get it GENIUS?

    ReplyDelete
  170. But once again nice subject change trollboy.

    ReplyDelete
  171. I appreciate Kenny's answer in regards to the Balkans....but I take issue with anyone who claims to be a Conservative Republican one minute, and then says Clinton was a good president the next. That seems a little schizo. Or you're really a moderate Repub. But hey... I would have probably voted for Mc Cain in the primaries in 2000 if he would have still been around.

    As to the Balkans, Rwanda, etc..... are we gonna go everywhere? I don't know the answer. But don't some other people need to get off their respective buts and take a stand?

    ReplyDelete
  172. The President or Vice President can't declassify classified information on their own, without vetting it first.

    It has to be approved by the National Security Director in order to be sure that declassifying the information does not endanger any programs or agents associated with the intelligence.

    Any idiot would know this.

    But the fact that trollboy did not know this, shows how they have set Bush up in their minds as a Monarch, not an Executive.

    These guys think the Office of the President is above the law.

    Its not.

    And thats a lesson they are about to sorrowfully learn thanks to the Checks and Balances in our laws, and a few good men, like Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

    ReplyDelete
  173. In the words of Flip Wilson,

    "Here come da Judge"

    ReplyDelete
  174. Worfeus Said "These guys think the Office of the President is above the law.

    Its not.

    And thats a lesson they are about to sorrowfully learn thanks to the Checks and Balances in our laws, and a few good men, like Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald"

    I hope your right, it appears the tide is turning and people are finally starting to wake up and see whats going on, to use a movie analogy, I think Rocky finally tagged the big Russian and drew some blood, but its still an uphill battle and and I just hope things arent rigged. The Right Wing has been in power for a while now, they've been putting THEIR people in positions of power for a while and digging up dirt on and intimidating the opposition, and I just hope the checks and balances are still functional.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Anyone hear Diane Feinstein basically call the Bush Administration a bunch of fear mongers, she said they pulled out an old piece of intelligence from like 4 years ago saying terrorist wanted to crash a plane into the tallest building in LA to help justify their agenda.

    Timing smells kind of fishy to me, they wait 4 years to tell us about this, kinda seems like they dragged this one out of the closet to deflect the heat from all the coruption scandals.

    ReplyDelete
  176. I guess I did see your comments Johnny, I dont know, I think a reunion for Threes Company would still be cool even without John Ritter, same goes for TCFC without Ted, they would just be a little sad and sentimental with lots of stories both funny and serious about the person. it would also show what everyone is supposed to be doing 25 years later. Happy Days and Dukes of Hazzard were really cool.

    As for Larry, I think he was a used car salesman, if i'm wrong, he sure seemed like one.

    As for Bionic Man (i loved that show) if they ever did a remake today, they probably would send him to the Middle East

    ReplyDelete
  177. Oh great.

    Guess I was causing too much trouble as a ghost.


    Look what they did to me.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Now what the hell am I supposed to do?

    ReplyDelete
  179. And FF I'm still curious.... WHAT did you think of Clinton's committing troops to the Balkans in the mid '90's?

    I'm sure that as Commander in Chief he got your full support in helping to spread freedom and democracy; and also helping to stop the genocide.

    -Kirk12

    True. This was one of the few admirable things Clinton did. Removing milosevic was a huge success militarily; we lost few troops; this situation was threatening the stability of Europe and the spineless Europeans were unable to do anything about it but whine. Our protection of Muslims who were being persecuted by Christians, is evidence that our country is not on a "crusade" against Islam.

    Now your turn. Since you concede my point about the danger to the world represented by saddam, did you support Gulf I? How about invading Afghanistan to remove the decadent taliban and usama's terror support system?

    Dubya cleaned up that festering sore named saddam after he violated the terms of the armistice he signed after Gulf I. 10 years of haggling with that monster was more than adequate. And the "Bush Lied" canard is so lame. If you and I both agree as to what we believe to be the situation today, then tomorrow am I a "liar", the only liar, when the situation turns out to be somewhat different? Whether or not there were WMD (I believe there were) there were abundant reasons for removing that bastard.

    Even if you didn't initially favor invading Iraq (I didn't either) do you not see what a disaster it would be now for the U.S. if we fail to bring freedom, peace, and stability to the Middle East? Our boys would have died in vain. Our country is at war and it is unpatriotic and spiteful to yearn for our country to fail just to advance one's parochial political agenda. teddy kennedy demanded that our troops be withdrawn just days before the first Iraqi election. Despicable. Today our troops are needed in the Middle East a hell of a lot more than they are needed in Germany or elsewhere.

    By the way, it would never occur to me to stop loving my country, simply because a dhimmicrat was temporarily in the White House. Republicans didn't pout and rant about bogus elections and call clinton "hitler" when he brought the fight to milosevic. Of course it is up to the opposition party to keep the other party honest and expose corruption if it exists. But it is shameful to undermine national security in wartime just to score a couple political points.

    As for my “running away”, as someone suggested, this is proly wishful thinking on his part. But since I don’t have a lot of time to spend here I will carefully choose to whom to respond. Those nerds without lives who apparently live here 24/7, using transparent lies and irrelevant adolescent insults to support their liberal agendas, are not worthy of anything more than a scroll by. However Kirk12 you appear to be a worthy and honorable opponent who admits errors and who is genuinely interested in discovering the truth regardless of where it leads (my saying this will proly tar you for life with your liberal buddies, bwahaha). But if you can prove anything I have said is inaccurate, I will also graciously admit the same. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Demon Worf said

    " Now what the hell am I supposed to do?"

    Accept your fate and quit whining.

    And why is your tail spinning?

    Additionally, judging from the look on your face, things cant be all that bad down there.....looks like you got the top grill.....congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  181. Mike

    We really enjoyed the Happy Days reunion.....maybe your right?

    Larry was super cool & funny.

    Also, if the Bionic Man can defeat a huge sasquatch from outer space, then infiltrating Iraq and ripping Saddams turban would have been a piece of cake for him.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Kirk

    " IF YOU ONLY KNEW THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE!"

    Darth Vader

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  183. Freedom Fan said "Now your turn. Since you concede my point about the danger to the world represented by saddam, did you support Gulf I? How about invading Afghanistan to remove the decadent taliban and usama's terror support system?"

    Wow heres a historic moment, I actually agree with FF about something, yes I did support Gulf 1 and rooting out the Taliban in Afghanistan. As for saying people who dont blindly agree with the president dont love their country and are spewing a democratic agenda, thats garbage I am not even a registered Democrat and I have every right to question and disagree with my president, if you truly believe this then you are a very deluded person, and its not me with the agenda my little green friend.

    ReplyDelete
  184. FF Said: "Even if you didn't initially favor invading Iraq (I didn't either) do you not see what a disaster it would be now for the U.S. if we fail to bring freedom, peace, and stability to the Middle East?"

    Absolutely I agree with this FF. Honestly I was against going in to Iraq at first. In hindsight I will always be against until someone can provide me new data to change my mind. The main thing as far as the prosecution of the war that still bothers me was castrating Shinseki after he said it would take 300000 troops to do it right. But Jeez I don't see us pulling out over the next 6 months (hell...6 years) and it causing anything but "civil" war. With the Persians (Iranians) right there as well, you can be sure they are ready for us to pull out while it's still not stable, so they can waltz in and slaughter Arabs (Iraqis) and turn it into West Iran.

    As far as Gulf War I..... I was for stopping Saddam. But I still don't understand why we told him we would have no beef with him taking Kuwait in the first place. And I was miffed by our inability/unwillingness to take him out right then..... I think there's still a lot of resentment and mistrust of the US over that by the average Iraqi Kurd or Shiite.

    As to Afghanistan and the Taliban.... I'll gladly sign up tomorrow to finish those bastards off. I can't be any more blunt than that.



    Johnny said :" IF YOU ONLY KNEW THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE!"

    Darth Vader

    But Johnny..... I know there is good in him

    ReplyDelete
  185. Anonymous8:06 AM

    Is Lydia going to be on Dancing with The Stars?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Anonymous8:23 AM

    FReedon Fan said "Even if you didn't initially favor invading Iraq (I didn't either)"

    Thats what Dubbya and your fellow Right Wingers would call a flip flopper son, you were against the war before you decided you were for it. :D

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  187. It's interesting....... when we start calmly stating our positions and stop calling each other trolls or nazis or unpatriotic, we find we agree on some things..... not everything(that would make one of us unnecessary) but probably more than we would have thought before the conversation began.

    Just an observation. I don't want this to become a love-fest by any means.

    Oh and by the way.... the hero of WWII in Ambrose's "The Wild Blue".... it was George McGovern. Damn liberal had no right to fly those important missions into Germany I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Ok, enough lovey dovey crapola.

    The hounds of hell spit me up here to stir up trouble, and trouble I shall stir.

    ReplyDelete
  189. FF, nice try at sounding erudite.

    Unfortunately your past spewage overshadows your current self-effacing facade, but thanks for the Nerd reference.

    That was more your speed.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Freedom Fighter said;

    did you support Gulf I? How about invading Afghanistan to remove the decadent taliban and usama's terror support system?


    Question was to Kirk, but devils do not care about protocol.

    Of course we supported Gulf 1. Iraq had moved to invade a soverign nation, and the entire world agreed that he needed to be driven out.

    Afghanistan likewise was a justified incursion, albeit idioticlly executed.

    See FF, there aren't too many pacifists here, not even Lydia, as far as I know, although your stop-n-drop rants accuse us all of this constantly.

    Theres a difference between necessary battle, and federally sanctioned murder.

    But don't worry FF. I got a feeling you're gonna get all the war you can stomach. See, war breeds war, and when the morons who thought we could just invade whoever the hell we wanted to invade decided to go and butcher the defenseless people of Iraq, we opened a can of international worms that we are likely never gonna get the lid back onto.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Johnny said
    And why is your tail spinning?



    Its flopping around cause its hot as hell down here!

    It burns to even put my feet on the ground.

    Least I found some sneakers.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Freedom Fighter said;

    As for my “running away”, as someone suggested, this is proly wishful thinking on his part. But since I don’t have a lot of time to spend here I will carefully choose to whom to respond.

    Those nerds without lives who apparently live here 24/7, using transparent lies and irrelevant adolescent insults to support their liberal agendas, are not worthy of anything more than a scroll by.


    LOL. You're a funny guy.

    But maybe if you had payed better attention in school, you could work for yourself like me, and not have to ask how high when the boss says jump. :D

    As for who you choose to respond to, I think there is a better formula to determine who you choose to respond to.

    Whenever someone demonstrates how full of crap you are, you then choose to not respond, and just sorta disappear.

    Deny it if you want, but the posts over the last few months clearly demonstrate otherwise.

    Like last night, when you tried to buffalo Kirk into thinking he was wrong that the US bankrolled and armed Iraq back in the 80s (one of the stupidest arguments you have made thus far).

    I posted a dozen articles clearly demonstrating otherwise (not that I needed articles to purport common knowledge that any 5th grader would know) and of course you once again chose not to respond.

    You run away from me so much you should change your handle from Freedom Fighter to Freedom Runner.

    ReplyDelete
  193. The level of corruption revealed in the current administration is overwhelming.

    Right now the President and his staff, are nothing more than criminals.

    Support the office of President?

    I will when he will.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Lobbyist Told Reporter of Nearly a Dozen Contacts With Bush

    By Jim VandeHei
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A08

    President Bush met lobbyist Jack Abramoff almost a dozen times over the past five years and invited him to Crawford, Tex., in the summer of 2003, according to an e-mail Abramoff wrote to a reporter last month.

    Bush "has one of the best memories of any politicians I have ever met," Abramoff wrote to Kim Eisler of Washingtonian magazine. "The guys saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids."

    ReplyDelete
  195. Worfeus said "As for who you choose to respond to, I think there is a better formula to determine who you choose to respond to.

    Whenever someone demonstrates how full of crap you are, you then choose to not respond, and just sorta disappear."

    Right on the money Worf.

    as for your business, you got anymore openings?, I want to keep your hours :D, just kidding buddy, its pretty obvious that your a very smart and hard working guy just by the thought, attention to detail and research that go into your posts. I'm glad your here, even if you are from DC, I wont hold that against you :D

    ReplyDelete
  196. Bush has said he does not recall ever meeting Abramoff or posing for pictures with the Republican lobbyist at official events or parties.

    The White House has refused to release the pictures or detail Abramoff's contacts with top White House officials over the past five years.

    ReplyDelete
  197. I'm glad your here, even if you are from DC, I wont hold that against you :D

    LOL, thanks Mike, ditto.

    Actually however I am from New York, not DC. I just happen to live and work here now.

    I watched the Pentagon burn here in my home, while the towers fell in my hometown. I was furious on 911, and I even was on the kill all the ragheads wagon.

    Which is why I understand the rights emotions in this area.

    Problem is, its just that, emotion. The right acts on emotions and feelings.

    An unstable platform to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
  198. This is why the left keeps loosing lately. They need to stop trying to play the emotions card. They suck at it.

    Gore kissing Tipper, Kerry holding hands with Edwards, talking about freedom and liberty, blah blah blah.

    The left needs to learn that what works for the right, won't necessarily work for them.

    The emotions and feel good about war crapola is the rights schtick.

    The left needs to stick with what works best for them, logic and know how.

    ReplyDelete