Saturday, August 19, 2006

END THE ENDLESS WAR

You can reach my Home page at: LYDIA CORNELL

And for SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS* LIGHT OF TRUTH

And we uncover the truth about Ann Coulter like no one has ever done before at: COULTER KAMPF where you can also find breaking news about hate-speak, extremism, propaganda and smear tactics.

ANN COULTER: POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION or "HOW COULTER'S PROPAGANDIST TRIED TO DESTROY A GOOD CHRISTIAN" HUMAN EVENTS COVER-UP OF COULTER'S PLAIGIARISM "No longer will we be defensive with the Ann Coulters and the smear and fear crowd, we will take the fight to them, on our terms, and win the fight, our way." - Brent Budowsky

I realize Ann Coulter is distracting us from real news, but she is to blame for the hate-speak and annihilation prevalent today and must be called on it. Obviously her defenders on this blog are here to spread even more "politics of personal destruction." My Christian conservative friend went through hell with Coulter's propaganda team, and with Coulter herself. Her slander, lies and criminally threatening behavior has to be stopped. I too suffered death threats and a man coming right up to my front door as a result of Ann Coulter. (Read more by clicking articles in the sidebar.) Here on this website and in the press I have suffered from very similar "swiftboating" tactics. I have just found out that the people who committed slander in the tabloid got PAID to do so. I pray for Ed and send him love and forgiveness. He is a gifted artist and a man I once thought was very spiritual. But he has sold his soul. He knows that what he is doing is wrong; he KNOWS THE TRUTH.

I have the profound sense that we can touch God everyday when we are loving to others, especially those who offend us and disturb us, and especially those less fortunate.

BREAKING STORY! NEW EVIDENCE OF THE TACTICS OF PROPAGANDA FROM RIGHT-WING COULTER SMEAR MACHINE. The online "news" journal HUMAN EVENTS recently published a "hit-piece" written by Lisa De Pasquale (Coulter's publicist) assassinating the character of a lifelong conservative Christian in order to quell rising interest in Ann Coulter’s current plagiarism problems. At COULTERKAMPF you will find links to a 5-part series of essays by CoulterWatch on their mind-bending adventures trying to expose the truth about HUMAN EVENTS, one of the "news" journals that supports and enables Ann Coulter's crimes.

Note: the ads for Ann Coulter at the top of this page are not affiliated with this website. Coulter is morally handicapped and HAS CRACKS IN HER FOUNDATION. These ads are put there by the opposition.

AND FINALLY the Republican propagandists are seeing the light about the Bush dictatorship and his illegal, un-Christian, IRAQ WAR! John McCain, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews all spoke out against Bush's war and asked the tough questions for once. Why is it taking so long for Americans to see how Bush is harming them? How can we allow this one man to ruin our country? More Americans have died because of Bush than in 911.

"... Every Democratic progressive, liberal, moderate and centrist can quote Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men and make it "crystal clear" that never again in America should we tolerate politicians who never served in the military who question the patriotism of war heroes in either party, who disrespect the advice of commanders, who send our troops to war without proper planning and equipment, and who shortchange programs for vets and troops…

Contemplate this photo of Sedona: it does wonders to bring down stress levels.


Our primary purpose is to transcend self-centeredness and extend love and acceptance to our fellow man. It's to learn that we are all ONE.

Redux: Christ told us to take care of the poor. I am opening this forum to hear from Recovering Republicans. I used to be a Republican, then I got sober on September 11, 1994. It's as if I woke up. I started putting myself in others' shoes, and gaining compassion. Yes, COMPASSION, a word that Ann Coulter actually thinks is a dirty word! I did a turnaround on the death penalty, and stopped judging and fearing others. I also 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.

"The Tsunami and the Tapestry" ... (an essay I wrote in a prior post)

Somehow in this day and age, we’ve seen too much, done too much, been too naked. There’s too much hard-core violence and porn in the airwaves. We can’t really take it back and become innocent again. But we really need a return to innocence. It would be nice to be a virgin again. There is nothing in the physical world left to want, do or imagine. I don’t want one more luxury gadget to make life easier except a bio-diesel car. I don’t think anything impresses anyone anymore except seeing, actually seeing God: that great mystical force of Love inside us all. Imagine if love were a tangible force you could physically touch.

I was thinking about the tragedies of Katrina, the tsunami, and the endless war -- and how many bodies have rotted and evaporated — how quickly human life is snuffed out. It proves to me what I’ve always known: that man is not made of matter, that rotting flesh has no essence in and of itself — no matter how real the illusion seems. We cannot store up treasures on earth. Man is spiritual; we are linked to the Divine Mind, and to each other by the fabric of Love.

Imagine if the human pageant were just a tapestry, and the Creator sees the complete picture on the finished side — but we only see dangling threads that keep disappearing as they are woven in and out. Certain threads vanish because they are part of a grand stitch that completes a beautiful landscape — a picture on the other side. We can’t see the whole picture. We don't know the reason for death and suffering; we don't know what's on the other side, but I'm sure there are many mansions and colors — and this weave creates a majestic tapestry.

This is a universe of thought. Thought is energy and it is swift (too bad those lying 'Boat Veterans' forever ruined the word 'swift' for me. Wait, that just proves I am a victim of my thoughts.) Where you put your thoughts, that is where your heart goes: what you focus on GROWS. So whatever good, pure and lovely things you can think about, think on these things and you will bring these into your life according to your thoughts. Do not give fear any room. Your thoughts create our reality, and as Shakespeare said, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Still, it's hard not to be horrified by the people who deliberately hurt others, and who deliberately lie to the American people in order to go to war. The lies they told, the Machiavellian way they operate is a crime, a travesty. And Democrat is not a dirty word: it's a great word. It means FREEDOM LOVING!

I lived in Holland and visited Anne Frank's hiding place; it is so eerie to think humans can do this to other humans -- disparage an entire group of people and actually get the masses to believe that one race of fellow humans were vermin. We have to be careful not to do this with any group - including extremist fundamentalists of any religion. The tendency in this divisive culture is to lash out at each other, and I have been guilty as well when I speak of the religious-right. But this new breed of militant "Christian" has completely missed the point of Christ's teachings and turned many people off to Christianity in the process. And I believe they are partly behind our foreign policy and this rush to war. Zionism is also a form of idolatry: breaking the first commandment of Moses: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Obsession with land or property to the point you would kill for it, or end friendships is very wrong. It defeats the whole purpose of life: Love your neighbor as yourself."

I am deeply humbled by our men and women in the military, and in awe at their courage and sacrifice. These amazing people are true super-heroes -- along with fire fighters and police. God Bless those who died for our freedom. Found this photo of Johnny Grant, Kelly Patterson and myself with the troops in Beirut, Lebanon for USO tour.

God Bless the brave Marines of the 24th MAU, who died from a suicide truck bomb launched by Hezbollah shortly after we left Beirut. Years later I received fan mail from the 13-year-old son of one of these Marines. He asked me if I had ever met his father, and would I describe him to him. The boy was dying of cancer.

I went to Beirut for the USO on Christmas Eve 1982 -- visiting the Marines of the 24th MAU the "Beirut Bolts and Bombers", along with soldiers and sailors of the International Peacekeeping Force. I keep meaning to post parts of my Beirut Diary, which was published by US magazine, in the coming weeks. Audrey Meadows, who played my grandmother on Too Close For Comfort, was the one who encouraged me to go to a war zone on Christmas Eve, 1982. I will always be grateful to her for pushing me to go on this "trip of a lifetime." I was scared to death flying into Lebanon; have some hilarious stories about paranoia and mine fields in a blacked-out city.

There were so many wonderful Marines I met before the attack. I wonder if Col. Black Jack is still alive? Does anyone know Black Jack? He gave me a plaque with a gold Black Jack card engraved on it.

Went to underground artillery units where one light bulb illumined dark cave-like dungeon; we sang Christmas carols with the boys, then stayed up all night with Capt. Dale Dye, a flask and Johnny Grant in the Beirut Carlton. We were on the 14th floor. The first 13 floors were bombed out or was this my imagination? At dawn, they took us by chopper to the aircraft carriers USS Inchon and USS Shreveport. I lost my high-heel overboard. Kissed a lot of guys (on the cheek) and signed autographs. Later we went to a certain building for the changing of the guard. A short time after I left, the first suicide bomber drove a truck into the Marine barracks and blew up 251 of our best and brightest Marines while they slept. Years later I got a fan letter from the son of one of these heroes who died. He had never known his father, but knew I had met him before he died.

Just found this eye-opening post by JHBUCK at ThorninUrASSumptions

"There is no justification for the loss of 26 hundred of America's highest hopes for the future. Don't feed me this crap about possible adverse effects if we leave Iraq now. I can pull the same time machine out and predict that if we bring everyone home right now, someone whose life gets saved by the withdrawal will cure diabetes. Someone who gets saved by the withdrawal will adopt children who otherwise will be homeless. People can be heroic by living to their fullest potential. Yes, our soldiers are heroes. But so are loving parents. And so are generous friends. And so are honest business people. Why is it vogue right now to be a hero because you are dead? Because an insane "war room" (at the Pentagon) decided to sacrifice lives with no foreseeable end? Isn't this the time for Denzel or Tommy Lee Jones to come out of the background and relieve Mr. Bush of duty? Why is war policy even allowed to be controlled by such a measurable minority? What happened to the idea of politicians representing us in their mountaintop offices? Condi is a parrot. She is having the most brazen affair through sharing power with the man. She is smarter than him, but she says his words. What's wrong with this picture? It's disgusting, that's what!" - jhbuck

343 comments:

  1. God Bless You Lydia!! Keep fighting the good fight, and you will be protected.
    Max & the kids

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, anybody out there wanna argue politics and call each other names?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I suppose I could cut and paste some long winded articles found on partisan sites on the web.

    NAH, clif's in charge of that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dang! Saturday night an everybodys got a date 'cept me...

    waaaahhhh!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK, OK. Just ONE cut and paste...

    From the New York Slimes....

    Democrats Set Primary Calendar and Penalties
    August 20, 2006
    By ADAM NAGOURNEY


    CHICAGO, Aug. 19 — The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to penalize 2008 presidential candidates who defied a new nominating calendar devised to lessen the longtime influence of New Hampshire and Iowa, the two states that have traditionally kicked off the nominating process.

    The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.

    The party adopted a broad definition of campaigning, barring candidates from giving speeches, attending party events, mailing literature or running television advertisements.

    Iowa will continue to start the voting process, with a caucus on Jan. 14. But under the new calendar, there will be a caucus in Nevada on the Saturday between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 22. South Carolina will hold a primary at least one week after New Hampshire.

    The penalties were adopted in response to threats by New Hampshire officials, who said they might defy the new Democratic calendar and schedule their primary earlier in the year or in 2007 to retain their long-held influence over the nominating process. The New Hampshire secretary of state has the authority to move the primary earlier to make sure it complies with a state law requiring that no state hold any kind of nominating contest within seven days of the New Hampshire primary.

    Kathy Sullivan, the leader of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, warned that the calendar vote would create strife for the party and “rob presidential candidates from doing what they need to take back the White House.”

    “Mark my words, in 2008 when our presidential candidates start to introduce themselves to the American public, the changes in the primary calendar will continue to take attention away from where it should be — on their visions for this country,” she said.

    The calendar and penalties were adopted by what appeared to be an overwhelming margin in a voice vote. The decision, which embraces the recommendations of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, is the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years.

    Despite the vote, the fighting over the calendar may not be over. A number of potential 2008 contenders — including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina; and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana — have expressed support for New Hampshire.

    Several Democrats said candidates might make the calculation that it is worth losing delegates — assuming New Hampshire defies the party and the party penalizes candidates — to get the attention that might come from an early New Hampshire victory.

    A spokesman for Mr. Bayh, Dan Pfeiffer, said that the senator had asked the Indiana Democratic delegation to oppose the rule change, and that he intended to campaign in New Hampshire.

    “Senator Bayh, should he decide to run, intends to stand by his commitment to New Hampshire,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “At the end of the day, the D.N.C. and the various states will set the final calendar and all Senator Bayh can do is compete in the contests as they come — and that includes New Hampshire.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. CLIF - GREAT POST; what is this from?

    War: What's It Good For?

    Like most liberals, I am not a pacifist. I believe military power has its uses, and it does some things very well. If, for example, our goal in Iraq had just been to capture Saddam - well, we did that, didn't we? A similar operation might have captured Bin Laden. Bosnia is far from paradise these days, but at least people aren't dying by the tens of thousands. With similar care the genocide in Rwanda might have been stopped, and the one in Darfur still could be. And if anyone knew a way to go into North Korea and come out a few days later with Kim Jong-il and all the North Korean nuclear weapons, I'd be for it.

    But military force is a blunt instrument, and used badly it creates more enemies than it kills. If you're not prepared to kill millions of people - and I'm not - then you have to find a way to circumscribe your enemies, so their numbers aren't instantly replenished, with interest, as soon as you kill them. In the long run, if you aren't willing to commit genocide against your enemy's recruitment pool, then every use of force has to be carefully calibrated.

    Because it might not be a pool, it might be an aquifer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree, Clif. That is an excellent article. I also think that our military leaders understand this very well and are doing everything they can to limit accidental deaths.

    Further, I think we should leave Iraq as soon as the majority of Iraqis want us to leave. Leaving before that is a sell-out of our friends, and an invitation to disaster.

    Right now the Iraqis have the best chance they will ever have to build a society with a democratic foundation -- one that enriches their lives and those of their children with freedom and prosperity for generations.

    If the majority of Iraqis don't want freedom or if they think they are ready to manage on their own, then we should leave. Otherwise, we should stay and hit the insurgents with everything we've got, while striving to limit accidental civilian deaths.

    Most civilian deaths in Iraq are not the result of direct U.S. and British military action. The real challenge we face currently, is trying to keep the Iraqis from killing each other. The last poll I saw showed that the majority of Iraqis want us to stay until their country is capable of maintaining order.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The foole said;

    I also think that our military leaders understand this very well and are doing everything they can to limit accidental deaths.

    Wonder if ther Iraqi's agree with you, why is maliki complaining...why is Karzai in Afghanistan complaining.

    In Nov 2004 in Falugha they did not and enraged the Sunni's...

    They did not at check points where they would shoot cars because the Americans did not know if the car that did not stop was dangerous, and the iraqi civilians did not understand the Americans.

    They have in their rendition of tens of thousands of Iraqi's in the country to prisons for months for nothing but they were guilty of being a young male in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The foole said;

    Further, I think we should leave Iraq as soon as the majority of Iraqis want us to leave. Leaving before that is a sell-out of our friends, and an invitation to disaster.

    That would have been LAST yar son...so you agree with Murtha...the military has done everything we asked of them...and have NO business nation building, something they are NOT trained to do. So we should strategy redeploy them into Kuwait..and possibly into Kurdistan if the Kurds ask the US to. Exactally what MURTHA said; he never said "cut and run", like the repugs LIED

    ReplyDelete
  10. THE FOOLE SAID:

    Right now the Iraqis have the best chance they will ever have to build a society with a democratic foundation -- one that enriches their lives and those of their children with freedom and prosperity for generations.


    PURE REPUG NEO-CON BULLSHIT.

    It has NO chance...ZIP...none...less than a fart in the wind. The "government" lives inside a heavily fortified "green zone" and would not survive a month on their own.

    The military has troops, and guns, but their uniforms, bullets, transportation assets, air assets, heavy weapons are supplied by the US Army and air Force...their logistical trains are simply US supplies..they have NO internal ability either in their military or in their country.

    The Sunni's will NEVER submit to Shia majority rule...and the Shiites will fight to prevent the Sunni's reasserting control like they had with Saddam....and the Kurds are simply going their own way and will fight any attempts to force them to submit to Baghdad.


    GET A CLUE bush blew it Cheney lied..about what was going to happen...and is no ;longer relevant to the discussion, and Dumsfeld is INCOMPETENT...and has undermined the war effort with an untested theory of modern warfare that is never going to defeat an insurgency....Air power followed by lighting strikes of mechanised troops will over run a weaker ...military opponent, but can NEVER defeat a determined insurgency because it is too clumsy in their standard procedures.

    The Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias have staked out their territory and will fight each other and the US to hold that territory. And the "federal" government is simply irrelevant to that fight because the players in the federal government are Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds first and Iraqi's second. This dooms the country which has the effect to destroy the illusion of democracy in Iraq. Thus your ridiculous statement about best chance simply ignores the reality on the ground...just like Bush, Cheney, and Dumsfeld have done for YEARS.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well thats it Cliffy,everything is crystal clear.The only way the Iraq conflict is going to end is if you get up off you ass,get away from your keyboard for at least 3 or 4 days and march into the Pentagon take command,because we all know that only a man of you vast military knowledge and experience knows what needs to be done....HERE HE COMES TO SAVE THE DAY....MIGHTY MOUSE IS ON THE WAY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. One day, perhaps, there will be a worldwide Moo Moo administration....LOL!

    A Moo Moo administration will attempt to define the impossible by conforming to each individuals perception of what they belive is the answer to making the trains run on time.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  13. Volt said

    "So, anybody out there wanna argue politics and call each other names?"

    Ahhhhhh......Volt has found our purpose.....EXCELLENT!

    So Volt, please describe your absolute?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Clif,

    I have to concur with most people here, that you never served our country, you are just a pathetic excuse for human life.

    Mike you and your family are dregs of humanity, who sponge off the American public.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The foole said;

    If the majority of Iraqis don't want freedom or if they think they are ready to manage on their own, then we should leave.


    Like I said about a year ago. when Congressman Murtha after speaking to battalion, brigade and divisional officers...and military analysts in the pentagon came to the conclusion that the war was deteriorating...and we could no longer pull a military victory out of the worsening situation. Troops can not kill enough terrorists or insurgents, but with the tactics employed by Rummy's approach, they are killing hundreds, while creating tens of thousands of new recruits. Bush's approval of ignorance of the Geneva convention and linking Iraq with 9-11 created a mindset in the military which allowed the troops to act in ways that directly led to the ballooning insurgency of the Sunni's and the reaction of the Shiites who saw a rising Sunni irregular army, which caused them to beef up their militias, like Sadr' army....all it took was the bombing of the Golden dome mosque and the powderkeg which we fostered and enabled to grow has exploded. Thus by YOUR assertion, you should accept MURTHA was right last September...he could see what Bush, Cheney and Dumsfeld ignored and we are paying the price for their negligence and incompetence now.

    Otherwise, we should stay and hit the insurgents with everything we've got, while striving to limit accidental civilian deaths.


    Try hitting flies with a sledgehammer son, and you will see that your statement is good political spin, but militarily not a reality in a combat zone like IRAQ. we do not have bullets or bombs who know the difference between the "good" citizens and the "bad" insurgents..or militias.

    The bomb which blows up the RPG firing insurgent also kills the rest of the civilians inside the kill zone..and the insurgents tactic is simply to force the choice....kill him...kill civilians, thus inflame the civilian population to support the insurgents...or walk away.

    Because the approach we used in the second half of the 19th century of killing or putting all Indians on a reservation will never fly in Iraq. and anything less will only add to the problem until the American public cuts the repugs off at the ballot box...and we have to walk away anyway. The Iraq's leading the Insurgents and militias know the lessons of Vietnam...Afghanistan in the 80's and that they are winning the hearts and minds...thus we are losing the people who are really what the country is made of after all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry Repub...I have no doubt Cliff served; despite his cowardice in standing up to Worf for immoral reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "CLIF - GREAT POST; what is this from?

    War: What's It Good For?

    -Lydia


    Lydia, I believe that was part of the lyrics to Edwin Starr's song "war".

    ♪"Ooooh, war, huh
    Good God y'all ♫
    What is it good for"♫♪

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whazzzup Johnnnaaaayyy!!!!???

    ReplyDelete
  19. Volt.....nothings up up except your absolute??

    If you have one, then I must dismiss Agent Smith???

    ReplyDelete
  20. Don't do absolut. I much prefer Cuervo 1800....

    ReplyDelete
  21. I guess I can be serious for a moment.

    define "absolute" for me, and after dinner I'll see if I can post a response.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Foole said;

    Most civilian deaths in Iraq are not the result of direct U.S. and British military action.

    You are actually right there son, by this year it is more Iraqis killing Iraqis, but when we overthrew the sitting government, and disbanded their military and police forces...the US assumed the responsibility for security of the borders and internal country. This was never really even attempted to be covered by the pentagon or Dumsfeld.

    The CPA was more about restructuring the government and assuring the oil fields would be open to the US oil companies...than about securing the country for the civilian population.

    They did not really try to reconstruct the infrastructure, which would have gone a long way toward restabilizing the economy. This would have given many people a way to improve their lives, instead people are watrching the situation deteriorate daily, while Bush, Cheney and Dumsfeld decried everything was rosey. The citizens in Baghdad and the country KNEW better, and lost faith in the US administration. They ignored to need for police, using US military assets and private contractors for force protection for us, but gave little though as to the needs for local security of the Iraqi civilians. Thus the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias were able to take advantage of that lack of Us responsibility.


    The real challenge we face currently, is trying to keep the Iraqis from killing each other.


    THAT is a minefield which we need to stay out of as much as possible, because if we step in we MUST choose sides....we MUST try and stop somebody, thus we will become associated with a particular faction in each Provence and Baghdad. The result would cause those who disagree to up their attacks on the US which further in broils in the burgeoning civil war. The secondary effect would be that outside Iraq who ever we aid will anger somebody. If we aid the sitting government which is seem as pro-Shiite in the region, we anger traditional allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. We also raise the power of Iran in the region. If we attempt to aid the Sunni's we anger the central government, which seem to undermine them. We also are seen as an agent of the Sunni's and Saddam, because the Shiites have NOT forgotten Bush41's call for revolt and then stood by as Saddam turned his military on the Shiites around Basra...they still do not trust the US.

    They are not going to stop fighting for control of areas they consider their own, and fighting to force the opposite sectarian faction to leave. This is a replay of Yugoslavia all over again.....just as I said back in February and March and April. Only this time the central government has NO power...just what we give it. They are the least legitimate player from the civilians perspective. They have no direct connection to either side Sunni or Shiite, but the Sunni's see them as the enemy...and the Shiite sectarian militias see them as a tool to be used at best and irrelevant at worst.


    The last poll I saw showed that the majority of Iraqis want us to stay until their country is capable of maintaining order.

    Right polls in a combat zone...I wonder how many insurgents were polled?

    I wonder if the poll workers justy strolled around asking people at will, you know like they do here.

    Get a grip...polls can be manipulated. In a changing situation like the Iraqi civil war ..what somebody said last week has been changed by events of the passing week. They are fracturing along sectarian lines...and proly would like the US to stand by their side and Protect them from their sectarian enemies. That is a cowpie we need not to step in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why? Why do you do it? Why? Why get up? Why keep fighting?

    Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom, or truth, perhaps peace? Could it be for love?

    Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception, temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose.


    Although... Only a human mind can invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now. You can't win, it is pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why you persist?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Definition of absolute:

    The answer for all!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Even Jesus is incapable of an absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Johnny Moo Moo rocks man...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Shut up Johnny. Your act is tired and stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Krista loves me...LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  29. All the debate and endless politics will never change our true nature...PERIOD!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Unless, of course, Krista has an answer, that even Jesus himself is quite unable to define?

    ReplyDelete
  31. A lazy book, translated by weak minds, to be the definition of love.....LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Where's Worf, Kay, Carl, Larry, et al.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Appeasement or death....hmmmmmmmmm?

    Purpose in the unanswerable!

    ReplyDelete
  34. The only 2 mooks left are Clif, and his half-wit brother Mike!

    ReplyDelete
  35. TT seems to be the smartest 1 here.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dems Bite said

    "Where's Worf, Kay, Carl, Larry, et al."

    Why asshole..... does your life have no meaning without conflict?

    Our purpose is conflict .....you simply would die without it....LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  37. TT is cool...but has not yet entered the rabbit hole...he simply thinks life can be answered by one sided human politics.

    ReplyDelete
  38. JMM, you are cool too!

    ReplyDelete
  39. NeoCons Are Busy Covering Their Asse(t)s

    By Shelter from the Storm

    08/21/06 "SFTS" -- -- Israeli press reports about the Israeli Defense Force's Chief of Staff dumping stocks just before war broke out served as a reminder that the very leaders who demand that citizens trust them to do what is best for the country are often busy covering their asse(t)s in case their policies don't work out so well. In the case of Dan Halutz, the man in charge of Israel's war against Hezbollah and Lebanon, the Israeli general was so confident in his own war plans that he felt it prudent to dump his entire portfolio of stocks as his colleagues were meeting to give the go ahead for war.

    There's a long tradition of tyrants and despots who stashed money and bought villas outside the borders of the country they were terrorizing. Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, who looted and strong-armed the Philippines for decades, had their Hawaii getaway. Idi Amin, the butcher of Uganda, was never tried and imprisoned for his crimes against his people, but instead spent 20 years living luxuriously in Saudi Arabia. Jean-Claude ("Baby Doc") Duvalier hasn't gone to prison yet either, though his wealthy playboy lifestyle in French Cote d'Azur seems to have been ended by a rancorous and expensive divorce.

    But the United States is no banana republic. Surely its leaders, especially those who send other Americans off to war, would never contemplate profiting personally from their decisions or evading responsiblity for their mistakes. Well, think again. America's neocon leaders have been busy covering their asse(t)s in case their policies of endless war and raping the American economy produce too much blowback.

    Learn who's doing what after the break.

    NeoCon Continental

    For all the contempt that the NeoCons shower upon "Old Europe," they sure seem to find it a good place to invest and even live. Vice-President Cheney likes to tout how great the American economy is, but he and his wife Lynne don't have much confidence in the dollar. Kiplinger Reports took a close look at the Cheney's financial disclosure report recently, and found that the Second Couple is betting against the U. S. economy. The biggest chunk of their estimated $96 million in change is bet on a fund that specializes in predominately European bonds and had only 6% of its assets in dollar-based investments when Kiplinger took a look. (Warren Buffett , no NeoCon, but known for his financial acumen, is doing the same.)

    How nice for them. If the Vice-President's relentless push for a new war against Iran succeeds, and oil prices skyrocket to two or three times the previous record, with a resulting collapse of the dollar, it won't be the Cheneys who suffer.

    NeoCon Al Dente

    Joining Cheney in his push for yet another war is charter NeoConner Michael Ledeen. He's co-founder of the "Coalition for Democracy in Iran" that lobbies for regime change in Tehran, and he has joined fellow NeoCon Bill Kristol in criticizing the Bush Administration recently for not attacking Iran and Syria.

    Ledeen is a real man of the world. He's reputed to have served often as a liaison between the Israelis and the U. S., but his first love seems to be Italy. He's been fascinated by Italian fascism, and reports connect him with neo-fascist movements in Italy like P2, though he denies it. He lived in Italy as a reporter for The New Republic in the 70s, and has continued to go there for extended stays ever since, most recently to research a book he's writing about Naples. Many have suggested that he was the American connection in the Niger uranium disinformation campaign because of his relationship with Italian intelligence, the original source of the forged documents.

    Ledeen, considered to be the most radical of the NeoCons, is most notorious for his advocacy of "creative destruction" of which Iraq serves as a "shining" example. What if that "creative destruction" spreads out of control to the United States? Don't worry yourself about Ledeen. He speaks fluent Italian and has a villa in the hills near Rome .

    NeoCon KosherStyle

    He was called the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Fiascos when he was at the Pentagon because of the way everything he touched turned to--well, you know. He's been involved in everything from the infamous Office of Special Plans to Abu Ghraib to the Franklin spy scandal. Tommy Franks called him, "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."

    Things may not work out so well for the public interest when Feith is in charge, but he's not so dumb when it comes to taking care of himself and his friends. After leaving the employ of the Defense Department where he had worked under Richard Perle during the Reagan administration, Feith formed a law partnership with Marc Zell with a focus on representing companies in the military-industrial complex who wanted to do more business with Washington. Feith & Zell weren't content with limiting their practice to the U. S. They merged with an Israeli firm to form FANDZ, an enterprise that touted its access to Defense Department officials after Bush II appointed Feith as third in command at the Pentagon. Shortly thereafter, FANDZ hooked up with Salem Chalabi, son of long-time Feith friend, Ahmed Chalabi.

    If justice ever came visiting in Washington, Feith might have reason to worry because of pal Chalabi's double-agenting, subordinate Larry Franklin's spying or Feith's own intelligence cooking in the runup to Iraq, but in the unlikely event that there's ever the threat of an indictment, Feith has it covered. He took good care of his friends at his old law firm FANDZ, and they are able to offer him lots of options when it comes to locations outside the U. S.:

    Since 9/11, Zell, Goldberg has become a leader in the newly emerging field of international security and anti-terrorism law, in conjunction with its Washington, D.C. office, and through its affiliate company FIST (Federal Israel Security Technologies LLC).

    Through its Moscow office and its Israel-based Russia-CIS practice group, the firm has gained extensive experience in what is becoming one of the world’s most promising regional markets.

    Zell, Goldberg maintains a comprehensive network of correspondent relationships with quality business and tax law firms throughout the world with special emphasis on Europe (Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe and the CIS) and the Far East (China, Japan and South Korea).

    NeoCon à la Mode

    The NeoCon's "Prince of Darkness " is Richard Perle. He's been a key member of both the Committee on the Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century. As chariman of the Defense Policy Board, he was one of the most influential backers of the Iraq war.

    Perle has no fear when it comes to attacking opponents of the policies he advocates. When the French were skeptical about the need for an immediate assault on Saddam in 2003, Perle was furious at one of America's oldest allies:

    France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

    What a way to talk about your neighbors! It turns out that not only peaceniks like Alec Baldwin and George Clooney seek refuge in France, but also NeoCons like Richard Perle who feel it's prudent to cover their asse(t)s by buying a villa in Provence .

    What's Cookin'?

    When you see the president of the bank headed out the door with one hand holding a satchel full of cash and the other his family pictures, it might be time to make a withdrawal yourself. If you hear your town's mayor has put his house up for sale, it may be time to unload your place as well.

    The NeoCons claim their policies of endless war and huge deficits are going to preserve the "American way of life," but their personal actions must make anyone wonder whether they believe what they're telling the American people. If their policies sink the U. S., don't expect them to go down with the ship. They'll be enjoying the safety and stability of Europe where they're now stashing money and buying houses.

    Maybe it's time you began to cover your asse(t)s.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Chill out Cliff....your too serious!

    Its nots healthy. Tell a blonde joke or something.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Clif,

    Why are you such a palsy?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Clif,

    You're getting as bad as that asshole Mike!

    ReplyDelete
  43. No Dem....Mike has improved in his civility....small yet significant.

    ReplyDelete
  44. why did you lock Mike out?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have never understood libs screaming for true peace; they use immoral tactics to achieve their perfect doctrine, however, they are no better than the very party they enjoy discrediting?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mike isn't locked out, again liberal hogwash. And if he is ....BYE MIKE!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Christians have all the answers....always have.....always will...LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Repubs and Dems alike, like to shove the Christian ideals down every ones throat.

    And all these bozos are the same fundamentalists are hypocrites the sames as the Liberals Christian. Everyone thinks their point of view is right and the rest be damned!!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. I can only pretend to have an answer....

    ReplyDelete
  50. There will always be war....period! Unless someone can define perfect love ?

    Im all ears Einsteins.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bubblehead always runs away from the mighty Moo...LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Definition of absolute:

    The answer for all!"

    -J. Moo Moo


    Johnny, the only absolute I know is that there is no absolute. Meaning and purpose is a personal and relative concept.

    What gives ME meaning and purpose, may not give YOU meaning and purpose.

    We are ALL basically alone. Trapped in our own skulls. All we know about others and the world around us comes through senses which are faulty and can be deceived. Mere electrical signals.

    We each have to MAKE our own meaning and purpose something special unto ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Not bad Volt.

    "We each have to MAKE our own meaning and purpose something special unto ourselves."



    For the purpose of.....??

    ReplyDelete
  54. Johnny Moo²,

    Are you off your meds again? Or perhaps you are tokin one a them funny cigarettes.

    ReplyDelete
  55. For the purpose of getting up every morning and continuing on...

    For the purpose of the continuation of our will to live.

    And for the purpose of deriving some sort of satisfaction from it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'd like to throw these questions out there and hear people's responses

    1) how could we have better spent the billions we spent invading Iraq to make our country safer and to fight the real terrorists

    2) what would be the best way to deal with the Iran crisis

    3 What would be the best way to deal with the Israel/Hezbollah Crisis?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ouch! My brain hurts.....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oh look another pretend troll calling names and insulting people, funny how you clowns try to make it like there are so many of you here when there is only like 4 of you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Mike said...

    "I'd like to throw these questions out there and hear people's responses

    1) how could we have better spent the billions we spent invading Iraq to make our country safer and to fight the real terrorists
    Use the funds more efficiently to invade more countries like Syria and France....maybe Canada too. (sorry Johnny)

    2) what would be the best way to deal with the Iran crisis
    They want nukes? Let's give 'em one.

    3 What would be the best way to deal with the Israel/Hezbollah Crisis?
    The complete anihilation of Hezbollah and their supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Only the same ones your tokin FF...LOL!

    Have you figured out life yet...LOL...good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  61. ENJOY MY VIDEO!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhihDoV5N38

    ReplyDelete
  62. Sorry Mike, I was being facetious in ONE of those answers...

    ReplyDelete
  63. I probably wouldn't invade Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Volt said What would be the best way to deal with the Israel/Hezbollah Crisis?
    The complete anihilation of Hezbollah and their supporters."

    Ok Volt how would you propose to bring this about, I think we learned from Iraq and from whats happened in Lebannon that it is almost impossible to defeat an embedded insurgency, how would you handle it Volt and please dont say you would just nuke em or exterminate them, i'd like to hear a real answer

    ReplyDelete
  65. Mikey,for christ sake,these two people have been fighting for a few thousand years.The Islamist hate democracy.What mideastern country is the only democracy in the region? The only answer is to grow democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The one thing you libs have a problem understanding is that the radical Islamist want the Israel's and us dead,thats dead,like not around anymore,gone for good,bye-bye,see ya later.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Well dusty since Turkey, Lebanon and Israel are all democracies according to the President and Satate Department, you might want to add the two you left out. And Bush Et Al keep claiming Iraq is a democracy, but not as developed as the other three.

    ReplyDelete
  68. BTW,what the hell happened to this "progressive" blog? You and Cliffy are the only survivor's.Where have all the flower's gone?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yes sir,Col.sir! Request permission to restate my position sir.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Oh shit I forgot I'm paying you disibility,you work for me.Go get me a beer sparky.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I love that line.I first heard it at a Dennis Miller show,he was talking about the million women march that took place about 5 or ten years ago,he said "hey girls while you're up,get me a beer."

    ReplyDelete
  72. It would really be absolutly fantastic if the average american who fairly paid his taxes and stayed clear of legal troubles could avail themslves of the services of someone whose disibilty or welfare they are paying.Like have that person mow the lawn,do some housecleaning perhaps wash the car.What a great idea.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I'm gonna run for office,my slogan..."put the pikers to work." I think thats a winner.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Volt: Our primary purpose is to transcend self-centeredness and extend love and acceptance to our fellow man. It's to learn that we are all ONE.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Lydia,you are just so,ah like metaphysical.I say as I toss my hair.

    ReplyDelete
  76. JMM - you are beyond rude. What happened to the guy who sent me pictures of his beautiful daughter, and whom I trusted as a kind human being?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Lydia said

    "you are beyond rude."

    My psychiatrist told me the same thing during this evening's session, nevertheless, I am trustwothy beyond the scope of any so called christian....period.

    ReplyDelete
  78. BTW Lyd, you havent rated my video?

    :|

    ReplyDelete
  79. While we TRY to get back to the subject at hand, Bush once again came up with some more lame comments in his "news conference" on the situation back in the middle east, the illegal war in Iraq, and just about anything else I can think of.

    The whole text of this conference is in the Washington Post.

    Here's one that captured my attention:

    "You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people __ good, decent people __ saying: Withdraw now.

    They're absolutely wrong. It'd be a huge mistake for this country.

    If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself and listen to the __ and answer to the will of the people."

    Yes, Bush, it's time to WITHDRAW THE TROOPS NOW! What this despicable human being is doing, is costing this government more $$$, much of it taxpayer's money I'm sure, and staying in Iraq for no really good cause.

    There's many more in there, but too many to post here.

    How about talking about Osama bin Laden? The foiled terrorist attacks from a few weeks ago?

    comments are welcome of course.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Missed you this summer. Good to see you are back to writing articles that uplift the human race. We really need to hear your wisdom and I'm curious about your spiritual retreat.
    Good work!
    James W.

    ReplyDelete
  81. As for the National Enquirer, Lydia, go after 'em. I'm sure those clowns have other things to write than slander a class act and a good spirit like you.

    I caught the radio interview you did with Doug; well done indeed, despite the phone interruptions in the background earlier on (he is based in the area I used to live in during my days in Vegas; near Nellis AFB).

    Have a safe week, and god bless as always.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Good ole Joe Scarborough, he has a new twist of how Rove should manage Bush...


    Keep Bush away from the press

    The Washington Post ran an article that talked about the growing discontent among some conservatives regarding George W. Bush and his not-so-conservative administration. Last week’s Scarborough Country segment that asked whether our president was an idiot, as pop tart Linda Ronstadt suggested, got heavy play in the Post piece.

    Asking whether our President is mentally engaged in the job is an important question to ask. With al Qaeda back in the headlines, Iraq deteriorating, Hezbollah in rapid ascent, Iran defying the world, Israel in turmoil, Afghanistan in crisis mode and North Korea behaving more recklessly every day, President Bush needs to assure America and the world that he is intellectually engaged.

    Still, I am uncomfortable asking these questions of any president, especially this one.

    I voted for George Bush twice and would do it again if Al Gore and John Kerry were once again the alternatives. I spent a few hours alone with President Bush on Air Force One. He was likable and sharp.

    I have met more than a few world leaders and I can tell you our President seemed as mentally equipped as most leaders I have met.

    But the George Bush of 2006 seems to be a far cry from the man I spoke with in 2001, or the back-slapping governor who charmed the hell out of me when I visited him in the Texas governor’s mansion in 1999.

    These days the President seems distracted, disjointed and dumbed-down in press conferences. His jokes fall flat and are often inappropriate.

    And like Reagan, George W. Bush seems to be getting worse with age instead of better.

    When teenage boys misbehave, I blame their fathers. When presidents come up short, I blame their staffs.

    In the case of Bush I wonder whether there no one in the West Wing that can tell their boss he needs to spend more time in front of a teleprompter and less time watching ESPN.

    Has anyone told him that making jokes about pig roasts after being asked about the bombing of the Beirut airport is not how a Commander in Chief acts in front of the international press corps?

    Has anyone considered keeping the President away from the press altogether if he is no longer up to the task of answering questions?


    *************************************************


    Too bad that is what they tried before. You know when Bush was stage managed , and presented to prescreened people who agreed with the idiot. and the only press clips were filmed by Bush's people and handed out to the MSM.

    Well people got sick of it so last fall they tried the new approach which Joe does not like the results. Whether you let him act the foole like he did during the G8, or attempt to hide him and manage him like a brain dead Reagan, is actually moot if they stick by the same failed policies and stupid talking points....because it is the FAILED policies that are the cause of the low poll numbers and repugs coming November defeat. Not the stupid antics of a foolish clown they convinced to play pResident.

    Cheney must be wondering why he did not choose to make Dan Quayle his Charlie McCarthy doll in his grab for power. After all pResidents do not really take spelling tests.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Thank you Robert and James.

    The truth is more powerful than any weapon. (Gandhi)

    If I receive any more hateful comments, I am shutting down the comment section.

    I know what you have done, but you have no idea how wrong you are.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Johnny moo moo said...
    Only the same ones your tokin FF...LOL!

    Have you figured out life yet...LOL...good luck.

    8:06 PM"

    That's the perennial question, Johnny! I suppose we *might* be able to answer that for ourselves on an individual basis, but, perhaps like you, I don't like others trying to answer that for me. I have a hard enough time answering that for myself (which is not unusual -- even Freud didn't have it all figured out), but there have been many wise men and woman in history whom we can turn to for wisdom so that we can answer that question for ourselves.

    One thing I do know is that everyone, in their own way, is searching for peace of mind. Pleasure, at least superficially, is sought after because the pleasure seeker thinks it will bring him or her peace of mind. However, how many people on this Earth pursue drugs for that "high," that, in the end, may bring temporary peace of mind, but often brings ruin. Some people seek peace of mind by the acquisition of "things," however, how long is it before we have so many things that all of our "things" bring us anxiety because we become preoccupied with not losing them.

    In my own experience, I have found that keeping level headed and keeping busy brings the most peace of mind. Equanimity of mind is, no matter your faith or lack thereof, is essential. But that's me. We are all different.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Im sorry I called you a Bubblehead Lydia.

    I have always admired your strength for putting up with us. However, I have taken my share of baloney as well.



    Johnny

    ReplyDelete
  86. Johnny said "TT is cool...but has not yet entered the rabbit hole...he simply thinks life can be answered by one sided human politics."

    A very astute observation TT is clearly the most partisan politically motivate person on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  87. To that charge I plead guilty, but there are some core beliefs to which I hold, and if that brands me a "partisan," I will wear that brand as a badge of honor.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Intelligent post TT.

    Sometimes I go a little over the top in an effort to bring out such good responses from honest people like yourself, Volt, and Cliff..

    Sometimes I wonder what our purpose is as I know there are no absolutes to any of lifes difficult questions; everything seems to be a catch 22.

    There will never be a perfect political philosophy written by anyone and accepted by all.... this mystifies me.

    I kinda see this endless, futile circle, that will continue on long after we perish. And the world will continue to destroy itself either through annoying appeasement or overly aggresive behavior.

    Right vs. left. The vehemence from either side is astonishing and I have to ask myself if humans are just plain incapable of working together at generating solutions.

    Watching such displays, it seems our purpose is conflict and power, therefore, whats the purpose of the purpose? Never-ending conflict in a lust for power where there are no absolutes....strange!?

    All I do know is everything must have some kind of balance.

    If there is a God, why would He design our human nature so as to include a strong desire for conflict? Yet tell us to behave peacefully and defy our very inherit primitive state? This goes beyond free will.

    ..............


    Btw, met a nice religious lady today who believes the devil set Jim Baker and his wife up......greed was not Bakers motive.

    Man are some people dumb...LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  89. Good job Lydia, Rusty is dirt, if all he wants to do is insult people and post bile and personal attacks then his posts should be deleted, posting is a privlge not a right, he thinks he runs this blog, its about time he learned to behave civilly or else he oughta be out the door so fast the door doesnt have time to hit him in his A$$!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Clif Said "Mike dolty boy is NOT being REALISTIC..he is SIMPLY repeating the standard REPUG lies of the last 30 years.

    Education HAS been underfunded... ESPECIALLY in the poorer school districts. and the repugs want to cut things that hint at challanging their extreme vision of christianity, while DEMANDING to be able to force everybody to mouth their prayers, they are NOT for tolorence, but control.

    They ATTACK the basic tennents of science, and then decry children can't learn or teachers can't teach...after they trty to force a BOGUS unscience as "fact".

    His claims of problems of welfare were created because the original program had to be created to FORCE the husband out of the home otherwise the family did not get benifits, even if there was no jobs available...like in Applatia...where Lyndon Johnson actually toured to see how BAD poverty had become...his programs were created because of POOR WHITE PEOPLE it was political hacks like Reagan who LIED about welfare Queens...who inflated their number s and percenttages and denied the FACT that most peiople wgho used the program tried to get off with the vast majority being sucessful exceopt in areas where the jobs were leaving as fast as the factories could close up and move.

    Reagan needed a strawman(or strawqueen) to attack when he wanted to create a false image of loser lounging around doing nothing in order to get the dumb redneck vote tio aid in the first repug wealth reverse robinhood move...from the poorer taxpayers who have no tax shelters to the rich who get the vast majority of the breaks and also have the shelters to hide their money in. But WHAt Reagan did not tell people was that the cost of the government program would increase for everybody and only the rich got more money back then they woud pay in the increased direct costs, like user fees, higher filing fees closed programs the rich NEVER used..like legal aid (so the poor couldn't afford to fight back), Reagan began the rip off the poor and middle class to give the rich mopre and privatise the government so the rich could pay Less in taxes, and collect more of the Taxes paid in theor MORE costly and less effecient programs like the DOD health care called champus...and ..the shrinkingbserviceds the VA provides to vets who pay more out of their own pockets for something that was PROMISED as free to them. other programs like government contractors replacing uniformed personnel at DOD where the contractor pays just above minimun wage and charges the same for services that the DOD personnel provided except the ZDOD got better pay and benifits...but the PRIVATE contractor has to CUT HIS profit out...the people doing the work get LESS and the programs are costing more to the taxpayers. BUT rich GOP donators get richer.

    Repug lies and spin have bankrupted the government...cut away the infrastructure iof the DOD until WITH out private contractors like Halliburton...they can not function....the same DOD which handled the invasion of Normandy and retaking of Fortress europe with out cost overruns...and shoddy products which are build as cheaply as possible."

    clif I wasnt agreeing with Volts repug propaganda and spin, I was merely acknowledging that he had a point that it is a problem that some bad apple teachers who are dead weight or worse can not be gotten rid of, also I think I made it clear that most schools are vastly underfunded, but just throwing money at a problem or providing knee jerk responses that are simple solutions to complex problems (which seems to be the repug way) like forcing teachers to concentate on making students pass stupid standardized is not the answer I think repugs rend to view the world as black and white, when in reality there are shades of grey.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Comments? Email JScarborough@msnbc.com
    Watch “Scarborough Country” Mon.-Thu. at 9 p.m. ET on MSNBC-TV

    Aug. 21, 2006 | 9:26 a.m. ET

    Keep Bush away from the press


    The Washington Post ran an article that talked about the growing discontent among some conservatives regarding George W. Bush and his not-so-conservative administration. Last week’s Scarborough Country segment that asked whether our president was an idiot, as pop tart Linda Ronstadt suggested, got heavy play in the Post piece.

    Asking whether our President is mentally engaged in the job is an important question to ask. With al Qaeda back in the headlines, Iraq deteriorating, Hezbollah in rapid ascent, Iran defying the world, Israel in turmoil, Afghanistan in crisis mode and North Korea behaving more recklessly every day, President Bush needs to assure America and the world that he is intellectually engaged.

    Still, I am uncomfortable asking these questions of any president, especially this one.

    I voted for George Bush twice and would do it again if Al Gore and John Kerry were once again the alternatives. I spent a few hours alone with President Bush on Air Force One. He was likable and sharp.

    I have met more than a few world leaders and I can tell you our President seemed as mentally equipped as most leaders I have met.

    But the George Bush of 2006 seems to be a far cry from the man I spoke with in 2001, or the back-slapping governor who charmed the hell out of me when I visited him in the Texas governor’s mansion in 1999.

    These days the President seems distracted, disjointed and dumbed-down in press conferences. His jokes fall flat and are often inappropriate.

    And like Reagan, George W. Bush seems to be getting worse with age instead of better.

    When teenage boys misbehave, I blame their fathers. When presidents come up short, I blame their staffs.

    In the case of Bush I wonder whether there no one in the West Wing that can tell their boss he needs to spend more time in front of a teleprompter and less time watching ESPN.

    Has anyone told him that making jokes about pig roasts after being asked about the bombing of the Beirut airport is not how a Commander in Chief acts in front of the international press corps?

    Has anyone considered keeping the President away from the press altogether if he is no longer up to the task of answering questions?

    I’m serious.

    If George Bush has lost his ability to give a commanding presser, then stage manage him differently. Play to his strengths. Control Bush like Deaver controlled Reagan. Show him only in settings where he is in control.

    It will provide comfort to our friends and let our enemies know that this President has what it takes to lead America’s War on Terror.

    Right now, this President cannot afford to bumble his way across the world stage. He needs to be seen as a strong, confident leader capable of managing the greatest foreign policy crisis since the Cold War.

    That burden falls as much on the President’s staff as it does on the President himself.

    ReplyDelete
  92. From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray and Huma Zaidi

    As we've written before, in making their case that the US economy is strong, Bush and GOP officials tend to focus on the nation's unemployment rate. "Five-point-five million jobs created since 2003" is the Administration economic rallying cry, and the Bush tax cuts are their stated reason for low unemployment. The trouble is, as we also have written before, jobs are no longer the pressing economic concern they were in the 1990s. Many Americans are now using other standards to measure their own circumstances and how the overall economy is performing, including wages relative to inflation, the cost of gas and health care, and home values. In the most recent NBC/Journal poll from late July, 40% ranked gas prices as the most important economic issue facing the country; unemployment rated near the bottom with 5%.

    Over the next two days, listen for what Bush might say to address the list of traditional economic "truths" which, to many Americans, no longer seem quite so true: that if you work hard, you'll get ahead; that health insurance will keep you from going bankrupt over medical costs; that owning a home is a means to financial security; that real estate and stock investments always increase in value; that Social Security will always be there; that your company retirement fund is safe; and, that your children will face a brighter future than you. Until the Administration focuses on these concerns, it seems unlikely that Americans are going to see eye to eye with them on a strong US economy.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Wednesday, August 23
    Op-Eds: Floyd, Fisher, Weiner, Ireland, and Mickey Z.

    8/10 Terror Plot Unravels: Pakistanis find no evidence against ‘terror mastermind’, Chris Floyd

    Wow, who would have thought it? You mean there might be less than meets the eye about the Great London Bomb Plot, when George W. Bush singlehandedly foiled the imminent death of thousands of people by using his super-president powers of warrantless wiretapping? (That is how the story is being pitched by Bush minions like the cadaverous Michael Chertoff and the chubby-cheeked enabler of torture Al Gonzales, right?) But if even the CIA's old running buddies in the Pakistan secret services can't wring enough plausible evidence out of Rauf with their renowned methods of information extraction, could it be that the whole great googily-moogily is about to unravel? Wise man William Blum has this take:...

    ReplyDelete
  94. Tuesday, August 22
    Op-Eds: The Latest From Carter, Miller, Uhler, Ostroy, and Pringle.

    Our Anti-Democratic Government: The Bush Administration Assault on the Twin Pillars of Our Democracy, Ivan Carter

    The Constitution's limitation upon the powers of government, and its separation of powers and system of checks and balances thereunder, serve as the basic structure of our democracy. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's approach has been to subvert these processes to its own belief as to how government should be run. At the same time, while information serves as the lifeblood of democracy, the Bush Administration's approach, when it comes to governmental information of any sort, has been to subvert this principle as well; once again, to its own beliefs. This time, regarding what information, and in what context, the public, and even Congress, should know. The result has been an extraordinary assault...on the subtle underpinnings of what in effect constitute our democracy, and make America, America.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Fear and Loathing in the Occident: Why Do We Hate Them?, Jason Miller

    Islamophobia is a mental and spiritual affliction. And our Western ruling elites bear the responsibility for inflicting it upon the psyches of the masses. Now that the Stalinist/Maoist regimes have collapsed or evolved toward capitalism and no fascist states with imperial ambitions exist (besides the United States and its few allies), the American Empire needed to find a new "enemy” to replace Stalinists and Nazis.
    Much of the soft power employed by the leaders of America’s “top down democracy” stems from psychological manipulation of “the mob”. Mobilization of the masses against a common enemy “threatening the very existence of the American Way” has long been a staple in the United States’ ruling elites’ ongoing push to monopolize the world’s wealth, power, and prestige. And who better to vilify than Islamic people? Many are dark-skinned and live in developing nations, meaning their lives are inconsequential in the prevailing moral calculus of the West. The Middle East is predominately Islamic, its sands are oozing with crude oil, and it is home to Israel. From the perspective of the Empire, what better region to target than the Middle East?...

    ReplyDelete
  96. Letter: You Guys Are Patriots, Pac

    Thank you for your courageous, heartfelt website. Bush says that anyone who is not with HIM is with the terrorists. In other words: any dissent is treason. But to quote Thomas Jefferson: "To criticize those in power, is the highest form of patriotism." You brave souls at Bushwatch are the greatest patriots known to me.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Bush Blows It: Finally, American Gets Wise To Bush Terror Tactics (excerpts), Frank Rich

    THE results are in for the White House’s latest effort to exploit terrorism for political gain: the era of Americans’ fearing fear itself is over. In each poll released since the foiling of the trans-Atlantic terror plot — Gallup, Newsweek, CBS, Zogby, Pew — George W. Bush’s approval rating remains stuck in the 30’s, just as it has been with little letup in the year since Katrina stripped the last remaining fig leaf of credibility from his presidency. While the new Middle East promised by Condi Rice remains a delusion, the death rattle of the domestic political order we’ve lived with since 9/11 can be found everywhere: in Americans’ unhysterical reaction to the terror plot, in politicians’ and pundits’ hysterical overreaction to Joe Lieberman’s defeat in Connecticut, even in the ho-hum box-office reaction to Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center.”
    It’s not as if the White House didn’t pull out all the stops to milk the terror plot to further its politics of fear. One self-congratulatory presidential photo op was held at the National Counterterrorism Center, a dead ringer for the set in “24.” But Mr. Bush’s Jack Bauer is no more persuasive than his Tom Cruise of “Top Gun.” By crying wolf about terrorism way too often, usually when a distraction is needed from bad news in Iraq, he and his administration have long since become comedy fodder, and not just on “The Daily Show.” June’s scenario was particularly choice: as Baghdad imploded, Alberto Gonzales breathlessly unmasked a Miami terror cell plotting a “full ground war” and the destruction of the Sears Tower, even though the alleged cell had no concrete plans, no contacts with terrorist networks and no equipment, including boots.

    What makes the foiled London-Pakistan plot seem more of a serious threat — though not so serious it disrupted Tony Blair’s vacation — is that the British vouched for it, not Attorney General Gonzales and his Keystone Kops. This didn’t stop Michael Chertoff from grabbing credit in his promotional sprint through last Sunday’s talk shows. “It was as if we had an opportunity to stop 9/11 before it actually was carried out,” he said, insinuating himself into that royal we. But no matter how persistent his invocation of 9/11, our secretary of homeland security is too discredited to impress a public that has been plenty disillusioned since Karl Rove first exhibited the flag-draped remains of a World Trade Center victim in a 2004 campaign commercial. We look at Mr. Chertoff and still see the man who couldn’t figure out what was happening in New Orleans when the catastrophe was being broadcast in real time on television.

    No matter what the threat at hand, he can’t get his story straight. When he said last weekend that the foiling of the London plot revealed a Qaeda in disarray because “it’s been five years since they’ve been capable of putting together something of this sort,” he didn’t seem to realize that he was flatly contradicting the Ashcroft-Gonzales claims for the gravity of all the Qaeda plots they’ve boasted of stopping in those five years. As recently as last October, Mr. Bush himself announced a list of 10 grisly foiled plots, including one he later described as a Qaeda plan “already set in motion” to fly a hijacked plane “into the tallest building on the West Coast.”

    Dick Cheney’s credibility is also nil: he will always be the man who told us that Iraqis would greet our troops as liberators and that the insurgency was in its last throes in May 2005. His latest and predictable effort to exploit terrorism for election-year fear-mongering — arguing that Ned Lamont’s dissent on Iraq gave comfort to “Al Qaeda types” — has no traction because the public has long since untangled the administration’s bogus linkage between the Iraq war and Al Qaeda. That’s why, of all the poll findings last week, the most revealing was one in the CBS survey: While the percentage of Americans who chose terrorism as our “most important problem” increased in the immediate aftermath of the London plot, terrorism still came in second, at only 17 percent, to Iraq, at 28 percent.

    The administration’s constant refrain that Iraq is the “central front” in the war on terror is not only false but has now also backfired politically: only 9 percent in the CBS poll felt that our involvement in Iraq was helping decrease terrorism. As its fifth anniversary arrives, 9/11 itself has been dwarfed by the mayhem in Iraq, where more civilians are now killed per month than died in the attack on America. The box-office returns of “World Trade Center” are a cultural sign of just how much America has moved on. For all the debate about whether it was “too soon” for such a Hollywood movie, it did better in the Northeast, where such concerns were most prevalent, than in the rest of the country, where, like “United 93,” it may have arrived too late. Despite wild acclaim from conservatives and an accompanying e-mail campaign, “World Trade Center” couldn’t outdraw “Step Up,” a teen romance starring a former Abercrombie & Fitch model and playing on 500 fewer screens....

    ReplyDelete
  98. Friday, August 18...Next Update: Monday, August 21
    Blowback: Bush Policies Help The Terrorists (excerpts), Bob Herbert

    Almost three years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, Jessica Stern, who lectures on terrorism at Harvard, wrote in The New York Times that the U.S. had created in Iraq “precisely the situation the Bush administration has described as a breeding ground for terrorists: a state unable to control its borders or provide for its citizens’ rudimentary needs.” Ms. Stern went on to say, “As bad as the situation inside Iraq may be, the effect that the war has had on terrorist recruitment around the globe may be even more worrisome.”
    The situation has grown only worse since then. While Republicans are savoring the political possibilities of a foiled terror plot, the spiraling chaos in Iraq and other Bush administration policies are contributing mightily to the anger and radicalism in the Muslim world. Ms. Stern, the author of “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill,” said in an interview last week: “We’re in a world where Islamist terrorist leaders are teaching their followers that they have been humiliated. Well, first of all, it’s true that Islamic civilization has fallen behind economically, intellectually, politically. It was once the greatest civilization. That’s true. But the terrorist leaders teach their followers that not only is this humiliating, but somebody else is to blame — and that’s us. They say that we have deliberately set out to destroy the Islamic world and humiliate Muslims.”

    While it’s not true that the United States is trying to humiliate the Muslim world, said Ms. Stern, “I think that as we contemplate our policy remedies today, we also need to think about how they may ultimately be used by our terrorist enemies to recruit.” The debacle in Iraq, and inhumane policies like torture, rendition and the incarceration of Muslims without trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, serve only to strengthen the appeal of militants who are single-mindedly dedicated to the destruction of American lives.

    The U.S. needs to be much, much smarter in its efforts to counter this mortal threat. We should be focused like a laser on the fight against Al Qaeda-type terrorism. We need to ramp up our security efforts here at home. (Even as the terror plot in Britain was emerging, the Bush administration was trying to eliminate millions of dollars in funding for explosives-detection technology. Congress blocked that effort.) We need a new approach to foreign policy that draws on the wisest heads both here and abroad. And we need a strategy for withdrawal from Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Bush Diaries: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Birds of a Feather , Peter Clothier

    You're not going to like me for this, Bush, but I was watching the Mike Wallace interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sixty Minutes last night and I couldn't help but be struck by the qualities you share in common. Struck and, frankly, deeply disturbed. You don't believe me? Well, here's what I saw: I saw a man of cocky self-assurance, willing to shoot off his mouth at the slightest provocation, alternately bellicose and charming in an awkward, slightly sinister way, unable to listen, and sensitive to the slightest suggestion of criticism. Okay? And then there was the same glib dismissal of the possibility of any point of view other than his own, the same prejudicial partisanship, the same nationalistic arrogance, same readiness to exculpate his friends and castigate his enemies, and the same propensity to ward off serious questions with a jibe and the same sly mockery of the questioner. Same grin, hiding the same anger--in my judgment--and the same discomfort with himself as a public figure. Oh, and he had to close the interview because it was time to get off to his prayers....

    ReplyDelete
  100. It's the Busheviks Who are Terrorizing America , Andy Ostroy

    We are indeed in a war with terrorists. We are being terrorized by the Bush administration. Playing the only political card they have left, the Busheviks have moved the war on terror to the top of their agenda, using VP Dick Cheney, RNC chair Ken Mehlman, Congressman, Senators, media spinners and the president himself to scare the bajeesus out of America in a desperate and pathetic attempt to repeat their successes of '02 and '04. Although we're not sure for how long, the thwarted British terror plot last week breathed new life into a dead presidency and gave the Republican-controlled Congress reason to believe they could retain power. But two new polls out last week spell serious t-r-o-u-b-l-e for Repugs, and as a result we can expect more and more political terrorizing here at home between now and November....

    ReplyDelete
  101. Bush is a dangerous moron. The man is frightening, he's on speed or uppers. I'm serious, this man is not good for America. He has ruined our country. Anyone who defends Bush is guilty of treason.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hey James, good to have you back!

    ReplyDelete
  103. #1. Bush made a deal with Osama and shut down the Saudi bases. That's why he doesn't think about Osama anymore.

    #2. Bush says we don't negotiate with our enemies! Oh really? You have to negotiate with your enemies; you HAVE TO! We negotiate with Libya, with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, with everyone! Carpet bombing people is evil, unChristian and wrong.

    #3. By wiretapping us without a court order or any legality around it, Bush has made us all feel stifled when speaking on the phone, especially if we don't like the president. He has "chilled America's freedom." We don't even represent the FREEDOM anymore. What's the point of our country? ARE WE FREE? That's why the Supreme Court NEVER allows wiretapping without a court order. Bush is insane.

    #4. Did you hear Bush say that he is never leaving Iraq while he's president? This means he never intended the war to end or succeed. That's why they are building huge embassies there. this is "empire building."

    Do republicans think this is a conservative agenda that helps america? We were attacked on Sept. 11 because of being on their holy land and corrupting the Saudis with Western materialism. So you think we're gonna be safe now that we're building permanent bases in Iraq? We are taunting them, and taking over their country.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Lydia said "Did you hear Bush say that he is never leaving Iraq while he's president? This means he never intended the war to end or succeed. That's why they are building huge embassies there. this is "empire building.""

    exactly Lydia, the opulent embasy/military compound he is building speaks volumes, iraq is to be his imperial base in the Middle East he has no intention of leaving.

    ReplyDelete
  105. James, on what basis is your statement that Bush is on uppers?

    ReplyDelete
  106. James, did you get that little gem from the same person who told Lydia that Rumsfeld was blackmailing Bush and Cheney?

    ReplyDelete
  107. James, do you have a white van outside your house as well?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld ever young? I don't recall a time when they were and I think I know why. Without men like Bush to take the heat for them, they wouldn't be able to thrive like the human bacteria that they are.

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


    I don't know about carpeting the whole world, I was thinking we need to PAVE it.

    "#2. Bush says we don't negotiate with our enemies! Oh really? You have to negotiate with your enemies; you HAVE TO! We negotiate with Libya, with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, with everyone! Carpet bombing people is evil, unChristian and wrong."
    -Lydia


    Honestly Lydia, in order to "negotiate" you must be willing to concede something. (give and take)

    What would be an aceptable consession to someone who wants us dead and thinks if he kills us he's going to heaven where he'll be rewarded with 72 virgins?

    (I don't know why their so fixated on that anyway. I prefer women who've read the owners manual and know how to use the equipment.)


    "Sometimes I wonder what our purpose is as I know there are no absolutes to any of lifes difficult questions; everything seems to be a catch 22."
    -Johnny Moo Moo


    Johnny, I forgot one thing last night. DEFIANCE. That's an absolute as well.
    I feel unfairly put upon by the universe, and simply getting up every morning and perservering is my way of flipping the bird to the universe.


    "Watching such displays, it seems our purpose is conflict and power, therefore, whats the purpose of the purpose? Never-ending conflict in a lust for power where there are no absolutes....strange!?"
    -Jonny Moo Moo


    You have to look deeper Johnny. It's ALL womens fault. Why do men seek power and money?

    TO GET AND IMPRESS THE CHICKS.




    Sorry for the batch post but works keeping me pretty busy right now and I'm trying to catch up.....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  110. Jurassic, Nice advertising.

    Tried paying Google?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Someone was talking about bush being "hyped up on meds" or something on the radio today. They say, just watching him that he's acting strange, super chatty, too animated. Then something about lifting his leg and letting out gas, some joke about being nervous when he's asked serious questions. and when he rubbed the German female leader's shoulders and ate like a pig with his mouth full, talking like a hick. Even if he was on anti-depressants they are mind-altering. Read "Bush on the Couch."

    ReplyDelete
  112. Lydia, how would you have bargained with Hitler? Would you have called off the the dogs of war if he agreed to reduce his slaughter of the Jews by 50%?

    Seriously, how would you have "reached out" to Hitler?

    ReplyDelete
  113. So, James, let me get this straight: Bush is on uppers and he is eating like a pig?

    Is that how you want to leave it?

    ReplyDelete
  114. TT, I'm not sure even Hitler is a good comparisson. Hitler was more into eugenics. These guys are in it for salvation.

    To elaborate on what I posted to Lydia, If YOU were the terrorist and I wanted to negotiate, WHAT could I possibly offer you that you would turn down eternal paradise for?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Wowie zowie,Mike must have taken cut and paste lessons from Cliffy,he's been a busy little beaver tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Well, Voltaire, Lydia didn't seem to mind, since she read that post and left a comment. Why should you, then?

    Weren't you supposed to be dead, like a coupla hundred years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  117. I am going to publish more thoughts about this in my own web blog (robdon33.blogspot.com), regarding Criminal Bush and a story that, well, if you are or were from El Paso like I am (and Lydia as well), I'm sure you may have heard of Steve Crosno. Steve passed away earlier this month of kidney failure at the age of 66. Details will be forthcoming.

    Enjoy the week, friends.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Return to Kandahar: The Taliban threat

    Nelofer Pazira, the journalist who starred in the film 'Kandahar', has gone back to the southern Afghan city for the first time in four years. There she found residents living in fear as Islamic insurgents extend their deadly reach still deeper into the country
    21 August 2006

    Fear permeates Kandahar. Eyes watch every passer-by, every car. Everyone is suspect. People shrink away from me when I ask to interview them. They run when they see a camera. The few brave souls who agree to talk do so either anonymously or because they are desperate.

    There is no war, no shooting, no rockets. At least not yet, although the Taliban wave is reconquering Afghanistan, and fighting is spreading through Kandahar province.

    Only a few months ago, the city of Kandahar was on the road to prosperity. Newly-paved streets with proper signs - one even named after Queen Soraya, wife of the 1920s reformer King Amanullah Khan - a park with a playground for children and several smart guesthouses were part of the new image. Near the Kandahar market, the foundations of many new modern buildings and houses had been laid.

    (snip)

    "The Americans abandoned Afghanistan," says Mr Hikmat. "When they were around, people were making money. The Taliban had run away but they were not defeated and the Americans knew that too. Yet the US decreased the number of its troops."

    Then it was announced Nato would replace the US forces, a decision which encouraged the Taliban. People in Kandahar talk about a power vacuum of which the Taliban took full advantage. They had five years to organise and returned in force.

    "Now the Taliban are everywhere," says Alia, a nurse in Kandahar's Polyclinic Hospital. She returned from Pakistan four years ago in the hope of living and working in Kandahar and made her home in the Khoshal Mena neighbourhood, a short distance from the city centre.

    (snip)

    In the Panjwai district of Kandahar province, the Taliban have even been using loudspeakers, taunting Canadian troops to attack them. In the past week, Canadian soldiers travelled to Panjwai but can only hold the city centre.

    In Panjwai, 30km west of Kandahar, where fighting began two weeks ago, 71 Taliban fighters died during the weekend in running battles with Nato and Afghan forces after an attack on government headquarters, according to officials.

    Maiwand, the site of a great British military defeat during the Second Afghan War in 1778-1880, is now the seat of resistance to the government, and Nato.

    (snip)

    Where is all this power and money coming from? A member of a religious group, Wakil Sahib, accuses neigbouring Pakistan. "They don't want Afghanistan to be free and economically independent," he says. "They want to keep Afghanistan as their market.

    Saifullah, who is too frightened to identify his job, says everyone in Kandahar knows who created and supported the Taliban. "Pakistan, with the help of the US, originally created them -- and to this day they are providing them with weapons and money," he says.

    (snip)

    In Kandahar, they make a distinction between the old Pakistani-supported Taliban and the new forces of Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar was a well-paid CIA man during the Cold War, the much-feared leader of the Hizb-i-Islami (party of God) which brutalised the Kabul population before the Taliban. Some suspect that the CIA has called again on his services.

    Of course, there are more conspiracy theories than facts. But the reality is that fear dominates every aspect of life here. "It would be easier to live under the full control of one or another government, be it the Taliban or a US-supported Afghan government," says Rafi. "But this is like living in purgatory."

    If the Americans leave, Kandahar will fall in a week. That's what people in the city's bazaar say - and they are the ones who know the Taliban and al-Qa'ida.

    In the crowded streets, where shops are filled with goods imported from Pakistan, Iran and China, where young boys sell large square blocks of ice and bottled water, foreigners are no longer welcome.

    No Nato patrol can pass through here. "They are too scared to come to this area," says my guide Ahmedallah. So the Taliban don't attack the market because there are no foreigners - or perhaps, as the Kandaharis claim, because this place is their nest. Kandahar is lost.

    ReplyDelete
  119. That story is WHY I was and am against the STUPID invasion of Iraq taking assets and personnel away from the war against Al Quaeda, and the Taliban. They are the people who created the terrorists network, trained the terrorists in Afghanistan, funded their plans and set up, and funded their training inside the US right up to the day of 9-11. They are the very same people who planned the bomb plot the British broke up this August. They are the people who want to use airplanes to attack the US. But for some reason Bush, Cheney and Dumsfeld see Iraq as a bigger problem (in 2002 and now). Instead of FOCUSING on those who actually attacked the US on 9-11

    The people we are fighting are the very same people who fought the Soviets to a standstill, and eventually stood in Afghanistan watched the Soviets retreat. Don't you think they might try the very same tactics that perservered over the Soviet Union a couple of decades ago? The same tactics which broke the spirit of the soviet military, and sent home soviet soldiers in flag drapped coffins. The Afghan rebels that we supplied and funded in to 1980's morphed into the Taliban and alQuaeda today. They have NOT changed in their asperations or tactics...but WE seem to have forgotten That. We ignore what they do, how they do it and HOW they defeated the Soviets strategically. The US leadership pretends that the efforts they are making in Afghanistan are stabilising a country. The reality on the ground is the opposite. The Taliban is slowly returning to their old strongholds, and reconquring the countryside. By never dealing directally with the poppy crop problem we GAVE them that issue to expliot. By not assisting the people of the country in recovering a improving life, we have left them open to the tactics of the Taliban.

    Just as our New Orleans approach to rebuilding Iraq has caused the vacuum the insurgency has exploited. The lack of any real reconstruction efforts have left the people of Afghanistan to groups of Taliban to exploit them. The Israeli's are fighting the same problem with hezbollah in Lebanon, the group they attempt to defeat are the people that aid the local population with social services, security, and logistical support. If the groups that the US and their allies are fighting are the same groups the locals turn to for life supporting services and security, then just as in Vietnam we are losing the battle for their hearts and minds. If you lose that battle; jet bombers, heilocopter gunships, tanks, bullets, security checkpoints, security sweeps, pacification efforts and sound bites will work no better in Iraq and afghanistan in 2006 then they did in Vietnam in 1970.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Two views from Israel...which one actually reflects the reality of the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah?

    Kenneth Besig summarized the feelings of many Israelis in his comments in the Jerusalem Post:

    “Fewer than 5,000 poorly-armed Hezbollah terrorists stood off the mighty IDF for over a month. An Islamic terrorist gang with no tanks, no artillery, no fighter jets, no attack helicopters, and just a few RPG’s and rifles held to a standstill nearly 30,000 crack IDF troops with the finest tanks, the best artillery, the fastest and most advanced fighter-jets and attack helicopters in the world. And they can still empty our northern communities with their rockets whenever they want. If that is not a victory, then the word has no meaning.”

    Eli Yishai, Vice Prime Minister, sums up the current thinking in the Olmert administration:

    “No army in the world is more moral than the IDF….We cannot be bleeding hearts while our citizens are being hurt. If Lebanese citizens pay the price, they will rise up against Hezbollah. I have proposed that we damage infrastructure and flatten villages because Hezbollah personnel must know they are not immune. We should make it clear to them that all residents in villages from which firepower is launched at IDF soldiers will be warned and required to leave their homes in 48 hours. And later these villages will be bombed from the air. That policy would have assured that Lebanese citizens would not permit Hezbollah to live next to them.” (Haaretz)

    Isn’t this the same flawed-logic that led to “shock and awe”? What gives people like Yishai and Olmert such confidence in violence when it hasn’t worked in 40 years of occupation?


    Seems the Israeli government is as much a reality challanged entity as the PNAC neo-con FOOLES in DC, and thus, they achieve the same failed results. (While claiming victory..or mission acomplished).

    ReplyDelete
  121. BTW time for another terror alert....

    Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut


    Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont are in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in Connecticut according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among likely voters in November, 44% say they would vote for Lieberman, 42% say they would vote for Lamont, 3% say they would vote for Alan Schlesinger, and 11% are undecided.


    Sorry dead eye, but people in Connecticut do not seem to like being called terrorist symphatizers. But then again you NEVER let a little thing like the truth get in your way of bloviating political spin have you? (BTW you could always invite Ned to go hunting with you.)

    ReplyDelete
  122. This from Josh Marshall at Talking points Memo;

    Following up on my earlier post about poll numbers, there's one point I left implicit where I should have stated it explicitly.

    I said before that partisan polls (ones commissioned by one of the candidates or the candidate's party) are inherently suspect. The reason is not that these polls are necessarily flawed or cooked, though they can be. The problem with them is that a partisan poll only gets released when it's good for the candidate who sponsors it.

    So, hypothetically, a candidate could commission three polls, get a range of results and only release the one which shows him doing the best, a reading that's likely an outlier and thus misleading.

    Of late, we've been seeing lots of (D) partisan polls. And that's, as I said, because the Dems are the ones who have an interest in showing how close a lot of these races are.

    The point I didn't mention is this: the normal response when one candidate puts out a poll favorable to him or herself is for the other side to go into the field and (if they can) and get a better number to release. And back in July they did just that. According to Roll Call (sub. req), the NRCC dropped $450,000 to conduct polls in 28 competitive districts. The article was dated July 31st. And the polls were conducted "over a two-week period this month." In other words, the polling was almost certainly done at least a month ago.

    So far as I can tell, I've seen few if any of those polls. And it's not hard to figure out why.

    Cricket, cricket ...

    ReplyDelete
  123. How does a Kurdish politician in the Iraqi Parliment see the responsibility for the gassing of the Iraqi Kurds by saddam fall?

    Clueless at NPR: Kurds Blame Who?


    MADELEINE BRAND: If Saddam is found guilty, what kind of punishment would you like to see him receive?
    MAHMOUD OTHMAN: Well, I, uh, don't have anything specific. I think, uh, the court should decide on that. We hope there will be also information revealed about who helped Saddam. Many countries outside Iraq were helping Saddam when he committed these crimes. We hope those countries will be revealed. That's very important for our people.

    BRAND: Which countries do you suspect helped him?

    OTHMAN: Well, uh, United States first. Soviet Union. The European countries -- Germany -- some other European countries, and some companies who, they gave him material -- they say they are giving these materials for agriculture but he used -- he made chemical weapons of them -- and they knew about it so, I think those companies and those countries should be held responsible, and they should compensate our people and the victims of those tragic operations for life. They have a responsibility towards them.

    BRAND: Do you think the United States has a responsibility?

    OTHMAN: Yes, definitely, because they were very friendly to him at that time and, uh, they were helping him and everything. Because he was in war with Khomeini, and they thought Khomeini was the main enemy, and they should help Saddam against him.

    BRAND: Iran's leader, Ayotollah Khomeini.

    OTHMAN: Yes.

    BRAND: (draws deep breath) Well -- but -- you're not saying that the US facilitated the massacre of the Kurds, are you?

    OTHMAN: They are indirectly responsible because they knew that those weapons are in the hands of Saddam, and Saddam is using them, and when he used them to kill all those people the US government didn't do anything. They are indirectly, yes, responsible for what happened.


    Remember this is a KURD(our friends) speaking. They are the same people we provided cover(the northern no fly zone) for. They needed cover after we no longer were helping Saddam attack them(Like Reagan and Bush41 did). We were looking for somebody to oppose him(Saddam, because now he was bad). We had selected him to oppose the Iranians after they threw out another person(the Shah) we chose. This was done inside Iran(in 1953 when the CIA over threw a democratically elected government to install the Shah) to oppose the Soviet Union(our enemy back then)....kind of like wheels inside wheels, but just a bit more confusing because we do not seem to learn that our selecting people, and countries as proxies, has BLOWBACK

    ReplyDelete
  124. Volt said

    "You have to look deeper Johnny. It's ALL womens fault. Why do men seek power and money?

    TO GET AND IMPRESS THE CHICKS."


    LOL :D


    Kinda deep Volt, obviously I overlooked this scenario. And we both know the chicks love this stuff. But you forgot to mention your philosophy does not include fat chicks......most important!

    ReplyDelete
  125. BTW Volt, Prophet of Doom is nowhere to be found in any of Canadas libraries. I reserved it through inter-library loan.

    I,ll put on my fresh laundered turban and waddle down to the library....Im sure I can find something similiar.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Rob - thank you for your post. I just posted a comment on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  127. CLIF posted something of vital importance here, so don't bury it:

    "How does a Kurdish politician in the Iraqi Parliment see the responsibility for the gassing of the Iraqi Kurds by saddam fall?

    Clueless at NPR: Kurds Blame Who?


    MADELEINE BRAND: If Saddam is found guilty, what kind of punishment would you like to see him receive?
    MAHMOUD OTHMAN: Well, I, uh, don't have anything specific. I think, uh, the court should decide on that. We hope there will be also information revealed about who helped Saddam. Many countries outside Iraq were helping Saddam when he committed these crimes. We hope those countries will be revealed. That's very important for our people.

    BRAND: Which countries do you suspect helped him?

    OTHMAN: Well, uh, United States first. Soviet Union. The European countries -- Germany -- some other European countries, and some companies who, they gave him material -- they say they are giving these materials for agriculture but he used -- he made chemical weapons of them -- and they knew about it so, I think those companies and those countries should be held responsible, and they should compensate our people and the victims of those tragic operations for life. They have a responsibility towards them.

    BRAND: Do you think the United States has a responsibility?

    OTHMAN: Yes, definitely, because they were very friendly to him at that time and, uh, they were helping him and everything. Because he was in war with Khomeini, and they thought Khomeini was the main enemy, and they should help Saddam against him.

    BRAND: Iran's leader, Ayotollah Khomeini.

    OTHMAN: Yes.

    BRAND: (draws deep breath) Well -- but -- you're not saying that the US facilitated the massacre of the Kurds, are you?

    OTHMAN: They are indirectly responsible because they knew that those weapons are in the hands of Saddam, and Saddam is using them, and when he used them to kill all those people the US government didn't do anything. They are indirectly, yes, responsible for what happened.

    Remember this is a KURD(our friends) speaking. They are the same people we provided cover(the northern no fly zone) for. They needed cover after we no longer were helping Saddam attack them(Like Reagan and Bush41 did). We were looking for somebody to oppose him(Saddam, because now he was bad). We had selected him to oppose the Iranians after they threw out another person(the Shah) we chose. This was done inside Iran(in 1953 when the CIA over threw a democratically elected government to install the Shah) to oppose the Soviet Union(our enemy back then)....kind of like wheels inside wheels, but just a bit more confusing because we do not seem to learn that our selecting people, and countries as proxies, has BLOWBACK

    2:40 AM

    ReplyDelete
  128. Lydia, who the hell cares? During the Cold War, the United States had different interests and different friends.

    Let me ask you this: are you more comfortable now that that mad man Saddam Hussein, because of President Bush, no longer posesses those weapons, or would you rather that Saddam was still in power and still posessing VX nerve gas?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Tiny inTellect said;

    Let me ask you this: are you more comfortable now that that mad man Saddam Hussein, because of President Bush,

    OUT RIGHT LIE, no other way to put it son. Saddam lost his WMD's back in the 1990's when Hussain Kamel gave it up in Jordan, and the UN inspectors went to the places Kamel identified and destroyed them. David Kay has basically verified this, when he said there were no new weapons to be found, and IF anyone should now he should. He was there inspecting for the UN in the 90's, and he was there after the invasion inspecting for the US.

    Bush had NOTHING to do with the destruction of the weapons Saddam had back when Reagan and Bush41 aided him in getting them, and turned their back when Saddam used them on both the Iranians and Kurds.


    no longer posesses those weapons,

    See above...Bush is not the proximate cause of Saddams loss of his WMD's

    or would you rather that Saddam was still in power and still posessing VX nerve gas?

    Something that he lost in the 1990's...well thank the UN and Bill Clinton's working in concert with the UN for that son.

    Saddam had no weapons created after the 1998 bombing of his WMD centers, the sanctions had cut off his supply of equipment and supplies to produce those weapons.

    So spin your repug bullsh*t but it is just that.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Wrong, Clif. Bill Clinton and many Democrats stated that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because of WMDs.

    ReplyDelete
  131. But me thinks that your anger with Lydia's post has MORE to do with the fact that the Kurd, who is supposed to thank the US for "protecting" them. But instead he is tarring Reagan and Bush41 with the same crimes they NOW have Saddam in court in Baghdad for. Saddam for the actual act, Reagan and Bush41 as enabling him to do it, and allowing him to get away with it. That would mean that Bush43 is trying to clean up Reagan and Bush41's mess. And it would mean they approved of the crimes that Bush43 and the neo-cons now decry....some of the very same people who aided and abetted Saddam in the 1980's.

    Which of course makes them kind of look like HYPOCRITES(at best) doesn't it son?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Tiny inTellect said...

    Wrong, Clif.

    NO son...RIGHT...they did find his WMD just where Hussain Kamel said it would be. and they did destroy it then...and Bill Clinton did Bomb his manufacturing sites...and the sanctions DID keep Saddam from getting the equipment and supplies to reconstitute those factories and start making WMD again.


    Bill Clinton and many Democrats stated that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because of WMDs.


    Based on cherry picked intel, mostly from the DOD office run by Douglas Feith...which has been discredited....and today most of them say the INtell was wrong...and had they KNOWN the truth they would not have gone for the war..

    Bill Clinton ..well he is a moderate democrat who right now is attempting to triangulate the political world for Hillary's run in 2008, hopefully he will get called on the carpet for this just as the repugs called him out on his lie.

    Too bad the repugs do not hold Bush to the same standards of truth as they held Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  133. So, Clif, tell us, in your infinite wisdom (or in the depths of your ignorance), why Bill Clinton made it official United States policy to effect regime change in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Tiny inTellect said...

    So, Clif, tell us, in your infinite wisdom (or in the depths of your ignorance), why Bill Clinton made it official United States policy to effect regime change in Iraq.

    His official policy was NOTHING in common with Bush's except both wished Saddam would retire and leave with his sons.

    Regime change BASED on the IRAQI people doing the heavy lifting...NOT US troops invading.

    That I have and had no disagreement with...if the people in Iraq wanted to revolt against Saddam I was all for it, but JUST not illegally invading the country which had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda or their plan to attack the US on 9-11, and Had no WMD's in 2002-2003.

    Regime change bases on the East German model...Soviet model...Eastern Europe model...South African Model...Philippine model...GET THE HINT?

    No invasion...no insurgency...no civil war...NO FIASCO.

    And 2611 American Soldiers still alive...and almost 20,000 bodies still whole.

    And $350,000,000,000 saved. Which means borrowing less from china and the oil rich gulf states.

    ReplyDelete
  135. So, Clif, you are, on the one hand, saying that Bush "cherry picked" intelligence provided to him, but, on the other hand, Clinton's assesment was honest? Why? Because he is a Democrat?

    Oh yeah, I forgot, you Liberal Democrats just love double standards, like affirmative action. Mike loves affirmative action as well, but that's another story.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Democrats for Regime Change

    By Stephen F. Hayes
    The Weekly Standard | September 9, 2002


    THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

    Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

    "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

    The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

    These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

    But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.

    OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today.

    But not, apparently, if you're Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush administration for its failure to make the "public case" for military intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles.

    "What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam, Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. Dick Gephardt wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the administration hasn't presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well, everything.

    Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Emphasis added.)

    Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

    Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

    John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

    Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?

    Who knows? But if the president continues to run into stronger-than-expected resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill, he can always just recycle the arguments so many Democrats accepted in 1998:

    "Just consider the facts," Bill Clinton urged.

    "Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

    Clinton was on a roll:

    "Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

    Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "

    More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

    What more needs to be said?

    *

    Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Clif said: "His official policy was NOTHING in common with Bush's except both wished Saddam would retire and leave with his sons."

    Really? How do you reconcile that statement with Clinton's statement, "We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

    ReplyDelete
  138. Notice when Clif gets checkmated he runs away and hides?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Tiny inTellect said...

    So, Clif, you are, on the one hand, saying that Bush "cherry picked" intelligence provided to him, but, on the other hand, Clinton's assessment was honest?

    No son...it was just that Clinton NEVER even tried to invade, instead he wanted the Iraqis to take their country.


    Why? Because he is a Democrat?


    No son he was not sending troops into harms way on the flimsy evidence he had....unlike Bush-Cheney who had the Intel cherry picked to fit their policy.

    Oh yeah, I forgot, you Liberal Democrats just love double standards,

    Not a DOPUBLE standard son. It is simply accepting the fact that Clinton looked at all the evidence and decided that invading by US troops was NOT warranted, where as Cheney and the PNAC crowd decided when Clinton was president they wanted to...so when the seized the reigns of power...they fixed the intel...Ignoring anything that did not enhance their case FOR invasion..and Hyping that which did.

    like affirmative action.

    real nice attempt at a diversion there BOY.

    However you less than honest slime attack does deserve some sort of response.

    400 years or direct discrimination both through slavery and Jim Crow, and indirect by code worded attacks does warrant some sort of remedy. Affirmative action may be not prefect..but it does attempt to level the playing field after the 400 years that preceded it.

    Mike loves affirmative action as well, but that's another story.


    which I will leave for him to defend....since he seemds quite capable of defending

    ReplyDelete
  140. Tiny inTellect said...

    Clif said: "His official policy was NOTHING in common with Bush's except both wished Saddam would retire and leave with his sons."

    Really? How do you reconcile that statement with Clinton's statement, "We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."


    I seem to remember a 4 day bombing canmpaign, which the repugs in congress and their talkingn heads Howled at...and NO invasion.

    Clinton must not have included invasion as part of his military response.

    Especially after the PNAC letter in 1998 specifically asked him to invade..and he defered to a bombinmg campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Tiny inTellect posted a story by;

    Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

    Which is run by Bill Kristol..who is a PNAC foole who called for the invasion in a letter when Clinton was president..and ranted to defend Bush-Cheney as they lied and distorted the facts to invade Iraq in 2002 and early 2003.

    hell now he is calling for the invasion of Iran...but we have not the spare troops equipment, and national will to get into a THIRD war Bush has no Idea how to win...and plan for true victory....

    they story he posted was part of the repug spin machine in the ruin up to the invasion of Iraq which turned out not to be quite as true as bill, dead eye and the idiot in chief played it was.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Tiny inTellect said...

    Notice when Clif gets checkmated he runs away and hides?

    sorry son...but I was busy for a short while...however you have already been proven full of it, because my responmses are posted above this ONE.......son.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Attack Kristol all you want, but is the story false?

    ReplyDelete
  144. But just so you DO NOT accuse me of running...I have a medical appointment at the VA this afternoon...so will be there for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  145. McCain faults Bush administration on Iraq
    Americans led to believe war would be a ‘day at the beach,’ senator says

    AP Updated: 7:35 a.m. MT Aug 23, 2006
    COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican Sen. John McCain, a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be “some kind of day at the beach.”

    The potential 2008 presidential candidate, who a day earlier had rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. forces, said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military

    “I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required,” McCain said. “Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I’m just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be.”

    Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.

    Bush stood below a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003 after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The war has continued since then, with the death of more than 2,600 members of the U.S. military. Vice President Dick Cheney said last year that the Iraqi insurgency was “in its final throes.”

    The Arizona senator said that talk “has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.”

    Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the longer the U.S. stays the course in Iraq, “the weaker we’re going to be in the war on terrorism.”

    Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was glad to hear McCain has realized “we need more than tough talk” on Iraq.

    “It’s time we win the war on terror,” said Reid. “To do that we must change the course in Iraq.”

    DeWine said Congress would not have had the chance to authorize the war if the intelligence on Iraq’s military capability and intentions were accurate.

    “It would never have come up for a vote so it would have been an entirely different situation,” he said.

    ReplyDelete
  146. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Troll Tex said"Mike loves affirmative action as well, but that's another story."

    Typical repug lying and spinning falsehoods, not only is that an unsubstantiated fact, but it is a blatant outright lie since several days ago you made that claim and I responded to you that, that was not the case............and yet after I clearly stated my position you attempted to lie and deceive by stating otherwise obviously as a distraction from Clif cleaning your clock and beating your slimy troll a$$ into the ground.

    Face reality Troll Tex your clearly not smart enough to debate honestly particularly with all the lies your Neo Con Masters have boxed you into a corner with hence the lies and deception you must resort to, the only way you have a chance of refuting our arguments is if you dishonestly lie and reframe our arguments into postions that in no way resemble our actual positions so they are more easily attacked by a simpleton like you and your cronnies.

    Your time is over and your desperation is clearly showing.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Mike, what is your position on affirmative action?

    ReplyDelete
  149. TT i'm not abot to get into a long discussion on AA, I will say this though, at its inception when attitudes were different AA probably solved mpore problems than it created, I dont think that is the case today, as it creates a kind of reverse discrimination where jobs dont go to the most qualified they go a a person based on filling a quota or avoiding a law suit.

    I think what we really need to focus on is seeing the minorities aquire the skills and education they need so they are among the most qualified then if discrimination occurs it needs to be dealt with severely enough so that it is a deterent for other corporations to engage in this type of behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  150. But just to make something clear Troll tex, DONT EVER create or infer my postion for me, its a slimy deceptive repug tactic and you would not like it done to you, in fact I believe you called it a "slippery Slope" when I threatened to give you a taste of your own medicine and do likewise.

    been visiting the Psychic Friends Network a little too much my little green friend, I wonder if your masters would approve of their easily distracted operative doing that on repug time.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Mikey,I'm guessing you're a proponnent of affirmative action because its helped you get a job a couple times.True?

    ReplyDelete
  152. So, Mike, is it fair to say that, like your hero, John Kerry, you were in favor of affirmative action before you were against it?

    No wonder you guys can't wil elections.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Lying and spinning again I see.

    See Troll Tex, over time things change and I think over 40 or 50 years it is reasonable for intelligent people to change their mind on things as society changes and new information comes in, it is the pig headed arogant "my way or the highway" ideologues like GWB that feel they are never wrong and dont like to look for the best solution or course of action but would rather bend and twist facts to fit their desired outcomes or twisted decisions and policies than change their policies, choose a new course of action or admit they are wrong.

    Changing course when new information comes in is a sign of intelligence not wealness or indeciveness as the repug spin machine chooses to portray it, being decisive is great if you are right but terrible if you are wrong and Bush has been proven wrong on almost everything.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Rustly the pathetic lying troll said "Mikey,I'm guessing you're a proponnent of affirmative action because its helped you get a job a couple times.True?"

    Hey genius did you not see that I dont support affirmative action, either you are too dumb to read or your a typical lying and spinning repug, I just said not 10 minutes ago I dont support AA and there you go trying to imply that I do.

    Typical pathetic repug troll trying to make everything about the bloggers instead of the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Mikey,I dont think you're ever voiced you stance on partial birth abortion.How do you feel about that issue?

    ReplyDelete
  156. How about a reduction in capital gaines taxes? The death tax? Assisted suicide?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Israel accused of war crimes in Lebanon
    Amnesty rights group cites violation of international law in recent incursion
    AP Updated: 7:53 p.m. MT Aug 22, 2006
    LONDON - Amnesty International on Wednesday accused Israel of war crimes, saying it broke international law by deliberately destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure during its recent war with Hezbollah guerrillas.

    The human rights group said initial evidence, including the pattern and scope of the Israeli attacks, number of civilian casualties, widespread damage and statements by Israeli officials "indicate that such destruction was deliberate and part of a military strategy, rather than 'collateral damage.'"

    The scale of the destruction was just extraordinary," said Amnesty researcher Donatella Rovera, who visited Lebanon during the war and co-authored the report.

    "There is clear evidence of disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks."

    The group urged the United Nations to look into whether both combatants, Israel and Hezbollah, broke international law.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Well Mikey,You got me,you're on top of your game.I'm impressed you were even able to talk about something other then the war.I think you're growing as a person.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Those damn Israeli's! I knew it, they actually bombed some buildings in Lebanon.Do you think there's a possibility this "Amnesty" rights group is perhaps just a shade left leaning and anti Israel? Could be.

    ReplyDelete
  160. My views on abortion mirror Lydia's while I dont condone abortion as a form of birthcontrol for the lazy or irresponsible I think the laws governing abortion are perfect just as they are.

    I think, considering tax cuts when we have record deficits is beyond assinine you clowns show me a surplus like Clinton and Ruben had then we'll discuss tax cuts but you guys have no excuses on the deficit as it was a repug congress and a repug president that mortgaged or county's future by spending money they dont have like drunken sailors.

    Let me ask you this Dusty would you still support the war in Iraq if it required a massive tax increase on the wealthy to "stay the course" how bout answer that one smart guy.

    ReplyDelete
  161. From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray and Huma Zaidi

    As we've written before, in making their case that the US economy is strong, Bush and GOP officials tend to focus on the nation's unemployment rate. "Five-point-five million jobs created since 2003" is the Administration economic rallying cry, and the Bush tax cuts are their stated reason for low unemployment. The trouble is, as we also have written before, jobs are no longer the pressing economic concern they were in the 1990s. Many Americans are now using other standards to measure their own circumstances and how the overall economy is performing, including wages relative to inflation, the cost of gas and health care, and home values. In the most recent NBC/Journal poll from late July, 40% ranked gas prices as the most important economic issue facing the country; unemployment rated near the bottom with 5%.

    Over the next two days, listen for what Bush might say to address the list of traditional economic "truths" which, to many Americans, no longer seem quite so true: that if you work hard, you'll get ahead; that health insurance will keep you from going bankrupt over medical costs; that owning a home is a means to financial security; that real estate and stock investments always increase in value; that Social Security will always be there; that your company retirement fund is safe; and, that your children will face a brighter future than you. Until the Administration focuses on these concerns, it seems unlikely that Americans are going to see eye to eye with them on a strong US economy.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Wednesday, August 23
    Op-Eds: Floyd, Fisher, Weiner, Ireland, and Mickey Z.

    8/10 Terror Plot Unravels: Pakistanis find no evidence against ‘terror mastermind’, Chris Floyd

    Wow, who would have thought it? You mean there might be less than meets the eye about the Great London Bomb Plot, when George W. Bush singlehandedly foiled the imminent death of thousands of people by using his super-president powers of warrantless wiretapping? (That is how the story is being pitched by Bush minions like the cadaverous Michael Chertoff and the chubby-cheeked enabler of torture Al Gonzales, right?) But if even the CIA's old running buddies in the Pakistan secret services can't wring enough plausible evidence out of Rauf with their renowned methods of information extraction, could it be that the whole great googily-moogily is about to unravel? Wise man William Blum has this take:...

    ReplyDelete
  163. Tuesday, August 22
    Op-Eds: The Latest From Carter, Miller, Uhler, Ostroy, and Pringle.

    Our Anti-Democratic Government: The Bush Administration Assault on the Twin Pillars of Our Democracy, Ivan Carter

    The Constitution's limitation upon the powers of government, and its separation of powers and system of checks and balances thereunder, serve as the basic structure of our democracy. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's approach has been to subvert these processes to its own belief as to how government should be run. At the same time, while information serves as the lifeblood of democracy, the Bush Administration's approach, when it comes to governmental information of any sort, has been to subvert this principle as well; once again, to its own beliefs. This time, regarding what information, and in what context, the public, and even Congress, should know. The result has been an extraordinary assault...on the subtle underpinnings of what in effect constitute our democracy, and make America, America.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Fear and Loathing in the Occident: Why Do We Hate Them?, Jason Miller

    Islamophobia is a mental and spiritual affliction. And our Western ruling elites bear the responsibility for inflicting it upon the psyches of the masses. Now that the Stalinist/Maoist regimes have collapsed or evolved toward capitalism and no fascist states with imperial ambitions exist (besides the United States and its few allies), the American Empire needed to find a new "enemy” to replace Stalinists and Nazis.
    Much of the soft power employed by the leaders of America’s “top down democracy” stems from psychological manipulation of “the mob”. Mobilization of the masses against a common enemy “threatening the very existence of the American Way” has long been a staple in the United States’ ruling elites’ ongoing push to monopolize the world’s wealth, power, and prestige. And who better to vilify than Islamic people? Many are dark-skinned and live in developing nations, meaning their lives are inconsequential in the prevailing moral calculus of the West. The Middle East is predominately Islamic, its sands are oozing with crude oil, and it is home to Israel. From the perspective of the Empire, what better region to target than the Middle East?...

    ReplyDelete
  165. Clarke's Take On Terror
    What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror

    March 21, 2004CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

    The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

    "Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

    Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

    Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

    Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

    After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

    "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

    "Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

    "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

    Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

    Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

    "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

    "I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

    "He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

    Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

    "I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

    "We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

    "There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

    "I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

    Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

    For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

    Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

    "And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

    Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

    When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

    The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

    Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

    Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

    That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

    Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

    Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

    In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election

    ReplyDelete
  166. Mike,you need economics 101.The Clinton surplus was generated by a few different things none of which had to do with Clinton.Controlled spending by a republican congress,the internet bubble,low energy prices.Since 2000 the bubble burst,the country was attacked and yse we have a war,but the tax cuts have created record tax revenue,the lowest unemployment rates in years,record homeownership,record minority homeownership and if you checked recently the deficit has been halved the past two years.As for your question a "massive" tax increase is'nt necessary to stay the course but cutting spending is.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Terrorism experts as well as prominent repugs are all stating that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a clear distraction and detriment to the war on terror as well as keeping our citizens and country safe, Bush is using our limited resources to occupy Iraq and to enrich the wealthy elite rather than to weed out or catch the real terroists who attacke us, he has done nothing to secure our borders, has sold our ports to the very people he claims want to destroy us, then he admitted he doesnt think much about Osama the guy who masterminded the attack on us, he then disbanded the CIA unit whose job it was to catch Osama...........................................THAT DOESNT SOUND VERY TOUGH ON TERROR OR NATIONAL SECURITY TO ME, IT SOUNDS PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  168. Mike, are you doing your impression of Clif?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Richard Clarke,was'nt he the guy that got his knickers in a knot when he was passed over for a promotion and gently eased out the door? I doubt he has an ax to grind...duh.
    Mike,can you or Cliffy EVER cut and paste anything from some gereral who was'nt fired or a Richard Clarke or Joe Wilson type,guys who were either booted out for incompetence or were just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Mike,just who are these wealthy elite you're always talking about.Who are these people?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Mike,did I miss it,or has there been another attack on our soil since 2001?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Dusty, we still have a repug congress, so can we blame them for the deficit, and you claim the economy is phenomenal, so if its so phenomenal we cant blame the economy for the recoord deficits.

    As for the deficits being cut in half, thats repug spin there were many articles over the last 2-4 years stating that the repugs puposely overstated the defit projections and understated tax revenue projections so they would look good come election time.

    BTW, since there were high energy prices, a poor economy and the inflation causing after effects of increasing the money supply to fund the Vietnam war would it be safe to conclude by your logic that none of that was Jimmy Carters fault either, I mean if Clinton doesnt get credit for the success of his surplus and GWB doesnt take responsibility for his failure of running up the deficit I would think Carter would be innocent as well by your own logic of course Dusty.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Can you post anything that isnt repud spin or persnal attacks Dusty ?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Jimmy Carter...Viet Nam was long over by his term and Carter was just a terrible president,I mean no one argues that he was'nt the worst president of the 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
  175. What is a "persnal" attack? Is that some kind of kung foo move?

    ReplyDelete
  176. You guys just have a problem admitting that the economy is in fact doing quite well.If you'd take the time to watch a business show once in a while and it could be on CNN,PBS or Fox instead of comedy central or MSNBC or listening to Air America you may just learn something.I mean its hard to imagine all these people are wrong,is'nt it? Perhaps you and Cliffy know more then they do.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Dusty said "Richard Clarke,was'nt he the guy that got his knickers in a knot when he was passed over for a promotion and gently eased out the door? I doubt he has an ax to grind...duh.
    Mike,can you or Cliffy EVER cut and paste anything from some gereral who was'nt fired or a Richard Clarke or Joe Wilson type,guys who were either booted out for incompetence or were just plain stupid."

    Ah I see instead of posting facts to refute my arguments, you are a typical intellectualyt lazy lying repug spinmeister, you merely say anyone you disagree with has an axe to grind or is biased or incompetent..........when the majority of those people were experts in their fields and resigned out of frustration because of their higher ups incompetence and they were proven right.

    you are pathetic Dusty, you argue about military tactics and strategies like you know more than Generals and people like Clif who have actually served and were experienced commanders, and whats even worse is that even after those strategies and tactics have clearly failed you still franticlly and patheticall attempt to support them and discredit both experts and civillians who speak out against them, you are nothing more than a pathetic lapdog.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Try Hoover Dusty you know the guy who was pres during the depression, but I guarentee GWB will be the biggest failure of this century!

    ReplyDelete
  179. Dusty the Simpleton wrote "What is a "persnal" attack? Is that some kind of kung foo move?"

    typical repug troll focusing on the minutai like spelling and personal attacks instead of real issues
    because you have nothing left.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Clif and I have forgotten more about economics than you will know in your entire lifetime, when you are destroyed financially because of GWB stupid arrogant policies you will be among the first crying for you government to save you and bail you out, that is if you arent like many in the Great Depression who just put a gun to your head and end it because in your eyes if you dont have money you are nothing and your existence is empty.

    ReplyDelete
  181. dont forget Andrew Mellon who like a typical repug when the poor and middle class were suffering arrogantly proclaimed that recessions/depressions were good as they purged the rotteness out of the system.

    ReplyDelete
  182. You and Clif know about economics? Now there's a news flash.Not once and I mean once have you ever said anything remotely coherent pertaining to economics,you're way out of your league there partner,you're in deep water.If my memory serves me correctly,was'nt it you who about two months ago said your potfolio had gone up 400% in the past year and then did'nt know what a portfolio was? That was you was'nt it Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Lydia, this is off topic, but I was watching CNBC this morning and they mentioned about Viacom severing all ties with Tom Cruise because they didnt like his behavior.

    Now while I liked many of his moivies, I did not like his views or behavior either, but I dont think that would affect me seeing a movie that I wanted to see.

    Since you have many friends and ties to holywood, what is your opinion of this? I feel our country is becoming more and more of a police state where our actions are being monitored and controlled.

    Right after the Tom Cruise segment they did a segment where there is a push by government to put chips in our vehicles to monitor who we are, where we go, how fast we go etc..to me this just reeks of Big Brother and seems like a scam to spy on people and to collect revenue withour raising taxes on the wealthy, just think if they monitor where political rivals go or ticket everyone who speeds, pretty soon only the wealthy will be able to afford to speed or to buy sports cars or motorcycles that make it easy to speed.

    GWB clearly wants to turn our country into a police state where the omnipotent dictator can monitor EVERYTHING WE DO, to him the Constitution is ONLY A PIECE OF PAPER.........funny didnt he swear an oath to honor and uphold that piece of paper and the valuable freedoms it represents.

    ReplyDelete
  184. I said 400% the past 3 years Dusty

    ReplyDelete
  185. And yes,because Cliffy served 10 or so years as a supply officer it most certainly gives him the insight to cure all of americas military issues.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Did'nt the DOJ hack into you're computer a few weeks back? You must be on the list.For goodness sake dont go in for any minor surgery,they'll put a chip in you.

    ReplyDelete
  187. 400% in three years and you call the ecomony bad? That doesnt make sense.With that kind of return cable should ax that Dobbs and Kramer and give you one of those business shows picking stocks.

    ReplyDelete
  188. typical repug troll, you cant counter our arguments so you frantically and pathetically try to attack our credibility.

    look at your claim that clif is a supply officer blatant lie and totally pathetic you dont even know Clif yet you are disparaging his service and attacking his credibility with a lie, its your credibility that is an issue, you guys lie about everything.

    As for my computer being hacked its interesting that you fools are so intellectually challenged and cowardly that the only fights you have a chance of winning are the rigged ones hence you lock people out of the blog and hack their computers because you cant defeat or counter their arguments, I guess personal attacks and insults get kinda old after a while so you gotta try and silence those that make you look foolish and smash your spin and weak deceptive arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  189. No My thinking is very similar to kramers although he is more of a trader and I am more of a mid term investor IE 2-5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Mike, are you linking the Tom Crusie situation to your arguments that we have become a police state?

    I can see the argument if you are advacing the proposition that the government is doing something (not that I buy the arguement, but it is an argument), but private parties, e.g., Tom Cruise and Sumner Redstone, and their respective corporate represtatives and business organizations are non-governmental, and they can arrange their affairs any way they like (limited by the usual rules against discrimination, etc.).

    As a matter of fact, if someone has a business, they can fire someone for ALMOST ANYTHING. I could fire someone because I don't I thought they gave me a dirty look, or because their new boyfriend or girlfriend was someone I didn't like in grade school.

    ReplyDelete
  191. BTW Dusty since it is a fact that left wing blogs are being monitored by the Federal Government I have to ask that when due to lack of money and limited resources we essentially abandoned the war on terror in Afghanistan and disbanded the CIA unit tasked with capturing Bin Laden, and our troops dont have enough armor or equipment, and we dont have enough troops to fight the war properly and we dont have enough money to secure our borders and ports and there isnt enough money to fund Homeland Security and to pay the Meteorologists to provide more advanced warnings of hurricaines and other natural disasters, how can you justify paying federal workers to monitor liberal blogs...............................................................

    I mean Every other word out of Bush's mouth is how he is protecting us and keeping us safe, how then can he justify spending our limited budget and funding on monitoring and/or silencing people who disent with your political views rather than protecting our nation as he claims.

    Its ludicris, after all its not the liberals and progressives blowing up airplanes and killing our citizens, its the terrorists and yet.........despite all his rhetoric about protecting us and keeping us safe, Bush and his Neo Con Cronnies care more about politics and spying on their political enemies than protecting our nation, this is clearly evidenced by Bush using taxpayer funded resources to monitor Liberal Blogs instead of:

    1) Using our limited resources to weed out or capture Osama, Al Qaeda and The Taliban

    2) Better funding the CIA and other intelligence units tasked with capturing Osama and key Al Qaeda Members.

    3)Giving our troops adequate armour and equipment

    4) providing adequate troop levels to get the job done and insure our troops safety

    5)Securing our borders and ports

    6) better funding Homeland Security so they are better prepaired and able to respond to disasters both natural and terrorist related, and so they have better technology to combat terrorists like the machines that can detect explosive liquids and weapons of those boarding airplanes......................................call me crazy but I think that since it isnt liberals blowing up planes it would be far wiser to spend our limited funding in these areas instead of monitoring liberal blogs......unless of course you really didnt give a rats a$$ about keeping us safe and it was all spin, rhetoric and fear tactics to stay in power and power and politics is the real driving and motivating force behind everything you are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Come on Dusty and TT I challenge you to respond to my post about how you can justify using governmental resources funded by tax payers to monitor liberal blogs while limited resources can better be spent protecting our citizens, our troops and fighting the real terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  193. BTW, if we are becoming a police state, most of it has to do with technology. You say that private conduct is nobody's business, but think about health insurance. Even if you smoke in the privacy of your home, blood tests can tell if you have been smoking, and as a non-smoker, I would would prefer not to pay higher premiums for smokers.

    So, the new technology cuts both ways, but often the public reaction will dictate what a corporation does. Yes, now most cars have little chips, or mini-black boxes that can tell you everything about your driving. Invasion of privacy? Maybe, but it all depends on your perspective. About a year ago a rental car company penalized the renter for crossing state lines, against the rental agreement. If I recall correctly, the public reaction forced the company to rescind that policy. On the other hand, if you are a safe driver, perhaps you wouldn't mind a little chip that can prove exactly how fast you were going when the accident happened. On the other hand, if you are a real speed racer, then buy a car that doesn't have that chip and buy an insurance policy that won't record it.

    ReplyDelete
  194. TT I realized when I posted that I was not refering to just government my question in case you couldnt follow is do we feel our government and/or big business has the right to control us and invade our privacy and since Lydia still has many connections to hollywood I asked her perspective on this, although if you would like to give yours TT please feel free, however saying that our government and big business has the right to do what ever they please is not an answer Troll Tex!

    ReplyDelete
  195. Mike you dont make any arguments,neither does Cliffy,all you guys do is post inane opinions from left wing commentators,fired generals and Joe Wilson type morons and then constantly cry and moan about me or someone else making a supposed derogatory remark about you or Col.Klink.You two are lame.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Mike,how is it a fact that the government is monitoring liberal blogs,because you or air america said it is? Thats weak.

    ReplyDelete