Saturday, August 12, 2006

WE WILL WIN WAR ON TERROR by GETTING OUT OF IRAQ

WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO WAR IN IRAQ. THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST BLUNDER OF OUR LIVES.

REMEMBER: BUSH WANTED TO SELL OUR PORTS TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. Bush rules only by fear which is False Evidence Appearing Real. FEAR. He uses terrorist tactics on us, making us think he thwarted these terror attacks! Thanks to Britain and Pakistan who shared information that helped thwart the London terrorist plot. Bush only found out about this on Sunday, so the Republican spin machine has no right to say Democrats are soft on "terror" or getting out of Iraq will make us less safe. IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

STRENGTH LIES IN INTELLIGENCE. Democrats are stronger on terror because we know the value of human life. We will win the war on terror by gathering our forces and fortifying our homeland. By first bringing our troops home and strengthening our own borders, ports, airports and train stations and using our resources wisely. We can't afford to lose a single human life. We've lost over 2,600 troops, and another 16,000 missing arms and legs, and we've spent over 300 billion dollars on a war that has DEFINITELY CREATED MORE HATRED AND TERRORISM throughout the whole world against us.

Democrats will go out and communicate with our enemies: we will bridge the gap and open diplomatic channels. Syria, who was helping us right after 911 will be helping us again. Everyone wants to be on the side of the Peacemaker who brings a higher vision to conflict. In the time that George Bush and the Three Stooges have been in power, they have created more enemies than ever before in America's history. This is the most shameful time in our country. We must get these primitive self-serving oil barons and Neanderthals out of power before they destroy the world.
__________________________________
To NYTimes Editors
Re: the "liquid plane bomb threat." Two items from the massive press reporting do not ring true: 1) that the plotters go-ahead message "begin the attack now" would be sent without code words. No one is that dumb. And 2) How did the airlines know in advance to have thousands of clear plastic carry on baggies ready to distribute?
Plus there's the obvious political angle "Why just now?" which took away the democratic party's moment in the national spotlight with Ned Lamont's victory.

Garth Bishop, Los Angeles
_________________________________
BY ARIANNA HUFFINGTON:
At a time when the real enemies in the war on terror have reared their murderous heads (exploding shampoo? no need to sex that up), to hear Dick Cheney and company using illogical, over-the-top, fear-mongering rhetoric conflating Ned Lamont's victory with the war on terror is as deeply offensive as it is jaw-droppingly outrageous.

You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.

What Lamont's victory should really do is embolden Democrats to aggressively counterattack the Republicans' scare tactics nonsense. (It would help if the MSM reacted to the GOP drivel by treating it with the contempt it deserves instead of dutifully reporting it as if it contained even an ounce of logic or sanity.)

John Kerry effectively counterattacked the Republican's scare tactics nonsense today -- and every Democratic leader should do the same every day, without fail, until the message finally breaks through the static. The thwarted London attacks, said Kerry, "expose the misleading myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction... Nearly five years after the attacks of 9/11, we are not as safe as we can and must be... The 9/11 Commission's recommendations to secure our most vulnerable infrastructure remain virtually ignored. And homeland security funding has been cut for cities like Boston and New York."

One of the main reasons this has happened is that Congressional Democrats have failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for taking its eye off the national security ball in order to pursue its imperial adventure in Iraq. It's worth noting that the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is none other than Joe Lieberman, whose belief in bipartisan comity has kept him from holding the White House's feet to the fire. No wonder Karl Rove wanted to help him out, and Dick Cheney feels so concerned by his defeat.
Read more at HuffPo
_____________________________________

332 comments:

  1. Wow, your getting sneaky Lyd, I didnt even see the new thread till right now.

    seriously though, excellent points, I've been saying since January that the terrorists arent dumb they arent going to say "tomorow Allah will reign down fire and brimstone on the Infidels when we blow up the stadium at the Superbowl at 7:20PM, of course they talk in code and spying on every single phone call of 300 million Americans is a complete waste of resources not to mention illegal and a violation of our constitutional rights and privacy, not to mention what this information could be used for, it could be used to get dirt on political rivals or for any number of sinister things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And the repugs greatest fear is losing control of Congress because when the congressional hearings and true oversight begins and all the dirt comes to light it will lay bare the republicans self serving agenda as well as the fact that not only have they done nothing to keep us safe and protect us, but they could care less about catching or stopping the real terrorists, 9/11 and all the tough talk and fear tactics and war mongering is about nothing more than opening up the Middle East to Imperial opportunism, the elite and the energy giants will benefit tremendously from overthrowing those govenments in Iran and Iraq that were hostile to us so American energy companies can make fortunes developing their reserves, thats what the bait and switch was about when we forsook the war on terror to invade Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lydia, Iraq is central to winning the War on Terror. The violent faction within Islam - who are committed to an 8th century ideology of repression and conquest - can only be eradicated by the majority of good hearted Muslims who desire peace, prosperity and well being. We've forced the violence and pathology of Islamist terror back to its source. The Iraqis will have to remove the murderers from their midst. In doing so, as a free and soverign people, it will create a sea change throughout the region and initiate a severely necessary reformation within the Islamic religion and throughout the Islamic world. We are forcing Muslims to confront and remove the cancer within their body. That is our only option. 19 individuals killed 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11. Unless we force a profound change in the environment that breeds violence and extremism, we will be attacked again with weapons that will kill millions of our innocent friends, family and countrymates. We cannot sit back and wait for that. Best Regards!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, and one more thing .... Lydia, you look fantastic! You have absolutely blossomed with age. Great googooly moogooly and shazzam. Your hubby hit the jackpot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you Thomas!
    Luv xo
    Lyd

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Mike, that was an amazing story! I have to read it again. The rainbow is a covenant.
    Luv & xo
    me

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike, if Bush and his "big oil" conspirators were interested in cashing in on Iraq's oil resource we didn't need to invade the country: Saddam would have gladly sold us all the oil we dreamed of at cut rates if we left him alone to plunder,oppress and kill his economy and people and destabilize and terrorize his neighbors. We know he had WMDs because he used them against his Kurdish countrymates and Iranian soldiers. We know he harbored Al Qaida operatives and paid rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We know he was using the corrupt Oil for Food program to purchase and develop deadly weapons, fund terror cells around the globe and buy UN Security Council protection. He killed hundreds of thousands of his people. He fired at our warplanes patrolling the UN no-fly zone. He ignored the conditions of his surrender from the first Gulf War, in which 130 Americans lost their lives. When he refused to disarm, he had to be taken out. This War has nothing to do with oil ... we get 80% of our imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and the Saudis.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thomas, you're preaching to a deaf crowd. In a minute or two clif will be here to tell you how wrong you are.

    He's an ex GI who used to defuse unexploded ordinance, yet somehow he knows more about how to run a war than all the people who were above him.

    And even though your responce seemed peaceful and well intentioned, mikey and clif both will tell you how hateful and bigoted you are.

    Peace brother!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kerry: ‘I Was Wrong’ On Iraq
    By Nathan Burchfiel
    CNSNews.com Staff Writer
    June 13, 2006


    Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) - U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake."

    "We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."

    Kerry, who led an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, said it was necessary to admit mistakes because "you cannot change the future if you’re not honest about the past." He criticized supporters of the war, who label anti-war activists and politicians as unpatriotic and pessimistic.

    "The true pessimists are those who will not accept that America’s strength depends on our credibility at home and around the world," Kerry said. "The true pessimists are those who do not understand that valuing our principles is critical to our national security and it is as critical to our national security as our military power itself."

    He said questioning the war and fighting in it are "two sides of the very same patriotic coin" and compared the modern anti-war movement to the anti-war movement in the Vietnam War. Kerry, who served in Vietnam, returned to the United States and offered testimony to Congress, opposing the war and describing horrific war crimes he said soldiers committed there.

    He said opposing the war is "a right and an obligation" because it was "founded on a lie [and] can never be true to America’s character."

    Kerry also lashed out at war supporters who accuse anti-war activists of not supporting the troops. "The best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that destroys their lives," he said.

    Kerry renewed his call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying that he supports setting a timetable for the removal in Iraq that is not "cut and run." Without saying when he would like troops removed from the war zone, Kerry said he believes "we need a hard and fast deadline."

    Kerry made his comments during a speech at the annual Take Back America conference in the nation’s capital. Organized by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, the conference has also featured U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. U.S. Sens. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama are scheduled to appear Wednesday.

    A spokesman for the Republican National Committee was not immediately available for reaction to Kerry’s comments.

    Perhaps the Sen. Kerry (D-France) will recall the letter he and other Senate Solons sent the President on October 9, 1998:

    CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
    October 9, 1998

    Mr. President,

    Today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq’s actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs…

    And speaking of Rep. Pelosi (D-Al Qaeda), here is a press release she issued two months later:

    Statement on U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq
    December 16, 1998

    As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

    The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people…

    Now, I’m no historian. But I’m pretty sure William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was President in October of 1998.

    And he and his cohorts were asserting some rather definitive things on the subject of Iraq’s WMD:


    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." — President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 CNN

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 CNN

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 USIA

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998 USIA

    So who exactly was "misleading" Kerry (and Pelosi)?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The previous btw, was brought to you courtesy of the good folks at "Sweetness & Light"

    http://www.sweetness-light.com/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hezbollah's Final Solution
    By Alan M. Dershowitz
    FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2006


    The uniqueness of the Holocaust was not the Nazi's determination to kill the Jews of Germany and even of neighboring Poland. Other genocides, such as those by the Cambodians and the Turks, sought to rid particular areas of so called undesirables by killing them. The utter uniqueness of the Holocaust was the Nazi plan to "ingather" all the Jews of the world to the death camp and end the Jewish "race" forever.

    It almost succeeded. The Nazis ingathered tens of thousands of Jews (including babies, women, the elderly) from far flung corners of the world--from the Island of Rhodes from Salonika and from other obscure locations -- in order to gas them at Auschwitz and at other death camps.



    The official leader of the Palestinian Muslims, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated in the Nazi genocide, declaring that he sought to "solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries" by employing "the same method" being used "in the Axis countries". Husseini, who spent the war years in Berlin and was later declared a Nazi war criminal at Nuremberg, wrote the following in his memoirs:



    Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours."



    Husseini planned a death camp for Jews modeled on Auschwitz, to be located in Nablus. He broadcast on Nazi Radio, calling for genocide against all the world's Jews: "kill the Jews wherever you find them--this pleases God, history, and religion." Professor Edward Said has acknowledged that this Nazi collaborator and genocidal anti-Semite "represented the Palestinian Arab consensus" and was "the voice of the Palestinian people." Yasser Arafat referred to Husseini as "our hero."



    Never before or since in world history has a tyrannical regime sought to murder all of the members of a particular racial, religious, ethnic or cultural group, regardless of where they live--not until now. Hezbollah's aim is not to "end the occupation of Palestine," or even to "liberate all of Palestine." Its goal is to kill the world's Jews. Listen to the words of its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises.



    His genocidal goals--to kill all Jews--were proven by two recent statements. He has warned the Arabs and Muslims to leave Haifa so that his rockets can kill only Jews. And he apologized for causing the deaths of three Israeli-Arabs in Nazareth, when a Katuysha struck that religiously mixed Israeli city. Hezbollah also worked hand-in-hand with Argentine neo-Nazis to blow up a Jewish community center, murdering dozens of Jews.



    Nasrallah is a modern day Hitler, who currently lacks the capacity to carry out his genocide. But he is an ally of Iran, which will soon have the capacity to kill Israeli's five million Jews. Listen to what the former President of Iran has said about how Iran would use its nuclear weapons:



    Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that an attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small "sacrifice" from among the billion Muslims in the world.



    Now listen to the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the Nazi Holocaust, but calls for a modern Holocaust that would "wipe Israel off the map."



    Despite these anti-Semitic and genocidal threats, some of the hard left admire Nasrallah and his bigoted organization, as well as Iran and its anti-Semitic president. Others do not seem to take his threats seriously.


    For example, the notorious Jewish anti-Semite Norman Finkelstein has said, "looking back my chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack."



    Finkelstein's hatred of Jews runs so deep that he has actually implied that his own mother, who survived the Nazi Holocaust, may have collaborated with the Nazis. If so collaboration with evil seems to run in the family, because Finkelstein has clearly become a collaborator with Hezbollah anti-Semitism and Nazism. Finkelstein's website is filled with Hezbollah promotion, including breathless reprints of Nasrallah speeches. Noam Chomsky, who works closely with Finkelstein, has said of Finkelstein that he is "a person who can speak with more authority and insight on these topics [Israel and anti-Semitism] than anyone I can think of."

    The Iran-Hezbollah axis is the greatest threat to world peace, to Jewish survival, to Western values, and to civilization. Those like Finkelstein, who support Hezbollah, and even those who refuse to fight against this evil, are on the wrong side of history. They are collaborators with Islamofascists -- today's version of Nazism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Terrorists Are Not POWs
    By John Yoo and Glen Sulmasy
    AEI.org | August 11, 2006


    In its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld rejecting President Bush's military commissions for the trial of al-Qaeda terrorists, the Supreme Court made a number of missteps.

    Justice John Stevens, writing for Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and the wandering Anthony Kennedy, evaded Congress' order that the court not decide any cases arising from the detention of enemy combatants at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, camp. They narrowed Congress' authorization for the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. They overlooked centuries of American history in which presidents from George Washington to FDR used military commissions to try enemy combatants for war crimes. They essentially overruled the central lessons of three Supreme Court decisions from World War II upholding the use of military commissions.

    But believe it or not, these are not the worst aspects of the court's decision. In an effort to interfere with the way the elected branches of our government have chosen to wage war against al-Qaeda, they interpreted a law recognizing military commissions to require the United States to follow what is known as “Common Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions. While limited only to military trials, Hamdan suggests the possibility that the courts will order the United States to apply Common Article 3 to other operations against jihadists who do not wear uniforms nor display any distinctive signs, systematically flout the laws of war, and are neither parties nor signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan has the potential to straight-jacket our armed forces well beyond the narrow issue of war crimes trials.

    A stretch? You bet.

    It is critical to clarify where Common Article 3 really applies and what it actually demands. Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoner of war status is reserved for captured soldiers in the regular armed forces of nations that have signed the treaties. POWs receive the gold standard of treatment: they cannot be placed in cells, they need only provide name, rank and serial number, and they are entitled to a great many privileges and benefits, such as retaining their uniform, unit structure and chain of command.

    These rules have in mind the conflicts between the large conscript armies of World Wars I and II. It provides protections to those who follow the laws of wars: do not target civilians deliberately and restrict violence to combatants.

    The major purpose of these provisions is to ensure, through treaty, that reciprocity be afforded to all nations and their armed forces once engaged in combat. Al-Qaeda did not exist at the time of the drafting of the Geneva Conventions, and affording such protections was never in the minds of the signatories--certainly not the United States. Al-Qaeda is not a nation state and could not be, nor will it ever be party to such treaties. It has no intention of following any of the laws of war. In fact, its primary tactics--targeting and killing civilians, taking hostages and executing prisoners--are designed specifically to violate any standards of civilized warfare.

    Our conflict with al-Qaeda cannot trigger the general POW protections of the Geneva Conventions, because al-Qaeda is not a party to the treaties.

    Common Article 3 applies to certain fighters who do not meet the standards for a POW. It sets minimum standards “in the case of armed conflict not of an international character.” Its inclusion in 1949 cured a major gap in the Geneva Conventions. The original conventions did not set rules for internal civil wars between a government and resistance or rebel groups. Common Article 3 extended minimum protections to detainees who were not fighting on behalf of the armed forces of another nation, but not those due to POWs. It requires, for example, that “persons taking no active part in the hostilities,” including the sick, wounded and captured, “be treated humanely.” They are to be protected against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.”

    The basic purpose of Common Article 3--humane treatment--is already the policy of the United States. But Common Article 3 also contains some ambiguous provisions. It prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment,” which it does not define. It only allows the use of a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples,” which it again leaves undefined.

    An example from Hamdan itself illustrates how ambiguous these terms can be. Under the Pentagon's rules on the procedures for military commissions, a court may exclude the defendant from the courtroom if classified information is to be presented. His defense attorney may be present, but not the defendant. This makes a great deal of sense. We would not want al-Qaeda operatives directly learning the sources and methods used by American intelligence to track and capture them. Al-Qaeda has shown that it quickly adapts to outsmart our strategies and tactics. Does preventing an al-Qaeda defendant access to such information constitute a violation of “judicial guarantees that are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples?”

    The Supreme Court seemed to think so, but we believe many would agree that the military commission rule is a reasonable compromise that allows for the defendant's interests to be represented but without harming national security during an ongoing war.

    Our conflict with al-Qaeda does not fit within the general Geneva Convention rules for wars between nation-states. Al-Qaeda terrorists are not legally eligible for the rights granted to POWs. But the war on terrorism does not fall within Common Article 3 either. The United States is not fighting an internal civil war. As Justice Clarence Thomas notes in his vigorous Hamdan dissent, the war against al-Qaeda and its supporters is clearly one of an “international character.” The battlefield reaches beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, to New York City, Washington, D.C., London, Bali and Madrid. The war that began with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 is certainly nothing like the internal civil wars in the minds of Common Article 3's drafters in 1949. We are not fighting a liberation movement of Americans who want to overthrow the government. We are fighting something that lay completely outside the experience of those who wrote Geneva after World War II: an international terrorist organization with the power to inflict destruction on a par with the armed forces of a nation.

    Hamdan also disregards the distinctions between lawful and illegal combatants. The enemy we now fight, and will fight for the foreseeable future, does not abide by the laws of war. Any incentive to follow the rules of civilized warfare is removed if they receive the same rights as those who scrupulously obey the Geneva Conventions. In applying Common Article 3 to the jihadists, we now equate illegal combatants to ordinary armed forces. By affording Geneva Convention protections to al-Qaeda, we would be legitimizing their form of warfare.

    This is a dangerous path to follow. Al-Qaeda uses our laws and treaties against us while violating the same humane principles we hold dear. Al-Qaeda and those who hate the Western way of life are using our respect for the laws of war against our armed forces and are trying to open the door to claims of war crimes based on ambiguous terms. It is telling that the week after the decision was handed down, al-Qaeda in Iraq offered a video on an Islamist Web site of the two U.S. soldiers captured in Iraq--showing them beheaded and their chests cut wide open. Can we ever expect humane treatment and reciprocity from terrorists? Never.

    In trying to force Common Article 3 onto a conflict that stretches beyond national borders--but with an international terrorist organization rather than a nation--the Supreme Court is trying to force a round peg into a square hole. We can have a legitimate debate on whether to update the Geneva Conventions to ensure humane principles are applied in conflicts with terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. But as it stands now, as a matter of both law and policy, such application to al-Qaeda only hurts the United States in its efforts to protect the nation against international terror--both now and in the foreseeable future.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let the Jews Die
    By Alan Nathan
    FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2006


    UN Secretary General Kafi Annan repeatedly describes as “disproportionate” the Israeli response to the act of war committed by the Hezbollah wing of the Lebanese government; on July 31st in Beirut, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a news conference that Iran is a great people and, “plays a stabilizing role in the region” - despite knowing that Iran is waging a war by proxy on Israel through Hezbollah; and, on August 9th in a Washington Post column, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora demanded that, “Israel be made to respect international humanitarian law, including the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which it has repeatedly and willfully violated.”

    All this begs a very specific question: How long have these folks been on their pharmacological excursion? Is their addiction in any way correctible? Are there any support groups that can provide a nurturing and non-threatening environment to better facilitate a reentry into the earth’s atmosphere even though it will require the severing of bonds with an ideological mother-ship hell bent on not letting her flock of delusional space munchkins become grounded by the gravity of logic. In short, are they out of their minds?

    For the better part of the month long conflict, the European Union and Russia have joined most of the UN in their criticism of Israel’s supposedly disproportionate use of force. When did “proportionality” become the gauge for appropriateness when launching a counter-attack against those who first attack you? Isn’t the more legitimate gauge of appropriateness the response that best ensures the enemy’s inability to replicate those attacks in the future? Would the citizens from any other country not demand the same standard?



    Most of the UN member states, including those who sit on its Security Council, are saying that Israel only has the right to defend itself up to the point where it doesn’t harm the fellow citizens of its enemy even though the enemy attacks from behind those same citizens. They’re demanding that Israel subordinate the security of its own citizens to those of its enemies whenever the two are in moral conflict. By consequence of this “catch-22” formula, the UN is essentially mandating that Israel not be allowed to defend itself while rhetorically saying it can.



    French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy seems almost theatrically out of touch when characterizing Iran as a stabilizing force to the region while it has in fact been the impetus behind the very blood bath we all want to stop. We know that Muslim nations like Syria and Iran are allied with Hezbollah against Israel as well as with the insurgent and sectarian terrorists in another proxy war against Americans in Iraq.



    If a country is waging war against you, does it really matter whether it’s direct or by proxy? Don’t their acts of war entitle both the United States and Israel to counter-attack these countries? How is it that three degrees of separation by name equals three degrees of separation for accountability? This crazy restriction allows these sponsor nations to slaughter with impunity. If they were launching missiles at the US or Israel from their homeland, reciprocating in kind would seem justified by one and all. Why is it when they launch attacks by proxy, we can’t do the same? This is tantamount to not charging people with murder simply because they had it done by contract.



    The only suffering Iran and Syria currently sustain is the termination of their weapons (terrorists and suicide bombers). It’s like shooting down incoming rockets with Patriot missiles but then not firing back at the genuine source.



    The Lebanese Prime Minister praises Hezbollah while accusing Israel of war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention. What’s so paradoxical about this is that the Lebanese Government knowingly allowed Hezbollah to violate the Geneva Convention by immersing their rocket and missile launchers in the private homes of densely populated towns and cities. The Convention defines these activities as war crimes because the acts proactively place civilians in harm’s way. Hezbollah has a greater awareness of those jeopardized innocents than does the country that may kill through retaliation.



    When the enemy attacks you and then hides behind a wall of innocents for protection, the destruction of that wall is the fault of those hiding behind them, not those completing the task of self-defense? If we don’t accept that logic, by default we’re condoning a template that allows terrorists to attack with a one-way entitlement. Essentially, they would get to repeatedly hit and hide but escape accountability by saying, “You can’t get me, because I’m behind a wall of innocents.”



    Once a country is subjected to an unprovoked act of war, the ensuing deaths become the responsibility of the original attacker. You don’t get to drag somebody into your backyard and then whine about their trespassing. You can’t start a fire and then bitch about the flames.

    ReplyDelete
  14. voltaire, the great delusion is this notion that somehow our campain in Iraq has created some enemy that didn't exist before. We've been at War with Islamist fascism for nearly 30 years. The Iranians seized our embassy and held our citizens hostage for six months in 1979. Terrorists kidnapped and killed our Beirut CIA station chief in 1981. Terrorists bombed our Beirut Marine barracks and killed 240 Americans in their sleep in 1982. Terrorists hijacked boats and planes and murdered American citizens in 1985. Terrorists bombed a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbee, Scotland and killed several hundred Americans in 1988. Terrorists captured and killed Navy airman Scott Spicer in 1992. Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center and killed 5 Americans in 1993. Terrorists bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and killed 19 Airmen in 1996. Terrorists bombed American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and killed 80 in 1998. Terrorists attacked the USS Cole in Yemen port and killed 16 sailors. Terrorists attacked and killed 3000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001. Terrorists bombed and killed hundreds of civilians in Madrid, London, Beslan Bombay, Riyadh, Bali, Manilla, Tel Aviv and Jeruselum, Morocco and Cairo the past four years. They target schools, hospitals, mosques and playgrounds. Terrorists kidnap American civilians and cut off their heads. They desecrate captured soldiers.

    We've been at War with radical Islam for several decades. Now, however, we're fighting them with our world class warriors in their neighborhood . Failure in this War is not an option.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BIG FOOT, SCOOP JACKSON DEMOCRATS AND OTHER MYTHS
    August 9, 2006

    I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

    On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!

    As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

    That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.

    In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

    Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

    The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.

    Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."

    Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.

    Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy — Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")

    To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

    Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

    By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

    Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

    So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

    The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

    AnnCoulter.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bush gets 55 pct approval on security: poll

    Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:00pm ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of President George W. Bush's handling of homeland security, an 11 percent jump from May, according to a Newsweek poll released on Saturday.

    The poll was taken Thursday and Friday, after British authorities foiled a plot to use chemical bombs to bring down as many as 10 airliners flying from Britain to the United States.

    Bush's approval rating rose to 38 percent, a 3-point increase since Newsweek conducted its last poll in May.

    Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would oppose a ban on all carry-on baggage on commercial flights, the poll said.



    Taken three months ahead of congressional elections, the survey found 44 percent of respondents said Republicans would do a better job handling terrorism, compared with 39 percent who preferred Democrats.

    Fifty-three percent of respondents said they wanted to see the Democrats win enough seats to take over Congress, while 34 percent said they wanted the Republicans to retain control, the poll found.

    Twenty-two percent of those surveyed said Iraq was the most important issue in the upcoming election and would determine how they would vote. Eighteen percent said the top issue was the economy and 15 percent cited terrorism.

    Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed also said they trusted the Democrats to better manage the economy, while 34 percent sided with Republicans, according to the poll.

    The survey of 1,001 adults has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Poll driven approval ratings track the price of gas and the last media supplied image or story the respondent saw. People lie to pollsters. Everyone hates Congress as a concept but likes THEIR representative. Everyone hears that the economy is bad , it must be so, but nobody personally knows anyone who is hopelessly unemployed, economically doomed and without any prospect of improvement. Most Americans are doing well, and on November 7 they are going to make a very simple calculation: Who is going to protect my life? That comes up Repbulican for anyone who is living their life removed from political messabe boards and who is not an intractable partisan consumed by their ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Connecticut Senate: Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5
    Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%

    August 12, 2006

    Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

    A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

    Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

    57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

    Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

    Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

    Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

    For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

    Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The above by Rassmussen

    http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree Thomas. But as soon as mikey and clif arrive they'll tell us how wrong we are....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  21. Politics
    What It Takes to Be a Good Democrat
    by Michael Lewis
    Posted Aug 10, 2006


    Unable to “hash” out a coherent, unified position on any issue, Democrats are fielding a variety of leftist ideas this election season. Such campaign promises include taxing funerals, reducing the child tax credit for middle class families, and letting pedophiles live near schools so they can vote -- for Democrats. Never forget the chief campaign promise of Democrats: take our quasi-socialist government and institute full-blown Marxism.

    While Democrats claim to oppose Communism, their actions tell a different story. Efforts to nationalize industries, establish a single-payer healthcare system, and abolish all references to God are indicative of their quest for a utopia based in secularism and excessive equality. All of this war for ideas, of course, is won in America’s public school classrooms, where teachers promote “open-mindedness” by displaying portraits of Che Guevara. The rhetoric is of course cloaked in moderation. Fear of lynching by the American public prevents Democrats from saying what they truly believe.

    Despite conclusions by political pundits of all stripes that the 2004 election was a referendum on values, Democrats seem more hell-bent than ever on moving the Party further to the left, as is evidenced by their selection of nut job Howard Dean as Party spokesman. Polls may show public dissatisfaction with the Republican Congress, but dissatisfaction with the minority Party is even greater. The last time the minority had a lower satisfaction rating than the majority was -- wait, that’s actually never happened before.

    The inability to articulate a political platform palatable to the American public leaves Democrats stooping to new lows each passing day. Pinning their hopes on a cut-and-run strategy in the war on terror leaves them clamoring to whip the Caucus into line. In fact, minor signs of bipartisanship and independence by members of Democratic Party are a death sentence via mob lynching for the perpetrator. Such an execution resembles a Purple Haze fan club gathering.

    Unable to win at the ballot box, Democrats of late have increasingly relied on the federal courts to implement their agenda. Judges who stick to the Constitution are labeled extremists, bigots, and a slew of racial epithets. However, the control of the judiciary seems to be slipping from the Democrats. Recent State Supreme Court rulings in heavily Democratic states such as New York and Washington have dealt serious blows to efforts to redefine marriage.

    Left with few options, Democrats have resorted to internal political witch hunts in an effort to seize control of the country. Former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate and longtime Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.) was beat out by a primary challenger as a result of his support for Jewish causes, like the defeat of Islamofascism. Support for the war in Iraq, coupled with criticism of Democrats and St. Clinton’s sex escapades landed him in hot water with burnt-out ‘60s radicals. Ned Lamont, Lieberman’s previously unknown billionaire challenger, gained a 4-point lead in the polls by criticizing a kiss Lieberman received from President Bush at this year’s State of the Union address. It is now apparent that Democrats’ ancestors were no doubt the mob of people screaming “crucify Him!” to Pontius Pilate. In fact, one of Lieberman’s campaign advisor recently told the New York Times that “there is a growing tolerance for anti-Semitism in the Progressive community.”

    Even Boy Clinton said that the plan to purge Democrats who waver from the party on one issue was the most ridiculous election strategy he’s ever heard of. Still, John Kerry declined to support Lieberman. But alas, Stalin purged his comrades, too.

    In order to be a “good Democrat” these days, one must posses a myopic obsession with personally hating the President, coupled with an appreciation for good hash and Willie Nelson songs. If deviance on one issue is all it takes to run a fellow party man up a flagpole, then McCain, Hagel, Graham, Frist, Chafee, DeWine, and Specter should all be hanging from the oaks in front of the Capitol. To the contrary, the Republican Party has always been a big-tent party where members are free to think independently. Despite our disagreements, we still respect McCain, et al as great men.

    Dig this joint, man.

    Mr. Lewis is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16443

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bush rules by fear, that's all he has.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lydia, on one of the hijacked flights on 9/11 a hijacker walked a 6 month pregnant Flight Attendant to the front of the plane and unemotionally, methodically slit her throat. If you don't fear that pathology, if you don't fear an enemy that is capable of that level of brutality and inhumanity more than you fear and loathe George W. Bush ... there's just no place to start.

    By the way, I remember a "Hunter" episode you were in where you and the big guy shared a "From Here to Eternity" swimwear moment, scampered to the boudoir for some quality networking and then, after the lovin' ... you grabbed a knife tried to put a hit on him.

    I'm sorry ... that was antisocial Lydia!! LOL. You broke Hunter's heart too. He thought you were the one before you tried to fillet him. You made him engage in bad acting! I remember thinking at the time while you being hauled off to jail ... "Well, this is why they make conjugal visits." Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Saddam used the wmd THAT WE GAVE HIM and don't ever forget that! Remember it was during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years that we were arming Saddam to the hilt.

    Let's not forget either that there were at least 2 Texans involved in and profitted from The Oil For Food Program! Starving Iraqis didn't seem to bother these guys either!!!!!!!!!

    If Saddam killed thousands and thousands of people in his country and the massive graves aren't from years of bloody war with Iran, then please explain Thomas why Saddam is on trial for killing 143 people! Doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense to be having a war crimes trial in the middle of an illegal occupation/war.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Knowing that all the evidence has come forth and out in the open that the Iraq occupation was based on forged documents and started on lies, John Kerry can't change his mind about the war? You mean to tell me that America is now a nation where there is only one way and one way only? No free thinking?

    You mean to tell me that when you purchase an expensive item only to get it home to find out it's nothing but a fake, that you can't change your mind about it? You have to keep the garment, lose your money, and can't say one negative word about maker of the garment because of fear that you might upset him?

    Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!

    Many republicans in your party are changing their minds about Bush and his fake war. Why aren't you talking about them but continue to lambaste John Kerry for also feeling the same way?

    I know why!!!!!

    You're pathetic little sheep following your Shepard and can't see the edge of the cliff approaching in the distance!

    ReplyDelete
  26. kay said: "Many republicans in your party are changing their minds about Bush and his fake war."

    Right, Bush's poll numbers are going up. Kay, I am happy to see that you aknowledged that Saddam DID have WMDs. Good of you to come around on that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh by the way Thomas,

    While Mike, Clif and Lydia are definately to the left, you'll find that Kay is clinging by her fingernails to the left edge of the planet...

    I'm not sure, but I believe she escaped from Area 51.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry Tall Texan, Bush's approval rating is at 33% (which is down 3% in the last week or two) and I find it hysterical that his homeland security number is up to 55% which is up 11% since May! Wow, Reuters is werkin hahd to help their Fuehrer's party out for the upcoming November election, even though it is now known that the British plot was hurried by our CIA and many of the 'terrorists' didn't even have passports at their disposal! Funny how the Pigs in Washington tried to use this plot to try to fake out our country that a vote for Lamont was a vote for a terrorist attack!

    YOUR PARTY is desperate. YOUR PARTY is irrational and deceitful. Americans are onto you. If you don't go down in November it's because of Rovian plots by YOUR PARTY!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yeah Kay, John Kerry CAN change his mind.

    I just thought it was so horrible that Bill Clinton, Madeline Notsobright and Sandy Burglar ALL lied to him!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Isn't it funny that Bush has been defunding bomb detection at our airports and has known about the liquid bombs, but funny how it's been relaxed?

    I guess the Pigs in Washington have to relax the security measures in our country so they can get their ducks in a row before the November election!!!! Yup, can't have fantastic machines in place to detect bombs when you have people on your payroll who need to get them through!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Boxcutters and lipsticks can takeover America's defense systems! Watch out for the L'Oreal brand!!!!! They're the scariest according to the Bush Pigs!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kay, if rueters is on our side, why are they doctoring pictures to make Israel look so bad?

    And if the recent attempted plane bombing was a plot to help republicans, why didn't they use it BEFORE Lamont won the primary, huh Kay?

    ReplyDelete
  33. And did you notice Lieberman is now ahead in the polls according to Rassmussen?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Did you know that 3 Texans were arrested a day or two ago for trying to purchase 80 cell phones (can be used to detonate bombs) from a Wal-Mart and when their personal property was searched, it was learned that 1,000 cell phones were in their possession?

    Wow! Bush says, "we must fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here!". Wow!

    Bush doesn't believe in homegrown terrorists because he's too busy counting all the money that he and his Swines have stolen from the American people in the last 6 years by setting up fake companies to launder our money into! Fake wars help them so much too!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thomas, just listen to Kay go. You'll get the idea....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  36. Did the doctored picture look worse than the original picture or did it just look blacker? The fake smoke wasn't much higher than the real smoke!

    But, you warmongers will use anything to make yourself look like the victim in all of this!

    Joe Lieberman did the same thing with his "website being hacked". It wasn't hacked. He just purchased a cheap webserver that was shared with 73 other websites and it crashed during the middle of the night! Just like all Rovian republicans, Joe used a normal occurance to make himself look like a victim to the big bad liberal opponent!

    JOE AND YOUR PARTY are screwed. YOU'RE ALL CRIMINALS.

    ReplyDelete
  37. LOL @ Kay!

    Yeah, I just HATE those pretend muslim extremists from texas...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rant on Kay!

    You make our point everytime you post!

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Notice how the RNC is not supporting the republican candidate in Connecticut? Wow! You know what that means.......LIEBERMAN IS MORE OF A REPUBLICAN THAN THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE AND THIS IS WHY THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT BOOTED HIS ASS TO THE SIDEWALK!

    Who will support Joe as the Independent? Not the democrats. Nope! THE REPUBLICANS WILL LAUNDER MONEY TO HIM SOMEHOW. Dammit. Jack Abramoff isn't around. Rove will just have to find an unknown to do it. Awwwww, poor Karl. He's going to be busy this fall.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Post things against my rants that prove me wrong Trolls!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Did the doctored picture look worse than the original picture or did it just look blacker? The fake smoke wasn't much higher than the real smoke!

    But, you warmongers will use anything to make yourself look like the victim in all of this!"


    Yes Kay, and who really cares if Dan Blather used faked memos on the Bush hit piece right before the election, we know the "facts" are true anyway....

    ReplyDelete
  42. So, why would 3 Texans buy so many cell phones and do it so 3 were rung up at a time? Hmmmmmmmm...they're addicted to cell phones? Yeah, that's it! Yup, addicted to cell phones. This is what Bush will use as an excuse everytime there is homegrown terrorists exposed. Yeah, yeah, he'll say, (insert your best cowboy accent here) "They're addicted to white phosophorus and electrical components. They're addicted to blowing things up. Don't pay no attention to them. Timothy McVeigh was not real. He never did a thing to America. Go buy a new outfit to make yourself think happy thoughts".

    ReplyDelete
  43. From Rassmussen Kay, Read it and weep!

    Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%.

    57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

    Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

    Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

    Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

    For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

    Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Please post evidence that Bush flew planes everyday while in the National Guard. Post as much stuff as you have that proves he showed up faithfully like all others during that time. And make sure you post all the evidence you have that proves that Bush couldn't wait to fight in Vietnam and was so disappointed when his number wasn't called!

    No one in the National Guard at the time that Bush "served" have come forward as far as I know to say that Bush served honorably and proudly.

    Dan Rather shouldn't have been fired. BUSH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE TO BE.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Voltaire! Leiberman is going to lose my friend! Did you hear what he just said about the Holocaust? Wow, for a guy who supports Israel and is Jewish himself he sure likes to use the Holocaust to get his way!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. The suspects are 21 year old Adham Abdelhamid Othman, 18 year old Maruan Awad Muhareb, and 23 year old Louai Abdelhamied Othman.

    Yep, good ol Texas names...

    ReplyDelete
  47. Joe said that anyone who doesn't agree with him and who doesn't like the war on terror is worst than Hitler!

    He was implying that what Hitler did was nothing compared to what the liberals, democrats, and moderate republicans are doing by voting in Lamont!

    HE WON'T BE ON THE TICKET IN NOVEMBER because gassing, starving, and beating to death the Jews by Hitler is much better than voting for Lamont.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well tell ya what Kay, how about I take you to court?

    I can fake some memos and pictures to prove my case.

    I assume by your previous posts that it would be OK with you?

    ReplyDelete
  49. And how come you never criticize Kerry for not finishing his enlistment?

    He never showed up for his final 6 months in the ready reserve...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Kerry fought in Vietnam, idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bush’s National Guard years
    Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

    Byron York

    What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
    That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

    News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

    The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

    That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

    Not two years of weekends. Two years.

    After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

    According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

    Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

    That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

    Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

    “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

    So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

    Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

    In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

    Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

    During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

    A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

    A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

    http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  52. Kay said "Funny how the Pigs in Washington tried to use this plot to try to fake out our country that a vote for Lamont was a vote for a terrorist attack!"

    Kay, the plot was revealed two days after the CT election.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Voltaire, the 3 Texans are either American citizens with those last names, are illegals, or have come from abroad and have infiltrated our security. Wow! I guess we don't have to fight the terrorists over in Iraq anymore. Seems that not all the terrorists on the planet followed us to Iraq. Awwwww poor Bush, he thought he was so right too. He forget that he didn't secure our country right after 9/11 and is now defunding all security programs. Awwww, no wonder he vacations so much. He hides his head under his pillow hoping the world will go away! Kind of like his 'service' during Vietnam. Thank God he had his powerful Daddy and the bin Laden family members to get him through it all!!!!! Phew.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lt. John Kerry as a Ready Reservist

    John Kerry signed a 6 year contract (plus 6 months extension during war time) with the Navy.

    John Kerry also signed a Officer Candidate contract for 5 years of active duty and active Naval Reserves.

    Kerry was required to attend 48 drills per year and go on active duty for training each year 14 days. Kerry was also subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.

    When John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of 3 years and 18 days, he was required to attend weekend drills in the Ready Reserve for at least 2 years.

    It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not get an Honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972, about 29 years later when he plans on running for the presidency.

    On Jan. 3, 1970 John Kerry was transferred to Naval Reserve Manpower Center, Bainridge , MD 21965.

    Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 14 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released? Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled? Or was Lt. John Forbes Kerry AWOL from service during war time???

    How many navy regulations did Lt. Kerry USNR violate as a Ready Reservist, while he was leading his traitor buddies in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War?

    1. Lt. Kerry was at many rallies where the enemy's flag (VietCong) was displayed while our flag was defiled, mocked etc.
    2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
    3. Lt. Kerry made false testimony against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about the crimes committed in Vietnam.
    4. On national TV Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal and condemned the military and the USA.

    That is just a few of the violations Lt. Kerry committed while he was supposed to be on active Ready Reserve!!!

    http://johnkerry-08.com/war/reservist.php

    ReplyDelete
  55. TallTexan, explain why Bush gave the authority to push the terror coding system to red level ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT? And why did Bush know about it on Sunday before the Lamont/Lieberman race and never said anything? Huh? BECAUSE THE BUSH REGIME IS PLAYING AROUND WITH OUR SECURITY FOR POLITICAL REASONS!

    They don't care about you and I. They care about winning and doing whatever they want! Laws in our country? Not according to Bush who has used over 800 signing statements to ignore them! He thinks he is the Unitary Executive of America, the Imperial Ruler of America, and the Dictator of America. He and his Swines hate the idea of democracy where the people rule. They want America to be a dictatorship.

    Because they don't want to lose in November, expect a huge terrorist attack to happen in our country. And.....if the democrats win in 2008 (if Martial Law hasn't set in by that time and Diebold has folded), you can bet your sweet ass the repukes are conspiring now with our military (think Anthrax attack right after 9/11) to do something huge "to prove" that a vote for a democrat means a terror attack!

    They just used the same analogy this past week after the Lamont win.

    Pigs. I spit on them.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Kay, didn't you see that compelling piece by Dan Rather in which he proved, by showing an unaltered email from 1975, that Bush dodged his service? Didn't you see that?

    Also, glad to see that you finally acknowledged that Saddam has WMDs.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Questions for Kay:

    1. Have you ever seen Big Foot?

    2. Ever been abducted by a UFO.

    3. Do you think Elvis is still alive?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Okay, so what you're saying is John Kerry's time in Vietnam aboard a swift boat (which were the tiny boats that would speed to shore to come in first to take on and scope out the enemy before the 'big guns' got there) is now deleted because he spoke out against his country (freedom of speech was still available during that time, wasn't it?) and then didn't go on to spend one weekend a month in the Reserves?

    Do you know how stupid that sounds?

    That's like saying, "Well, George Bush's presidency is null because he didn't serve as president of his freshman class back in high school".

    Say what you want.....JOHN KERRY SIGNED UP TO GO TO VIETNAM and GEORGE BUSH DID EVERYTHING IN HIS SPOILED CONNECTICUT ROOTS TO NOT!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Kay, what's your reaction to the fact that 55% of Americans approve of Bush's performance on national security?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sorry everybody but Bush was drinking and snorting coke during his time in the very elite portion of the Texas National Guard! Believe what you want, but the man was the son of a powerful father and he didn't go to Vietnam nor did he serve honorably.

    It's my understanding that after Dan Rather's employees were fired and after he left, it was found that the documents were NOT FALSE. A funny thing happened when this whole thing happened, IMMEDIATELY THE REPUBLICAN PUNDITS JUMPED ON THE STORY AND CALLED IT FALSE WITHOUT THEIR OWN PROOF!

    The same thing happened on election 2000 night. In the middle of the night all the exist polls were stating that Gore had won until FOX NEWS exclaimed that Bush had won it!

    The republicans are very good at throwing in a bone into everything. They hate to lose and to look like the asses they are, so they first will put a lie out there hoping the population will take hold of it!

    Same with Joe Lieberman and his webiste......very Rovian, agree?

    ReplyDelete
  61. What war did Bush personally fight?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Read above for my response TallTexan.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Aug. 12, 2006, 1:25PM
    Bureaucracy impedes bomb-detection work


    By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer
    © 2006 The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON — As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology. Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

    Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

    "The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

    Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks, and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

    "They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using," Sabo said.

    Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.

    "I don't have any criticisms of anyone," said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. "I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength."

    Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

    The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

    The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

    The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights would have involved liquid explosives.

    Hawley said Homeland Security is now going to test the detector in six American airports. "It is very promising technology, and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years," he said.

    Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

    Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents. It has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.

    Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would slow security check lines to a crawl.

    For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors _ already in most American airports _ to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.

    A 2002 Homeland Security report recommended "immediate deployment" of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in December 2001.

    A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports "may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions."

    Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

    "It is not that expensive," said Fainberg, who recently retired. "There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it."

    Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by "bureaucratic games," a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

    "There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy," he said.

    Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

    "It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats," he said.

    The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from the Sciences & Technology Directorate's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

    Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland security appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

    Their House counterparts, Sabo and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland Security said Friday it won't divert the money.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Wow, Bush used the British terror plot as a way to say that liberals are weak on terror, but yet, he and his Swines were taking away money from bomb detection!

    I bet the 55% who took that poll didn't know that he was doing that. As usual, on the surface Bush says and does things but underneath.......HE'S SCREWING AMERICANS OVER!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Bye trolls! I'm leaving to get some stuff done around my house.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Baghdad:

    20 dead and 70 wounded in southern Baghdad from a series of explosions.

    Another Bush milestone.2601 US soldiers killed in Iraq so far.

    George W Bush: Giver of Life, Taker of Oil.

    ReplyDelete
  67. NBC News:

    British and Bush administration officials engaged in serious disagreement over the timing of the British terror arrests.

    Britain wanted to wait because they feared they didn't have enough evidence to convict.

    The Bush administration insisted the arrest be made the day after the Connecticut primary.

    Why did Bush rush to arrest if there may not be evidence to convict?

    Why did the US force Britain to prematurely bring the plot public, without knowing who all was involved?

    Was this another Bush push to use fear for political gain?

    ReplyDelete
  68. I see Kay the "instigator" is back!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Was this another Bush push to use fear for political gain?
    -leisure suit larry, resident genius

    larry, your keen mind has indubitably grasped the essence of this whole silly "war on terror" thingy.

    This entire British "terrorist" attack story is just as bogus as the British subway terror attack last year and the fake 9/11 attack on the WTC.

    There is no terrorist threat; it's a lie as michael moore has demonstrated in his scholarly documentary films. The 24 British terrorists are all really U.S. CIA agents in Muslim drag who work for Carl Rove.

    The neocons only foole themselves if they think we are going to fall for this.

    We just need to elect hillary as president. Then there will be no more phony Muslim attacks, because the world will become a happy place and even the fwench will luv us. Besides, if there are more terror attacks, assuming we survive, we can still blame Dubya.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Bye trolls! I'm leaving to get some stuff done around my house.
    -dkb

    Yes, buh bye now sweetness. You're proly running late for church.

    ReplyDelete
  71. If Kay ever went to church, the church would burn down...LOL

    ReplyDelete
  72. It's my understanding that after Dan Rather's employees were fired and after he left, it was found that the documents were NOT FALSE. A funny thing happened when this whole thing happened, IMMEDIATELY THE REPUBLICAN PUNDITS JUMPED ON THE STORY AND CALLED IT FALSE WITHOUT THEIR OWN PROOF!
    -dkb

    Of course, the whole story was fake but accurate.

    The Republicans never made a convincing argument to prove that the Rathergate Killian documents were false.

    /Of course nothing is very convincing if all you hear is the sound of moonbat barking bouncing around inside your empty cranium...

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pigs. I spit on them.
    -dkb

    Mee too! Patooey!

    Hey is it true that your perfect soul mate match on eHarmony.com turned out to be wharf?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Lydia, Iraq is central to winning the War on Terror. The violent faction within Islam - who are committed to an 8th century ideology of repression and conquest - can only be eradicated by the majority of good hearted Muslims who desire peace, prosperity and well being. We've forced the violence and pathology of Islamist terror back to its source. The Iraqis will have to remove the murderers from their midst. In doing so, as a free and soverign people, it will create a sea change throughout the region and initiate a severely necessary reformation within the Islamic religion and throughout the Islamic world. We are forcing Muslims to confront and remove the cancer within their body. That is our only option. 19 individuals killed 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11. Unless we force a profound change in the environment that breeds violence and extremism, we will be attacked again with weapons that will kill millions of our innocent friends, family and countrymates. We cannot sit back and wait for that. Best Regards!
    -thomas

    Wow Thomas, you rawhawwk! Kudos dude.

    Speaking out against Islamic intolerance is the new civil rights movement. The cowardly, politically-correct, multi-culture worshipping libs are AWOL in this fight, just as the democrats led by george wallace stood in the schoolhouse door to block black children a generation ago.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Aug. 21-28, 2006 issue - Have we learned anything since 9/11? President George W. Bush has apparently learned not to overreact. In the panicky days after the September 11 attacks, the president wanted to see any scrap of information, no matter how thinly sourced. As a result, raw and unfiltered intelligence gushed into the Oval Office. A few weeks after 9/11, for instance, authorities in Pennsylvania received a frightening tip from an FBI office overseas: terrorists had a nuclear device on a train somewhere between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The report went straight to the White House, where the president was anxiously consuming threat traffic like a midlevel CIA analyst. The information, while terrifying, turned out to be bogus. Within a day it had been traced back to a conversation between two men overheard at a urinal in Ukraine.




    Characteristically, some time later, Bush made a mordant joke of the scare. "Is this another Ukrainian urinal incident?" he would sarcastically inquire when some alarming but shaky intelligence came across his desk. His briefers learned to screen out the more lurid but unchecked tidbits, like the "poison pen" or "jilted-lover letters" that sometimes arrive at the FBI to falsely accuse a former spouse or boyfriend of conspiring with terrorists. Bush now "trusts his team" to weed out such "speculative" intelligence, said a senior Bush aide. The aide, who declined to be identified discussing the president's state of mind, implied, perhaps without meaning to, that earlier in his administration the president was warier of intelligence advisers.

    Though Bush can still probe the minutiae in intelligence briefings ("He's like a street cop," says Rep. Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House), the president took a fairly hands-off approach to the biggest terror investigation since 9/11. Over the past several months, although British intelligence was closely tracking a plot to blow up as many as 10 airliners headed toward the United States from Britain, Bush was kept only loosely in the loop. At a briefing on Aug. 3, "he was basically told, 'This is happening and you should know about it, but we don't have a lot of details yet'," said a senior White House aide who asked to remain anonymous discussing intelligence briefings. The next day, the president was given a fuller picture. On Sunday, Aug. 6, Bush spent 45 minutes talking to British Prime Minister Tony Blair about timing—when to alert the airlines?—but he was informed of the impending arrests only as they were about to happen. At the time, he was at his Texas ranch, building a dock on the lake and riding his bike. While British intel was closing in on the alleged plotters, Bush was egging his junior aides to join the "100 Degree Club," an annual run in the scorching heat. Bush, who has quit jogging because of bad knees, rides a bike around his panting staffers, shouting, "Keep going! You can do it!"
    Mr. Bush is well-informed of the world, and the world loves us as much today as they ever did!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Interesting...the first post election poll taken in Conn.,Lieberman 46%,Lamont 41%.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Baghdad:

    Car bombs and rocket explosions killed at least 47 more and injured 148 late Sunday.

    In other news:

    Iraq is suffering from the worst fuel shortage since 2003.

    Gas on the black market runs at $4 per gallon.

    More Deaths, Fuel Shortages, Civil War, Insecurity.

    Brought to you by George W Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Kay said "Funny how the Pigs in Washington tried to use this plot to try to fake out our country that a vote for Lamont was a vote for a terrorist attack!"

    Kay, the plot was revealed two days after the CT election.

    -TalllTexan

    Yes Tex, that is a very inconvenient fact for liberals, but I doubt that this is the last time you will hear this goofy concoction.

    Since the Islamist terror attacks of New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, there have been 4,896 acts of Islamist terror victimizing 58 different countries, killing at least 28,096 and injuring 54,408 people.
    -Islam: Religion of Peace

    I'm certain that dkb will assert that all these silly little terror acts also were done by Bush, the hitler, pig, nazi, racist.

    /how stupid does one hafta be to be a lib?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Hey thanks for the weather underground report, leisure suit larry. You must be saddened indeed, that no Americans were killed today; better luck tomorrow.

    Yes that is an outrageous price to pay for gasoline. What Iraq needs is price controls like we had under jimmah carter so the Iraqis could wait in line as they dodge insurgent bullets.

    You must really long wistfully for the good ol days of peace and prosperity Iraq enjoyed under the gentle and wise saddam hussein, your sunshine sunni buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Saddam used the wmd THAT WE GAVE HIM and don't ever forget that! Remember it was during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years that we were arming Saddam to the hilt.

    If Saddam killed thousands and thousands of people in his country and the massive graves aren't from years of bloody war with Iran, then please explain Thomas why Saddam is on trial for killing 143 people! Doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense to be having a war crimes trial in the middle of an illegal occupation/war.

    -kayinmaine, BDS patient

    Wow, this post is so full of lies, it's hard to know where to begin. How bout the top:

    1) The U.S. was not the primary supplier of weaponry to saddam. The biggest suppliers of arms to Iraq were the Soviet Union, China, France and Egypt.
    -Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 per Wikipedia

    At the time saddam was fighting Iran which had just kidnapped and held about 100 U.S. hostages.

    2) Just because a defendant is on trial for killing x number of people hardly means that is the only number of people that prosecutors believe he killed. A common technique is to hold some victims in reserve so that the defendant may be re-tried without invoking the legal protection against double jeopardy. Also it is much easier to prove that the defendant directly killed someone than cases in which he may have ordered killings. It is unlikely that saddam personally killed each person who fills the mass graves.

    3) The Iraq war is "illegal" only in the sense that war was never officially declared. It is legal in the sense that Congress votes to fund the war. No funding...no war. It is also legal in the sense that all "policing actions" since WWII, the last war to have been declared, were legal (Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Granada, Balkans, etc.) It is legal because it complies with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which authorizes use of force abroad with Congressional approval.

    Facts to liberals are like kryptonite to superman
    -Larry Elder

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hey the Iranian "president" has his own blog!

    I'm sure Kay and others will want to wish him well since Mike Wallace say's he's a real nice guy...

    http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hey FF, you remember the old Bob Newhart show?

    Do Mikey, Clif and Larry kinda remind you of Larry, Darrell and Darrell?

    (I read them described once as "three men sharing one brain"...LOL)

    ReplyDelete
  83. I wonder if they ever argue about whose turn it is to use it?

    ReplyDelete
  84. TT said "Bush gets 55 pct approval on security: poll

    Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:00pm ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of President George W. Bush's handling of homeland security, an 11 percent jump from May, according to a Newsweek poll released on Saturday.

    The poll was taken Thursday and Friday, after British authorities foiled a plot to use chemical bombs to bring down as many as 10 airliners flying from Britain to the United States.

    Bush's approval rating rose to 38 percent, a 3-point increase since Newsweek conducted its last poll in May.

    Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would oppose a ban on all carry-on baggage on commercial flights, the poll said.



    Taken three months ahead of congressional elections, the survey found 44 percent of respondents said Republicans would do a better job handling terrorism, compared with 39 percent who preferred Democrats.

    Fifty-three percent of respondents said they wanted to see the Democrats win enough seats to take over Congress, while 34 percent said they wanted the Republicans to retain control, the poll found.

    Twenty-two percent of those surveyed said Iraq was the most important issue in the upcoming election and would determine how they would vote. Eighteen percent said the top issue was the economy and 15 percent cited terrorism.

    Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed also said they trusted the Democrats to better manage the economy, while 34 percent sided with Republicans, according to the poll.

    The survey of 1,001 adults has a margin of error of 4 percentage points."

    Hey TT you just said yesterday that POLLS DONT MATTER!, you cant have it both ways big guy.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Thomas said "Mike, if Bush and his "big oil" conspirators were interested in cashing in on Iraq's oil resource we didn't need to invade the country: Saddam would have gladly sold us all the oil we dreamed of at cut rates if we left him alone to plunder,oppress and kill his economy and people and destabilize and terrorize his neighbors. We know he had WMDs because he used them against his Kurdish countrymates and Iranian soldiers. We know he harbored Al Qaida operatives"


    No Thomas I never said we wanted to STEAL the Iraqi oil I said we wanted to overthrow the USA hostile governments in Iran and Iraq so American companies could make fortunes developing their resereves......see right now they dont like us in Iran and we arent allowed in, same with Iraq not to mention both were planning on going off the Petrodollar system so the moves were also to defend the petro dollar as well.

    By the way Saddam NEVER harbored Al Qaeda, they did not enter that country till we invaded and overthrew Saddamm, the WMD was another lie, the only WMD he had were the ones Rummy gave him in the 1980's, they used cherypicked inteligence to portray it like he had WMD in 2002 to justify the the invasion but they never showed the intelligence that stated that he did not have WMD.

    ReplyDelete
  86. BTW Thomas, linking the war in Iraq to the war on terror is dishonest, the 9/11 commission as well as the the vast majority of expertson terrorism all say the war on teror was virtually abandoned to invade Iraq. We have limited resources and invading Iraq is dangerously compromising both national security and the war on terror.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Lydia,
    Full discloser:While at work, bored, I began searching for tv stars of the past that I had crushes on (Jan Smithers aka Bailey Quarters, etc). When I found your site I never dreamed I would come acrossed all this political content.
    I must say your opinions annoy me, however it was a great way to kill five hours. If we are supposed to marry the ones who annoy us the most, you should clone yourself, because we would surely clash.
    Anyway, I agree with the gentlemen who said you blossomed with age. You're stunningly attractive, and I admit if I had a daughter I would much prefer her to be like you than Ann Coulter.
    God bless, and thank Him for allowing us to live in a country where we are free to smear each other with words, dirty tricks and politics, and skrew each other with lawyers. It beats living in the dark ages under the rule of a Taliban.
    Look forward to continue reading and being annoyed by your comments--D.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Harold, last I saw Jan Smithers was living in Nova Scotia....

    Too cold up there for me
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  89. Lydia said "REMEMBER: BUSH WANTED TO SELL OUR PORTS TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. Bush rules only by fear which is False Evidence Appearing Real. FEAR. He uses terrorist tactics on us, making us think he thwarted these terror attacks! Thanks to Britain and Pakistan who shared information that helped thwart the London terrorist plot. Bush only found out about this on Sunday, so the Republican spin machine has no right to say Democrats are soft on "terror" or getting out of Iraq will make us less safe. IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

    STRENGTH LIES IN INTELLIGENCE. Democrats are stronger on terror because we know the value of human life. We will win the war on terror by gathering our forces and fortifying our homeland. By first bringing our troops home and strengthening our own borders, ports, airports and train stations and using our resources wisely. We can't afford to lose a single human life. We've lost over 2,600 troops, and another 16,000 missing arms and legs, and we've spent over 300 billion dollars on a war that has DEFINITELY CREATED MORE HATRED AND TERRORISM throughout the whole world against us.

    Democrats will go out and communicate with our enemies: we will bridge the gap and open diplomatic channels. Syria, who was helping us right after 911 will be helping us again. Everyone wants to be on the side of the Peacemaker who brings a higher vision to conflict. In the time that George Bush and the Three Stooges have been in power, they have created more enemies than ever before in America's history. This is the most shameful time in our country. We must get these primitive self-serving oil barons and Neanderthals out of power before they destroy the world."

    Lydia, that is one of your best posts, I couldnt have said it better, right on on all counts!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  90. BTW Lydia, the Mel Gibson post was funny, I was dead tired when I initially read it, and for half a second I was actually wondering if it could be true, funny stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hey FF, you remember the old Bob Newhart show?

    Do Mikey, Clif and Larry kinda remind you of Larry, Darrell and Darrell?

    (I read them described once as "three men sharing one brain"...LOL)

    -Voltaire

    Yeah Volt. That Larry is a real milquetoast, eh? He will only respond to folks who already agree with him. Even kayinmaine has more gonads than that. Maybe he needs a testosterone supplement; dkb proly has some to spare.

    All he does is gloat over his daily casualty report then he scurries away like a timid weasel.

    If you did an autopsy, you would proly find a whack-a-mole game where a normal person has an actual brain. Every time a cogent thought pops up, he knocks it back down with a mallet.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Hey Volt, I se you were warning the newest propagandist about Clif and I, truth is clif and I are always usually civil to people who are here for open minded debate, but we call BS when people are just spewing partisan rhetoric and lies.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Must have nothing relavent to say FF, because your resorting to personal attacks......if you cant defeat the message attack or kill the messenger, that should be the Rights motto.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Democrats will go out and communicate with our enemies: we will bridge the gap and open diplomatic channels.
    -Mike

    Yeah, Mike. You dhimmicrats will go out and communicate with our enemies like chamberlain "communicated" with hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Mike, what can I say that Thomas didn't already say so eloquently?

    Go back and carefully read what he posted. That is what is called a world class mind.

    ReplyDelete
  96. More spin FF, first of all Lydia said it, but I agree with her 100%, understanding our enemy and talking with them is not appeasement, I believe terrorists like bin laden need to be weeded out, however we need to understand why more mainstream muslims are becoming hardcore terrorists, and we need policies that are fair for all not just that benefit the elite rich in America, these people hate us for a reason and it would benefit us to understand what fuels that hatred and a simple polarizing us and them statement like they hate us for our freedom is didhonest and insulting.

    The Iraqi's dont want us occupying their country and many other arabs do not like our bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

    ReplyDelete
  97. that is what is called world class partisan rhetoric, lies and fear mongering, he should have saved himself the time and just paroted GWB or Dick Cheney or ann Coulter, the talking points are almost identical.But to you anyone that agrees with you has a world class mind and anyone who does not, no matter how sound their arguments is mentally challenged......how sad for you that you think 2 dimensionally my intellectually dishonest friend.

    ReplyDelete
  98. ...these people hate us for a reason and it would benefit us to understand what fuels that hatred and a simple polarizing us and them statement like they hate us for our freedom is didhonest and insulting.
    -Mike

    I think Muslims hate the West because we are more successful than they in every measurable way.

    Because of modern communication -- TV, radio, the internet -- the entire ummah now must recognize and confront their own failure. But instead of taking responsibility and admitting their own failure, they blame it on Israel and the West.

    For Muslims to admit failure means that their religion is a lie. They reject this with every fiber of their beings; instead, they believe that they are not practicing their religion fervently enough, which has led to the wahhabist movement of the last 30 years.

    That is what I think. So why do you think Muslims hate the West, Mike? And how do you plan to solve the dilemma with negotiation and "multi-dimensional" thinking? Please enlighten us.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Fantasy foole said;

    I think'

    There's your first mistake....son

    and from there it is simply downhill with your arguments

    ReplyDelete
  100. thomas said;

    Lydia, Iraq is central to winning the War on Terror.

    Well, it WAS not central to winning the war on terror, before the invasion of March 2002.

    But with the lack of PROPER military planning, especially where the phase 4 (follow on to combat operations are involved) is concerned. The utter lack of ANY planning as for security whether in Border security,(something Bush ET AL seems severely lacking the capability in performing whether in Iraq or at Home), security of enemy weapons, ammunition or equipment, or proper handling of the enemy forces at the end of the invasion proper....is THE first direct CAUSE. If the planning had included these operations...and had properly implemented...well the Fiasco we now face in Iraq would be MUCH different.



    The violent faction within Islam -


    Which one son? Sunni fundamentalism...radical Shiite extremists, you know the two major factions in Iraq who ARE killing each other DAILY

    who are committed to an 8th century ideology of repression and conquest - can only be eradicated by the majority of good hearted Muslims who desire peace, prosperity and well being.


    Too bad we BLEW it sooo badly in Iraq that the chance of that happening in that country is about as good as Dead eye telling the real truth about his quail shoot.


    We've forced the violence and pathology of Islamist terror back to its source.


    FAR from it son...it's source hinges in TWO separate places...the Shiite fundamentalism arose out of Iran in response to the repressive pro-western regime of the SHAH, who the CIA through Kermit Roosevelt and the Dulles brothers , set in power in 1954...

    The Sunnis extremists actually trace themselves back into the Wahabbism which is the brand of Islam which is fostered and promoted BY Saudi Arabia...wonder if that might be the reason Osama(you know the guy Bush forgot) and 15 of the 19 hijackers CAME FROM Saudi Arabia?

    And the Saudi's funded the madrasas in Pakistan where the majority of the terrorists get their calling from today, Pakistan the same country which Osama(you know the guy Bush forgot) and Mullah Omar sought refuge in since Nov 2001, and have not been "caught" yet.


    The Iraqis will have to remove the murderers from their midst.

    Seems that, the possibility of that right now is slim to none...because the Government which Bush ET AL support rests on the shoulders of al Sadr which is a power sect of Shiite fundamentalism in Iraq...and the Sunni's will never aquiess their control over the government, that OLD sunni-shiite hate thing.



    In doing so, as a free and sovereign people, it will create a sea change throughout the region and initiate a severely necessary reformation within the Islamic religion and throughout the Islamic world.

    Drinking delusional Cheney koolaid again eh son?


    We are forcing Muslims to confront and remove the cancer within their body.

    Right, it seems to be REAL effective there...

    That is our only option.

    That is the scary Part..son...we have limited ourselves to an option that has NEVER worked in the past, attempting BY force to make indigenous people to accept a political solution which the MAJORITY of them do not want.

    didn't work for the British in their shrinking empire thought out the 20th century...

    Didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan...or Eastern Europe in the LONG Run...didn't work for the French in Algeria, or Indochina. Didn’t work for the US in Vietnam....but somehow you have deluded yourself that it will work NOW?


    19 (15 Saudi citizens..2 UAE citizens and 1 Egyptian...SEE no IRAQI"S) individuals killed 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11.

    Correct ...but why did Bush, Cheney and Dumsfeld ..abandon the FIGHT to capture Osama(you know the guy Bush forgot) to invade a country WHICH had NOTHING to do with 9-11.....

    Unless we force a profound change in the environment that breeds violence and extremism, we will be attacked again with weapons that will kill millions of our innocent friends, family and countrymates.

    Too bad that it can not be done with a GUN...unless you are willing to kill people on the level the US Army did in the Indian wars...and that HOPEFULLY is NOT what your proposing? Do to the Muslims of the world...what Hitler tried to do to the Hebrews...eliminate them...because half measures will breed more terrorists than we destroy...As we did in Vietnam.


    We cannot sit back and wait for that. Best Regards!

    Well there is little we can do given the Fiasco in Iraq..and the Fiasco Israel created on their northern border...which will embolden the extremists even MORE.

    Hezbollah has done something that NO standing army of an Arab nation has EVER done....fought Israel to a STANDSTILL...with stood their onslaught..and kept fighting.. in fact after 33 days of brutal air assaults in Lebanon...Israel may be more insecure than when they started...and with the fiasco in Iraq the neo-con idiots have spread our forces thinner...which giving Osama and the Shiite extremists a recruiting tool and new training ground.

    the FIRST thing you do when your in a rather DEEP hole(like the fiasco in Iraq) is to STOP digging, but you repug neo-con loving clowns can't seem to understand just HOW deep the whole really is...AND WHY IT IS GETTING WORSE.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Thomas said...

    Mike, if Bush and his "big oil" conspirators were interested in cashing in on Iraq's oil resource we didn't need to invade the country: Saddam would have gladly sold us all the oil we dreamed of at cut rates if we left him alone to plunder,oppress and kill his economy and people and destabilize and terrorize his neighbors.

    Like Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush did in the 1980's?

    We know he had WMDs because he used them against his Kurdish countrymates and Iranian soldiers.


    Yes son in the 1980's, when Reagan and Bush's daddy were coddling him as our "ally" against Iran....

    But since then we fought a war...destroyed large stockpiles of his weapons and Ammunition...including some of the weapons he had in the 1980's...I know because that was part of MY job during Desert Storm,if you go here my unit is listed , and at places like Khamisiyah we destroyed chemical weapons according to the Iraqi's who stated they had some chemical weapons stored there.

    After the war in 1995 Hussein Kamel Hassan al-Majid (died February 23, 1996) was the son-in-law of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. He defected to Jordan and took to helping the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA inspection teams assigned to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    Kamel rose through the army ranks to become Iraq's minister of military industries, heading the Military Industrialization Commission and supervising Iraq's weapons development programs from 1987.
    Hussain Kamel defected to Jordan for a while, and while there gave the UN inspectors at that time the information he had about the WMD Saddam had.

    The UN inspectors were able to destroy the Large majority of those weapons...and since ALL chemical a weapons have a relatively short shelf life

    On June 21, 2006 a report has been released through the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stating that since 2003, 500 chemical weapons have been discovered dating from before 1991 in Iraq, and "likely more will be recovered." The weapons are filled "most likely" with Sarin and Mustard Gas. However, the U.S. Department of Defense states that these weapons were not in useable condition, and that "these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.


    ..nothing Saddam had before Desert Storm would be very effective in 2003.



    We know he harbored Al Qaeda operatives


    Wrong on that front...until right before the Invasion Saddam and Osama were sworn enemies who competed for supremacy of the Arab Sunni anti-American world...in fact Osama offered to protect the Saudi kingdom from Saddam after Saddam invaded Kuwait...but the Saudi King preferred the US military to Osama's ragtag band of jihadist extremists.

    and paid rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    We know he was using the corrupt Oil for Food program to purchase and develop deadly weapons, fund terror cells around the globe and buy UN Security Council protection. He killed hundreds of thousands of his people. He fired at our warplanes patrolling the UN no-fly zone.


    And WE bombed his missiles, radar sites and military assets. This allowed the US Air Force to severely degrade his effectiveness in the fall of 2002 up to the invasion starting.......

    He ignored the conditions of his surrender from the first Gulf War, in which 130 Americans lost their lives.


    345 please get YOUR facts straight; I personally knew some of those who lost their lives.

    When he refused to disarm,


    He did not refuse to disarm...inn fact HE did let the inspection teams BACK IN

    On November 9, 2002, at the urging of the United States government, the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" if these are not met and reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors that were to report back to the UN Security Council after their inspection should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Significantly, the Resolution stated that the UN Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter" (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441)


    .....Bush made them leave.

    In his March 17, 2003, address to the nation, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. This demand was reportedly rejected. Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC). The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA) Hans Blix went on to state the Iraqi government may have been hoping to restart production once sanctions were lifted and inspectors left the country, as speculated by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel. The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed when France made it known they would veto further Resolutions on Iraq. Thus, the Coalition invasion began without the express approval of the United Nations Security Council, and most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the UN Charter. (cf. The UN Security Council and the Iraq war) Several countries protested. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal." Proponents of the war claim that the invasion had implicit approval of the Security Council and was therefore not in violation of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. Despite the discovery of chemicals that are part of legitimate industrial use, but which could be possibly used as potential components of WMD manufacturing, no actual weapons of mass destruction were found.

    he had to be taken out.

    Good repug neo-con spin...but UNTRUE


    This War has nothing to do with oil

    This war had a lot to do with oil...that is why the US military was guarding the Iraqi Ministry of OIL while leaving thousands of weapons and ammo site’s unguarded.

    ... we get 80% of our imported oil from Canada,

    Shrinking base...unless the can get the oil sands economically effective..(and at $75-80 they might...but oil was no where that high in March 2003.)

    Mexico,

    Past peak production and declining

    Venezuela

    HUGO CHAVES...not the best person to pin you economic engines power source on if you act like George Bush

    and the Saudis.

    They may very well be near peak production...they are pumping water into their largest field..and that is a sign the easiest oil is already extracted.

    ReplyDelete
  102. It is unconscionable that you Libs wanted this regime to stay in power.

    Saddam Personally Ordered Chemical Attack On Kurds

    The Scotsman reports on a key piece of evidence that ties Saddam Hussein directly to the disgusting genocide of Kurds in Halabja almost twenty years ago. Memos from his personal secretary to military leaders make clear that Saddam wanted to use chemical weapons on Kurdish positions in 1987:

    SADDAM Hussein ordered plans to be drawn up for a chemical weapons attack on Kurdish guerrilla bases in northern Iraq in 1987, according to a letter signed by his personal secretary. ...
    The planned attack appears to have been part of the 1987-88 campaign that left more than 180,000 Kurds dead and demolished hundreds of Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. In the most notorious incident, the town of Halabja was bombed with mustard and nerve gas in 1988, killing 5,000 residents.

    In the papers released by the US, a report from Iraq's military intelligence details the bases of Kurdish rebels, led by Ibrahim Barzani, and Iranian troops.

    Saddam's secretary replies, saying, "The leader Mr President has ordered that your department study with experts a surprise attack with special ammunition in the areas of Barzani's gangs and the [former Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini Guards."

    "Special ammunition" is the phrase used throughout Saddam's regime for chemical weapons. Later documents mention specifically the nerve agent sarin and mustard gas.


    One wonders how Saddam would respond to this. Regarding Dujail, he has claimed that the processes used to massacre the residents of the small town as a reprisal for an assassination attempt were legal under Iraqi law, a claim that has done little to slow his prosecution. For Halabja, observers widely predicted that his defense would claim ignorance of the attack until after it had already taken place -- a sort of reverse Nazi defense of "I didn't give the orders". This new evidence clearly shows that he gave those orders before, and probably on many other occasions, against the Iranians during their eight-year war as well as against his own people.

    It's fashionable these days to claim that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than after his liberation, given the civilian death toll from the fight against the insurgents. Some claim that over 100,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion, although the methodology for those calculations has been highly suspect. In two years, Saddam killed over 180,000 Kurds just for being Kurds, and destroyed their homes, forcing them to live in the hills to survive -- and that doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs, Shi'a, and even Sunnis who died either in droves in reprisals for suspected disloyalty or individually as Saddam and his henchmen desired. This letter reminds us that Iraqis and the world have all benefitted from the removal of this sick, twisted dictator.

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006565.php

    ReplyDelete
  103. MSNBC reporting this morning that Lieberman is ahead of Lamont in the polls by 46-41.

    Way to go, Rove, keep splitting the Democratic Party.

    ReplyDelete
  104. NO MORE BUSHMEN!
    -Lydia Cornell

    Absolutely! The Bushmen are a heavily-armed menace who must be defeated at all cost.

    ReplyDelete
  105. From MichelleMalkin.com

    Lieberman Tops Lamont in Post-Primary Poll

    By Mary Katharine Ham · August 14, 2006 02:33 PM
    Nedrenaline. Great high, killer crash?

    'Tis a long time 'til November still, but this is interesting. A cursory look at the big liberal blogs suggests they're not discussing it. Vewy, vewy quiet over there.

    Jim Addison takes a look at where Lieberman must go from here.

    ReplyDelete
  106. TalllTexan, Michelle also turned me on to this:

    Most of the UK sky terror suspects are Pakistani Muslim men who grew up in Britain. They aren’t like the 9-11 crew, who invaded the US using student visas, overstayed those visa periods, and lived here until that fateful day. The UK suspects are homegrown. One couple involved in the foiled attack even allegedly planned to take their six-month-old baby on their aerial suicide mission.
    -Hotair

    Fortunately homegrown jihad isn’t a major problem here in the US. This could never happen here...Or could it?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Tiny inTellect said;

    SADDAM Hussein ordered plans to be drawn up for a chemical weapons attack on Kurdish guerrilla bases in northern Iraq in 1987, according to a letter signed by his personal secretary. ...
    The planned attack appears to have been part of the 1987-88 campaign that left more than 180,000 Kurds dead and demolished hundreds of Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. In the most notorious incident, the town of Halabja was bombed with mustard and nerve gas in 1988, killing 5,000 residents.


    1987-1988...Ronald Reagan was playing pResident...and in 1988 GHWB ran for the office...seems they were not too worried...but Willie Horton was A MAJOR problem according to the repugs...at that time. Seems the GOP had absolutely NO problem with Saddam's actions as NOBODY tried to do any thing about HIM until he attacked Kuwait...which interfered with the US oil companies contracts with Kuwait. And would have resulted in Saddam having control over the Kuwaiti oil.

    Yes we should have licked him out of Kuwait...but simply put..that is the first REAL action Reagan or Dumya's Daddy took in regards to Saddam.

    ReplyDelete
  108. June 14, 2006
    In Connecticut, Lamont Closes the Gap
    Want to know why supporters of Sen. Joe Lieberman are planning an independent bid? A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Lieberman leading primary challenger Ned Lamont (D) by just six percentage points, 46% to 40%.

    There are some issues with the poll, such as a small sample size (218) and large margin of error (7%), but the results are a clear sign that Lamont is gaining traction.


    Seems we have been HERE before haven't we dumb and dumber......

    BTW who actually WON the election that a JUNE poll had Lieberman leading?

    ReplyDelete
  109. BTW i forgot the link...sorry;

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/14/in_connecticut_lamont_closes_the_gap.html

    ReplyDelete
  110. Clif, that link got cut off. Could you post a hotlink?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Cliff, could you post a hotlink to Wikipedia's entree on the ROTC?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Got this from Buzzflash...and HE makes a lot more sense that Malkin the squaking head does.

    Larry Beinhart: Republicans are Bad on National Security

    A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
    by Larry Beinhart, author of Wag the Dog and Fog Facts

    Say it loud, say it often, "Republicans are bad on national security." Every Democrat running for national office – and local offices too, why not? – should say, "I'm running because Republicans are bad on national security."

    Then they should go on to say, here's why I’m saying it:

    1. 9/11 happened on their watch. Of course, we can’t say, absolutely, that it would not have happened if they had not been asleep at the wheel. But we can say that they did not do all they could have done to prevent it. We can say that Bush literally pushed away the warnings.

    2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden. We got both Hitler and Hirohito in less time than we’ve been chasing bin Laden. Every day that bin Laden’s out there, he’s proof that you can attack the United States and get away with it. That’s a bad message to send, and believe me, people in the terrorist world have heard it loud and clear. That’s very bad for national security.

    3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden what he wanted. Bin Laden wanted the US to get into a quagmire. He wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them.

    A modern, hi-tech army is very good at invasions. It’s also good for fighting back against other armies. But a modern hi-tech army is not good at occupying a country against the will of the population. Even if the army is as violent and ruthless as the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan were.

    4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America’s power and prestige. Before 9/11 most people in the world probably thought that America’s intelligence services were able and astute, agencies to be feared. The Bush administration has made them appear bumbling and inept. They did this, first, by ignoring their warnings and then, second, by making them the fall guys for 9/11.

    After 9/11 most of the world feared America's wrath and America's might. By failing to get bin Laden and his gang, then by attacking the wrong country, unleashing chaos, and getting our armed forces into a situation that they can’t win, the administration showed the world they have less to fear than they imagined.

    5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah. The 'insurgency' in Iraq was Hezbollah's textbook and their inspiration. If Iraqis could do that to Americans, surely they could do the same to the Israelis. And they have. It's not yet on the record, but it's clear from everyone's conduct, that the administration encouraged the Israelis to 'unleash' their forces against Hezbollah. They probably thought Israel's modern hi-tech armies would quickly smash their enemy.

    6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas. Hamas was elected. Sworn to the destruction of Israel or not, they should have been encouraged to become responsible players with carrots as well as sticks. Instead the administration put them up against the wall, hoping to starve the Palestinian people into voting for a different group. Would that work if someone tried to do it to us?

    7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran and North Korea invested in nuclear technology. That made North Korea feel secure enough to test ICBMs. If they had been successful, they would have had a delivery system for their nuclear weapons. That would be incredibly bad for national security. Iran, with American forces tied down in Iraq, feels secure enough to defy the UN as well as the US. Very bad for national security.

    8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists. People on the level of this group that the British just took down. The most ferocious terrorist arrested in the United States since 9/11 has been the shoe bomber. Ten, twenty, forty, a hundred billion dollars, a trillion dollars, and the best we have to show for it is the shoe bomber?! Republicans are bad on national security.

    9. We have trashed the bill of rights. We have trashed the Geneva conventions. We have a president and a vice president willing to go the mat to fight for the right to torture people.

    We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps.

    We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone’s telephone data.

    And what have we achieved by all of this?

    A quagmire in Iraq. Dishonor. Debts. An empowered al Qaeda. A new war in Lebanon. The inability to stand up to Iran and North Korea. Osama bin Laden at large, an inspiration to extremists everywhere.

    Republican are unimaginably bad on national security. Say it loud. Say it often, it’s the truth, Republicans are bad on national security.

    http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/354

    ReplyDelete
  113. More Evidence of Bush Administration Treason: The Valerie Wilson Affair Revisited



    On Sunday, BuzzFlash posted an editorial accusing the Bush Administration of treason.

    It is a subject worthy of a book.

    Their priority is not to fight terrorism, as we have said many a time. Their priority is the accumulation of dictatorial powers, primarily by using terrorism as a tool for doing away with our civil liberties.

    To such a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Rove mindset, WE are the collateral damage in a campaign to achieve one-party tyrannical rule. They crave power, and they are the ultimate elitists.

    Like a Pinochet, they believe that they are restoring some fantasy of "patria" to a nation of sheep, lost in the chaos of liberty and freedom.

    To those that question the assertion that the Bush Administration is treasonous, we will return, yet again, to one of the most egregious examples of their betrayal. That is the exposure of a CIA operative specializing in the tracking of the illicit sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    The Neo-con "Tokyo Roses," such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, will argue that Libby was just indicted for perjury, and that no one has been legally charged with treason or outing a CIA operative.

    This is legally accurate, but does not settle the issue of treason.

    The Neo-con "Tokyo Rose" arguments regarding the Wilson affair are, as Stephen Colbert would say, filled with "truthiness," not truth.

    This is the reality on the record.

    The White House, with the authorization of both Bush and Cheney, approved the declassification of highly secret intelligence information to discredit Joe Wilson and to expose his wife. By exposing Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, they rendered her inoperative as a CIA asset who was an expert in following the illicit trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    It has been speculated -- and not disputed -- that Valerie Wilson was even an expert on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction in regards to Iran.

    Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, well more than 2500 American GIs are dead, and thousands of U.S. soldiers are recovering from the most serious of war injuries. Why? Because the Bush Administration led us into a war with Iraq by lying to us.

    What did they lie to us about? The chief lie that clinched the casus belli was the endlessly repeated assertion that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (which they did not actually have). Now, the Bush Administration has been saber rattling for a war with Iran. Why? Because they are attempting to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, according to the Neo-cons.

    So here we return to the treason.

    If you have initiated and conducted a three year ruinous war by telling the American people that a nation had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and if you are trying to pull America into another war because of a claim that a nation -- Iran -- might develop Weapons of Mass Destruction, isn't it treason to intentionally render useless a CIA operative who specializes in tracking the illegal sales and transfer of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

    There is no answer to that question but yes.

    In the course of the years since 9/11, there has been day after day of stories and findings that prove that the Bush Administration is running only a headline propaganda war on terrorism, while shortchanging us on the details of implementing and funding anti-terror efforts in the United States and abroad. That, one can argue, may be due to either incompetence or intentional criminal malfeasance; i.e., aimed at exacerbating the terrorist threat to use it as an excuse to gain more power by dismantling our freedoms.

    But the Valerie Wilson affair goes beyond that. It is not just an issue of legal technicalities. The public evidence is more than sufficient to show that Rove/Libby/Cheney and Bush willfully outed a CIA operative who could aid us in knowing which nations or terrorist groups who wished us harm had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    To do such damage to our efforts to track illegal weapons that the Bush Administration claims are worthy of thousands upon thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars is treason.

    Let the Neo-con "Tokyo Roses" play with technicalities.

    We will repeat the bare truth: The "neutralizing" of a CIA operative specializing in Weapons of Mass Destruction was treason. The motive of the Bush Administration doesn't matter. Because of their actions in the Wilson Affair, America's national security is at greater risk based on their own emphasis on the significance of certain nations and terrorist organizations having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    The President, Vice-President, Rove and Libby have committed treason by the definitions of national security that they themselves have created. By their own standards, they are guilty of betraying America's safety and security.

    http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorial/71

    ReplyDelete
  114. A very GOOD article about how OPENMINDED freepers are...NOT.


    Targeted by Gun Nuts

    After she wrote a gun-control op-ed, the writer got threats and worse: a blogosphere hit job on her murdered brother.

    A SPINELESS retard with the character of pond scum." A "whacko," "greedy un-American idiot," "fascist," "whining liberal" and "nasty little gun grabber."

    Those are just some of the names I've been called since I published an Op-Ed article in the Washington Post to commemorate the fifth anniversary of my brother's death. After briefly stating that David and his fiancee were shot and killed by the fiancee's mother, who was angry that she had to move out of their L.A. apartment, I went on to argue for a national ban on handguns. The gun control lobby, led by the Brady Campaign, has worked passionately to make guns safer and to regulate their sales. But such measures, I contended, will never significantly reduce the annual U.S. death toll by firearms — 12,000 — because most murderers use legally purchased handguns and know how to operate them safely.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    A couple of days later, while procrastinating on a writing assignment, I Googled my article. And so began my strange, weeklong trip through chat rooms on such pro-gun websites as keepandbeararms.com freerepublic.com, packing.org and rightnation.us.

    I was not surprised by the insults directed at me. I'm familiar with the name-calling in gun control debates: "stupid," "beyond stupid," "liar," "criminal-coddling leftist scumbag," "Los Angeles coward."

    I also expected threats: "OK beotch … come get my gun … bullets first."



    I was hardly startled by the misogyny: "bitch," "broad" and "bimbo," but also "sweetums," "Miss Jenny" and "Jenny honey" (I'd rather be called a "spineless retard with the character of pond scum").

    The sheer meanness could be breathtaking, but it was not unexpected: "Gee, Jenny dear, perhaps they just needed killin.' "

    I calmly read accusations that my true goal in writing the article was to sue gun companies and profit from my brother's death. The barrage of counter-statistics was standard too, as were the paeans to the 2nd Amendment and the endless iterations of "guns don't kill people — people kill people."

    But objections to my account of my brother's murder left me speechless. There were two sorts of challenges.

    First, many chat-room members declared that the killing had to have been justified and was most likely an act of self-defense.

    One participant, "armymarinedad," wrote: "I would submit it was a liberal mind-set." Liberals, many others agreed, are mean to their parents — mean enough to warrant homicide. "One can't help wondering," went one response to armymarinedad, "what the mother had done in a previous life to deserve … a Liberal for a daughter."

    The second challenge was that I had made up the story of my brother's murder. "Law-abiding gun owners simply do not commit crimes," "Gunslinger" posted — logic hard to refute. But like David's killer, thousands of law-abiding citizens annually become criminals when they pick up a firearm and shoot other people.

    "Chances are very good," wrote "Plutarch" on freerepublic.com, "that her brother, if she has one, is alive and well."

    Plutarch and his freerepublic fellows Googled my story about David — and were encouraged when they came up empty because they were certain that "this remarkable murder" would have received massive media attention.

    "I love to catch them [liberals] lying!" declared "mad_as_he$$."

    Lamentably, a double homicide by a friend or relative of the victims is an unremarkable news event in Los Angeles County, where 17 people, on average, are shot to death every week. The Times' and Daily News' stories were brief and buried on inside pages. Because the police took all day to notify our family, David's name did not appear in them.

    No matter. The freerepublic.com gang Googled some more, LexisNexised, scoured The Times' archives for headlines, dug up Social Security records. They wondered whether David and I had different last names: A "rabid feminist" like me, of course, would never use her husband's name. But "Ghengis (Alexander was a wuss!)" surmised that David and I had different fathers because that was so "common in California in the '60s."

    In the midst of my detective work, I received an e-mail from a medical doctor who praised my "terrific opinion piece" and asked for "a link to any newspaper accounts." But I quickly determined that Plutarch had sent the e-mail using his real name (I can Google too).

    Plutarch found a photograph of me on the Internet and posted it on the freerepublic site. He worked so hard on the case that I was rooting for him to be the guy who finally figured it out. But just after he promised his colleagues that he'd call the L.A. County coroner's office, "DakotaRed" posted a recent newspaper piece about my family that mentioned the murder. The freerepublic discussion stopped abruptly, and the chat rooms on the other pro-gun sites soon moved on as well.

    So ended the efforts to prove that David either deserved to be shot to death or that he never existed.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-price13aug13,0,4661455.story?coll=la-opinion-center


    Freepers repugs who hate and do not let the FACTS get in the way of their HATE.

    ReplyDelete
  115. He is extremely rude in his language...BUT SPOT ON POINT;

    Bush and Cheney: Not Part of the Conversation Anymore, Just Like They Want:
    For so long, George Bush and Dick Cheney have isolated themselves like paranoid neighbors in their backyard bomb shelter, telling the clawing outsiders they don't have enough food or air for everyone. They have spoken, for the vast part of the last five years, only to audiences that are handpicked by lackeys or screened at the events themselves (and this doesn't include those who get to pay for the "privilege" at fundraisers). If you even get into a Bush or Cheney speech with a dissenting or bumper sticker, you will get the bum's rush. And that's been quite the success.

    They've treated over half the country like parents who ignore their children, only breaking the silence to discipline the kids when they knock a vase over or refuse to eat their peas, and who are surprised when the kids get older and don't give a shit what their parents have to say. Because right now, when Bush and Cheney speak, they're only talking to thirty percent or so of the country, with the rest of the nation either saying, "F*ck them" or wondering, "Hey, who's the old guys and why are they so mad?"

    So debased is the pile of vaguely humanoid slime that is Dick Cheney that Hillary Clinton can say of Cheney's slurping words of condemnation of Connecticut Democrats, "I don't take anything he says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive, even destructive force in our country." A writer with the Washington Post can say, "I'm afraid to say his utterances are losing their news value." And most of us can only nod, a bit sadly, a bit wisely, and say, "So true, so true."

    Then the President, who has gone unchallenged by everything except reality, in his radio address this weekend actually said, "Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face." One could argue this or that, things like, "Umm, when RNC chair Ken 'Elastic Cheeks' Mehlman said on Sunday that 'the focus now is going to be who’s on the ballot? What are the choices? And I don’t believe Americans, in the middle of a tough war, as they see these plots, want to weaken the tools and surrender the tools that are critical to keeping Americans safe. I don’t think they want to weaken how we interrogate potential terrorists. I don’t think they want to weaken the surveillance. I don’t think they want to kill the Patriot Act, and I certainly don’t want to think that they give the enemy the kind of victory that the 9/11 Commission had said they would have if we cut and run from Iraq,' had he gotten the memo not to use the threat for political advantage?"

    But that's useless. When the goddamn President can say, as he did on Saturday, "On September the 11th, 2001, they used box cutters to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of innocent people," well, what's supposed to be our reaction? Motherf*cker's right. They did. Thanks for the f*ckin' reminder. We could throw all kinds of crap at his bullsh*t statement that "Because of the measures we've taken to protect the American people, our Nation is safer than it was prior to September the 11th." We could ask about the attempt to cut money from explosive detection technology. We could ask about how the White House pressured the British to make the arrests early, so it could conveniently come right after primary day.

    It's useless because Bush ain't talkin' to us anymore. He's only talking to those who could get into his public appearances, an increasingly small number. You wanna talk about the "polarization" of the nation? There's your bifurcation: those who can see their President speak in person and those who can not. Sure, sure, we can all watch him on the TV, but not when there's all those episodes of Laguna Beach on the Tivo.

    The White House knows this - it's Karl Rove's modus operandi: f*ck those who disagree. And it's what they want. By so diminishing the value of the public roles of the President and Vice President, they can go about their business in deeper secrecy. Nothing to see here. And we're just gonna keep sayin' the same bullsh*t, over and over, because you don't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Poof!

    One day the vaunted Iraqi security forces that we are training to stand up so we can stand down were more than 2,000 strong in Fallujah.

    The next day -- poof! Gone with the wind. Hasta la vista baby!

    This is from the Los Angeles Times. Sorry, it's not online yet:

    BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Hundreds of newly recruited police officers in Fallujah failed to show up for work Sunday after insurgents disseminated pamphlets threatening officers who stayed on the job, according to police officials in the restive western Iraq city.

    "We will kill all the policemen infidels," read the pamphlets, "whether or not they quit or are still in their jobs."

    Fallujah Police Lt. Mohammed Alwan said that the force, which he estimated had increased to more than 2,000, has now shrunk to only 100. Alwan said that insurgents have killed dozens of policemen in their homes and also attacked family members in a weeks-long intimidation campaign.

    A Fallujah police major, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to a fear of reprisals, said that at least 1,400 policemen had left their jobs since Friday, 400 of them police officials above the rank of officer.

    http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/08/meanwhile-back-in-war.html

    No wonder the DOD has fairy tale numbers for congress, they count on people who obviously can not be counted on.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Hell they will EVEN throw their OWN canidadtes under the BUS...before they even get a chance to prove their mettle...

    White House: Bush declines to back Republican in CT

    The White House today refused to announce support the Republican challenger to Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), RAW STORY has learned.

    When asked whether or not President Bush supports Alan Schlesinger in his bid to oust Lieberman, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow answered only that "the president supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut, and wishes them a successful election in November."

    "Wait, wait, wait," a reporter persisted. "I realize he supports democracy, but I'm wondering. Does he actually support his own party's candidate?"

    During a combative back and forth that sometimes had the two talking over one another, Snow indicated that he didn't know for sure whether the president supports Lieberman or his Republican rival, but that "there are a whole host of reasons," that Bush may not want to back Schlesinger.

    "I think you know the situation in Connecticut," Snow concluded.

    Connecticut is currently seen as unlikely to elect a Republican Senator. Schlesinger is seen trailing behind Lieberman, who is running as an Independent Democrat, and Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.


    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/White_House_Bush_declines_to_back_0814.html


    The RNC and white house have their GOP canidates backs...but would prefer them to bend over......especially if they are not way ahead in the polls.

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

    ReplyDelete
  119. Tinmy inTellect said...

    Clif, that link got cut off. Could you post a hotlink?


    works FINE for me, try it again son, and if it still does,t work ask your thrid grade teacher to help you next time.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/14/in_connecticut_lamont_closes_the_gap.html

    ReplyDelete
  120. Tiny inTellect said...

    Cliff, could you post a hotlink to Wikipedia's entree on the ROTC?

    google ..wiki, and when it comes up TYPE "ROTC" in the search box, geeze, third grade does not teach much any more.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Or even easier son, go back to the LAST thread, scroll down to the post I wrote, and Follow that LINK....

    You'd think the GOP could get operatives with above third grade computer skills.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Clif, I guess my sarcasm went right over your head, like most things.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Why has Iraq war lasted nearly as long as WWII?

    By Kenneth Janda, a professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University
    Published August 14, 2006

    The United States has been fighting in Iraq since March 19, 2003, when President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom with air strikes against Baghdad. Monday marks the 1,245th day of the Iraqi conflict. By that reckoning, Americans troops will have fought in Iraq for as long as they fought Germany in World War II.

    Our war against Germany lasted 1,245 days, from Dec. 11, 1941, (when both nations declared war) until May 8, 1945.

    Our war against Japan from Dec. 7, 1941, until Aug. 15, 1945, lasted somewhat longer--1,348 days.

    So one cannot yet say that the war in Iraq has been longer than World War II.

    By another reckoning, the war in Iraq is already over, having lasted only 44 days. According to President Bush, it ended on May 1, 2003, when, standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, he said: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

    During those 44 days, 140 Americans died in the successful conflict called Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the 1,200 days since, however, more than 2,400 Americans have died in Iraq.

    So it does not quite seem right to declare the war in Iraq over on May 1, 2003.

    Already, the war in Iraq has gone on as long as the war against Germany (and Italy, which surrendered even earlier), and it seems destined to last even longer than the three years, eight months, and nine days needed to defeat Japan.

    Nov. 25, the Saturday after Thanksgiving, will mark the 1,348th day of American involvement in the Iraqi conflict. It is not a date to celebrate.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0608140204aug14,1,5246137.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

    Longer than WW1, longer than the Korean conflict, longer than the War of 1812, longer than the Mexican War, come November, the War in Iraq will only be exceeded by Vietnam, the Civil War (very telling there) and our Revolutionary War, which if used as a comparison we are the red coats.......large foreign army fighting insurgents in their home towns and states,(called provinces in Iraq)

    ReplyDelete
  124. Tiny inTellect (between nap time and recess)said...

    Clif, I guess my sarcasm went right over your head, like most things.

    Not really son....but do try harder next time and you might make it to scorn, or maybe even to a REAL insult.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Later Tiny, isn't it time for you to ride the little yellow bus home?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Clif, at least you are using a spell checker, because your previous posts (the ones you actually wrote) were incomprehensible.

    Remember this one from March or April?
    ___________

    BTW of this is the VA side over, which they adjust for US of veterans, the dioxin in Viet Nam was suspended: Viet Nam veterans profiting from the central orange guidelines you are leaders of the society. They let business run; direct organizations; dress political office. In their mid-50s they are on the height their social and economic energy and acquire more than others in its age group. However with their success, they can escape not the inevitable health interests of one graying population. They are Viet Nam veterans and the department of the affairs of veteran (VA) are concerned the fact that they can regard the diseases, which with aging, like Prostatakrebs, when straight another illness instead of than the result their military services in Southeast Asia is connected. VA wishes this Viet Nam veterans knows that they for reconciliation and health care for certain diseases can be suitable, which are connected with central orange the Entblaetterer, which is sprayed unmask hostile hiding places in the jungles in Viet Nam. Special health care and balance use is for the 2,6 million men and women available, who served in Viet Nam between 1962 and 1975, only 3,300 of, remain whom in the uniform today. Those, which will unload during this period, are received the largest group of the veterans, the VA Gesundheitspflege and monthly reconciliation. A small percentage of their requirements for inability for diseases, which registered scientists, nevertheless is as, connects with central orange. VA presupposes that all military personnel, who served in Viet Nam was suspended central orange, and Federal law presupposes that certain diseases are a result of this exposure. This so-called "supposed policy" simplifies the process of the receiving of reconciliation for these diseases, since VA lets the normal requirements of the examination go that an illness began or was worsened during military services. Based on clinical research, the following diseases on central orange are list Virginias of the supposed inability: chloracne, illness Hodgkins, repeated myeloma, lymphoma of the non Hodgkins, porphyria cutanea tarda, AtmungsSarkoms, acute and subacute auxiliary neuropathy and Prostatakrebs of the cancers (lungs, Bronchus, Larynx and trachea), soft fabrics. A regulation is developed, in order to add diabetes mellitus. Additionally financial use, health care and vocational rehablitation services to the sekundaerteilchen Viet Nam veterans with Spina Bifida, a kongenitaler birth damage of the thorn are provided. A new law authorizes health care and financial use to the children of the female veterans, who served in Viet Nam for certain additional birth damage. That additional use under the new law is not to the beneficiaries until December. 1, 2001 payable. Veterans, who also served in Viet Nam during the war, are suitable for a complete physical examination. If a VA physician assumes, an illness with central orange, VA could is connected supplies free medical treatment. Those, which participate in examination the program, part central orange of a register and receive periodic mails from the VA over the newest central orange studies and the new diseases, which under VA-POLITICAL guidelines are covered http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/AOno1.htm this side examine that the Federal Government accepts responsibility for the exposure of US of veterans, whom US put out the military now as a Christian, what we as country are, which goes, doing for which does not fit into this program, but who became put out by US the military straight the same? A small problem the population of Viet Nam is, 83.535.576 (July 2005 est.) One April 2003 report paid for by national the Academy OF Sciences determined that during Viet Nam of the war, 3,181 villages became sprayed directly with herbicides. Between 2,1 and 4,8 million people would have been present "during the spraying."(wikipedia) and to eliminate and lower why it is our problem..., a sind.We signer for Stockholm meeting, connect the contract signer, mass, where possible, where one does not eliminate possible, everything, sources of dioxin.(like, which the estimated 19 million gallons herbicide had been sprayed on Viet Nam, Kambodscha and Thailand to take, a little more than half (55%) of this central orange, between 1962 and 1971. Early estimations of 1974 had set the quantities lower, between for 12 and 14 million gallons. In the total quantity approximately six million morning in Viet Nam alone) seems sprayed that possibly we a chemical machine log book in our eye also....

    http://www.lydiacornell.com/
    2006/03/acceptance-is-key
    -to
    -serenity.html
    #c114399174006819333

    ReplyDelete
  127. Thanks for the info Voltaire. Too cold sounds alright now, because I'm in the midwest and it's too damn hot here. (In the 100's).

    ReplyDelete
  128. FF, I think Michelle owns or controls that site. I just looked at myself for the first time this afternoon. Thanks for the tip.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Of course those big-hearted and compassionate Liberals are reveling in the kidnapping of FNC's Steve Centanni. Way to go Libs:

    "We can't savor the irony? These people engage in and enable FOX News' constant lies about pretty much everything, including the Palestinians, and then they're seized by some of the very people they've lied about incessantly - helping craft American opinion that gets these people killed by Americans not being outraged by the Israeli government's treatment of them. From a karmic viewpoint, the irony is perfect, and informative: don't lie about others, because you might be at their mercy someday. That's not wishing ill on them; it's recognizing the funny way life works."

    http://freerepublic.com/
    focus/f-news/1683563/
    posts?q=1&&page=51

    ReplyDelete
  130. Testy eh tiny minded one...they picking on you on the bus again?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Thomas said...

    Voltaire, the great delusion is this notion that somehow our campaign in Iraq has created some enemy that didn't exist before.

    An enemy like the Al Sadr militia...well we were not fighting them before march 2003, and the Sunni insurgents...not them either...However our Air Force was doing a good job destroying Saddam’s Military assets while enforcing the no fly zone....and we were doing a very good job frustrating his plans....


    We've been at War with Islamist fascism for nearly 30 years.

    Funny the Islamists in Iran go back at least to 1954 when the CIA through it’s agent Kermit Roosevelt(Teddy’s grandson) on orders of the Dulles brothers who lead the CIA and State department under Eisenhower,

    Good article here about both the coup, and Cia cover up of it...

    http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iran-coup.htm


    and in Iraq they might even go back to the post WW1 period when Briton attempted to subdue Iraq with no better results than we have had.


    The Iranians seized our embassy and held our citizens hostage for six months in 1979.

    Actually 444 days to be EXACT...facts seem to elude you don’t they son?



    Terrorists kidnaped and killed our Beirut CIA station chief in 1981.


    Could it be because of the CIA’s operations in Support of Israel?

    Terrorists bombed our Beirut Marine barracks and killed 240 Americans in their sleep in 1982.


    Possibly because at the same time Reagan sent the Marines into Beirut, he was arming and supplying Israel who just happened to have attacked Lebanon, could you think the terrorists did not see the difference between the two military operations in their country, Israel with the US’s military support were attacking their country, but the marines in Beirut were not part of THAT military exercise.



    Terrorists hijacked boats and planes and murdered American citizens in 1985.

    Yes son they did....after we over threw a democratic government in Iran, and reinstalled the SHAH...who created Savak...a secret police agency that rivaled the KGB in Russia for techniques of terror and torture it used to prop up the SHAH. Savak was partly funded and trained by the CIA.

    SAVAK, short for Sazeman-e Ettelaat va Amniyat-e Keshvar, Organization for Intelligence and National Security) was the domestic security and intelligence service of Iran from 1957–1979.

    SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the assistance of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad. Its mission was to provide stability. Its first director was General Teymur Bakhtiar, who was replaced by General Hassan Pakravan who was executed by the Revolutionary Guard after the Islamic Revolution. Pakravan was replaced in 1965 by General Nematollah Nassiri, a close associate of the Shah, and the service was reorganized and became increasingly active in the face of rising Islamic and Communist militancy and political unrest.

    SAVAK had virtually unlimited powers of arrest and detention. It operated its own detention centres, like the notorious Evin Prison. It is universally accepted that SAVAK routinely subjected detainees to physical torture. In addition to domestic security the service's tasks extended to the surveillance of Iranians (especially students on government stipends) abroad, notably in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.

    SAVAK agents often carried out operations against each other. Teymur Bakhtiar was assassinated by SAVAK agents in 1970, and Mansur Rafizadeh, SAVAK's United States director during the 1970s, reported that General Nassiri's phone was tapped. Hussein Fardust, a former classmate of the Shah, was a deputy director of SAVAK until he was appointed head of the Imperial Inspectorate, also known as the Special Intelligence Bureau, to watch over high-level government officials, including SAVAK directors. Fardust later became director of SAVAMA, the post-revolution carbon copy of the original SAVAK organization. Also, SAVAK planned and executed Black Friday (1978), although the role of PLO agents in Black Friday has not been disproven. The CIA closely watched over SAVAK and provided them with intelligence on possible targets for assassination, many of whom were Communists. Many Communists were imprisoned or mysteriously disappeared as a result of this relationship. It is believed that the last director of SAVAK was on the payroll of the CIA.

    Wikipedia

    BTW Black Friday...

    Black Friday occurred September 8, 1978 (17 Shahrivar 1357 AP) in Iran. The country had been convulsed with protests against the rule of Muhammad Reza Shah. The Shah had thus declared martial law. However, on September 8, Tehran witnessed mass protests. Despite the largely peaceful nature of the protests, the military used deadly force to break up the demonstrations. This included the use of tanks and helicopter gunships. Several hundred demonstrators [1] [2] were killed.(Can we say Tiananmen Square?)

    The event utterly destroyed any support the Shah had in Iran. An even larger round of protests followed this event, one that shut down the oil industry, which was essential to the regime's survival.

    The events were an important part of the lead-up to the Iranian Revolution that saw the destruction of the monarchy less than a year later.

    Wikipedia...



    And have supplied the Israeli military which has treated the Palestinian as bad as the US did the African-Americans during the “Jim Crow” period.... which included the Israeli’s basically stealing the homes and Land from the Palestinians during the 1946-1948 period when the State of Israel was being created


    Terrorists bombed a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland and killed several hundred Americans in 1988.

    Lybia...Gaddafi...

    For most of the 1990s, Libya endured economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation as a result of Gaddafi's refusal to allow the extradition to the United States or Britain of two Libyans accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Through the intercession of South African President Nelson Mandela - who made a high-profile visit to Gaddafi in 1997 - and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gaddafi agreed in 1999 to a compromise that involved handing over the defendants to the Netherlands for trial under Scottish law. U.N. sanctions were thereupon suspended, but U.S. sanctions against Libya remained in force.

    In August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction, Libya formally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. Gaddafi agreed to pay compensation of up to $2.7 billion – or up to $10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims. The same month, Britain and Bulgaria co-sponsored a U.N. resolution which removed the suspended sanctions.

    Wikipedia...

    Bush’s buddy now remember?

    Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. US President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War attempted to portray Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by claiming that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. Many foreign policy experts, however, contend that Gaddafi's announcement was merely a continuation of his prior attempts at normalizing relations with the West and getting the sanctions removed. To support this, they point to the fact that Libya had already made similar offers starting four years prior to it finally being accepted. International inspectors turned up several tons of chemical weaponry in Libya, as well as an active nuclear weapons program. As the process of destroying these weapons continued, Libya improved its cooperation with international monitoring regimes to the extent that, by March 2006, France was able to conclude an agreement with Libya to develop a significant nuclear power program.

    In March 2004, British prime minister Tony Blair became one of the first western leaders in decades to visit Libya and publicly meet Gaddafi. Blair praised Gaddafi's recent acts, and stated that he hoped Libya could now be a strong ally in the international War on Terrorism. In the run-up to Blair's visit, the British ambassador in Tripoli, Anthony Layden, explained Libya's and Gaddafi's political change thus:

    "35 years of total state control of the economy has left them in a situation where they're simply not generating enough economic activity to give employment to the young people who are streaming through their successful education system. I think this dilemma goes to the heart of Colonel Gaddafi's decision that he needed a radical change of direction."

    On May 15, 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, even after Gaddafi declared Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs. The State Department also stated that Libya would be removed from the list of nations that support terrorism

    Wikipedia

    Terrorists captured and killed Navy airman Scott Spicer(check your spelling son) in 1992.

    No son facts is wrong again...Capt Speicher’s plane went down in Desert Storm...Jan 1991 until Feb 1991...and he was shot down during the combat phase, first listed as KIA by DOD, his status has changed to MIA after questions as to whether he survived...but enemy uniformed combatants are not terrorists, but enemy military personnel.

    SPEICHER, MICHAEL SCOTT

    Name: Michael Scott Speicher
    Rank at Loss/Branch: Lt. Cdr./US Navy
    Rank in 2002: Commander
    Unit: USS SARATOGA
    Age at Loss: 33, Born 1957
    Age in 2002: 45
    Home City of Record: Jacksonville FL
    Date of Loss: 17 January 1991
    Country of Loss: Unknown
    Loss Coordinates:
    Original Status: Missing in Action
    Status Changed to KIA/BNR May 1991
    Status changed BACK to MIA 01/10/01
    Status Change Requested 2002 - From MIA to POW . no action as of 03/12/02
    Acft/Vehicle/Ground: FA18

    http://cybersarges.tripod.com/speicher.html

    Damn you can’t get many of your “facts” straight can you son? Even the reichwingnut talking points....


    Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center and killed 5 Americans in 1993.

    Possibly Osama (you know the guy Bush let escape then forgot)..and the blind Egyptian Cleric(who sits in a US prison ...for life.


    Terrorists bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and killed 19 Airmen in 1996.

    Osama again(you know the guy Bush let escape then forgot)

    Terrorists bombed American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and killed 80 in 1998.

    Osama again (you know the guy Bush let escape then forgot)

    Terrorists attacked the USS Cole in Yemen port and killed 16 sailors.

    Osama again (you know the guy Bush let escape then forgot)

    Terrorists attacked and killed 3000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001.

    Osama again (you know the guy Bush let escape then forgot)

    Terrorists bombed and killed hundreds of civilians in Madrid, London, Beslan Bombay, Riyadh, Bali, Manilla, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Morocco and Cairo the past four years.

    Osama again (you know the guy Bush let escape then forgot) damn you would think at some time Bush would GET serious about actually catching that guy!

    They target schools, hospitals, mosques and playgrounds.

    So does both our and the Israeli air force....

    Terrorists kidnap American civilians and cut off their heads. They desecrate captured soldiers.

    We've been at War with radical Islam for several decades.

    Actually much longer , since the western powers attempted to colonize the region after WW1, and have involved themselves deeply in the affairs of the countries which have had oil discovered in their borders.....


    Now, however, we're fighting them with our world class warriors in their neighborhood .

    Like the Soviets did from 1980-1988?


    Failure in this War is not an option.

    Somebody should tell The GrOPer in Chief, Dead Eye and Dumsfeld...because they seem dedicated to FAIL with their clumsy incompetent approach. The war in Iraq is a Fiasco...Lebanon did not go very well from the perspective of “destroying Hezbollah”, Afghanistan is getting WORSE not better......and now the incompetent PNAC clown patrol is pushing for attacking Iran?


    Sorry for the length..but you have SOOO much misinformation..it requires quite a bit of FACTUAL based replies to correct your factually challenged posts....

    ReplyDelete
  132. BUSH KNEW ABOUT THE TERROR PLOT ON THE SUNDAY BEFORE THE TUESDAY ELECTION IN CONNECTICUT.

    HE AUTHORIZED THE RED ALERT ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT.

    IT WAS REPORTED ON THURSDAY MORNING.

    EVERYTHING BUSH DOES IS INTENTIONAL.

    HIS CURRENT RATING FOR HOMELAND SECURITY IS 51%. IT'S GOING DOWN.

    AMERICANS ARE ON TO HIS LYING, DECEIVING WAYS!

    WOOHOO!

    ReplyDelete
  133. AMERICANS ARE ON TO HIS LYING, DECEIVING WAYS!
    -dkb

    Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, nor what your point was supposed to be (other than to demonstrate your hysterical BDS) but Dubya is a font of truth compared to your hero, slick willie. Woo Hoo!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Kay,

    Do you like Bush, or don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Mike,

    Are you STILL eating.

    Mike's dinner consists of 5 double cheeseburgers, 6 cheesedogs, 4 orders of french fries, and all the pork rinds, this bastard can shove in his mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Kay,

    I'm sure as hell, you and Mike are meant for each other, "FIGURE"tively speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Okay republicans! List out what your party stands for since you're so proud of it.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Don't attack Mike about eating. Do we really know what your waistline looks like Johnny?

    I told you to stop posting nasty stuff or you would lose your blogging friends Johnny.

    I will tell this website who you are and what you are really here for Johnny.

    I'm warning you Johnny.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Ambassador Leo Wanta Provides Key Update On $4.5 Trillion Earmarked for American People Criminal diversion of Wanta funds continues, as high level U.S. officials and banks implicated.

    14 Aug 2006

    By Greg Szymanski



    According to Ambassador Leo Wanta in direct communication with London financial writer, Christopher Story, a "blatant and scandalous" diversion of the $4.5 trillion settlement entered into by Wanta and U.S. authorities has taken place, blocking the vast sum of money from being used to revitalize the American economy.



    Ever since President Bush and the Federal Reserve Board, without legal justification, blocked the settlement and then failed to honor a July 31 deadline imposed by Wanta, the Ambassador, who is legal trustor of the money, hoped for a quick resolution.



    However, after receiving no cooperation from the Bush administration and no receipt for the money, he decided to come forward Sunday with a "status update" regarding the progress of repatriating the $4.5 trillion earmarked for the American people.



    Besides the $4.5 trillion negotiated settlement in May, Wanta has been declared legal trustor of more than $27.5 trillion in offshore funds amassed when he was instructed by President Ronald Reagan to destabilize the Russian currency at the end of the Cold War, which turned into a highly successful financial program beyond Wanta and Reagan's wildest dreams.



    But instead of using the money to strengthen America after Reagan was out of the picture, Bush Sr. and Clinton devised a plan to use the money for their own underhanded purposes, jailing Wanta in the process, as they then created phony front companies and illegal trusts to use the money illegally.



    And now, according to Wanta, the same people are trying to under-mind the latest deal signed, sealed and delivered between Wanta, his AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. and U.S. authorities after negotiating the deal through influential law firms in New York and Georgia, as well as with the assistance of two federal court judges.



    Wanta claims the $4.5 trillion has been diverted and stolen with the complicity of high level officials, including the President of the United States, Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., the U.S. Attorney Gen.Alberto Gonzalez, the Supreme Court and other high level officials.



    Furthermore, he claims financial institutions are illegally trading the vast sum of money with up to $200 billion a day being illegally earned instead of the money being used to better the American economy.



    Wanta's financial revelations were first revealed Sunday evening by Story on his London web site at www.worldreports.org. Story also revealed that his web site as well as the Arctic Beacon and its editor, Greg Szymanski, have been the target of ruthless and criminal intelligence attacks, aimed at discrediting the writers bringing the truth to the world as well as Wanta himself.



    The following is Christopher Story's status update of the Wanta saga, as provided on his web site listed above:



    STATUS REPORT

    Note: The following report summarizes the status of The Wanta Settlement at the time of posting.



    It represents the position as officially approved and authorized by Ambassador Leo Wanta. All Wanta-related reports posted on this website are PRIMARY reports. All others are SECONDARY.



    The blatant and scandalous diversion of Ambassador Leo Wanta's Treasury-tagged $4.5 trillion, earmarked for the benefit of the Ambassador Leo Wanta, his corporation, the US Treasury, the State of Virginia, and the American people, continues. Specifically:




    o Financial institutions are brazenly and illegally trading these tagged funds, that they do not own, overnight between each other, with up to $200 billion per day being earned and pocketed - such accruals being by definition exclusively the stolen property of Ambassador Leo Wanta. The identity of some of the institutions, which can now be regarded as criminal enterprises, is known.

    To read the rest, go here:

    http://www.arcticbeacon.com/14-Aug-2006.html

    ReplyDelete
  140. I thought Mike and Kay were the Moo-Moo's?

    ReplyDelete
  141. What my "party stands for" is irrelevant except to the extent it promotes my Conservative values. This is what I believe as a Conservative:

    Conservative versus Liberal World Views

    Conservatism v. Liberalism

    Why I fly the American Flag

    Why We Fight In Iraq

    Fascism

    Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States

    It would be interesting to hear what liberals believe in their own words, not just some goofy dhimmicrat party platform about Mom and apple pie designed to dupe swing voters.

    I am less interested in enumerating a laundry list of beliefs; I'm more interested in having liberals see how their beliefs represent a fundamental difference between Conservatives and liberals, and seeing if they are capable of identifying that specific difference.

    Also I am less interesting in hearing once again what liberals are against and hearing their litany of complaints; I'm more interested in hearing what liberals are for and what specific solutions they would use to address the problems.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Keep it up Johnny. I know better than anyone just exactly who you are and what you are up to.

    You know Johnny, that if they find out who you are you will have more trouble than you bargained for.

    Don't mess with me Johnny. I am tired of defending you and I am tired of what you are trying to do.

    Your secret will mess you up Johnny.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Mike,

    Put the pizza down, you had enough...LOL

    ReplyDelete
  144. Thomas Moo Moo sounds a lot like Mike!

    ReplyDelete
  145. The Fantasy Foole said;

    Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion,

    36% poll approval numbers might be the FIRST Clue...even with all the "news" that the White House is tryibg like hell to spin.


    Hell the GrOPer in Chief is right back into what Stephen Colbert correctally claimed was the BACKWASH....

    nor what your point was supposed to be

    That Bozo boy..Dead Eye and Dumsfeld...are disconnected from the truth.......tragically disconnected.


    (other than to demonstrate your hysterical BDS) but Dubya is a font of truth compared to your hero, slick willie. Woo Hoo!

    Woo Hoo must be some repug reichwingnut cry when they LIE..

    Bush lied about his National Guaed service...and WAS dishonest about his DUI..he even refuses to talk about HIS drug abuse..

    And he had his daddy cover up for him especially with the SEC investigation of his "insider trading" allegations that are STILL sealed.

    ABout his supposed truthiness about IRAQ and his RYSH to war...well the spin and lies would even have Clinton blushing...after all Billy lied about a Blowjob, not sending American soldiers to kill and be killed.....

    Good fantasy foole reichwingnut repug bloviator to the bitter end......about 7 November 2006....

    ReplyDelete
  146. What Fantasy foole will not admit....

    FREE MARKETS?
    Dean Baker's An End to Self-Defeating Rhetoric should be mandatory reading for all progressives.

    What's the difference between conservatives and progressives? Conservatives support free markets, whereas progressives support government solutions to social problems, right? Wrong. Conservatives like the government every bit as much as progressives do, they just don't advertise this fact. In actuality, conservatives want the government to shape markets in ways that provide profits to corporations and high incomes to rich people, instead of using it to ensure a decent standard of living for everyone.

    For example, with regard to airwaves and patents, conservatives expect the government to grant them exclusive rights and arrest competitors. Even in the recent battles over Social Security, conservatives have not been pushing a market solution -- rather they advocate a policy of government-mandated saving, which would put citizens' savings under the control of the financial industry. In all of these instances, conservatives are not pushing for a market solution. Their desired policies require large-scale government intervention in the market. Conservatives conceal this fact in their rhetoric, implying that they simply want the market to be left alone.

    On intellectual property rights:

    In the case of patents and copyrights, the language of intellectual property rights not only weakens progressives' political grounding, it seriously muddles thinking about the issue. The policy question that needs to be addressed is straightforward: what is the best way(s) to provide incentives for innovative and creative work? Patents and copyrights are one possible mechanism, but not the only mechanism. An enormous amount of innovative work takes place by scientists employed by universities, foundations or the government, where the hope of windfalls from patents would be close to zero. Similarly, a large amount of creative work -- including recorded music, writing, and the video production -- is supported by foundations, universities or other institutions. The earnings from having copyright protection for most of this work are trivial. There is literally no economic evidence to support the case that patents and copyrights are the most efficient means to support innovation and creative work. In other words, this massive government intervention into the market cannot be justified on the basis of any body of economic research.

    On "free trade":

    But there is no inherent connection between the ends pursued in these trade agreements and anything that can be called "free trade." The major thrust of most of these agreements has been to standardize the laws governing investment in order to facilitate U.S. investment in developing nations. The obvious and intended effect of this foreign investment is to place U.S. workers in direct competition with the lowest-paid labor anywhere in the world.

    A "free trade" agreement could just as easily be written to standardize education and licensing standards for professionals. Such an agreement would then put U.S. doctors, lawyers, and accountants in direct competition with the lowest paid professionals throughout the world. Instead of investing to build factories in Mexico or China, hospital chains might pay to support medical education in these countries, with the graduates coming to work in the United States. Since U.S. professionals are paid far higher salaries than professionals even in OECD nations (doctors in the United States earn more than twice the average for doctors in other OECD nations), free-trade pacts of this sort would have the potential for enormous economic gains for the United States, as well as developing nations.

    However, trade agreements have done little or nothing to increase the ability of foreign professionals to sell their services in the United States. This is because doctors, lawyers and other professionals have powerful lobbying groups that can prevent this sort of competition.

    One could also mention the unfree nature of trucking goods between the U.S. and Mexico under NAFTA. The U.S. trucking industry lobby has restricted the access of Mexican trucks to the U.S. via the "safety" bogeyman. While the rhetoric is free, the reality certainly isn't.

    On privatizing social security:

    Instead, conservatives are advocating a system of government-mandated savings, where the government forces individuals to invest in some types of funds for their retirement. While this can be done through a centralized system, where the funds would be collected by the government, most proponents of individual accounts envision a system of decentralized accounts, where the government will effectively be requiring workers to place a fixed percentage of their wages on deposit with the financial industry. It is also worth noting that almost every serious proponent of this system also advocates extensive government regulation of these accounts, restricting them to relatively low risk investments. The accounts therefore require a government role even in control of the money.

    This system would hand the financial industry tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars in administrative fees each year. It has absolutely nothing to do with a free market. If progressives let the right pretend that it is proposing a market solution for Social Security, they have given away the debate. Both conservatives and progressives are proposing systems in which the government ensures that workers are guaranteed a minimum level of retirement income. The real question is which system does it more effectively.

    As Chomsky never tires of pointing out, one of the best ways to restrict debate to a desired range of alternatives is to control the rhetoric used in the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Oh and Foole...this is what liberals, Or progressives (as they have also been known) have done for the country;

    “If Americans have a common fault, however, it’s our tendency to suffer from historical amnesia. Too many of us have forgotten, or never learned, what kind of country America was under the conservative rule that preceded the century of liberal reform. And too many of us have no idea whose ideas and energy brought about the reforms we now take for granted.

    “If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a forty-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights - you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable - you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family - you can thank liberals. If your rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn’t black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green - you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society - you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism - with the support of the American people.”

    Just as TODAY progressives want to help EVERYONE rise...repug conservatives want to tilt the field in their favor EVEN more than it already is tilted that way...

    They want complete control..and most of them spend a good portion of their tax time finding ways to push their tax burden on to others...like BORROWING against their (and everybody else's children or grandchildren) futures, just so they can HOARD more for themselves....real good conservative principles...And the FACT that they reichwingnut conservative repugs have controlled the house senate and white house means THEY ARE DOING EXACTALLY WHAT THEY WANT IN PASSING THEIR VERY UNBALANCED BUDGETS.....they musty want it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Dear Average Republican,

    There is NO “liberal agenda” but the shared interest of liberals who want to see things get better for everyone. You, your parents, and the guy who bags groceries down at the corner market. Liberals want to see you with enough money to buy groceries, pay off your house, and put at least one fuel-efficient vehicle in your garage.

    It’s not an agenda. It’s people hoping for the best for other people.

    It’s about hoping that your Uncle John, who’s been farming the same plot of land for the last 40 years, doesn’t lose his farm because he falls off his tractor and breaks his leg and can’t pay his doctor bill. It’s about hoping that you have some options when your town’s biggest employer goes belly-up because it can’t compete with that textile factory in China.

    It’s about making sure you get paid enough that you don’t have to take two or three jobs just to make ends meet. So you can spend more time with your family…so you can play catch with your kids, or take them fishing on weekends, or take them to the local swimming hole or municipal pool to teach them how to swim.

    It’s not an agenda to want the best for people. It’s just humanity. It’s about being a good neighbor, even if that neighbor lives half a country away.

    Ask a liberal what empathy is…it’s about understanding where someone else is coming from. And most of us try very hard, even if we don’t agree.

    Being a liberal isn’t about making fun of God, or your beliefs about him. Most liberals take the Sermon on the Mount to heart. They try to live the teachings of Jesus, even if some aren’t sure he’s really the Son of God. Thomas Jefferson called him the World’s Greatest Moral Philosopher. You’ll find very few liberals who’d disagree with that.

    It’s because of liberals that your ten year olds get to go to school rather than being forced to work in factories for spare change. It’s because of liberals that you can trust your workplace to be safe and free of unexpected dangers. It is because of liberals that, should you be injured at work, you can expect fair medical treatment and compensation for your lost work, and have money coming in if you’re laid off. It’s also because of liberals that you have reasonably clean water to drink and bathe in, and that the local swimming hole isn’t completely polluted.

    That’s what we do. We try to look out for everybody. Even the people who hate us. We don’t have an agenda. We don’t take marching orders from anyone. We do what we do because we believe in people. We believe in you.

    All we ask is that you begin to believe in us.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Let's see how well the repugs in DC really stack up.....to;

    The Seven Key “Failure Factors”:

    • Restrictions on the free flow of information.

    Over bearing secrecy including extreme limitations on WHO gets into repug staged photo op speaking shows Bush has held...

    Even going so far as to expulse people out of the events for NOTRHING more than wearing certain clothing or even the BUMPER STICKERS ON THEIR CARS..

    Failure of the white house to be open with the American people when questions of how many times Jack Abrarmoff visited the white house...

    But Dick Cheney's penchence for secrecy is way beyond the pale...his discusses little and hides much of what he does...

    Sorry Fantasy Foole but they get a D in this catagory....




    • The subjugation of women.


    Fighting equal rights every where they can...fighting against equal pay..and equal opertunities is a HALLMARK of those in the white house and even one of the picks for the Supreme Court Sammy boy.

    D-



    • Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.


    Are you KIDDING...everything is CLINTON"S fault...or the liberals..or the NYT...or somebody anybody but BUSH, Cheney and Dumsfeld.


    F


    • The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.

    Pushing "family values", attacking those who do not fit into sterotyped "traditional" families....attacking those who do not follow traditional...pro christian life styles as

    Unamerican...Unpatriotic...aiding the enemy...

    D

    • Domination by a restrictive religion.


    Reichwingnut Fundementalistic Christianity.......dominates the though processes of Budh ashcroft Bolton Cheney ET AL


    F

    • A low valuation of education.


    Constantally attacking those "ivory towered eggheads" liberal no it alls.

    Bush PLAYING at being just another "dumb texan" even though he went to BOTH liberal bastions of education Harvard and Yale...dumbing down the message so as to make it into Mantras...which denies intellectual investigation as

    weak

    soft

    pathetic

    "code pink"

    ineffective etc.

    D-

    • Low prestige assigned to work.

    Bush's vacations...and general disregard for him doing any REAL work.....

    Pushing for gains by economic trickery like stock gains instead of real industrial production gains...

    Pushing for quick fixes like giving everybody $300 as a cover for millions for the richest which they get EVERY year not just once....

    Pushing the industrial segment of the society off shore....undercutting the real work ethnic, by stealing the jobs and leaving nothing to WORK FOR..

    D-

    U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
    Excerpted from Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly
    Spring 1998, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1, pp. 36-47


    Looks LIKE they FAILED the test.....

    ReplyDelete
  150. “If Americans have a common fault, however, it’s our tendency to suffer...
    -Clif

    Gee cliffy, it would have been nice to have given credit to your source:
    Big Lies by Joe Conason

    Maybe you hoped we would think it was all your idea.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Cliffy,do you really believe those things you post from the left wing web sites?I have a difficult time understanding how a guy who supposedly spent the better part of his life serving his country now has an unhealthy distain for it.What the hell happened to you? Did you get screwed somewhere down the line? Did you have some sort of Epiphany?What caused the anger?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Looking back at todays postings I gotta ask.This kayinmaine is some kind of plant in this site,is'nt she? I think she's here to stimulate comments from conservatives.No one and I mean no one could be that conspiracy minded,she make Mike appear to be a solid citizen.She comes in about the same time each day,puts out a couple blasts and evaporates.Oh christ,now I sound like one of the "grassy knoll" mamalukes.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I think Worf has come back in the character of "Thomas Moo Moo."

    He's too chicken to come back as Worf since he slinked out of here with his tail between his legs.

    ReplyDelete
  154. I agree,worf went to start up the "freedom blog" and it fell on its ass,he vowed NEVER to post on this site when he left.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Fantasy Foole in full reichwingnut delusional bloviation said;


    Why We Fight In Iraq( a fantasy article by the foole..**as amended by Clif)

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


    **Well we spent a tiny bit more than he did...and we made quite a bit from 19809 to 1990 sellinh Saddam weapons....

    In 1980 Saddam Hussein attacked Iran which began a bloody war that lasted eight years and cost about a million lives.

    **With Reagan Bush41 tacit approval....in fact encouragement...


    In 1988 he dumped poison gas on his own dissident people, resulting in the deaths of about 100,000 mostly civilian Kurds.

    **Did Reagan Bush 41 DO anything...not really....


    In 1990 Hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation.


    **I seem to remember a tour I took there provided by the US army which lasted about six months...

    Having attacked his neighbors to the east, then his neighbors to the south, no doubt soon he would have attacked his rich, weak neighbors to the west.

    **Neither Jordan( one of Saddam’s few allies in 1991) who is not very rich or Syria..a fellow Bathist state would be very tempting targets.

    Then with Saddam in possession of the oil of Iraq, Iran,

    **He never got the oil try some other spin...but Saddam never got the Iranian oil...and he NEVER could.

    Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, he would control over 70% of the world’s oil.

    **Right son. but except for a limited excursion into Kafji he never came close....and as of 2003 he was in a very small box...his military decimated by the sanctions and the destruction it endured in Desert Storm..and the punishment of no fly zone violations.

    He easily would become the richest man on earth.


    **You dreaming here but you need to dream for this particular fantasy to be even close to anything we faced in 1991...95...98...2000...01..02...03, otherwise your delusional point falls FLAT on its face.


    He could dictate world oil prices; triple, quadruple the price and we still would have to pay.

    **Well son he couldn’t but the oil corp’s and oil exchanges have managed that with little help from Saddam....


    While this evil dictator was enriching himself and building weapons of mass destruction, the rest of the world would plunge into desperate economic depression and collapse into third world nation status, or be consumed in thermo-nuclear fire if we dared to resist.


    **WTF are you smoking?

    This is what conservatives dare to call a “threat to our national security”.

    **Or a wet dream for the masses to FEAR, thus they become willing to accept the repuyg lies and spin.

    Apparently liberals do not believe or feel threatened by this scenario.

    **And except for the mental ward patients..and some fellow repugs drunk on the Kool aid...neither does most of the rest of HUMANITY.


    They see no parallel between Saddam’s sinister plans and the ambitions of another Jew-hater named Hitler.

    **Far from it son......Saddam actually used Stalin as a role model..not Hitler...


    They feel that we should have appeased Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, like Chamberlain appeased Hitler after his invasion of Poland in WWII.


    **Not quite son...some of US liberals were there FIGHTING in that particular war....try again son.

    Inexplicably, berserk Berkeley denizens and other brain-damaged liberals, who project their own racism everywhere, think we stopped Saddam because of his skin color.

    Did we really invade Iraq to enrich Halliburton?

    **Only as a secondary effect...primarily it was to control the oil fields, and who had access to them...and to create military basses from which to attempt to control the rest of the oil rich middle east.

    How utterly stupid does someone have to be to display, or wink at people who display, signs proclaiming “End War and Racism” and “No Blood For Oil”?


    **Slightly less dumb than to swallow the Bush Cheney lies hook liner and sinker, and continue to defend them after they have been exposed as liars and fooles...oh yea right your SOP

    **slightly less dumb than believe we had UN approval for the invasion...the war was well planned....or executed..and they had the Iraqi’s best interests at heart.

    **Slightly smarter than any PNAC reichwingnut propaganda spewing FOOLE



    To say that the the war in Iraq is just about oil is a grossly misleading half-truth similar to saying that because the sun and the ocean are both made of hydrogen, they are both about the same thing.

    **It ain’t about “taking” the oil just controlling who is given access to develop the oil fields and make the profits from that...as well as the military bases like Balad Air Force Base they have spent Billions building.....


    Where is all the oil we have stolen from Iraq?

    **It is still in the ground because the insurgency is sort of an inconvience in developing the oil fields, However L Paul Bremer did tear up every contract Saddam had and rewrote the rules of how the contracts could be written and that the oil would be priced and sold in dollars not euros....

    Why are gas prices sky-high? Why is the "no blood for oil" gang the first to scream about high gasoline prices or advocate additional gasoline taxes? The simple truth is that we didn't invade Iraq to steal oil.

    **NOT steal stupid...can’t you get it control the oil fields and contracting procedures.


    We invaded to stop Saddam from stealing his neighbors' oil,

    **Was not even a threat in 2003...so QUITE BEING SO DISHONEST.

    controlling global economics


    **Right like that was even a possibility...except in your delusional Bush appologistical fantasies..you spew out with

    , ruling Iraq and the rest of the Middle East with a bloody fist, supporting terrorists, and yes, building weapons of mass destruction.


    **All untrue repug 2003 talking points that have been disproven

    Those, who doubt that Saddam had intentions of building nuclear bombs, may benefit from reading The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda by Khidhir Hamza, Saddam's Bomb maker who escaped to the west in 1994.

    **Lets see 1994...before Hussien Kamel defected and outed Saddam’s programs which destroyed his programs even more than the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1982


    Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's reactor in Baghdad in a daring air raid in June 1981, as liberals screamed about the injustice. Liberals probably believe that this nuclear reactor was to be used for peaceful purposes--like generating power for a country sitting on top of a veritable ocean of petroleum.

    **No son but it is not the reactor Bush is letting Pakistan build...one which will generate enough Plutonium to build 50 war heads a year..in the same country Osama (remember he is the guy Bush forgot) and the Taliban sough refuge in after they lost in Afghanistan and the base the Taliban is using to re attack Afghanistan reminiscent of the war they fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets

    Iraq has long been a dark den seething with vicious terrorist snakes.

    **Great emotional hate speech sentence, with NO factual basis......

    One such terrorist found in Iraq was Abu Abbas, who had been living there under Iraqi protection since 2002. Abbas was the mastermind behind the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achilles Lauro in the Mediterranean. During that terrorist attack, Abbas’s men shot Leon Klinghoffer, a retired 69-year old American, in cold blood before rolling him in his wheelchair into the sea. At that time Abbas held an Iraqi diplomatic passport.

    Another vicious Iraqi terrorist was Ramzi Yousef, the Iraqi architect of the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing which killed six persons and wounded 1,042 others, who entered America on an Iraqi passport.

    **FACTUALLY inaccurate there SON:

    **His nationality may be disputed, but Ramzi himself said he was born in Kuwait. Ramzi's father was a Pakistani engineer who worked for Kuwait Airways, is believed to be from the Baluchistan province of Pakistan, same as Yousef's uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Yousef was possibly raised in Kuwait.

    **Raised in a rural Palestinian community in Kuwait, Ramzi excelled in math and science, but was treated as a second-class citizen, which formed his underlying grievance. He spoke Arabic, Baluch, Urdu, and English, graduating in 1989 with a degree in engineering from West Glamorgan Institute, Swansea, Wales, where he joined a chapter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Following graduation, in Kuwait he was employed as communications engineer in the National Computer Center of the Ministry of Planning. He saw himself as an international playboy. The self-proclaimed "freedom fighter" for liberation of Palestinians allegedly beat his young wives and refused to fast during Ramadan. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, August 2, 1990, some members of Ramzi's family fled to Quetta, others to Iran. [1]

    **Starting in the late 1980s, Yousef took spring break trips to Pakistan.

    **Wikipedia.....


    Another example is Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals in that WTC bombing, who fled to Baghdad after the attack and lived there for years afterwards. Saddam gave Yasin both a house in Iraq and a salary. How can any honest, informed person maintain that Iraq had nothing to do with the spread of terror?


    **As Paul Harvey would say...here is the REST of the Story(you left out son)

    **On the very next day, March 5, 1993, Yasin boarded Royal Jordanian flight 262 to Amman, Jordan, the same plane Salameh had failed to catch a week earlier. From Amman, Abdul Rahman Yasin went on to Baghdad. An ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government.

    **In Baghdad, Iraq, Yasin lived freely for at least a year. Pointing to Saddam Hussein regime's involvement in World Trade Center bombing was "evidence" it gave money and housing to Yasin. The Iraqi government later claimed he was arrested and put in prison (see CBS Stahl interview, below).

    **On Oct. 10, 2001 Yasin appeared on the initial list of the FBI's top 22 Most Wanted Terrorists, which was released to the public by President Bush.

    **On several occasions, Iraq offered to turn Yasin over to the US government in exchange for lifting UN economic sanctions. Tariq Aziz, spokesman of Iraq, claimed that in the 1990's all Iraq wanted in return was a signed statement that Iraq had handed over Yasin. But reportedly the statement presented to the U.S. at the time contained lengthy wording essentially exonerating Iraqi involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. Nevertheless, Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

    **With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Leslie Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 (see below). Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994. Stahl also interviewed US Attorneys who acknowledged they had agreed to release Yasin to Iraq. (CBS 2002 Briley 2005)

    **Yasin is believed to still be in Iraq.

    **Wikipedia

    Apparently some liberals are so blinded by their ideology that they actually believe Iraqis were better off living under the boot of Saddam.

    **No son but it was UP TO THE IRAQI”S not us to do something about their country .

    They care little about the future of people like Nahle Sabet, once a pretty architecture student from a respected Christian family. But that was before she was abducted, raped, tortured, and finally served as live food for Uday Hussein’s vicious, starving dogs. Imagine being raped and tortured for weeks, then screaming in agony as two massive canines ravenously tear the flesh off your bones, while a bunch of sick sadists watch and howl with laughter, delighted at the blood-fest. Uday was next in line to be dictator of Iraq.


    **Not exactly true as after the attempt on Uday’s life in the mid 90's he was seen as unstable. And Saddam was grooming his brother Qsay for succession

    Today in Iraq, Saddam's long, dark reign of terror, rape and murder is over.

    **Replaced by sectarian violence...roving death squads...ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods..a collapsing economy, civil society and a bleak future......and a few rapes like the one PFC Green is on trial for.

    Thousands of people will live, who would have died under Saddam.

    **Only to be killed by US collateral damage..or the Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias or lack of medical care or electricity or clean water....

    Bombings of Muslims by other Muslims have not ceased, but the future belongs to the millions throughout the Middle East who eventually will breathe the sweet air of freedom and justice.


    **If they can survive our pathetic attempt to recontour the political landscape to the PNAC neo-cons liking...and Israel’s approval.

    Regardless of how anyone initially felt about the wisdom of our invading Iraq,

    **About as Dumb as Bush and Dumsfeld could get.

    can a person with noble intentions root for the disastrous consequences following a humiliating defeat for the U.S. in the Middle East?

    **Like we could no longer try to play power broker in a region where we have very few assets on the ground and seem to totally misunderstand the society or customs which alienate the masses against us( bombing their houses, families , neighbors and relatives also might be part of their alienation from our presents we claim to be sending.


    Can a person who sincerely cares about the Iraqi people advocate their abandonment to the insurgent wolves who will murder thousands following the premature extraction of American and British troops (as advocated by that paragon of integrity, Teddy Kennedy, right before the first Iraqi election)?

    Do you liberals think the danger is over for Western civilization?

    **The danger with in from the economic imbalanced are far greater especially as the energy crunch adds to inflation at the same time the standard of living is FALLING for the first time since the great depression for the lower 2/3 of the population

    Do you think Islamists would hesitate to use nuclear weapons on the Great Satan (you and me) just as soon as Russia or the France or the Iran or North Korea sells them the technology in exchange for petro dollars?

    **Not where they are going to get them FOOLE...Russia has a very real Islamist problem much worse than ours...France would never sell them a NUCLEAR weapon no matter how much reichwingnut hate you have for them. Iran has none now and would never sell the Sunni extremists (who hate Shiites as much as they hate the west) nuke since the Sunni extremists would proly return the nuke armed and ticking.

    **However Pakistan is a whole different story...if Musharraf is toppled by the Islamist extremists that are through out that society, and who have tried more than once to kill him. He is limply assisting the west in the “war on terra” which will put an extreme Islamist target on his back.

    **The terrorists only need take Pakistan and they would have as many nukes as Israel


    Will you liberals change your mind after they incinerate an American city or two, or will you blame the victims again like Ward Churchill did? Maybe you won't because next time you'll be the victims.


    **Nice emotional extreme bloviating there but distinctly far removed from reality right now.

    Liberals wring their hands over the small number of accidental Iraqi civilian deaths,

    **Above 100,000 by some reliable accounts.....

    smooch repulsive traitors like Ward Churchill while wearing roosting chicken hats, giggle at Bill Maher jokes and lap up lies from Michael Moore “documentaries”.

    **Nice smear tactic...good reichwingnut propaganda there son.


    Real Americans

    **56% of whom disapprove Bush’s job performance

    enthusiastically cheer the protection of freedom and spread of democracy throughout the world,

    **Too bad Bush doers not do the same HERE AT HOME son...


    courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue. Oorah.

    **Lookie another wanna be marine......bloviating from a computer keyboard.....

    ReplyDelete
  156. Do you notice how Clif and Mike are like little kids lost in the woods without him.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Clifs cut and pastes just get bigger and bigger and Mike just has nothing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Fantasy foole said;

    Gee cliffy, it would have been nice to have given credit to your source:
    Big Lies by Joe Conason

    Maybe you hoped we would think it was all your idea.


    no son I have had that in my computer for a while and could not find the link thanks for helping me outson....

    ReplyDelete
  159. This dimwit ALWAYS makes my point for me.Thank you Cliffy,you never dissapoint.

    ReplyDelete
  160. CLIF - That was a beautiful post about the good liberals do.

    And Thomas: Yes, Iraq is central to winning the war on terror by getting our troops out of harms way and beefing up our forces and resources at home. Let's get back to taking care of America. The Iraqis are in a civil war that only Sadaam apparently was brutal enough to subdue. SADAAM AND OSAMA WERE MORTAL ENEMIES BY THE WAY. Their egos were too big to team up, and as you know we had Sadaam right where we wanted him, with the whole world watching. We could have won friends all over the middle east by NOT CARPET BOMBING IRAQ AND CREATING TERRORISM'S SPREAD WORLDWIDE. We could have contained Sadaam for years and surreptitiously, covertly gained allies in the underground to help an internal revolution WHERE IT WAS THE PEOPLE'S IDEA - WHICH IS ALWAYS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! You can't enforce democracy at the point of a gun. Who would want this kind of sick, sadistic "democracy" that engages and condones torture and Haditha-type insanity.

    Would you want a bunch of guys with machine guns parading around your town? Remember when British troops were in America, every average Joe revolted.

    Try to remember history, or at least Christ's most important teachings. Please grow some brain cells, all of you neocons are so obtusely damaged as to believe war is peace.

    ReplyDelete
  161. dusty simpleton said;

    Clifs cut and pastes just get bigger and bigger and Mike just has nothing to say.

    atually that last post was in reply to a STUPID post by the Fantasy foole, thus not really cut and paste as I composed replies to each of his Juvinile points...


    But you never let Facts get in your way do you STUPID?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Cliffy,how about answering my 8:57 post?

    ReplyDelete
  163. You did'nt compose that,the spelling was too good.Dont lie you're nose will grow.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Oops the rocket scientist is here.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Hey Cliffy,Lyd patted you on the head,kinda makes life worth living,does'nt it?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Dusty Simpleton said...

    Cliffy,do you really believe those things you post from the left wing web sites?

    Almost all of them because I look for FACTS not jus emotional hate.

    I have a difficult time understanding how a guy who supposedly spent the better part of his life serving his country now has an unhealthy distain for it.

    The PNAC neo-con reichwingnut crowd is NOT the country...in fact they are like a cancer in the country which the majority is waking up to and proly soon to remove by removing their repug leaders from office


    What the hell happened to you?

    Nothing son...I was as much for FACTUAL based instead of emotional bloviation in 1980 as today...

    Did you get screwed somewhere down the line?

    Not at all, in fact I have not been treated even close to bad by either the DOD or VA....

    Did you have some sort of Epiphany (Greek: επιφάνεια, "the appearance; miraculous phenomenon") is a Christian feast intended to celebrate the 'shining forth' or revelation of God to humankind in human form, in the person of Jesus.

    Well, not in the way wiki describes it...but Jesus is a very good place to start a spiritual journey.

    What caused the anger?

    I'm not angry son...I'm not the one on a progressive web site attacking those who believe in a progressive spiritual existence.


    But then again I have not drank from the Neo-con reichwingnut stupidity kool aid either.....

    ReplyDelete
  167. Dusty Simpleton said...

    Cliffy,how about answering my 8:57 post?

    9:20 PM

    I did but at 9:30 because I was responding to the Foole..since he does seem a bit more intelligent than you do son....NOT much but a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Dusty Simpleton said;

    You did'nt compose that,the spelling was too good.Dont lie you're nose will grow.

    If that was true...Cheney, Bush or Dumsfeld could no longer ride in an elevator...and Air Force 1 would need a nose job of it's own.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Dusty Simpleton said;

    Hey Cliffy,Lyd patted you on the head,kinda makes life worth living,does'nt it?

    No son my daughters are more than enough to give my life FULL meaning...


    but a repug dunce does wait for praise, to think it has worth, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Cliffy,do you think you could run the Iraq war more effectively then the current officers are doing?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Do you think you,Shinseki and Zinni together could put an end to this thing once and for all?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Clif, seems to me that this blog takes up mopre time than any other single activity. You are routinely here until 5 AM your time and then re-appear and 7 AM.

    Do you ever sleep?

    And, now that I think about it, I think Thomas Moo Moo is Lydia.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Maybe you should put you're old uniform on,jump on that Vespa,ride to the nearest base and offer you're services.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Cliffy consider's this blog a foxhole.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Dusty Simpleton said;

    Cliffy,do you think you could run the Iraq war more effectively then the current officers are doing?

    well son it has to do with what you mean by running...

    If I had COMPLETE control to over rule the STUPID decisions...

    than most militarily trained officers who studied Theater Strategy and tactics could have done a much better job...

    but if I wuold have to live inside the Dumb and dumber rules of Bush and Dumsfeld....

    short of walking on water nobody could save that fiasco....

    ReplyDelete
  176. So,an NCO with 14 years of service could'nt win this damn war.I had all my hopes hanging on you Cliffy.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Dusty Simpleton said;

    Do you think you, Shinseki and Zinni together could put an end to this thing once and for all?

    It is according to how much freedom and automity they had in applying tactics and strategy that would work...they would proly do rather well if they had the freedom to do the right thing Militarily and I would learn a lot from two GREAT General Officers

    ReplyDelete
  178. I thought you were going to be like Dr.Strangelove and take command of the situation,rather then just bitch about it.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Dusty Simpleton said;

    So, an NCO with 14 years of service couldn't win this damn war. I had all my hopes hanging on you Cliffy.

    too bad I do not fit that description dusty chicken hawk extraordinaire...


    but some time ask the Foole what ROTC means....

    ReplyDelete
  180. If those two guys were really so good,why on earth did they get fired?Do you think they might be a bit bitter?

    ReplyDelete
  181. dusty simpleton said;

    Cliffy consider's this blog a foxhole.

    wrong son it is simply a diversion ...but an enjoyable one at that.

    a foxhole is a bit bigger than a PC, try basic training...they would teach you how to dig one and then we could discuss the Foxhole SOP

    ReplyDelete
  182. Did'nt Skinseki have a stroke? Is he drooling? How valuable could he be?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Rusty, it's worse than that. He would work with Larry C. Johnson and make great predicitions, like in July of 2001, that terrorism is an extremely remote threat. What a great tema they would make.

    ReplyDelete
  184. A diverision? I thought you were an adrenalin junkie.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Dusty Simpleton said...

    I thought you were going to be like Dr.Strangelove and take command of the situation,rather then just bitch about it.


    I'm not Bush, Cheney or Dumsfeld and therefore, I do not pretend I know more than those who spent 30+ years in the service to their country, learning and practicing the art of War

    ReplyDelete
  186. I remember Kerry mentioning Shinseki a number of times during the campaign,it must have been Shinseki who awarded Kerry those 15 Purple Hearts for a 90 day tour.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Dusty Simpleton said;

    If those two guys were really so good,why on earth did they get fired?Do you think they might be a bit bitter?

    Zinni retired he did not get fired..

    Shinsiki said what he believed..and has been proven right by historical events...instead of parroting the repug neo-con party line....he was what we need in a MILITARY leader...somebody who tells them the truth...Patton in that very same circumstance would have said the same thing but less politely..and have gotten fired also....

    ReplyDelete
  188. Dusty Simpleton said;

    A diverision? I thought you were an adrenalin junkie?

    Not much adrenalin required to type at a keyboard...

    except for the barking mad 102nd chicken hawk brigade,

    which is as close they ever get to danger....

    ReplyDelete
  189. Cliffy,its been 3 or 4 days since you posted that "who served and who did'nt thing," I for one found that enlightning.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Speaking of Kerry and his alleged Purple Hearts, we all know how to search the Internet, can ANYONE here tell us of anyone, aside from John Kerry, who got three Purple Hearts and never spent a single night in the hospital?

    ReplyDelete
  191. Cliffy,other then you're immediate family,Mike,Lyd,Larry and worf nobody really gives a crap if you served in the army or not,along with the other 14 million or so who did.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Dusty Simpleton said;

    I remember Kerry mentioning Shinseki a number of times during the campaign,it must have been Shinseki who awarded Kerry those 15 Purple Hearts for a 90 day tour.

    Kerry served as a Lieutenant in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War from 1966 to 1970. His 2nd tour of duty in Vietnam was four months as commanding officer of a Swift boat. Kerry was awarded several medals during this tour, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.

    second tour means he already spent 1 year there...and 4 months is 122 days........

    and

    Shinseki served in a variety of command and staff assignments both in the Continental United States and overseas, including two combat tours with the 9th and 25th Infantry Divisions in the Republic of Vietnam as an Artillery Forward Observer and as Commander of Troop A, 3rd Squadron, 5th Cavalry. During one of those tours, he stepped on a land mine, which blew off the front of one of his feet.

    was not in Kerry's Chain of Command thus he never could award Kerry anything.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Two of the wounds were splinters in the ass.

    ReplyDelete
  194. You being an expert on military issues I hate to tell you this,but I think Kerry only spent 90 days in country.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Clif,

    Thanx for taking the time to respond in detail to a couple of my essays. You have far more substance than goofy libs like dkb. Kudos my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Dusty Simpleton said;

    Cliffy,other then you're immediate family,Mike,Lyd,Larry and worf nobody really gives a crap if you served in the army or not,along with the other 14 million or so who did.

    don't know son If it comes up most people thank me for my service....try it,

    It might even make a man out of you yet son....

    ReplyDelete
  197. Well the US Navy says 4 months...but then again they might be wrong given the fact I am talking to a factually challanged individual

    ReplyDelete
  198. How did he get all those medals in 90 days? This friggin guy is another Audie Murphy or Sgt.York.I mean why have'nt they made a movie out of Kerrys heroic adventures?

    ReplyDelete
  199. Oops,I'm sorry,all those medals in 4 months.That makes a world of difference.

    ReplyDelete