November 21, 2005

Zarqawi Still Alive, The Left Celebrates

The White House is now saying that it is "highly unlikely" that Abu Musab al Zarqawi died in a Mosul raid Saturday. Earlier Jawa post from Traderrob here.

*Sigh*

Not that killing the al Qaeda in Iraq leader--and the man personally responsible for beheading innocent civilians---would really end the Salaafist insurgency in Iraq. It wouldn't. But it would be nice to know he was dead.

Vengeance: natures way of calming the nerves.

Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.

Not that they ever would come out and say, "We hope we lose."--Okay, occasionally they do actually let that slip from time to time-- But they do constantly downplay any good news and constantly barrage us with 'cover up' stories when there is even the slightest hint that some civilian in Fallujah might have got his feelings hurt because a U.S. soldier didn't present a search warrant from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon entering his house in the middle of a firefight.

Hence, the Left is skeptical of any and all progress in Iraq.

So, if we seem to bring you too many "Yipee, Zarqawi is dead" stories, please forgive us. Unlike our friends on the Left, we are anxious to see the enemies of the United States of America dead.

Call it being overzealous for the cause of America.

Fox News:

On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top Al Qaeda operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the two-story house.

However, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Sunday that reports of al-Zarqawi's death were "highly unlikely and not credible."

"I don't think we got him," said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, answering questions from reporters about whether al-Zarqawi had been killed in Mosul. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said there was "no indication" that the terror leader had been killed.


Hat tip: Ron Wright who pointed us to this post by Evan Kohlmann and Dan Riehl, who has more here.

UPDATE: Howie e-mails me with this article from CNN. Apparently, Zarqawi's family and 'tribe' have disowned him. Don't worry al-Khalaylehs, every family has a 'Zarqawi' or two they are ashamed of.

UPDATE II: Let me be clear on this, I used the word 'hard Left' to describe those who want us to lose not 'liberal' or 'Democrat'. Yes, I believe the people over at dKos want us to lose. They don't want our soldiers to die, but they do want us to lose. They actually believe America is the greatest force for evil in the world. If you believe that then the conclusions to be drawn are inevetable.

If we are the bad guys then the only thing for a moral person to do is to support our enemies.

And, yes, wishing for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq now is the same thing as wishing for our enemies to win.

It doesn't matter if in your heart you love America. Withdrawal is failure. Hence, wishing withdrawal now is wishing failure.

I am not Jesus. I don't care what is in your heart. What I care about is the extent to which you support the victory of the United States of America.

In the comments though, Ryan (unlike the madmatt troll) raises a legitimate concern wanting some evidence that the Left celebrates. Okay Ryan, here you are. Of course, they don't come out and say "Hooray, Zarqawi" but they do boo the home team. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

From the Democratic Underground:

I wonder when he can stop talking about Zarqawi, I want a new Boogie Man!

Nothing will happen with Zarqawi until October 2006 Just in time for the election, in an appearance to make it look "normal" when Diebold once again scams an election.

We can't pull out of Iraq now. After all, we almost caught Zarqawi. I'll bet if we stay another year we'll almost catch him 10 or 12 more times. Plus we'll kill his No. 2 man at least twice. What a steaming crock of bullshit.

I don't think Al Zarqawi was there, and I don't think they thought he was there. This is like all those stories about how certain they were that they had killed Hussein in the first bomb attack of the war, or that they'd killed Bin Laden when they murdered that poor farmer and his two sons with their unmanned drone. They just want Americans to say "Wow, look, they have a reason for all this stuff" and go back to watching Family Guy before BushCo quietly says "Well, we missed him, but it was close."

It's a good thing they missed him...otherwise they would have to invent another Al-Qaida terroist for us to focus on.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:36 AM | Comments (142) | Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Repugnicans don't want to find osama, zarqawi etc...they are looking for constant war so they can continue to loot the treasury with their campaign financers. A few dead american kids...is worth it as far as repugs are concerned.

Posted by: madmatt at November 21, 2005 09:01 AM (h1rMx)

2 Dammit. Now I have to take the decorations down and cancel the catering service. Note to the guys (and gals) in the sandbox: Keep kicking terrorist buttski. You'll get him soon enough.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:03 AM (nt3NF)

3 I think you need to open a window, Madmatt. The oxygen content of the air you're breathing seems to be getting a bit low.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:09 AM (nt3NF)

4 Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ? I would like to see why anyone who celebrate.. The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site. Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations.

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (ads7K)

5 Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops. But don't you DARE question their patriotism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (8e/V4)

6 Hey all, been away for awhile. But this captured my attention. Pun intended. Did they get Zarqawi or not? I'm hoping that they get him alive. He needs to die very very sloooowly. How's everyone doin'??

Posted by: Laura at November 21, 2005 09:15 AM (L3PPO)

7 Saying that just getting Zarqawi may not have much effect since it doesn't address the underlying Shia/Sunni conflict is "celebrating"? Unbelievable! What are you guys smoking? No wonder the Right is burning up the last shreds of credibility.

Posted by: Ed at November 21, 2005 09:23 AM (yfKhZ)

8 Quothe John "It's the MATH!" Ryan: "Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ?" Okay John, www.liberalsmustalldie.com, there's your link. "I would like to see why anyone who celebrate." Look in the mirror perhaps. "The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site." Gee, I wonder how you know those two... "Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations." Yeah, more like an atmosphere of general glee. I guess they're saving the champagne until he releases his next headchopping video. Liberals all need to be killed in as painful a manner as may be contrived by modern technology.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:31 AM (0yYS2)

9 Could I see some evidence that anyone at Kos is "celebrating"? The fact that you feel the need to lie about the issue says an awful lot about the security of your position.

Posted by: Tom Ames at November 21, 2005 09:34 AM (XuQJ6)

10 Boy you guys are getting more repugnant by the day. One comment at dKos that killing Zarkawi won't stop the violence in Iraq and you turn it into "the Left Celebrates". Just how stupid do you think your readers are? You must have a pretty low opinion of your wingnut buddies if you think that "logic" makes any sense at all. What am I saying? You all bought into Bush's idiotic war, so you must be very gullible or very slow. You probably think everything Rush says is gospel, too. NOBODY celebrated the report that Zarkawi wasn't among the dead. He's a murdering terrorist who deserves death and I defy you to find a single Liberal who actually was pleased he escaped. And your misleading headline doesn't accomplish anything but brand you as a liar.

Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 09:35 AM (CMyz0)

11 Liberals need to be killed? Gee, that's more like what is being done to you folks. But you won't get it, just as some of you still don't get it that Nixon got caught. Some of you insist on being on the wrong side of history. Fortunately, the size of your group is getting smaller with each poll.

Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 09:41 AM (5Caqu)

12 Hold on... The dKos post said, "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." Really, man. If you want to make an argument against liberals, don't make it so stupid. You hurt the cause.

Posted by: Bruce at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (SSjeP)

13 This post, which has now big picked up over at Salon, is really astonishing in its dishonesty. The dKos comment Shackleford cites begins, "The death if (sic) Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." The author then anticipates Shackleford's own opinion by declaring that the death of Zarqawi would "be a boon to the fight against terror," but that it would not solve the problem. Some celebration!

Posted by: Paul Turner at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (4lS1R)

14 The actual quote is "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." Why do you call this a sign of dismay? Can't you stop lying for even a moment? Stupidity: it's a renewable resource!

Posted by: Fred at November 21, 2005 09:49 AM (eO3MK)

15 Hey jimbo and Percy's PoP, you stupid libtards, I hope when the rope begins to bite into your neck and you shit yourself, you feel so smug and arrogant then. I honestly look forward to the collapse of society so that I can watch pieces of shit like you die by the dozens. It has come to the point that you morons openly support the killing of American soldiers, and that shit's going to catch up to you sooner than you think. You all need your goddamn skulls crushed for being traitors, which is exactly what you are. You want a revolution dipshits? I'll give you your goddamn revolution. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (0yYS2)

16 Improbulus, you might want to get yourself to a doctor, pronto. Untreated syphilis can damage the brain and cause dementia.

Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (7Fqgx)

17 Blah, blah, blah....you liberals just make me laugh. Now all of you have turned delusional as well. What makes you think everyone is all of a sudden on your side? Oh, those objective polls done by the objective media. Understand this, liberals, you are the ones on the wrong side of history, because you lose no matter how it turns out. If we win, you lose but can continue to live in a free country and have all the rights free men enjoy, including, as demonstrated here, freedom of speech and expression. If the other side wins, you will be put to death, pay the dhimmi tax, be forced into slavery or have to convert to Islam. The way I see it, I prefer to win the war, but you libs, well, you seem to want to test fate. So be it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 09:55 AM (rUyw4)

18 A blog aggregator ran the headline of this post, so I just had to come visit to see if it was real. I guess it is. This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low. It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand. I'm off now to take a shower and wont be back. May I suggest that as an appropriate response for the rest of the commenters?

Posted by: Observer at November 21, 2005 10:11 AM (8x2CG)

19 The Left dug up my garden and knocked over my garbage cans! That Darned Left!

Posted by: norbizness at November 21, 2005 10:12 AM (EneHm)

20 IÂ’m confused. Are all liberals opponents of the Iraq war? Are all opponents of the Iraq war liberals? Are all liberals the same? Are they secular humanists and elitist academics, who drink chardonnay, drive Volvos, speak french, and just want to give Zarqawi a great big fat hug? Or are they dirty scruffy pot smokers and filthy degenerates who just want to root for the downfall of America? Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol. And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 10:14 AM (7Fqgx)

21 I'm reading this blog for the first time, and I just followed your link to the dKos site, and for the life of me I didn't read anything there that could be interpreted as "dismay" at the possible news of Zarqawi's demise. Sorry, but even though I'm no fan of dKos, it's the Jawa Report that just took a big credibility hit in my book.

Posted by: Independent at November 21, 2005 10:17 AM (2MDoJ)

22 >>>"Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol. And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll." So I guess Bush was right after all-- they do hate us for who we are, they hate us for our freedoms. Thanks for affirming that. So are you libertines as willing to change your lifestyles in order to suit the terrorists as you are to see the U.S. change its policies to suit them? I think not. What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us. Too rich. It boggles the mind how myopic you people are.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)

23 "This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low. It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand." Somewhere a pot and a kettle are laughing hysterically at that statement.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (nt3NF)

24 DailyKos quote: "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq. What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd." Dr. Shackleford describes this as "dismay." Dr. Shackleford is a liar. Unambiguously so.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 10:25 AM (2yc8s)

25 Let me be honest, I don't visit this site often so maybe you have posted on this topic before, but what is the definition of victory in your mind? Is it killing all the "terrorists", if so how do we know that all the terrorists are dead? Is it giving the Iraqi people a democracy? Well they have already voted 2 or 3 times, so doesn't that qualify as a democracy? Is it training an adequate amount of Iraqi troops? If so what is that number and is there an ETA on when that will be done? I realize in asking these questions I am hurting the American troops, for that I am sorry...but I just had to know.

Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 10:27 AM (dXncd)

26 I blame the overzealous Jawa editorial board for choosing the word "Celebrate" for an article that clearly doesn't indicate anything like a 'celebration'. Damn you editorial board!!! ;-)

Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:38 AM (JQjhA)

27 Some of you need to look a bit deeper into what is being said and how they are saying it. There are two things that are obvious on the DU thread....1) They are completely dismissive of the reports of Zarqawi's demise (would their attitude be the same if A Democrat was president?) 2) The tone of the comments is unmistakably hopeful that the reports are indeed false. The skepticism goes beyond reason and into the area of disingenuous cynicism. If you read all the comments in the entire thread it becomes clear that the majority of people there would prefer to have Zarqawi alive and well if his death would mean potential help for the President.

Posted by: traderrob at November 21, 2005 10:40 AM (3al54)

28 Since regarding somebody as being in 'dismay' is an act of judgement, lying is out of the question. Personally, I think some of the commenters are 'idiots'. But that is just my opinion. Opinions, by definition, cannot be 'lies'. But thanks for playing.

Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:44 AM (JQjhA)

29 To the jackass who wants to kill Liberals; If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win. First of all, we outnumber you. Check the polls. Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it. Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military. Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield. Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet. And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter. So go ahead and start a civil war. I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead. It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying...

Posted by: joviel at November 21, 2005 10:46 AM (tgsAE)

30 Oh, I like this. Large numbers of liberal trolls mean that they're uneasy and don't think things are going their way. I think the overwhelming defeat of the cut and run resolution has something to do with it, and the thought of Zarqawi being killed scared them as well.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 10:49 AM (RHG+K)

31 >>>"If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win." joviel, us "fascists" are well armed. I personally have 2,000 rounds of armour piercing just waiting for you to bring it. And I know where to instantly get 2,000 more. What are you going to use? Foul language? Your own anti-gun dogma has reduced you to no better than sheep to the slaughter if you ever think to bring your "revolution". We'll gleefully mow you down by the thousands. And no, you don't outnumber us. Temporary dissaproval of Bush doesn't a Liberal make. Every poll puts self-proclaimed Liberals in this country at less than 20%, while self-proclaimed conservatives approach 35%. Just bring it dudes.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)

32 Sean, victory will come when enough Muslims understand that fighting us only makes their lives harder, but making peace with us makes their lives easier. You can't put a timetable on that, but you can observe progress if you're inclined to see it. The media never reports all the progress that's being made in Iraq, and the single greatest complaint that soldiers make is not about body armor, or homesickness, or fear, or the food, or anything like that; it's that the media never shows anything positive about their mission. I was in Desert Storm, and I know what soldiers complain about, and I'm just not seeing much of that from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather bright, optimistic men and women, some no more than children to my eyes now, who believe in what they are doing and who want to help the people of Iraq become free and prosperous, so that we never have to fight them again. If only political correctness hadn't stopped us from taking out Saddam in '91, we wouldn't be here today, but the liberals interfered then too, and look where it got us; into another war. For any society, war is eventually inevitable, because all it takes is a madman to invade peaceful neighbors, but many are avoidable if only the leadership has the backbone to do what is necessary when necessary. If Europe and America had stood up to Hitler at the first, he never would have invaded Poland or Czekoslovakia, but we didn't so we had to fight another war because of our leaders' timidity and shortsightedness. There is no such thing as "peace in our time" without the willingness to fight for it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:56 AM (0yYS2)

33 It's absurd and stupid to claim that the left doesn't want Zarqawi dead, doesn't want troops to stop being murdered in Iraq, doesn't think the insurgency is barbaric, etc. I haven't read the Kos posts you're referring to, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that Cindy Sheehan isn't much of a spokesman for the anti-war cause (although attacking her -- particularly at the outset of her appearance on the scene -- was pretty scummy). I don't know how much you're distorting things in attributing these feelings to the post on Kos. But I do know how much you're distorting things in attributing them to the left in general. I despise Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. I think they're fools and despicable liars. I also think that the insurgents are far worse. I find it sickening to constantly read about people being blown to bits in Iraq. I would be thrilled if the States won the war (if I thought that was possible) and if the insurgents went under. I was thrilled at the very possibility that Zarqawi might have been killed. Your claim that liberals secretly grin and applaud when the troops do badly simply isn't true in a single specific instance that I know -- and given that I split my time between New York and the Bay Area, that's plenty. (I suppose there are plenty of liberals who feel a smug superiority about their opposition to the war, and that's plenty unattractive, but their opposition is still sincere). Making this kind of statement and indulging in this kind of psychology is infantile; I can't even get particularly pissed about it, because there simply isn't any legitimacy to your ranting.

Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (N0a7W)

34 Perhaps Max should read the actual post which specifically differentiates between 'liberals' and the 'hard Left'. No? I guess Max is too busy spending time between San Francisco and NYC. Man, I love characitures that are real........

Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (JQjhA)

35 "Since regarding somebody as being in 'dismay' is an act of judgement, lying is out of the question." Let's roll the tape. Dr. Shackleford wrote that "when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead (Dr. Shackleford write like Tonto talk), there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops." For this, he cites this quote from a liberal: "The death of Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism, and one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." Either Dr. Shackleford is a liar, or he should consider remedial reading.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (2yc8s)

36 Improbulus Maximus, your theory about Muslims realsing the futility of their cause is interesting. Unfortunately it seems to be the characteristic of radical fundamentalist religions, that they never seem to realize futility or facts that prove their theories wrong. Anything said contrary to what they believe is 'of the devil' and any signs of failure are because of a lack of faith, not too much of it. I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen.

Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 11:13 AM (dXncd)

37 Jesusland Carlos: What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us. So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror.

Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 11:18 AM (7Fqgx)

38 I'd say this Zarqawi death squabble brings us back to the Israelis, who have killed so many "hamas leaders" and "no.2 militant leaders" that one just rolls one's eyes. The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.

Posted by: ATS at November 21, 2005 11:22 AM (aDFHl)

39 I'd say this Zarqawi death squabble brings us back to the Israelis, who have killed so many "hamas leaders" and "no.2 militant leaders" that one just rolls one's eyes. The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.

Posted by: ats at November 21, 2005 11:23 AM (aDFHl)

40 Rusty the first line on the post says " The Left Celebrates" I think that to be divisive. To me, it seems to show that everyone to one side of some arbitrary point is anti-American. Many people with long and strongly held conservative views opposed the war. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/857077/posts. Whether you were for it or against it then, or whether you were misled, or whether you have changed your views 180 degrees I think all would agree that we are in a war. When 25% or 37% or 52% of our country support such an endeavor "success" is problematical. IM ... I did try to put some "MATH" in just for you. Not so many people in high school enjoyed that subject, or high school latin for that matter, although I did. Actually I found the kos site from this one, either an actual link or one of the frequent mentions. And you are such a prankster, I did try to follow that link www.allliberalsmustdie.com. Using "google" didn't show anything. If you snatch up that domain, please give me a mention.(and not about my genitals) !

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:32 AM (ads7K)

41 How much of our discourse is fed by partisanship? Except for maybe the center 25% who have recently switched sides on the war, probably most of us started out on one side or the other. Maybe all of us are steeped in the partisan poisons of the Limbaughs and O'Reillys, who profit hugely by the crap that they spout. What I'm saying is, all may want to step back and try to look at things as they are, without the partisan blinders. Try to parse out what is really best for this country. Ultimately it will take many of us working together to solve our problems.

Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 11:38 AM (5Caqu)

42 Improbulus said: "I honestly look forward to the collapse of society...". Now who's rooting for the terrorists? Shall I make a big blog headline out of that saying "Conservatives call for the destruction of America"? It would be as big a lie as your rantings that liberals openly support the killing of American soldiers. Improbulus, I've argued with you before and you just spit venom and vulgarities without any kind of reason or thought. Rant away, so that all will know you for the fool you are. I do hope you meet up with my son someday. He's a Marine, a Liberal and a Democrat - and proud of all three. According to your silly rant he should be rooting for his own death in Iraq. Since he's a liberal and you are calling for the death of all liberals, maybe the headline should be "Conservative calls for death of American Marines." Then again, I doubt you'd really want to meet up with him. He has this silly idea that the Constitution means we're all equal citizens, left, right, liberal, conservative, man, woman, etc. And that anyone who wishes for the death of other Americans like you do, doesn't have a very good grasp of what being a Patriot or an American is all about.

Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 11:51 AM (CMyz0)

43 Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Rodney King at November 21, 2005 12:22 PM (IpG/2)

44 >>>"So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror." circlejerk, you're just spouting neo-Lib talking points. You haven't a shred of empirical evidence that we're "losing" the war on terror. So far, zero terrorist strikes on the U.S., that's my evidence. The neo-Lib message is so convoluted and backasswards that half of you neo-Libs don't even believe terrorism is a real threat, and the other half of you believe that "we had it coming to us" because of our "foreign policies". Yet the same hippie degenerates who decry our "foreign policy" are the first decadent westerners jihadis would decapitate if they had the chance. You're a bunch of clueless morons with a death wish.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 12:49 PM (8e/V4)

45 what the hell is a neo-lib?

Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 12:54 PM (7Fqgx)

46 And yes, 1) I believe that terrorism is a real threat, and think that our endeavors in Iraq are taking away from that fight. 2) The fact that there've been no attacks on US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove anything. According to your logic, then Clinton must have done a remarkable job keeping us safe during the '90's. 3) John Ryan is right, you're lumping everyone who disagrees w/the war in Iraq into the same mythic and monolithic "liberal" pile. We are not all liberals. 4) The only people with a death wish are those who quiver at the thought of the Rapture, and those folks are on your side, not mine.

Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:07 PM (7Fqgx)

47 ...that would be quiver with joy, not fear...my bad.

Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:08 PM (7Fqgx)

48 You must love being lied to. Isn't this the same Zarqawi whose training camp the Pentagon located 2-3 times before the Iraq invasion, but Bush chose not to bomb his camp because he feared it would undermine the case for going in? And then Colin spent all this time in his 2003 UN speech talking about how bad Zarqawi was, as a reason for attacking Iraq, despite no cooperation between Zarqawi and Saddam. "On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy [Zarqawi's] Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all." http://www.slate.com/id/2108880 The article estimates Zarqawi alone is responsible for 1000 deaths since then, deaths that only happened because of political opportunism by your personal heroes.

Posted by: clb72 at November 21, 2005 01:12 PM (MGcSD)

49 "zero terror strikes in the US. That's my evidence." That's pathetic. What is the average period of time between (Islamic) terrorist strikes in the US? 10 years or so? I sincerely hope that the efforts of the Bush administration will help slow down the terrorists, but there's really no way to measure. I do know that the frequency of terror strikes happening in Iraq since we invaded is practically daily, and at huge cost to the people we're supposedly trying to liberate. Imagine how they must feel when Bush says we're fighting terrorists there so we won't have to at home. No wonder 85% of them want us to leave.

Posted by: Randy at November 21, 2005 01:27 PM (bc3Ko)

50 clb72, let me show you mine: "That year [1996] the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported last week. This prompts two questions: If President Clinton could have taken bin Laden into custody, prosecuted him for murderous attacks on Americans in Somalia and spared the lives of thousands who were killed or wounded in future attacks, why didn't he do it?" http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:38 PM (8e/V4)

51 >>>"but there's really no way to measure." Randy, circlejerk appears to have figured out a way to measure it. Ask him. I did, and so far zip, nada, bupkiss.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:40 PM (8e/V4)

52 IM Pre Pearl harbor it was only the commie- liberals who wanted to help Europe fight the ultra right Nazis, and the country was deeply divided on this issue. The liberal President was categorized as a " warmonger". 9/11 unified our country in its fight against alQueda If you can not see what a cl*st*rf*ck this has turned into you then pay attention. It is now the "liberals" Mccain Clinton that advocate sending MORE troops ! The formerly conservative republicans are afraid of losing their seats and new raises so they want less troops ! It used to be that the liberals were for international nation building and now it's the conservatives.All the Army brass care about is another star. The battalion commanders say they need more troops. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132819,00.html The original estimate necessary was 250,000. I sure as hell don't know what to do. I do know that when I am at sea and in dangerous waters and do not know exactly where a prudent mariner does not opt for "stay on course" As for "look in the mirror" I can and when I do I don't have to say "blame the liberals.blame the MSM, blame the minority party, blame the French"

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 01:46 PM (ads7K)

53 I think Sean Braisted asks a legitimate question: how do we measure victory? The White House hasn't clearly answered that question, and that is a large part of the problem, IMHO. Do you define it as the destruction of terrorist organizations and the rouge governments that support them? If so, we've still got Syria and Iran to go for sure, and potentially other countries as well. Do you define it as the destruction of radical Islam? That would involve not only overthrowing governments, but eradicating entirely the most violent sects of Islam, and ruthlessly hunting down its members and destroying them. After what Germany attempted to do in WWII this seems unpalatable to most, but it is possible. The British, after all, were able to destroy the Thuggee. This destruction of violent Islam would also have to be done while encouraging the more liberal forms of Islam to fill the power vacuum in Islamic countries. Do you define victory as the total destruction of Islam itself? I think President Bush and most people would define victory as the destruction of terror organizations and the government that support them, but Bush has gone both beyond that and has done less than that at the same time. Bush has undoubtedly brought down two terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this has triggered Libya to turn over their WMD programs, and spurred democratic revolutions in several countries. But while the governments were relatively easy to topple, cutting out terror groups is a bloody, tedious process, but one that certainly can be done. So this goal is partially over, and perhaps once weÂ’ve established democratic governments that are strong enough to stand on their own, with military and police forces strong enough to fight their own internal terrorists, we can declare this a victory. Or perhaps we should fight for the second or third types of victory. Islam itself states it is incompatible with other religions that can otherwise coexist with each other. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians have all proven they can lives side-by-side with one another (and in my church at least, under the same roof), but Islam states bluntly that they world must be totally Islamic. At some point, there will perhaps be an all out war on Islam brought about by Islamic delusions of world conquest, but is now that time? I, like Sean, hope sensible minds will take control of Islam and moderates will reform the religion. If not, they may set the stage for a war that will make the Crusades look like childÂ’s play.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 21, 2005 02:27 PM (g5Nba)

54 "when in danger or in doubt always post a sharp lookout when there isn't time to turn her slow her, stop her, or full astern"

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 02:46 PM (ads7K)

55 So, can we now say that right wingers are sad that Zarquawi's dead because now he can't kill any more soldiers and that's what right wingers stand for--killing American soldiers? That's why they don't want to bring the troops home--they want to keep that death toll rising? Makes as much sense as your saying "lefties" "celebrating" that he's still alive.

Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:15 PM (c1Sxs)

56 I read the DailyKos post on the alleged death of Zarqai. Anyone who calls it a sign of dismay simply isn't being honest. Not that that's unusual in the wingnut blogosphere.

Posted by: Laney at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (a6MF7)

57 You can't kill Zarqawi. He has Jihadomagic that allows him to be in more then one place at a time. He can teleport from one place to another instantly. He can regrow limbs and take over rival groups (ya'll know Zarqawi's group was a competitor to AQ, right?) just by thinking about it. He learned how from Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at November 21, 2005 03:22 PM (eHLUP)

58 I think I have the solution to the whole Iraq problem--let everyone who voted for George Bush go and fight in Iraq--that way rightwingers can continue their war of choice and we won't have to listet to any more of their crap about patriotism, "cut and run" (sooo funny coming from a couple of draft dodgers) and "support our troops." I support all those who voted for Bush going to meet theie destinies in the desert--just one more thing, they also have to pay for it. We won't miss you!

Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:31 PM (c1Sxs)

59 You lefty trolls are all delusional. I haven't laughed this hard since the lefty idiot tried to take my W sign out of my front yard and I shot him in his dumb ass with my BB gun. He lit out like a stuck hog, and for some reason my sign was left untouched the rest of the campaign. Just for fun I still have a W sticker on my truck, and not one of you lefty shitheads have the guts to even say anything to me. Unless you are on the computer and then you pretend to be bad asses. Please, all of you lefties, it's just about pizza delivery time, you had better report to work or your mommie might kick you out of the basement. LOL!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 03:37 PM (rUyw4)

60 Enjoy reading your blog. But a fatwa? I didn't think you *sob* cared.

Posted by: The Heretik at November 21, 2005 03:44 PM (mLyjh)

61 Let's remember an al Zarqawi story the mainstream media evidently would like us to forget. In 2003, the Washington Post reported on a Pentagon report that stated that the military offered the Bush administration 3 separate opportunities to kill al Zarqawi. They knew exactly where he was in the Kurdish-controlled north. The Bush administration turned down the Pentagon all three times for political reasons -- they thought killing Zarqawi would undercut their rational for invasion -- this was the Pentagon's analyis, not mine. Of course, we know Zarqawi has gone on to personally cut two Americans' heads off and kill hundreds. For political reasons, the Bush admin. let him off the hook. Bush apologists: your thoughts?

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 04:11 PM (0jJ9w)

62 Uh, that you're full of shit, Bill. Just my thoughts. LOL!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:27 PM (rUyw4)

63 >>>I think I have the solution to the whole Iraq problem--let everyone who voted for George Bush go and fight in Iraq- Mike, funny you should say that. Most people currently fighting the war in Iraq DID vote for Bush.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 04:30 PM (8e/V4)

64 jc, Even when the leftists and liberals did everything in their power to keep the military guys votes from being counted. The hypocricy of these liberals knows no bounds!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:34 PM (rUyw4)

65 "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." 10 points if you can tell me where that's from.

Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 21, 2005 04:37 PM (gxVyt)

66 we should draw and quarter a democrat liberal on pay per view so all of em will know that if you hate our troops and don't support Bush till the end. You will pay for it! God Bless USA!!!

Posted by: jesusland twotooth at November 21, 2005 04:42 PM (YClF7)

67 Holy Jesus People! Some real loony tunes out there today. Silly Internet Warriors fighting it out in cyberspace; such a spectacle. Some of you are passionate, some apparently have some serious personality disorders. Vitriolic refexive name calling and dreaming of the deaths of those with whom you disagree are not signs of good mental health or social adjustment. They are signs of childishness and an inability to communicate in any effective way. Make your point, back it up with facts, and maybe...just maybe someone will really consider what you are saying. But if you are compelled to toss around horrible invectives and profess hatred and intolerance of anyone of differing opinions you just label yourself as an unbalanced weirdo and I don't believe thinking people follow the lead of such hyperactive overcharged zealots of either side of this war argument. Real wisdom is never accompanied by such unwarrented dogmatic aggression. Just my 2 cents and a plea for reason in on line discussions. This forum can be good but wading through the nut-job posts is getting a little tedious. Happy Harping!

Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:18 PM (6pXHD)

68 JesuslandJerk's response to facts is telling. Come on, Jesus Jerk. If you think al Zarqawi should be killed, why wouldn't you be pissed at the Bush administration for preventing the Pentagon from killing him? Making an extremely lame joke and then rushing to type a symbol which means "I'm laughing at my own joke," is hardly a response to a serious charge.

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:25 PM (ThwLj)

69 Seems like some liberal in charge has requested that trolls attack this blog. LIBERALS: Here's my take. The problem with muslims is that all terrorists are muslims. So they get grouped together. The problem with liberls and democrats is that all traitors, sickos and such we have encountered on this blog are liberals and democrats. So they get grouped together. As long as the liberal establishment contains people like Greg the traitor, Colon Baber, Ernie and such you will naturally be suspect. Kick the deviates out of your group then dialogue can begin for the good of all. I will not work with muslims when they claim Osama ben Laden and rat face Zaqueery are part of their group. I will not work with liberals while they agree with commies like Greg the traitor and Colon Baber. Clean the grap out of your ideals or be considered one of them.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 05:26 PM (ZaAd/)

70 It is going to be so much fun in the next few months to watch the Right wing try to explain their reasons for pulling-out from Iraq and try to re-write "cut and run" into something that sounds more patriotic. America is having it's awakening. The 9/11 sleep dust is wearing off. Better go rip that big fat W bumper sticker off your car asap.

Posted by: the_truth at November 21, 2005 05:29 PM (ocHBO)

71 the_truth: So you hope we do "pullout and run" so you can "stick it" to the republicans? possible Iraqi civil war, emboldened Jihadi warriors, and a caliphate state, but you'll get your zinger!! what an american! I bet you also "support the troops" right?

Posted by: dave at November 21, 2005 05:33 PM (CcXvt)

72 So, "All terrorists are Muslims"? Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? I missed that. Ted Kazinski? Muslim? Hmmmm, missed that too. IRA? Muslims converted from Catholics I suppose. But then.....never mind. Ask for facts and I guess this is what you get; wild emotional and a mob mentality devoid of introspection or dispassionate analysis. Ask for reason and thought and you get a red-faced rant, full of hyperbole and devoid of rational discourse. Oh well, I asked for it. Manners, like good taste or class, are something that as an adult you either have or you do not. At least its obvious who is who in here. A Boor is a boor on either side of the argument.

Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:41 PM (6pXHD)

73 I read your piece about those at DailyKos have pinned their hopes on the defeat of our troops. That's (barely) debateable. But just in case I have some great news for them: Rummy and Bush are still running the show in the war.

Posted by: Robert at November 21, 2005 05:43 PM (cETWZ)

74 Rusty, I think that's bullshit. The distinction between "the Left" and "liberals" was made in an ass-covering addendum, and it's nothing other than silly hair-splitting anyway. In the original post, "the Left" clearly refers to those who harbor left-wing beliefs; I wonder where you draw your line between mainstream liberals and far-to-the-margins wacks. I don't see any evidence that you show much respect for either. The real distinction, to me at least, is between liberals whose beliefs reflect nothing other than knee-jerk partisanship and liberals whose views are based on actual coherent outlooks/reading up on facts (I don't think that the Iraq war should ever have been about a left/right split -- just sanity versus insanity). In any case, my response to you is that I was referring to the substance of the post and I think "Update II" is disingenuous. I live in neither San Francisco or NYC, incidentally. Nor does splitting my time between two locations take up all my non-flying hours. Still I'm curious which liberal caricatures (and as a caricature of a liberal elitist I have to inform that you misspelled that word) I confirmed in my post. Is it the caricature of liberals who post to conservative blogs without actually reading what they're responding to? I was unaware of that one. Or is it the caricature of liberals who reside in New York state and the Bay Area? Because that's not really a caricature; it's a fact of demographics. Best, Max

Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 05:44 PM (36mN0)

75 Iraqis Say There Should Be Troop Timetable CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, seeking common ground for their political future together, agreed Monday there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, and that resistance was the right of all -- but that acts of terror should be condemned. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Egypt-Iraq-Conference.html

Posted by: bobby at November 21, 2005 05:45 PM (nP2fm)

76 Greyrooster, the problem with your argument that all traitors are liberals is that it doesn't conform to experience. The last two times our FBI has found a traitor in their midst, he was a conservative. The last guy, I forget his name now, was a conservative Catholic member of Opus Dea. In addition, last year, an FBI agent was forced to resign because he had been carrying on an affair with an agent for the communist Chinese. This agent was Katrina Leonge, who worked as a conservative fundraiser for the republican party in California. These facts don't support your meta-argument.

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:59 PM (frPZV)

77 Here's a different perspective on this "liberal" thing: "As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost in examples of justice and liberality." --- George Washington, Letter to the Roman Catholics, March 15, 1790

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 06:02 PM (frPZV)

78 >>>"America is having it's awakening. The 9/11 sleep dust is wearing off." the_trooth, maybe you've been living in a cave because you appear not to have noticed that when given a chance to vote for a troop withdrawal, only 3 Dem moonbats voted for it. The rest must have been hiding in that cave with you. Thrash about mindlessly all you want, but the troops are staying until the mission is completed and the President calls them home. You don't like it? Then win some elections for a change. It's obvious that you absolutely need America to fail in Iraq so that you can regain political power. But we aren't going to hand Iraq to terrorist anarchy just because you Libs have a greater loyalty to party than your own country.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:17 PM (8e/V4)

79 >>>Here's a different perspective on this "liberal" thing: That's why I sometimes refer to you as neo-Libs. You're primarily Leftists and soft stalinists, not Liberals in the traditional sense (Washington wouldn't even recognize you), while the old school Kennedy Liberals have migrated to the conservative camp.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:21 PM (8e/V4)

80 DMAN: Comparing Kazinski and Mcveigh sickos to muslims terrorist is an example of why a shut-in should stay in the fire house. The Irish are "correctly or not" fighting for their countries freedom. Religion is a secondary issue. Mcveigh and Kazinski where not religious zealots. Comparing two killers to thousands is stupid. Mcveigh was striking back for what he perceived as liberals taking over the country. Mainly, Clintons gang of social misfits like Janet Renos killing hundreds of men, women and children at Waco, Tx. And since you are a booring idiot with nothing new to add. Time to get lost. We've heard the same bullshit before. Go get bugger by a muslim. That is if your boyfriend isn't one. You can bet your ass that the sorry assed government employees that were having fun killing these people were 100% democrats. As most parasites living off the tax payers are. Your bullshit don't hunt here.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:14 PM (ZaAd/)

81 >>>"So, "All terrorists are Muslims"? Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? I missed that. Ted Kazinski? Muslim? Hmmmm, missed that too. IRA? Muslims converted from Catholics I suppose. But then.....never mind." Ok, how bout 99.99999% of terrorists are muslims. Better?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 07:19 PM (8e/V4)

82 Regarding Update II - unfortunately, that is the conclusion I have come to also - there are those I refer to as the "hard left" (I won't call them liberals or Democrats) individuals who believe the "imperialist" west must lose. Any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of our military is pronounced as fact. Argue with these boneheads and you're labeled as a . . . A real liberal would side with the people not the dictators. Scratch beneath the surface of the "hard left" and what you'll find is hard core green, marxist, socialist, communist - but I repeat myself. Centrist Dem

Posted by: Demi at November 21, 2005 07:50 PM (Yxvls)

83 Bill, You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the ass. Now go back to the DU swamp and wallow with your fellow traitors. The HYPOCRISY of you liberals is beyond the pale.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 08:21 PM (rUyw4)

84 "Hypocrisy", Jesusland Joe? Ever notice how most of the posters who threaten violence and dream of killing have "Jesus" in their handle? I can see these interbred Billy-Bobs laying back, masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind, then heading off to their local Southern Baptist bible-thumper on Sunday so they can proudly feel that they are more born again than their neighbors... Guess what guys? Jesus wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, you poor pathetic hypocrites. Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate. This what religion does to the feeble-minded. I'll take a moral atheist over you amoral holyrollers anyday. If your type gets into heaven, I'm not going. I have some standards, you know.

Posted by: Joviel at November 21, 2005 09:47 PM (tgsAE)

85 >>>"Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate." how bout we aren't traitors who have put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country. That's gotta be good for at least a couple of degrees, no?

Posted by: dcb at November 21, 2005 10:43 PM (8e/V4)

86 >>>"masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind," This sounds to me like a classic case of projection.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)

87 WOW !!! Some people really are upset. You know we won the election I am saying that we should be more critical of our own scalawags then critical of their scalawags. I certainly feel like aI should keep a closer eye on what my dogs are doing then on what the neighbors dogs are doing. As for my bumper sticker every few years I replace my AuH2o->64

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:02 PM (ads7K)

88 Children...take your medicine. Stop threatening to kill each other. WTF is the matter with you people? What ever happened to reasoned debate and who the hell are all these raving rude fools on both sides of the issue that can't have an online forum discussion without turning into evil 13 year olds talking about who they will kill that doesn't agree with them. You are an embarrassment to America and all it stands for. Grow the hell up.

Posted by: DMan at November 22, 2005 03:02 AM (6pXHD)

89 "put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country." bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope.

Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 22, 2005 09:47 AM (gxVyt)

90 Quothe Sean: "Improbulus Maximus, your theory about Muslims realsing the futility of their cause is interesting. Unfortunately it seems to be the characteristic of radical fundamentalist religions, that they never seem to realize futility or facts that prove their theories wrong. Anything said contrary to what they believe is 'of the devil' and any signs of failure are because of a lack of faith, not too much of it." You are exactly correct, but given that any society is comprised of a ratio of sane to insane people, and that the insane ones are more likely to engage in abberant behavior, such as murdering innocent people in the name of X and fighting against the US military, and that insane fanatics going against the US military have a pretty short life expectancy, the ratio quickly becomes skewed in the favor of the sane people. In Iraq, a country of 25,000,000, the US military could not hold one inch of ground if the people didn't want us there, at least not without massive slaughter on a daily basis. So, the fact that 14 of 18 provinces are peaceful, and trouble is mainly concentrated in a few cities, tells me that the "insurgency" consists of a tiny, infinitesimally miniscule minority of thugs and idiots who are lining up in the express line to go meet their god, and the rest of the people are trying very hard to live normal lives of peace and prosperity, if only their "brothers in allah" would stop murdering them. "I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen." I hope so too, but they probably won't, because that's a one-way street with little chance to turn around. Once one is within that society, to leave means nothing less than death. Most likely, we'll have to keep killing them for a long time to come. Your lack of optimism is realistic and valid.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:14 AM (0yYS2)

91 Joviel, You idiot. Jesusland is a place. It says nothing about religion. Can you be as stupid as you seem?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 10:17 AM (rUyw4)

92 Quothe joviel: "To the jackass who wants to kill Liberals; If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win." Do you even know what fascism is, little boy? And what makes you think you would win any fight? Do you have fully automatic, armor piercing protest signs or something? There are over 200 million guns in America, almost completely owned by we evil non-libtards. "First of all, we outnumber you." Which is why you can't win national elections. Because you outnumber us. Right? "Check the polls." You mean that ones that are written and conducted by liberals, in liberal areas, with questions slanted to produce a desired result? Let me poll you: Is pedophilia okay or is George Bush evil? Oh, wait, sorry, you're a liberal, so it would be "all of the above". "Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it. Yeah that's great. Guess what? A liberal with a gun just makes a more justifiable target. When TSHTF and you go out on a rampage with your black and islamic brothers, destroying the very city you live in, it will just make it that much easier to identify and kill you. "Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military." Wow, that's really impressive. What was your unit? Dates of service? Duty posts? MOS? You do know that real veterans, like me, can spot a faker a mile away, don't you? "Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield." You keep thinking that. "Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet." That's funny. Well, I am a vet of Desert Storm, and I know that battlefield survival requires brains and balls, of which you fairy-ass liberal nancy boys have none. One guy I shared a tent with in Iraq, and stood guard duty every day, told me that he would surrender rather than fight because he didn't believe we should be there in the first place. He was another liberal who joined the Army because he wanted the free college money, and was horrified when he discovered we were going to war, and actually tried to desert, but got caught. You don't impress me much, because I've seen your kind and know them well. You are chickenshit cowards who shit yourselves and run at the first sign of trouble. "And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter." That's so funny in so many ways that you'll never understand. Thanks for the laugh! "So go ahead and start a civil war." It's your fellow idiot libtards who are always going on about a revolution, so go ahead and start one, you little chickenshit punkass bitch. "I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead." And I would gladly give you the opportunity, and then add your empty skull to my collection of fencepost ornaments. "It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying..." And not likely considering that you'd soil your pants and cry like a little girl at the first hostile contact. I've been shot at before, and by a real man, so I'm not worried about a little nancy-boy like you, or any other liberal waste of space.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:48 AM (0yYS2)

93 LMAO!!! IM, you are in top form today.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 10:59 AM (8e/V4)

94 Oh Lordy, Lordy!!!!.....ive never seen so many freakin trolls in here before....its like a Royal Rumble match going on in here and looks like i missed all the action lastnite....Kos must have sent out his brigades to attack the Jawa and hopefully they have been repulsed....daym, and i sharpened up my axe, all for nothing.....oh well, better luck next time i hope

Posted by: THANOS35 at November 22, 2005 11:16 AM (66BHq)

95 Percy's Pop and other liberals, read carefully: I don't care what liberals say, and I'm not interested in debate with you. The matter is clear to me; either you stand with your country against its enemies, or you stand against it with its enemies, and I know that where I stand and where you stand are diametrically opposed on pretty much every issue. Most egregious is the fact that you are more interested in undermining our government's efforts to fight terrorism so that you can embarass Bush and retake control of the government than you are in actually fighting terrorism itself. Do not think for one moment that we don't know you for the traitors you are, or that you will escape justice forever. Because of the efforts of groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, ANSWER, the Dhimmicratic party, et al, it's only a matter of time before the government is weakened to the point of being incapable of defending our nation, and then we shall see a wave of attacks as never before imagined, and our infrastructure will collapse, and there will be riots in the streets of every major city every day that will make the current events in Europe look like a frat party. That's when the gloves will come off and you will have to choose between standing with your country, or with its enemies, but it will be too late for you; you have already chosen, and your corpses will be stacked with all the other enemies of liberty, and nobody will shed a tear for you, because you are traitors.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 11:53 AM (0yYS2)

96 >>>"bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope." fluffy, it's some kind of a big secret that the Left is fully vested in the defeat of American "empire" in Iraq? Not at all. The future of the American Left for decades to come depends on it. You know it, we know. You see, we don't use the word "traitor" the way you use "nazi"-- i.e., for shock value. The American Left are LITERALLY traitors. Read Rusty's latest post for a more in-depth explanation.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 12:23 PM (8e/V4)

97 Maybe the lefties are just trying to emulate the righties. To the right, it's all about being on the winning side. They always beat their chest about winning the elections (no matter how many American voters they disenfranchise to do it). In this case, maybe the lefties are on the side of the insurgents, because they want to be on the winning side. After all the US forces are led by Rumsfeld, and a President who couldn't lead his country out of a rainstorm.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 01:40 PM (cETWZ)

98 I started off here yesterday with the intention of challenging conservatives with the fact that the Bush administration, according to our own Pentagon, didn't allow the killing of Zarqawi before the invasion for political purposes. This was reported by MSNBC and the Washington Post. What I'm trying to point out is that it's silly to refer to liberals as "traitors" when your own conservative administration has done more questionable things in the "War on Terror" than any American liberal. I got nothing but bullshit from the absurdly jingoistic and ignorant posters on this conservative board. If this is the state of argument for conservatives, you've already lost the war of ideas. Jesusland Joe and Improbabull Maxibutt, you guys are just pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You're unamerican in a very profound way and you're stupid to boot. I haven't seen anything from either of you that even begins to qualify as a cogent argument. All I see is angry young men with little understanding or appreciation of history, politics or our political system hurling silly, nonsensical accusations about patriotism and hate. What a profound waste of time to engage anyone like you idiots.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 01:49 PM (s5QlR)

99 >>>"I started off here yesterday with the intention of challenging conservatives with the fact that the Bush administration, according to our own Pentagon, didn't allow the killing of Zarqawi before the invasion for political purposes." Bill, You have no idea why the Pentagon passed on Zarqawi, therefore you have no real point to make. The best you can do from the comfort of hindsight is say it was some kind of a blunder. Beyond that it's just hot air. But it wasn't nearly the blunder Clinton made when he refused Osama Bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a platter. Answer that one if you really came here for some kind of dialogue.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 02:55 PM (8e/V4)

100 Jesusland Carlos, When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"? Oh that's right, we save the forests by opening them to logging companies, we help get cleaner air to breathe by rolling back emission standards, and we support the troops by baiting our enemies and reducing veterans benefits back home. We also get to support the war by reducing taxes for the rich. Makes as much sense as Christians who favor the rich over the poor.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 03:11 PM (cETWZ)

101 Jesusland Carlos: according to the 9-11 Commission, reports by our own State Department and reports by the CIA, the story that Sudan offered Clinton bin Laden is not true. I know many conservatives take it on faith that it happened, but the 9-11 commission found it to be a hoax. And, it wasn't the Pentagon that passed on the opportunity to kill al Zarqawi. According to the Pentagon, the administration wouldn't let them kill Zarqawi. To me, it's just another example of how poorly this administration has run the war on terror. This administration is all about politics and very light on policy.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 03:46 PM (V2qBv)

102 >>>"reports by our own State Department and reports by the CIA, the story that Sudan offered Clinton bin Laden is not true." Bill, I'm afraid your superiors have lied to you again. Here is the audiotape of Bill Clinton himself admitting to the Long Island Association in Woodbury, New York, during the group's annual luncheon in February 2002 that he refused Sudan's offer because he had no "basis" on which to hold him. http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:10 PM (8e/V4)

103 Carlos, let's try to get through this without personal attacks. I have no superiors. These are my own memories and thoughts. I think the problem is that we've got two separate hoaxes here and we're mixing them up. The hoax I was talking about is the one where the Sudanese General was supposed to have offered Clinton bin Laden. This was shown to be false for a number of reasons. In this quote you've offered, Clinton says that in 1996, a couple of years before the other event supposedly happened, there was no linkage between terrorist acts and bin Laden. That was true in 1996. In fact, as far as 2 years later, in 1998, Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice both criticized Clinton's obsession with bin Laden as making the war on terrorism "too personal." And, don't forget that as late as the late '90s, American oil companies were wining and dining members of a Taliban delegation in Texas, still trying to get a deal for the trans-asian pipeline now going up into the "stans."

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:25 PM (V2qBv)

104 When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"? So, I am to assume upon hearing President Bush on TV saying that, peaceful people all over the world, grabbed their AK-47's and their Quran and headed for Iraq? ready for Jihad because Bush said "Bring it on" ? The only people harping on those words are the left, indeed I can say without a doubt, not one terrorist, or insurgent fighting in Iraq came to do so because of a invitation from the President of the United States "Bring it on" statement. I can also say without a doubt that the left is enbolding terrorists by attacking the troops and the war on a daily basis, with calls for a withdraw, and asking if troops should be prosecuted for "war crimes", Bin Ladens words in regards to Mogadishu is a testament to what terrorists think about the U.S armed forces, and they're correct in the fact that when the killing starts, the politicians want them home. we support the troops by baiting our enemies tough words to our enemies in a time of war? who has heard of such ? I'm to assume the President should tell them "we'll stop if you stop?" - "Say Uncle!!" what about your sides plan to run? that is supporting the troops? has that not emboldened our enemies? With all this talk of a withdrawal "Time Table" they now know, they only have to wait us out of Iraq.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 04:42 PM (CcXvt)

105 Carlos, I would also have to point out that Clinton is the only president to have actually attempted to kill bin Laden. When he did this, he was accused of "wagging the dog." Now, the same people who accused him of trying to change the subject complain that he didn't capture bin Laden. I suggest all who are interested in how we fight the war on terrorism, read the 9-11 commission report. Compare the way the Clinton administration prepared and organized to the way the current administration handles threats. Clinton responded to increased threat assessments from the FAA by demanding weekly meetings with the heads of the CIA and the FBI. Bush responded to 55 specific FAA warnings, some of which mentioning flying airliners into buildings, by going on a 30-day vacation to Crawford.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:45 PM (V2qBv)

106 >>>"Clinton says that in 1996, a couple of years before the other event supposedly happened, there was no linkage between terrorist acts and bin Laden. That was true in 1996." Bill, let's talk about Bill Clinton, then we'll talk about Bush. The only reason Bill had no "basis" to take Osama, and that there was no "linkage" between the terrorists acts and bin Laden is because Bill was still treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, with formal rules of criminal evidence, probable cause, proper jurisdiction and yada yada yada instead of as a national security threat issue-- even after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. That is why he had no "basis" and no "linkage". The fact is however that we already knew Al Qaida was involved in the '93 bombing, and we already knew Osama was AQ. But treating AQ as a national security threat instead of a law enforcement issue would have been far too controversial for Bill. It was a hot potato, and Bill avoided hot potatos at any cost. Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud. Now Bush. I haven't the slightest clue why Bush or whoever neglected to bomb Zarqawi. But given that Zarqawi was pretty much a nobody back then, and that Iraq was an extremely target rich environment at the time, I'm going to chalk it to a pretty big blunder (but still smaller than Bill's) that is now only apparent in hindsight. I fail to see how "politics" had anything to do with it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:46 PM (8e/V4)

107 Dave, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that terrorists paid no attention to the President saying "bring it on," but pay lots of attention when lesser politicians or ordinary citizens want to withdraw. In other words, terrorists are listening carefully to some American citizens and some American politicians, but not at all moved by something the President says. Does that argument really make sense to you?

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:50 PM (V2qBv)

108 But, Carlos, using law enforcement apparatus, every conspirator and participant in the '93 WTC bombing was caught, tried and convicted. They're in jail now. Clinton believed that terrorism required all law enforcement agencies in all countries to cooperate and that fighting terrorism was a law enforcement issue. I would hope that we would learn something from the attempt to make the struggle purely a military one. All we've done is create a new training ground, increase enrollment and make the world even less safe. The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there. They had to muddy up the issue a bit, because they knew Zarqawi was not really being trained by Saddam's people. Saddam didn't like Zarqawi because he felt Zarqawi was a religious fanatic.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:00 PM (V2qBv)

109 Carlos says of Clinton: "Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud." Clinton fired cruise missles at a terrorist training camp when he thought bin Laden was there. He was 45 minutes late. On that day, he had spent the entire morning in deposition answering questions about oral sex. Clinton had a drug factory in the Sudan bombed. The CIA said that the factory was making explosive materials. Republicans lambasted him for this bombing, saying he was trying to "change the subject." According to the 9-11 commission report, Clinton "shook the trees" in the intelligence community relentlessly leading up to 2000. They were able to thwart a planned bombing of airports on New Years 2000. I'm really not sure what you mean by the "if he had the balls" thing. The record shows Clinton was completely immersed in fighting terrorism.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:14 PM (V2qBv)

110 Bill, I thank you for your reply to dave. Your reply was right on target. A lesson for the both the left and the right is to "switch" your complaint. That way you can see things from both sides. Could you imagine the reaction if someone high-up in VP Al Gore's office was accused of outing a CIA agent? Could you see Scalia dumping states rights to hand Gore the Presidency in 2000? Could you imagine the howls of dissent if Clinton told our enemies to bring it in? Is there any doubt we'd live in a one party country if the Dems were in charge on 9/11/2001? This is why we need to scrap the 2-party system.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 05:16 PM (cETWZ)

111 Robert, I'm not sure I agree with you on scrapping the 2-party system, but you bring up an interesting set of points. Why are public reactions to scandal so different than in the 90's? In the 90's, just the charge that someone was fired at the Whitehouse travel office for political purposes was sufficient to cause a media firestorm and special investigation. Someone putting two file boxes into a closet instead of bringing them across the street to a storage facility was enough to trigger a special prosecutor. The media had "gates" for everything. What happened?

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM (V2qBv)

112 One of my oldest conservative friends believes that the media firestorm over Clinton was because of the sex. He says sex sells, but incompetence and fraud don't sell. My response to that is Gannon/Guckert: Secret Service and FBI records show that a male prostitute under an assumed name visited the Whitehouse at night without checking out over 15 times and the media isn't interested???!!! People who believe in a liberal media conspiracy need to explain that one to me.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:38 PM (Mt1UV)

113 Robert: "Is there any doubt we'd live in a 1-party country if the Dems were in control on Sept. 11, 2001." Robert, with respect, I do doubt that. Remember that when 8 servicemen were killed in Mogadishu, barely a couple months into Clinton's first term, some republicans were calling for him to resign. Throughout the 90's republicans looked for any way to bring the democrat down. If Gore were in the Oval Office on 9-11-01, I have no doubt that Congressional republicans would have called for his resignation and called for immediate investigations.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:47 PM (Mt1UV)

114 Dave, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that terrorists paid no attention to the President saying "bring it on," but pay lots of attention when lesser politicians or ordinary citizens want to withdraw. What an idiotic statement! three words said by the President three years ago -- versus day after day of the media making statements about torture, and "possible" use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq, Cindy Sheenan, anti-war protests covered 24/7, fake coffins and "Grim Milestones", Micheal Moore movies, congressman calling for a full withdrawal of troops, hours and hours of media coverage of Senators and Congressman accusing the President of the United States of lying about the intelligence.....

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:10 PM (CcXvt)

115 Dave, you seem to think insurgents or terrorists in Iraq are more motivated by what someone SAYS publically in America than they are by what our military is DOING in Iraq. I just don't agree with that. But, I agree with you that Bush didn't have to say "bring it on" to motivate them either. I don't think it's what we say. I think it's what we do. As far as the President and his administration lying, I don't know why anyone even tries to deny that anymore. "No doubt" means something, Dave. And, just today it came out that Bush and Cheney received a classified PDB on 9-21-05 that said there was no connection between Saddam and al Queda and Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. So, yes, they lied about the intelligence. Since they refused to show the PDB's to congress before they voted, congress did NOT have the same intelligence as the administration -- another lie exposed.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:24 PM (Mt1UV)

116 Sorry. Correction: Bush got the PDB that said Iraq was not involved on 9-21-01, not 9-21-05.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:26 PM (Mt1UV)

117 dave, Anti-war protests covered 24/7? By who, Al-Jazeera? I remember them briefly being covered by the press before the war. I also remember the protesters were mocked in that same coverage as "professional protesters, tree-huggers, pacafists, etc. I think a better name for the protesters might be "prescient". I also remember the president saying he will not govern based on the ideas of "focus groups". Which must have sent the energy company executives into a tizzy.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 06:33 PM (cETWZ)

118 Dave, the most recent al Queda bombings were the suicide bombings at the hotels in Jordan. We now know from testimony of the wife whose belt didn't explode that they were looking for revenge for Falluja. They weren't in the slightest way motivated by Michael Moore. They were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot. If you, as an American, think it's acceptable to use phosphorus weapons on civilians, that is your right. But, don't act like these things have no consequences.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:37 PM (Mt1UV)

119 Bill, WP is not a chemical weapon. How f..king dumb can you be?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:40 PM (rUyw4)

120 Hey Joe, whether or not you want to call white phosphorus a "chemical weapon" is irrelevant. The soldiers referred to missions where it was used as "shake and bake" missions. The results are not unlike the use of napalm with respect to what they did to people. People had their skin burned off. So, call it what you want and, again, is there any way you proud conservatives can get through a posting without an ad hominem attack? Just wondering.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (Mt1UV)

121 Bill: If you believe the words of terrorists, you are indeed special. So let me see if this makes sense to you: United States attacks and destroys all terrorist, and insurgent resistance in the City of Fallujah. Terrorists attack a wedding party, during a strike against civilian Hotels in Jordan killing fellow Muslim citizens then quote it was justified because of the American attack on Fallujah, I don't even know how you even had the balls to quote that.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (CcXvt)

122 No need to get hysterical, Dave. I never said the attack was "justified." You posted that. What I said was that THAT was the reason the terrorist gave for the attack. I was simply using a recent event to illustrate a point -- terrorists don't care about what liberals or conservatives say here in America. They are motivated by our actions. That in no way justifies anything they do, it's just reality. But, can we end this tired old unamerican idea that questioning our government gives comfort to the enemy. They don't really care about public opinion in America. They have their jihad and that's all they need.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:56 PM (Mt1UV)

123 This crap has been debunked two weeks ago, and it is like a nine-headed snake. The United States has used WP in every war since and including WWII. Are you saying the US used chemical weapons in WWII?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:57 PM (rUyw4)

124 Hysterical? a little bit "Chicken Little" from you, but there we go. You used one of the most unpopular terrorist attacks, to prove a point that terrorists do not care what the U.S people, or politicians say, I guess I missed the point. It's not questioning the Government that is "unamerican" it's the constant attack against the United States armed forces, that is unamerican -- even your comments regarding civilian attacks, using chemical weapons (and you accuse me of hysteria?) point to the fundamental point I am making, you believe the worse of the U.S army at any given time, without proof or doing any research. You believe the enemy -- that my friend is unamerican. It's the same as the people that are demonstrating outside Walter Reed and taunting wounded soldiers, and people carrying flag-draped coffins in Veterans days marches, that crosses the line from questioning the Government, to attacking the Soldiers and that is unamerican.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 07:10 PM (CcXvt)

125 >>>The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there." Bill, sounds like spin to me. An argument could just as easily be made that Bush could have strengthened the terrorism case BY bombing the camp. Obviously, when handed a list of several hundred viable targets by the Pentagon, Bush made some choices, and now the usual political spinmeisters and conspiracy theorists are having their usual heyday with it. Similarly, I'm not going to second guess Bill. Hindsight is 20/20, and I only raised the issue because people in glass houses like that shouldn't throw stones. And I never got caught up in the Monica affair given I was a Democrat at the time. I still like Bill, actually, but he perjured himself in a sexual harrassment suit and he was rightly punished for it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 07:57 PM (8e/V4)

126 dave, When did Murtha, Michael Moore, etc carry out any, never mind constant, attacks against the United States armed forces? By the way, you might want to point your missives at the Republican controlled Congress, who can't find a cut to veteran's benefits they won't support. I don't think Bill believes the enemy, he's just pointing out what they've said. You believe the Bush administration even though, at this point, it flies in the face of common sense. Here's some news for you, sometimes those in authority lie. And unless you are a CEO or part of the top-earning 1% super rich in this country, your President is not acting in your best interests. Just thought you should know.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 07:58 PM (cETWZ)

127 Robert: The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? Michael Moore Comparing the terrorists in Iraq, who use homicide bombs to kill civilians and united states soldiers to the founding fathers of America, and saying they'll defeat our Soldiers -- I'm sure you don't find that offensive but I'm sure the soldiers do. Robert: He does believe the enemy: hey were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot. That isn't a quote from anywhere, that is his words. I believe the Bush Administration because I say attacking the troops is unamerican? Reality called, says he misses you.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 08:15 PM (CcXvt)

128 dave, I apologize. I didn't realize you were in Fallujah during the attack and saw it with your own eyes. How long have you been back? Are you going back there anytime soon? I hope not. I'm looking for troop-supporters, like you, to help fight the veterans benefit reductions the Republican-controlled Congress is trying to push through. Feet still firmly planted on the ground, Robert

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 12:35 AM (cETWZ)

129 DMAN: What ever happened to reasonable debate???? The liberals and democrats screwed it up. It's resonable debate only if it fits their childish view of things. Anything else is unreasonable debate. Now go get your paycheck from the taxpayers and piss and moan about not getting a raise for sitting on your ass.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:44 AM (ZaAd/)

130 Robert: your weakly veiled sarcasm is pretty pitiful. let me break it down for you again so maybe you can comprehend: "used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians" 1. Phosphorus rounds, or shells are not chemical weapons. 2. The United States Armed Forces does not target Civilians. You and Bill however, continue to make my point. When someone says something bad about Soldiers (murder/chemical weapons/torture/moonbat theory) you're on-board, you're so there, wearing your Che T-Shirt, and flying your American flag upside down, burning with fake outrage. Here is a little newsflash for you if you believe that large portions of the U.S Armed forces, which is made up of your fellow countrymen have no problem murdering civilians, using chemical weapons and routinely take part in torture and murder then you're no longer questioning the Government you're attacking the soldiers. Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too, and then say they were fighting against the Government and their War.

Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 07:00 AM (CcXvt)

131 >>>Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too, dave, Robert accuses them of wantonly killing civilians with chemical weapons and the he cries in his soup for their "veterans benefits". LOL! These people just won't get their story straight. More likely he thinks he's found a wedge in yet another lame attempt to vilifiy "Bush".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 08:59 AM (8e/V4)

132 Dave, Thank you! And thank you for defanging the trolls on this thread. They truly are scum. They demoncrats did everything in their power to disenfranchise military personel in the last election, and then they have the cheek to come in here and accuse our soldiers of all kinds of atrocities. I tell you I am sick of their kind. I would hate to know what I would do if one of these punks even tried to spit on one of our soldiers in my presence. Jail or not, I would do everything in my power to put the little punks(guy or girl) lights out. When all the soldiers get back, the Left in this country will have some things they will have to answer for.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 10:22 AM (rUyw4)

133 dave, jesusland Joe: WTF are you talking about? You're both on this thread to vilify the left because in your tiny minds, those that think this war is wrong hate our soldiers. (and those that think 2+2 doesn't equal 6 hate numbers). Idiots. Listen up morons. I like the soldiers. I feel bad they've been thrown into a disastrous situation without the proper numbers or battle gear (like the cut in veterans benefits we're not supposed to talk about that either--lest the hypocrisy becomes overwhelming). Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in? Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops? No we cut taxes for the richest 1% earners in this country, but pay no attention to the fact our soldiers were sent to battle without the right gear. (See, 2+2 does equal 4). You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick. BTW, you're the last 2 people to admit it. Everyone else already knows.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:15 PM (cETWZ)

134 Bill, I apologize for sinking to their level in the last reply. It's just that it's aggravating to have them make believe they miss the point so consistently. First they start by saying the left hates our soldiers, unlike the Bush supporters. When I point out Bush's "bring it on line", they dismiss it. When i point out the lack of funding for the war and the vets, they miss that one too. They may not be idiots, but they play idiots on the web.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:22 PM (cETWZ)

135 They were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot. Robert Robert accuses Soldiers of commiting atrocities in the battle for Fallujah, then wrings his hands in anguish that Veterans are not getting their benefits, what next Robert are you going to suggest we need to purchase Ace bandages for those injured by repetitive stress syndrome from kicking puppies? Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in? Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops? Are you? no one is idiot! let me guess you had a pan drive, to collect pans from your neighbours to melt down to make bombers ala WWII? You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick. Bzzzt! wrong, I didn't vote Moron! thanks for playing! You don't care about veterans, or the soldiers, you're just playing that card as a "zinger" towards the republicans the closest your side gets to Veteran care is standing outside Walter Reed taunting the wounded soldiers. You're slime.

Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 03:03 PM (CcXvt)

136 Never been to Walter Reed Hospital. Care to lie about me again?

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:15 PM (cETWZ)

137 I didn't write the quote you attributed to me. Nor have I ever been to Walter Reed Hospital. Care to lie about me again? The soldiers represent Americans. I am an American. Why do you hate our soldiers??

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:18 PM (cETWZ)

138 Bring it on! Bring it on! Bring it on! Bring it on! This is what you get when a cartoon character leads your country.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:20 PM (cETWZ)

139 Robert, You are either psychotic or eight years old, I'm not sure which.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM (rUyw4)

140 And Robert, You know damned well the Demoncrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers, and you are a liar if you say otherwise. You accuse others of missing your points, and then ignore anything they say, so pot...kettle....black, do these words mean anything to you? Now, what I think. I wish our soldiers were home today, not tomorrow. I have too many friends and relatives either wounded or killed(my wife's cousin was killed there last year) in Iraq already. But I have enough sense to know that we cannot leave Iraq until we have the situation stabalized, and their Army or Guard is ready to take over. If Iraq is left to the radicals, then it will be used as a springboard to engulf the region in a major war, most unlike what we have there now. No one I know wants a war just for the sake of war, and the Left constantly saying that is nothing but a lie. If you think that, then you, sir, are wrong...wrong....wrong!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 04:07 PM (rUyw4)

141 robert, the Left's "concern" for the troops comes through loud and clear.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 05:37 PM (8e/V4)

142 How would I "know damned well" the Democrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers? Oh that's right, because someone with a keyboard and internet access said so. How about a little proof? And don't tell me its because some film maker made a comment about how our troops shouldn't be in Iraq. 1) he's a film maker, and 2) he's right. Now to your second point: I agree, we need to get our troops out of harm's way, but that's going to be a difficult task. The US is in a "you broke it, you fix it" situation. Unfortunately, I think Civil War in Iraq is inevitable due to tribal history. I don't have any answers for how we can make this work for both the US and Iraqi citizens. Another of my concerns is that the US does not want democracy in Iraq. Our nations history has often shown this to be the case (Chile 1973, Iran 1952, etc). Are we really going to sit by and let Iraq control their own resources and cut better deals with the Chinese than with us? I tend to think that those who pushed this war will think it was unsuccessful if that happens. One thing we should all (left, right and middle) have learned from this debacle is that "BEFORE we let our leaders start a war is EXACTLY the time to question them". I'm all for disdain of the Dems and the Left, but it's because they let themselves be cowed by a bunch of clueless cowboys. The tough questions (like "where's the proof", "what's the plan", etc) were never asked for fear that their Patriotism would be called into play. What a bunch of weenies. As to jesusland carlos, I've already pointed out how concerned the republicans are for our troops. (Not at all). So other than me and you, who else? Happy Thanksgiving to the troops. Hope to see you back in the US soon.

Posted by: Robert at November 24, 2005 11:05 AM (cETWZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
131kb generated in CPU 0.0246, elapsed 0.1333 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1168 seconds, 391 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 2896
  • Files: 9
  • Bytes: 37.4M
  • CPU Time: 1:24
  • Queries: 329651

Content

  • Posts: 5690
  • Comments: 76633

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0