JG-TC.com > Opinion > Letter: No one calling Bush, Cheney on 'crimes'

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Monday, July 9, 2007 7:05 PM CDT
Letter: No one calling Bush, Cheney on 'crimes'

By GREGORY JENNINGS, Mattoon

Pre-emptive war is murder. Bush is a thieving murderer. Cheney is a war profiteer that only cares about the money and oil that his team of thieves can steal. Both know that they can pull all kinds of things and nobody has the decency or backbone to call them on their crimes.

Pelosi is just as bad and so is the vast majority of the congress and the senate. They only care about their jobs. Impeachment is never a waste of time. It sets guidelines for future public servants that determine if they serve us and the constitution, or their own self interests. Let’s all pray that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich might get a chance to shake up the status quo. They are the only two that will even try to do anything right.

Anyone that agrees with killing innocent Iraqis is guilty of murder. Our kids are dying to keep the price of their stolen oil high. If you can’t care about the Iraqis, you should at least care about our troops.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Jack Sanders, SR. wrote on Jul 9, 2007 8:33 PM:

" What can you expect! They are Washingto politicians! "

Doh wrote on Jul 9, 2007 8:43 PM:

" ("Pre-emptive war is murder.") Brilliant statement Mr. Jennings! I guess we should wait until some of our citizens our murdered before we wage war. So does that mean if we had the knowledge and the chance to attack Japan before Pearl Harbor- we shouldn't have. That is- not until the murders of U.S. sailors, soldiers and civilians had taken place first? Brilliant! "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 10, 2007 12:11 AM:

" And you sound like an idiot. "

Jack Sanders, SR. wrote on Jul 10, 2007 12:15 AM:

" TO DOH; This is not intended to be a snotty question, or remark, but how can you relate the invasion of Iraq with the attack on Pearl Harbor? "

Morton wrote on Jul 10, 2007 3:18 AM:

" Actually, many say they did know about the impeding attack on Pearl Harbor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 10, 2007 5:45 AM:

" They are being called out, Mr. Jennings. The majority of Americans have emphatically stated that they don't agree with this unjust war. The poll numbers speak loud and clear. Bush continues, with his usual arrogant style of refusing to listen to anyone that dares to disagree with him, to push on with his failed plan. Cheney will have his day in court, when his involvement is investigated. Why do you think Bush commuted Libby's sentence? It now comes out that Libby's wife stated publicly, that if he goes to jail she will name names. Hmmm...Anyone care to guess what names she's talking about? Billions of dollars are being poured down that bottomless pit, and it looks like it will continue until Bush/Cheney are finally out of office. Almost weekly, another member of his own party is joining the cries of exiting his fiasco, but I fear they are falling on deaf ears, at least with Bush. While we may be stuck with this criminal and insane action until his term is up, there is an end in sight. The real question should be, what about Osama B. L.? Somehow this administration seems to have forgotten all about him, and have transformed the war on terror, from the real culprit, to the war on Iraq. Anyone remember these quotes: Mission accomplished, or: the revenue from the oil will pay for this war: or how about: the enemy is in it's last throes? There are more, but I think those three quotes from this Administration tell the story well enough. George Bush is bankrupting this country, in his quest to build a legacy. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this fiasco, while Bush and Cheney are comfortable pulling in millions on the lecture circuit. Sadly, there are those who are cheer leading this mess, but thankfully, they are becoming more in the minority daily. Impeachment is not necessary, Bush will have to live with the legacy of being a total failure. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 10, 2007 8:19 AM:

" You are entirely correct, Mr. Jennings. Keep fighting the good fight. "

Answer wrote on Jul 10, 2007 8:36 AM:

" Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets Draft Report To Conclude Iraqi Government Hasn't Met Any Of Its Targets, Official Says...gotta love that progress in Iraq...at what point is enough, enough. Arrest Bush, Cheney, and send them to Gitmo. This fiasco has gone on way too long already. Read it all here...http://tinyurl.com/2hnnyo "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 10:31 AM:

" ("This is not intended to be a snotty question, or remark, but how can you relate the invasion of Iraq with the attack on Pearl Harbor?") No offense taken Jack, it's a fair question. And my answer is this- I'm not equating Iraq and Pearl Harbor per se. I was addressing Mr. Jennings naive and reckless statement that: ("Pre-emptive war is murder.") And I was using a hypothetical scenario of a very real historical event to demonstrate the illogical and dangerous premise that his statement is based on. If we have foreknowledge of an attack and do nothing until we are assaulted first- how is that protecting our population? In this post 9/11 world, with the very real threat of WMD being used on our own soil, would you like to sacrifice your life first before our country seeks aggressive action against those threats? I wouldn't. "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 10:54 AM:

" Answer- ("Arrest Bush, Cheney, and send them to Gitmo.") - On what charges? What laws did they break? And I'll point this out again (for the hundredth time) the surge just got underway last month. Former Iraqi enemies of the US are now helping American troops to rout out Al Qaeda. Now that doesn't mean that it's all "peachy" in Iraq. This IS war after all! None of this means a damn thing to you- does it Answer. You won't let any facts or details get in the way of your Far-Left talking points will you. Just what IS your solution to global terrorism anyway? "

Rotty wrote on Jul 10, 2007 11:28 AM:

" Mr. Jennings, you need some serious help. OK.... I'm going to try this here, since nobody had the nerve to answer it, over on the "Impeach" column. ~ I'm really interested in hearing & knowing someone's ideas, (from the left), on how they think things ought to go, about the war, etc., if they do not believe we are to "stay the course". What do you think we should do instead - and what do you think we should do after you would have us pulling the troops out? What do you think our next course of action should be, if you believe Bush is doing an improper job at it? "

Answer wrote on Jul 10, 2007 12:57 PM:

" Doh, do you get all your talking points from the administration. You sound just like the Presidents liar in chief Tony Snow yesterday. No matter what facts there are you find a way to rationalize the truth into another lie. Amazing, if only such talent was used for good instead of evil... "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 10, 2007 1:37 PM:

" Here’s what Tony Snow had to say about executive privilege: “Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up. Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time. One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law." The quote is from an op-ed written by Snow and published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998. I have taken the small liberty of changing the name “Clinton” to “Bush.” But that shouldn’t make any difference to Snow’s constitutional judgment, now should it? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 10, 2007 1:38 PM:

" Here's someone who's calling Bush on his crimes. From the Denver Post: By John S. Koppel As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time. The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse. In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses. In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." ... "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 10, 2007 1:47 PM:

" Despite whatever verbal snake oil they may be peddling today, the Bush Republicans stand revealed as people whose single motive is clearly for their gang to acquire and keep and exercise as much power as it can, up to and including all of it, if possible, and by any means necessary. They would laugh openly at all this blather about rules of law and constitutions, mere pious fictions to them, if it weren’t for the fact that some of their political opponents are so foolishly idealistic as to actually believe in such nonsense. Laws and constitutions therefore serve them well, much the way a planned distraction serves the pickpocket. While their political opponents are putting up their dukes to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, the Republican gang members are left free to stab straight at the jugular. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 10, 2007 2:42 PM:

" "Security conditions" just prevented a congressional delegation from leaving the Green Zone or meeting any Iraqis. That's a great "surge" your pet chimpanzee has going there, right wingers. "Mission accomplished!," eh? "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 4:57 PM:

" ("Doh, do you get all your talking points from the administration.") No Answer- I've done my own research of the facts surrounding this war. And I use a variety of sources- especially the governments own reports, and I have a data base that has a looooong memory for cross-checking facts. Facts that the DNC and the Mainstream Media are trying to rewrite and distort, but some of us have the resources to know better. This Administration has never presented even half the evidence that I have, and that is ANOTHER reason why the Republican base is irritated at Bush! I'm not GETTING talking points- I'm GIVING facts! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 5:28 PM:

" Wow, what can I say? Your post at 4:57 seems to say it all. So now you're doing a better job than this administration is, with your propaganda, that is. You have convinced my once and for all, that you are certainly becoming more and more delusional by the day, Doh. I just have one question for you Doh: why are you unemployed? Given the times of your posts it's pretty obvious that you don't work. Why is that?. Now don't try to tell us that you are self-employed and can post all day and night too. Doh, you really need to seek professional help. Your delusions of grandeur are getting out of hand, buddy. "

fromsouth wrote on Jul 10, 2007 5:59 PM:

" What would you have done different if you were in Bush's shoes, Mr Jennings? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:00 PM:

" Stephen Fleischman summed it up well: There's a rancid smell of fascism in the air lately and nobody is doing anything about it; like the apathy of the German people before the Reichstag fire in 1933. Political scientist, Dr. Lawrence W. Britt, published the results of his study of Fascism in Free Inquiry Magazine defining 14 of its characteristics, but he, too, describes the symptoms, not the cause. Let's go to the source--Benito Mussolini, strongman of Italy before World War II, who instituted Fascism and coined the word. Mussolini defined Fascism as Corporatism. When corporations take over government by whatever means, by buying up politicians or getting their hands on the wheels of power, they are merging corporate power and government--that's Fascism. All the other depredations of democracy follow. It's a dictatorship; it's a loss of freedom; it's condoning torture: it's controlling mass media; it's fraudulent elections. It can be all of those things. Sound familiar? Where did Habeas Corpus go? Who's violating the Geneva Conventions? Who's surveilling American citizens without warrants? What is Guantanamo Bay? A concentration camp? Harboring enemy combatants at the moment, but being prepared for naughty, dissident American citizens one day, maybe? "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:27 PM:

" And right on cue Dohbaugh jumps in and attempts to take the conversation down into the sewer. What's wrong Dohbaugh- not smart enough to get into an adult conversation? Have all the big people made you feel left out? "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:44 PM:

" Clinton: 427 pardons. George W. Bush; 0. Clinton commutations: 61. Bush: 6. http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm Henry Cisneros... Secretary of HUD...(a Cabinet member)... indicted, convicted, and then pardoned by Clinton... the highest administration member ever to be indicted... (yes, higher than Libby)... 18 (yes, EIGHTEEN) counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and giving false statements... so what's the *spin* on this one? Former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros pled guilty to making a "false statement" to the FBI and was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office...which makes Hillary's whole "cronyism" thing ring a tad hollow. I think Clinton also pardoned his brother, if memory serves. The difference here, and the reason this really doesn't bug me, is that Libby was charged and convicted of a process crime -- that is, he was never charged with anything he'd done prior to the investigation beginning. Nobody was. The other irony of all this is that a lot of the people who want to see Libby hang for lying under oath are many of the same people who seemed to wave off President Clinton lying under oath....and vice versa, a lot of people who wanted to see Clinton hang for lying under oath think Libby should've been pardoned. As I said, it's probably an appropriate balance. I don't think the guy belongs in prison. What about the Clinton team selling guidance tech to the Red Chinese so they could aim their missiles at us and keeping the money for the payoff? Well now, that is different legally. It is called treason and that is an impeachable offense! What I find hilarious is this. Every single time a president from either party pardons people the opposite whines and cries and complains. Waaaaa waaa. Here's a clue, every modern era president pardoned people which were deemed political favors. SHOCK!!! Actually not really. But the hypocrisy from both sides is funny. Here's a hint, get a drive going to amend the constitution to take that particular power away from the president. Then guess what? Neither party can return political, (and in clintons instance), and family favors. Thats the solution. There is no doubt in my mind all those in the left defended all of clintons pardons, just as all those on the right are defending bush's pardons. But it is hilarous to read all the whining and crying. Not to mention stirring of the pot to agrivate the whine. If nothing else, its all quite entertaining. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:44 PM:

" Miss America At her best ..... You aren't going to believe this. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement Funds, 401K's and Mutual Funds! Alas it is true. All to help the 12 million illegal immigrants and other unemployed minorities! Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening. Take special note of the last paragraph. Is she really this whacked out? Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class". She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets". When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich." When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs." "We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower Federal Income Tax tax payers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied ; ; "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans"." "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:45 PM:

" I was gonna give up on this, But I had to respond to this absurd letter. "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 7:06 PM:

" Fantastic posts Dave! Trust me- people are reading this. Great work! "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 10, 2007 8:39 PM:

" Thanx, Doh. We unemployed (as I tend to post at all hours, also) right - leaners need to stick together. I guess we must be nuts - why else would we not support those who would take from those who help our economy prosper by working and creating jobs and give thier ill - gotten gains to us slackers while we sit around eating Bon-Bons and watch Jerry Springer all day? "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 10, 2007 9:37 PM:

" Yes, Nancy Pelosi is scary beyond reason. If she wants to work on something obscene, she can work on lowering the obscene pensions that congressional retirees get. THAT is obscene. Instead, she wants to raise money by taking more from tax payers rather than giving back some of what SHE gets. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jul 10, 2007 10:28 PM:

" Nancy Pelosi could make better use of the broom she wants to use to sweep all the conservatives out of the House with, and ride it back to California! "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 10:31 PM:

" Now Anita- how dare you attack "The Most Ethical Congress Ever"! Don't you know that Democrats are never crooked? Only Republicans are! wink* "

Doh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 11:36 PM:

" Hey Billie! Welcome back! "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:09 AM:

" Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations. Lying about public health for corrupt political purposes. I guess the nation's health "serves at the pleasure of the president," too, eh, you servile little Republican zombies? "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:14 AM:

" Billie - I couldn't agree more! Doh, I know, I should be so ashamed. *rolls eyes* ---------------------------------------- The left makes such a big deal about Bush's approval rating, but the Democratic Congress's approval rating isn't any better. ---------------------------------------- They scream about this war, but they offer no viable solutions that consider the consequences of their actions. They have been yelling that the surge isn't working before it's even had a chance to work...before the troop insertions were even completed. September is when the first progress report was supposed to be given, when we were supposed to evaluate the surge to see if it was working... so why are so many people so convinced it isn't working when they haven't given it enough time or even given it the agreed upon amount of time? ---------------------------------------- On the Beltway Boys, they were discussing this, and the report was that the Iraqi government had actually reached 7 of the 18 benchmarks... I don't see how this could be considered unsatisfactory since we actually gave them until September to reach these benchmarks. ---------------------------------------- This is so like the story of the farmer who went out and pulled on his plants trying to force them to grow faster than was possible. "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 11, 2007 5:52 AM:

" Hey Dave, glad to see you back. I certainly agree with you about the pardon hypocrisy. Happens on both side, doesn't it? Your comments on Pelosi were also right on target. People like her are what has caused me to desert that party. While I will readily admit to having left leaning tendencies, those ideas bordering on socialism, are a bit extreme for me. I have always found it odd that those on the far right can't seem to accept the idea of someone being a moderate. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a while, and you will hear him go into his bit about there being no such think as a moderate. Anyway, glad to see you back. It is sort of addictive, isn't it? It seems to be an all consuming obsession with some on here. Actually, I have suspected for a while that some on here (both sides), have some real personal issues and use this forum to address those issues. It seems to that some of these posts border on stalking, at times. Sort of a self-therapy thing maybe. "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 11, 2007 5:56 AM:

" Oops! Almost forgot. When is anyone on the right side going to address the Osama B.L. issue. I guess you don't want to discuss that one, huh? You folks on the far right are about as mute on that as you are on the whole Halliburton fiasco. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 7:43 AM:

" 7 of 18 benchmarks? Just think, Anita, 8 or 10 more years, and a couple more thousands of deaths, and we might say we're turning the corner. Maybe Bush can say, Mission accomplished, or his sidekick can say they are in their last throes. Next thing you know, you will be quoting Sean Hannity. Only a true right wing nut would find anything said on the Faux news channel as credible. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 11, 2007 7:57 AM:

" I'd like to see BinLaden killed, as would most of the free world. Problem is, he's like a roach in hiding, and we haven't been able to get to him. I have serious reservations about why, but I can also understand a little bit about the reason(s). Pakistan is helping to hide him, as are Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Our military operates under rules of engagement that tie their hands in many cases, while saving innocent civillians from rogue military actions in others. What should we do? I dunno. Can't very well go house to house, tent to tent or cave to cave and beat, torture and kill to get the whereabouts of Osama, although that would have the best chance of success. Can't really attack Pakistan, either. I believe that many Pakistanis are sympathetic to Bin Laden and are helping him and AlQaeda, and although the Pakistani government may not be directly involved, they certainly aren't doing all they can to help us. Radical Islam is something that we didn't understand going in, and still don't. How can you fight an enemy that wants to die? One that is willing to kill his own children, wife, mother, sister? There is no doubt that we won the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Their military capability is nearly nil. The problem is we can't win the peace. I think that the Bush administration truly believed that the vast majority of Iraqis would greet us as liberators. Maybe not like the Parisians in WWII, but there was some indication of that during the 1991 Gulf War - Iraqi troops surrendering to news crews, Kuwaiti and Iraqi civillians cheering our troops. No one - not even the most out of his/her mind far, far left winger could have foreseen this. We might have gone in with rose colored glasses on, but I believe that our intentions were good. Yes, it has turned out very, very badly. Do we compound the problem by withdrawing and leaving the entire middle east in much more dangerous hands than before? Many say the Bush plan is wrong - evil, even, but I haven't seen a single proposal from the opposition that makes any more sense than what is currently going on. We need to get the Iraqis to a point where they can govern and protect themselves. We're not doing a great job of it, but we are creeping closer. The threat of a troop withdrawal certainly will not embolden Iraqi civillians to rise up against terrorists and radicals. They need to feel somewhat safe and know thatr they can trust us to protect them as much as we can. We were starting to gain that trust, but are losing it very quickly with all this talk about abandoning Iraq and the likelihood that the next administration will not continue to support the people of Iraq. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jul 11, 2007 8:10 AM:

" Doh, I'm just taking another short break. We're still on "watch" and amazed that our terminal loved one has hung on this long. She's a pretty tough old gal I guess... I just couldn't pass up the chance to give "Queen Nancy" a little dig! Later. "

Answer wrote on Jul 11, 2007 8:27 AM:

" Hey Dave, care to source that "amazing" conversation with Nancy Pelosi? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Now come on Doh, down the sewer? I was just expressing genuine concern for your stability. Down in the sewer would be calling you out for something like, I don't know, maybe like your phony veteran brother story that you were spreading around a while back. How about a status report on the job question? And why don't you contact the White House about a job utilizing that great data base of yours? Given the Bush/Cheney public image, I'm sure the would appreciate the help. Perhaps you are wasting your time here in the boondocks, and should be up there with the big dogs in Washington D.C. PS, you need to look up the word grandiosity. See if it reminds you of anyone. Love to chat with you, but some of us have jobs to go to. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jul 11, 2007 8:46 AM:

" Hey Early Bird, No matter what 'Ol Rush says, there are those of us who lean right that are moderate just as there are those on the left that are moderate also. Extremism is a scary word and so are the implications that are associated with it, be it religion, politics or any subject matter that stirs the pot. One doesn't have to be labled a "fence straddler" due to the fact they have moderate views either. There seems to be a fine line between being passionate/extremist about issues we find important to us. That line can be stepped over with giant leaps sometimes, OR we can find ourselves drifting over it and not realizing it until we find ourselves in quicksand. struggling to keep ourselves out of the quagmire. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 11, 2007 9:20 AM:

" Well, Dohbaugh, do you think YOU could do better as a brand new government in a place like that? A new kind of government in a place that has had a dictatorship for so long that they don't know anything else...in a war torn country... but hey, they should be able to work miracles in a month ... because that's how long they've had since the surge has been in full force. ---------------------------------------- And besides, our own governments have been able to make so much progress in about 200 years, so why can't the Iraqis get it together in a couple of years? ---------------------------------------- It's not like anyone is trying to undermine the government there... and all the citizens are so supportive of their government. It's not like there are militants targeting the new government's police officers or military and killing scads of cadettes fresh out of police academy before they get a chance to police anything. ---------------------------------------- Obviously, conditions are ideal there to rebuild a country and start up a whole new form of government never before tried. I just can't figure out why they can't get things together in a day or two. Golly... you'd think there was chaos raging through out the entire middle east or something. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 11, 2007 9:26 AM:

" And Dohbaugh, you can't use CNN or MSNBC, either...because "Only a true LEFT wing nut would find anything said on the CNN or MSNBC news channels as credible." ---------------------------------------- Criminy, get real...they all have a point of view... at least Fox didn't put Paris Hilton on and let her lie about smoking pot... at least they didn't put the TB guy on TV to whine about how the CDC messed up his diagnosis because it was a different form of TB than they said it was at first - he still knew he had something and shouldn't have traveled... and finally, Fox gives BOTH points of view, often in the same show, and lets the viewer decide. I've watched all the news channels... get off the 'faux' horse... it's dead. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 10:56 AM:

" What do you think, Doh? Should I follow your habit cutting and pasting from web sites that support my point of view. Is that what smart people do?Is that the adult thing to do? So far the only original thing I have seen out of you is that phony brother story, which was so blatantly false that anyone could see right through it. Let's face it, you are waving the flag for a failed policy that is bankrupting this country. Fortunately most people are seeing right through this, and the tide is turning. I guess there will always be lemmings such as yourself that would follow the current team of reprobates in the White House. Which Republican Senator will be next to desert this sinking ship? "

1 cav wrote on Jul 11, 2007 10:57 AM:

" I bet Vic Sage believe's in man made Global Warming,because ALGORE told him so. The man that claimed he invented the Internet......:) "

Billie Brant wrote on Jul 11, 2007 11:19 AM:

" And just what crystal ball are you gazing into Dohbaugh, that you know for a fact Doh's references to his brother are phony? Supposition on your part does not make it so. "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 11:52 AM:

" To my number one fan- Dohbaugh: ("Should I follow your habit cutting and pasting from web sites that support my point of view.") Sure! Why not? It would be an improvement over your personal attacks on everyone. Other people who are opposed to this war cut-and-paste to support their claims, so why do you have a problem with me doing it? And even though I think they are completely delusional- I still don't put them in the same sewer group as you. And since you insist on repeatedly bring up my brother, just what was so blatantly false about his story? He was in Vietnam, he was in combat, he was wounded- have you got some sort of evidence that that is false? And if you truly are a 63 year old veteran, then why would you risk insulting a fellow vet who HAS been in combat? And why on earth would you insult my 91 year old father, who is a WWII Navy veteran and who is spending his final years in a VA home? What 63 year old veteran acts like you do? You've got some serious issues my friend. Issues that go beyond the scope of this blog. "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 1:22 PM:

" Hey Early Bird- would you like to explain to all of us who let Bin Laden take up refuge in Afghanistan in the first place? And at a time when the State Dept was warning that it would be difficult to remove him from that country if he were allowed to hide there? Now who was that person? And why is everybody on the Left so SILENT about this? Especially when that persons WIFE is seeking the office of President in '08. Could you please tell us who that irresponsible person was- Early Bird? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 11, 2007 2:19 PM:

" By Randolph T. Holhut How delusional is President Bush when it comes to the Iraq war? In a recent speech at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., Bush called al-Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, even though his own intelligence agencies have rejected that assertion. According to the McClatchy News Service, Bush referred to al-Qaida 27 times in the speech in a calculated attempt to tie the lingering outrage of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with the ongoing "surge" of U.S. forces in Iraq. The problem is that al-Qaida had no presence in Iraq until the U.S. invasion in 2003. U.S. military and intelligence officials say the group calling itself "Al-Qaida in Iraq" represents only a small fraction of the threat to American soldiers and is not under the control of Osama bin Laden or his top aides. The main catalyst for bloodshed in Iraq is the sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites, which U.S. military and intelligence officials say is the greatest source of violence and insecurity in the country. Again, this violence did not exist until the U.S. invasion — a fact that President Bush glosses over in his speeches. "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 6:25 PM:

" Hey Vic- How do you explain this? REPORT: JORDANIAN RADICAL SEEDED BAGHDAD WITH SLEEPER CELLS (July 15 2004) "ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — "The report quotes British intelligence as saying that information from February 2003 — just before the war — "suggests that senior al-Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city."---- HERE'S THE BEST PART VIC ---- "Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of pro-Taliban fighters possibly linked to al-Qaeda fled the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan after Sept. 11 and made their way to northern Iraq, where they linked up with Ansar al-Islam, a local group that controlled a small enclave on the Iranian-Iraqi border, according to intelligence reports and analysts. Al-Zarqawi is believed to have been part of that group and to have had a role in the running of Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq during 2002." "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 8:16 PM:

" IRAQI CITIZENS FIGHT ALONGSIDE TROOPS IN SMASHING AL QAEDA HOLD ON TOWN "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)updated 1:51 p.m. EDT, Wed July 11, 2007 -- Civilians helped coalition and Iraqi forces conduct a massive raid on an al Qaeda hideout in the town of Sherween, leaving 20 suspected terrorists dead and 20 more in coalition custody, the U.S. military said Wednesday. The militants were caught off guard when U.S. aircraft dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs and 14 quarter-ton bombs on river crossings and a bridge in the town northeast of Baghdad, said Staff Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem. Kareem, who commands the Iraqi Security Forces in Diyala province, said the bombings isolated the terrorists who had infiltrated Sherween. The town's residents fought alongside the Iraqi forces during the raid, helping them kill and capture the terrorists, a U.S. military news release said. "This operation was very important for the people of Sherween because we were able to find a very big hideout for the terrorists," Kareem said of Operation Saber Guardian, which began early Tuesday. "It was a very big surprise for the terrorists and the people that support them." The raid will have a political impact on Diyala, which the U.S. military says has become a hotbed for al Qaeda terrorists who fled Baghdad after the U.S.-led security crackdown there, said Maj. John Woodward, executive officer of the U.S. troops involved in the operation. The raid will help "facilitate Sunni resistance fighting in the Muqdadiya area as the people have grown tired of the destruction al Qaeda offers," he said.?-----Read the story here: http://tinyurl.com/yshxzq ------ THE SURGE IS WORKING FOLKS AND THAT SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY WANT TO PULL THE TROOPS OUT ASAP INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE SEPTEMBER PROGRESS REPORT LIKE THEY ORIGINALLY AGREED. IF IRAQ BECOMES STABLE AND THE IRAQI ARMY AND SECURITY FORCES ESTABLISH CONTROL- HOW WOULD THAT MAKE THE DEMOCRATS, WHO HAVE OPPOSED THIS WAR, LOOK? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 9:24 PM:

" Where were you at when old Doh kept hammering away at me and kept claiming that I wasn't a veteran, Billie. Was that supposition on his part? I don't seem to recall you getting upset over that whole issue. Are you only offended when your little buddy gets barbed? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 9:33 PM:

" Sorry, but only a true idiot would really believe that the FAUX news channel present both sides. Now what was it P T Barnum said about suckers.... "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 9:45 PM:

" Does anyone really think it's possible for Iraq to become stable by September. Do you really mean that the enemy is in it's last throes? Little Dohnut, you are getting more delusional by the hour. You need to go back to the phony brother story for a while. It's time for you to take your meds and go to bed there, fella. "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 9:55 PM:

" I said I doubted that you were a veteran Dohbaugh because you never once defended our troops when the idiots in here accused them of being murderers and torturers. And you never said one damn thing when TUrban said he didn't "blubber" over dead troops. At least I had SOMETHING to base my accusations on. What are you basing YOUR accusations on that I'm lying about my brothers service? "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 10:23 PM:

" Who said that Iraq was going to be stable by September- Dohball? The purpose of the September report is to gauge the level of progress. Do you even read any news? Or did they not cover this on your hard-hitting news show of choice, "The Daily Show"? You know Dohball- just because you're heavily medicated and hooked on Comedy Central doesn't mean that the rest of us have chemical dependency and psychological issues. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 11, 2007 10:29 PM:

" Dohbaugh - you really need to quit being a jerk. You just keep insulting anyone you don't agree with. My TEENS are more mature and respectful about differences in opinions. "

Doh wrote on Jul 11, 2007 10:40 PM:

" Does anybody know a 63 year old man who acts like Dohbaugh? Seriously- what 63 year old acts that immature? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 12, 2007 12:51 AM:

" If AnitaS and Bill O'Reilly find they aren't getting their Karl Rove propaganda points across so well any more, maybe they can just add a few more "far, far, far, far, far, fars" to "far, far left." For the Bush-bootlicking Republican zombies, redundant kindergarten-level accusations are the height of sophistication, and outweigh any mere rational evidence. Yeah, far, far, far, far left NBC, owned by far, far, far, far left GE, that paid for, trained and groomed that far, far, far, far left politician Ron Reagan. It is to laugh. What bleating, spoon-fed sheep you right wingers are. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:45 AM:

" Someone brings up the fact that Bush doesn't seem interested in going after the person responsible for 9/11, and the village idiot goes after Clinton again. Newsflash...Bush is president, not Clinton. You need to take a clue from Dave, and at least try to make a logical answer, instead of your usual, answer a question by asking another one. Little Dohnut, sometimes I think you have to be the biggest moron posting on here. And what's this business about a 63 year old veteran, don't you remember, I'm not a vet at all, just a fake. The real veteran is that brother of yours, who served in Vietnam, remember, the one who saw heavy combat and all? (wink wink) Your just too easy. Looks like you have several people calling you out for your silliness, and the best defender you have is the lady who usually makes no sense at all. But hang in there little one, you are providing hours of entertainment for everyone to see what the Bush supporters have to defend this war with. Lastly, little guy, I'm sure glad that you don't insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. hee hee... "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:01 AM:

" You're absolutely right Anita, I should start acting like a real gentleman, say like Doh! You need to quit slobbering all over his posts and really start reading his responses to those who don't agree with him sometime. If you had the ability to be objective, you would see that. Are you an objective person? That is a rhetorical question, because you have answered it many times over with your illogical and drooling messages. Of course your little buddy would never point out that to you, that is, as long as you keep singing his praises. Agree with little Dohnut, and you're OK, no matter how stupid you appear to be. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:32 AM:

" U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned. Gosh, is that why because Bush has spent thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars "fighting them there" so we don't have to "fight them here?" So al-Qaida could become fully functional again? You corrupt, Republican morons. "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 12, 2007 6:16 AM:

" Thanks for addressing the OBL question, Dave. It was good to see at least one mature response. I can't help but wonder that if the resources that have been poured into Bush's little sidetrack into Iraq, had been applied to finding OBL, he might have been found. Yes, even if it meant a house to house and cave to cave search. I'm not saying it would be an easy task, but I think it should have been done. I think the thing that irks me the most, is Bush's attitude about the whole affair. To paraphrase, I believe he basically said it was a non issue with him. Yeah, about 3000 Americans lose their lives because of OBL's attack, and it's a non-issue for Bush to find the person responsible. I hope you can see my, and many others, frustration over this "non-issue"? Having said that, I'm afraid I have to agree with you about deserting the people in Iraq. We made the mess, and are obligated to do what we can to help those people. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jul 12, 2007 6:48 AM:

" Yes, it's true Doubaugh I didn't take Doh to task for doubting you were a vet, but his explanation as to why he doubted it seems to hold some water. I don't know for sure if you are a vet or not that's true, but any vet should be incensed at TUrban's remarks about "not blubbering over dead USA troops. Doh, Anita, Early Bird, Rotty and Answer- my "watch" is over as of 3:00 AM this morning. I'll be away for a little while. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:24 AM:

" My condolences on your loss, Billie. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:47 AM:

" Bush's poll numbers are lower than a snake's belly, so his skeletal henchman Michael Chertoff gets a "gut feeling" we're going to have a terrorist attack What a joke. Remember all those "terror alerts" before the last presidential election, and the none that we had afterward? The former Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge, trying to get off the hook, later admitted he often disagreed with unnamed "administration officials" who wanted to elevate the threat level to high risk of terrorist attacks (which never happened), but was overruled. This is an administration that has demonstrated that it will falsify scientific reports on global warming, public health and other life and death issues, lie about its secret spying on American citizens, and lie about the justifications for and conduct of its invasion and occupation. Why would anyone be stupid enough to think they aren't lying about terrorism warnings? They lie about everything that matters. Dishonesty is their first impulse, and always their last resort. "

father bob wrote on Jul 12, 2007 9:31 AM:

" wow!...the rightwing, neocon, evangelical moral majority rears it's ugly head again. The anger and paranoia coming from the right can only be explained as a result of their huge frustration after throwing all of their weight behind a rogue cowboy oil tycoon who's all but destroyed America's credibility in the world, done everything he can to keep the richest corporations in the US safe from costly regulations that only ensure the well-being of our environment, and started the most inept and ill-prepared war at the most opportunistic time, callously and carelessly throwing the lives of thousands of our men and women into harms way. Good job, guys! President Bush has turned out the be the best thing that's ever happened to the Democratic party, blowing Watergate out of the water. Now if the loony far-right evangelicals just keep up their "culture war" for a little longer, the GOP should be all but dead within 10 years. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:12 AM:

" Let me explain a few things Dohbaugh, Early Bird and all Bush-hating-Anti-war-Left-Wingers on this site: Why is Clinton relevant to the debate of terrorism in 2007? Because he treated Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as a criminal case and not as a foreign enemy who posed a dire threat to this country, and not only did that lead directly to 9/11, but you people on the Left have learned nothing from those mistakes and you seemed determined to repeat them! It was because he felt he didn't have the "legal" means to kill Bin Laden that Clinton passed up several opportunities to kill him and even refused a "once in a life time" chance to actually take Osama when the Sudanese OFFERED HIM TO THE UNITED STATES. But after initially lying about this offer- Clinton later admitted that he didn't think the U.S. had a "legal" case to hold Bin Laden. And this was during a time when Clintons own State Dept warned him of the dangers of LETTING BIN LADEN TAKE REFUGE IN AFGHANISTAN: --------From the NYT (August 17th 2005) " WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show. In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan."------------Read it here: ----- http://tinyurl.com/kd2js ------ The State Dept at that time KNEW that it would be almost impossible to get to Bin Laden if he were to relocate to Afghanistan and that the Al Qaeda threat would then become much more serious. THEY WERE RIGHT! HELLO? 9/11! So why is this relevant now? Because you people on the Left STILL want to treat terrorism as a criminal investigation and NOT as a war! You idiots seem to be totally unaware of recent history- and completely unwilling to learn from it when it is shown to you in black and white! And to add further relevance to the issue- have you people forgotten that Mrs. Bill Clinton would like to be President in 2008? It is entirely hypocritical to criticize Bushes ineffectiveness in tracking Bin Laden while at the same time ignoring the fact that Osama-in-Afghanistan was a problem that Bush inherited from the Clinton Admin in the first damn place. Not to mention the fact that Clinton had more of a chance to prevent 9/11 than ANYONE ever did, before or since! So if you want to criticize Bush's ineptitude in Afghanistan- fair enough! But lets all remember how we got to this point in history. The problem with you Left-wingers is that you are so blinded with Bush-Derangement-Syndrome that you refuse to see any successes in this war on terror, and any and all failures are quickly and emphatically laid at the feet of Bush. You people are the living definition of "Useful Idiots" for the Jihadists. "

father bob wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:23 AM:

" Thank you Mr. Jennings for your comments. i couldn't agree more with your views of this whole mess. i read this morning where we now have more debt than anytime in history...all due to this illegal and immoral war. the debt equals more than the total income of every household in this country. we're all now bankrupt. the administration can be proud of it's rape of america. "

The Question wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:30 AM:

" Why did Hendrik Hertzberg write the following in the New Yorker? (Dick Cheney) is pathologically (but purposefully) secretive; treacherous toward colleagues; coldly manipulative of the callow, lazy, and ignorant President he serves; contemptuous of public opinion; and dismissive not only of international law (a fairly standard attitude for conservatives of his stripe) but also of the very idea that the Constitution and laws of the United States, including laws signed by his nominal superior, can be construed to limit the power of the executive to take any action that can plausibly be classified as part of an endless, endlessly expandable “war on terror.” More than anyone else, including his mentor and departed co-conspirator, Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney has been the intellectual author and bureaucratic facilitator of the crimes and misdemeanors that have inflicted unprecedented disgrace on our country’s moral and political standing: the casual trashing of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions; the claim of authority to seize suspects, including American citizens, and imprison them indefinitely and incommunicado, with no right to due process of law; the outright encouragement of “cruel,” “inhuman,” and “degrading” treatment of prisoners; the use of undoubted torture, including waterboarding (Cheney: “a no-brainer for me”), which for a century the United States had prosecuted as a war crime; and, of course, the bloody, nightmarish Iraq war itself, launched under false pretenses, conducted with stupefying incompetence, and escalated long after public support for it had evaporated, at the cost of scores of thousands of lives, nearly half a trillion dollars, and the crippling of America’s armed forces, which no longer overawe and will take years to rebuild. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:33 AM:

" Good luck Billie. "

1 cav wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:59 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:30 AM: " Why did Hendrik Hertzberg write the following in the New Yorker? (Dick Cheney) is pathologically (but purposefully) secretive; treacherous toward colleagues; coldly manipulative of the callow, lazy, and ignorant President he serves; contemptuous of public opinion; and dismissive not only of international law (a fairly standard attitude for conservatives of his stripe) but also of the very idea that the Constitution and laws of the United States, including laws signed by his nominal superior, can be construed to limit the power of the executive to take any action that can plausibly be classified as part of an endless, endlessly expandable “war on terror.” More than anyone else, including his mentor and departed co-conspirator, Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney has been the intellectual author and bureaucratic facilitator of the crimes and misdemeanors that have inflicted unprecedented disgrace on our country’s moral and political standing: the casual trashing of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions; THE GENEVA CONVENTION earns you the JACKASS AWARD. You don't know a dam thing about the The Geneva Convention or you would not have mentioned it. Try reading the qualifications for the prisoners of war!! These terrorist do not qualify! As about every thing else you listed! Try looking some things up and quite regurgitating you hear from the left wing socialist party,who hate our military!!!! They have the same Vietnam play book and will do anything to snatch a defeat! "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:00 AM:

" I'm sorry for your loss, Billie. My thoughts are with you. "

Rotty wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:02 AM:

" My thoughts & prayers are with you & the family, Billie. ~ Take Care "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Some of you are amazingly obtuse. The terrorists hate us, and they have hated us for at least 50 years. They are determined to kill everyone who won't conform to their beliefs...furthermore, they are intent on killing other Muslims, as well, if they have any differences. You want fascism? Keep supporting terrorists by enabling them, reigning our military in, and blaming America. Just be careful what you wish for.......... "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:18 AM:

" And what is the Left-Wing solution for fighting terrorism? Well- we should take the "moral high ground" and treat terrorism as an international criminal matter and not as a war. Yeah- that's right! The Left-Wingers do NOT want to pre-emptively attack any country unless they kill some of our citizens first. Brilliant! And before we DO attack that country- the Left would like an opportunity to distort and lie about any and all evidence that proves that country had any connection with the attackers in the first place. Why? Because we all know the United States is more dishonest than any Jihadist Arab State! I mean come on! That's a given! And if we actually engage the enemy in combat, we need to have civil rights attorneys present on the battle field to let our troops know who they can and cannot shoot or capture! And if that results in huge casualties for our troops- oh well! After all- we are the stronger country- therefore we are obviously the real threat in all of this! Now then- once we take an "innocent civilian" into "custody" he should be given all the rights that are due to the average American citizen! It doesn't matter that this has never been done before, because we Liberals are much more open-minded and intelligent than past generations! And the Jihadi....er I mean "innocent" Arabs will be really impressed with our sense of naive fairness! I promise they will! Now while the innocent Arab civilians are in "custody" we cannot subject them to any harsh tactics- like water boarding, loud music, extreme temperatures, interrogations by females, and (Allah-forbid) panties on the head! It doesn't matter if innocent lives hang in the balance- we MUST treat these poor misunderstood Arab "civilians" with kid gloves! See how moral we are towards them! Even at the expense of our own civilians! Why- that just makes us MORE righteous! Now then- when these poor little innocent Arabs get to trial- it's no big deal when we have to reveal all of our Intel and Intel sources to the public. So what if that will permanently cripple our ability to monitor these poor people. We should never be spying anyway! And if that allows for a few terrorist attacks to occur- oh well! Just look how morally righteous it will make us look in the long run! Besides- we are a strong country, and that intimidates these poor Muslims and forces them to do bad things to us in the first place! We intimidate them the worst when we buy their oil at exuberant prices and then refuse to convert to Islam! God we are evil! So in the end- if we just elect Liberal Left-wing wackos into the White House and Congress- we can simply sit down and lovingly talk to our Jihadi....er I mean Arab brothers and try to be more sympathetic to their needs. And if that doesn't work- well hell! We can always blame Bush for the next 20 years! Allah Akbar! "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:24 AM:

" Hey Hey- (1 cav)! Welcome to the fight buddy! Does (1 cav) stand for 1st Cavalry Division? "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 12:46 PM:

" Oh I almost forgot a predominant Left-Wing Wacko talking point: We are "creating" more terrorists by being in Iraq! Really! But just how in the hell does that work? Let's see- we have Omar, an average peace-loving Muslim who is just as innocent as a little newborn child! Now Omar sees U.S. military personnel in Iraq and he says to himself- "Those infidel b@stards! I know what I will do! I will strap a bomb on my back and detonate it in a crowded market in downtown Baghdad, and if a kill countless innocent Muslim brothers, sisters and little children- eh! So what!" Is that how that works Libtards? Is that really it? Because I thought it was actually Muslim fanatics who have been brainwashed since birth by radical Imams who have indoctrinated them with their peace-loving Wahhabism. Is that not it? Because if that is NOT it- and these people are really that easily enticed to kill innocent people- then they really need to die anyway, don't they! But I'm going to go ahead with the more logical theory that these terrorist are really radical brainwashed Jihadists to begin with. And NOT innocent moderate civilians. Because you see- I'm using common sense, and NOT a political agenda to interpret the situation. "

1 cav wrote on Jul 12, 2007 1:12 PM:

" Yes,DOH. These anti-America politician with never ending investigations of our troops are getting them killed. I can't imagine fighting enemy that looks like the civilians your are trying to protect(no uniforms,Geneva Convention requirement) and knowing any split second hesitation will get you killed,but may be investigated,if the enemy makes accusation to the media! "

Answer wrote on Jul 12, 2007 1:14 PM:

" Hey 1 cav, the entire JAG and almost all military leaders disagree and think the Geneva conventions do apply and that we should abide by the laws of war that we signed off on. They are there to protect our troops, and if we don't live up to our word then we are no better than the lawless people we are fighting. "

Answer wrote on Jul 12, 2007 1:23 PM:

" Doh, I have come to the conclusion that you truly are a one trick pony. You whole argument is based on shouting lefty, terrorist, and it's Bill Clinton's fault. Your assertions about Clinton and the Bin Laden mess are so far from anything provable they are pointless (and please, don't post all the ridiculous articles and conjecture spurred by a few Clinton hating liars as proof, because it is not factual or provable, and we've seen it all before, repeatedly from you). The war in Iraq is not winnable. We have had many "surges" in the past where troop strength was increased with little or no effect. We've had many get tough strategies, and repeated battles, with no effect. This is not a war that can be won through military force. If we are to win the war on terror, we have to win the hearts and minds of the street in the middle east. This will not be an easy task, and will likely take generations to acheive. The US and our european allies have treated the arabs as if we were colonial powers for most of recent history (Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, among other US and European supported and financed despots) so it will take much time to right the wrongs. That is the "fight" we have to win, and continuing the military battle in Iraq was and is a waste of time, treasure, and human blood on all sides. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 1:55 PM:

" BWAAAHAAAAAA!!! ---- From Wikipedia -- http://tinyurl.com/yyh85x ---- "***THE QUESTION*** is an American comic book superhero. Created by Steve Ditko, he first appeared in Blue Beetle #1 (June 1967). Originally created for Charlton Comics, he was acquired by DC Comics in the early 1980s and was incorporated into the DC Universe. The Question is one of the more philosophically complex superheroes. As a tireless opponent of societal corruption, the Question believes in Objectivism, during his career as a minor Charlton hero (much like Ditko’s earlier creation, Mr. A). In an acclaimed 1987-90 solo series from DC, the character developed a Zen-like philosophy. (Charlton Comics) Based in Hub City, ***VIC SAGE*** made his mark as a highly outspoken and aggressive investigative journalist with a reputation for obnoxiousness. Not long after starting his TV appearances, he began to investigate Dr. Arby Twain." -------- Golly! Do you folks think that maybe- just maybe- The Question and good old Vic Sage are the same poster? Nah! Couldn't be! And he CERTAINLY isn't the former poster known as DUH and then later as T-URBAN! Oh no no no! LOL!!! I wonder how many OTHER names he's using in here? But wait! The Left-wing wackos told us they don't NEED to multi-post in here! Why- just look at the poll numbers! LOL!!! Yeah! Riiiiiight!!!!! BUSTED!!!!!!!! "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

" What's that Answer? The entire JAG and "almost all military leaders" think the Geneva conventions apply to terrorists? Now would that be the SAME JAG and "leaders" who insisted that our troops NOT persue the enemy back to their neighborhoods after we engaged them for the first four years of this war? Would that also be the same people who insisted on bringing criminal charges against our Marines at Haditha? Could that be the very same people Answer? "

The Question wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:23 PM:

" Do you agree with what Brent Budowsky had to say about George W. Bush? Here it is. Dwight Eisenhower warned us against George Bush and the kind of government he would bring to Washington when a president who pursues an obsessive war combines with those who pursue the obsessive profits and corruptions that surround his war. George Washington warned us about George Bush and the unwise foreign entanglements that could corrupt our system and so gravely damage our country. James Madison warned us about the threats to our liberty from factions that seek to dominate our democracy and fears that are created and exploited in the cause of eroding our freedoms. Jesus Christ warned us about a society where the hungry become more hungry, the poor become more poor, the ill become more pained — all while others gorge themselves on their greed and bloat themselves on their unjust enrichments. ...On this day, while the radical Republicans in the Senate filibuster Jim Webb’s effort to restore rationality to rotations of heroic and beleagured troops, we learn that our troops have not gotten their urgently requested armored vehicles because of continuing corruptions endemic to this terrorism-industrial complex, we learn that American blood shed to buy the government government time has been insulted by an Iraqi government that does not meet even basic benchmarks, we learn that al Qaeda regained its pre-Sept. 11 strength to capitalize on the catastrophes caused by the partisan president who so shamelessly exploited that very tragedy, we learn of the latest presidential claim of executive privilege to cover up the latest abuse of executive power, and there is more, but the day is not long enough, nor the space here great enough, to list every wrongdoing and failure for even this one 24-hour period. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:27 PM:

" What's that Answer? ("Your assertions about Clinton and the Bin Laden mess are so far from anything provable they are pointless.") Really? So the Mainstream Media Reports that I have documented and the audio clips of Clinton are all non-proof? Well golly Answer! Tell me- just who is lying here- the LeftStream media (and NOT FoxNews) and Clintons State Department or Bill Clinton? Did I fabricate those articles that I posted? Did you not follow the links? Help me out here Answer, I'm confused? Because you're starting to sound like a Liberal who just got smacked in the face by reality! And when have we EVER seen a troop "surge" like this before? With these numbers and these tactics? Show me. Cite it. Prove it. And I would say the fact that the Iraqis are turning against Al Qaeda and helping us to rout them out, is a pretty good indication that we are starting to win hearts and minds. Or did you just totally ignore and distrust my (Jul 11, 2007 8:16 PM:) Post from CNN? Here's that link again:- http://tinyurl.com/yshxzq - And Bush has always said that this overall war on global terrorism will take time, possibly decades to finally win. And this little passage of yours tells us who you really are and what you really think: "The US and our european allies have treated the arabs as if we were colonial powers for most of recent history (Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, among other US and European supported and financed despots) so it will take much time to right the wrongs." Translation: WE the United States are solely responsible for global terrorism. The Muslim nations are completeley innocent! It is ALL our doing, and WE owe THEM! "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:31 PM:

" You're a typical Left-Winger, Answer- you want to combat terrorism without actually "fighting" it. I'm still waiting for a realistic explanation of how we are suppossed to do that. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 3:53 PM:

" Check this out! McCain (who I'm normally no fan of on several issues) rips the New York Times and the entire "pull-out-crowd" a new one! He recently got back from Iraq, and he closes this speech by reminding us that THE TROOPS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE AND THEY WANT TO FINISH IT! Good stuff! Watch it here folks: http://tinyurl.com/yvcs3f - P.S. HEY DOUGHBALL! Care to call McCain and our troops in Iraq "chickenhawks"? Step up tough guy! "

father bob wrote on Jul 12, 2007 3:59 PM:

" *****Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:31 PM: " You're a typical Left-Winger, Answer- you want to combat terrorism without actually "fighting" it. I'm still waiting for a realistic explanation of how we are suppossed to do that. "****************** and you think we're fighting terrorism now??? not hardly....we are caught in the crossfire of a civil war. one faction against another. all this sprung from chaos that we started for no reason. we know the story of cheney, rumsfeld and boy george seeing the boogey man in the regime that dear old daddy picked his war with, but the fact is we went for the spoils of the big oil they have drooled over since desert storm, instead of going for the truth and the true cause of the 9/11 bombing. i hear this propaganda crap about fighting over there so we won't have to fight over here, and i am amused. if they had the wherewithal to attack the US, they would have done so. the logistics and distance make fighting anything except a home-grown civil war here on our soil pipedream. george w. bush and his henchman the dick cheney have created the monster of ever growing hatred and contempt for the US, not only from EXTREME Islamic factions, but the rest of this rock they call the world. had they been honorable men, they would have gone after OBL and his gang early on. we would have defeated them and all troops would have been home by now. but they had to stick their greedy hands into the big oil cookie jar. it was just "too easy" for the dick cheney to bring in his good ol' boys from halliburton and try to swindle the iraqis our of their nestegg. we have reaped what we have sown from letting crooks and conmen and murderers run this country for the past 6 years. "

Answer wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:11 PM:

" My translation is a little different than your warped version Doh, my translation is we can't stick our head in the sands and ignore history, something we Americans are stunningly good at. While you're quoting McCain Doh, you might try a web search on McCain and his thoughts on the Geneva convention and the mistreatment of prisoners captured in the War on Terror. Happy googling, meat. "

Answer wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:17 PM:

" Not chickenhawks, McCain is a decorated veteran and the combat troops should want to finish the job and deserve our respect and thanks. Chickenhawks are people who could have or should have served and didn't but are now all gung ho about going to war and staying the course and other facis...er patriotic sounding drivel. Yes father bob is right, the if we pull out they'll follow us home crap is just that, stupid, simplistic, and pure propoganda BS to be swallowed by the simpleminded lemmings of the neofacist right in America. "

HmmHmm wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:22 PM:

" Blah blah blah. More meaningless garbage from the usual idiots on this blog. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:31 PM:

" Oh really father bob? We're NOT fighting terrorists? I'll post this again- just for you sweetheart: - "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)updated 1:51 p.m. EDT, Wed July 11, 2007 -- "Civilians helped coalition and Iraqi forces conduct a massive raid on an al Qaeda hideout in the town of Sherween, leaving 20 suspected terrorists dead and 20 more in coalition custody, the U.S. military said Wednesday. The militants were caught off guard when U.S. aircraft dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs and 14 quarter-ton bombs on river crossings and a bridge in the town northeast of Baghdad, said Staff Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem. Kareem, who commands the Iraqi Security Forces in Diyala province, said the bombings isolated the terrorists who had infiltrated Sherween. The town's residents fought alongside the Iraqi forces during the raid, helping them kill and capture the terrorists, a U.S. military news release said. "This operation was very important for the people of Sherween because we were able to find a very big hideout for the terrorists," Kareem said of Operation Saber Guardian, which began early Tuesday. "It was a very big surprise for the terrorists and the people that support them." The raid will have a political impact on Diyala, which the U.S. military says has become a hotbed for al Qaeda terrorists who fled Baghdad after the U.S.-led security crackdown there, said Maj. John Woodward, executive officer of the U.S. troops involved in the operation. The raid will help "facilitate Sunni resistance fighting in the Muqdadiya area as the people have grown tired of the destruction al Qaeda offers," he said.?-----Read the story here: http://tinyurl.com/yshxzq ------ "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:37 PM:

" I thought I said I didn't agree with McCain on several issues. Did I not say that Answer? Because I'm pretty sure I said that. Hello! Testing! One two! Testing! Now if you're trying to paint me into a "hypocritical" corner- then you will be keeping me company. Because by your "all inclusive" standards YOU must accept McCains position on this war IF you accept his position on torture! "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:01 PM:

" Advertising is about manipulating the public, while journalism is about informing the public. Advertising, not journalism, is now the dominant mode of discourse in the United States. George W. Bush was sold to the American people entirely as a product, as the image of a great leader who was, paradoxically, a “regular guy” with whom you’d like to have a beer — not as the reality of a combat-dodging C student and serial business failure who’d spent most of his adult life drunk. As is now the rule, the American people bought the image and ignored the reality, in part because they now see themselves as consumers, not as citizens. Americans have now tried the product, and have found that it sickens them. They are fed up not only with the product, Bush, but with the brand, Republican "

father bob wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:08 PM:

" funny thing about that type of propaganda Dud....er Doh. 20 "suspected" terrorists could very likely be anyone anyplace at anytime. they were more than likely Shiites the locals had a bone to pick with. you need to realize how things really work over there.... "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:11 PM:

" Now Answer- lest I be accused of "not answering" or "remaining mute" about a question, let me address your unbelievably naive interpretation of history. Has this country empowered despots and dictators in the past? Definitely! But do I need to remind you that in the not too distant past it was far more attractive to employ the services of the "enemy of my enemy" than it was to confront our enemies in an all out military campaign? Now would you have preferred it if we had used large numbers of American troops to pursue our national interests? Because I know how you Left-wingers HATE that! "

father bob wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:21 PM:

" national interests = they are brown skinned, bomb them and take their oil. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:24 PM:

" So tell me Answer- am I a chickenhawk if I never served, yet still want to let our troops finish their mission? And if the military wants to "stay the course" (the truth is they have started a new more aggressive course) does that NOT give credibility to Bush's point of view? And you said ("if we pull out they'll follow us home crap is just that, stupid, simplistic, and pure propoganda BS to be swallowed by the simpleminded lemmings of the neofacist right in America.") WOW! Does that mean that people like McCain and the U.S. military are feeding us "simpleminded lemmings of the neofacist right" a bunch of "patriotic sounding drivel" and "pure propoganda BS"? WOW Answer! Are you saying that McCain and the Troops in Iraq ARE LYING, OR ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID???!!! Which is it- Answer? "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:32 PM:

" Oh I see father bob! So the U.S. Military and the Iraqis are lying their a55es off! Is that it Libtard? Oh and CNN is just going right along with them! But wait! I'm seeing the same reports coming from all over the mainstream media AND the independent imbeds like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio! Are they all lying? I thought the media was supposed to "sniff out" the truth? And if they are lying about this- then how do you know they have been telling the truth about ANYTHING they've been reporting on in Iraq? Or are you just picking out the doom and gloom "news" that fits your political agenda? "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:36 PM:

" Oh father bob- you hopeless idiot! ("national interests = they are brown skinned, bomb them and take their oil.") I didn't know we were TAKING their oil! I thought THEY were SELLING it! Maybe you Libtards should let us drill in this country if don't like us getting our oil from the great sandbox! "

Answer wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:49 PM:

" To quote a famous Repub, "now there you go again" doh. Yes, I would say you are a chickenhawk, just my opinion, with that and a couple of bucks you can get a cup of coffee. The US government issued a report just the other day doh, you might want to read it. It was the combined judgement of the 16 US intelligence agencies. You know what they said? The main fight in Iraq was and continues to be between the Iraqi sunni and shia. Here are some snippets...The struggle among and within Iraqi communities over national identity and the distribution of power has eclipsed attacks by Iraqis against (U.S.-led) Coalition Forces as the greatest impediment to Iraq's future as a peaceful, democratic and unified state," said the report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. While there have been some "positive developments, communal violence and scant common ground between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds continues to polarize politics," it said. Bush, facing growing pressure to change policy from key Republican senators, many of whom face re-election next year, has blamed the worsening violence on al Qaida in Iraq, a Sunni terrorist group inspired by Osama bin Laden. But the new report repeats a January intelligence assessment that the conflict is a "self-sustaining sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" for which al Qaida in Iraq attacks have served as "effective accelerants." Happy googling, meat. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:49 PM:

" Just ran across this, on the Big Lie technique. The phrase was used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile: His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. Sound like anyone we know? "

Answer wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:55 PM:

" No Doh, I think the US should use diplomacy and economics to further our national interests. We should endeavor to improve our lot as well as the countries we are dealing with, thats how international relations are to work. Let me recommend a good book to you, "Charlie Wilson's War". It's a book about the war in afghanistan. No, not the recent one, the one we fought in the 80's against the russians. If you read it you will gain some insight into how our government has dealt with the jihaddi's. Guess what you'll find Doh ol' buddy? Not only did we arm and train Saddam and the Iraqis, but we trained and armed the terror networks we're fighting now. Everytime you open your mouth without knowing anything about the past doh, I always think of that song...you know the one that starts out..."Don't know much about history..." "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 7:33 PM:

" Anita, your honey is getting the stuffing kicked out of him, and he doesn't even realize it. Perhaps you need to come to his rescue and bolster his ego a little bit with one of your Slurpee feel good kudos. Good grief Dohnut, these guys are really giving you a work-over. I was going to throw a few barbs your way, but I sort of feel sorry for you. I think your complete meltdown may be imminent. Maybe you need to revive that phony war hero brother story for all of us to hear again. That should make you feel better. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 7:48 PM:

" Oh no, little Dohnut is calling a male poster sweetheart again. Just can't keep those tendencies in check can you, Doh? And you were doing so good with it. Guess you sort of fell off the wagon again, huh? Hang in there buddy, you can do it. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:20 PM:

" Well Answer- I'll see your Intel report and raise you the Military report. Now this is from the guys actually doing the fighting- in other words- no political agenda: U.S. MILITARY CALLS Al-QAEDA IN IRAQ 'PRINCIPAL THREAT' (By Sudarsan Raghavan Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, July 12, 2007; Page A19) "Calling al-Qaeda in Iraq "the principal threat" to Iraqis, Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, the chief U.S. military spokesman, said the group was the main focus of the U.S. security campaign. Like other U.S. officials in recent weeks, Bergner stressed that al-Qaeda in Iraq is supported by the organization led by Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, an assertion that intelligence analysts have disputed."......."Bergner said al-Qaeda in Iraq was responsible for 80 to 90 percent of the suicide bombings in Iraq, many of them carried out by foreigners. The U.S. military, he said, had killed or captured 26 high-level leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq during May and June." Read it here- http://tinyurl.com/2z3mpk "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:25 PM:

" Tell me Answer- How am I a chickenhawk when I'm supporting the will of the troops? And how are you NOT going against the will of the troops? If you really care about the troops then you will let them finish this, because they DO believe in what they are doing, and they DO see progress. "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:33 PM:

" ("I think the US should use diplomacy and economics to further our national interests.") And just how is that going to work against radical Jihadists? It can be part of the equation- but it ain't the final answer! ("Not only did we arm and train Saddam and the Iraqis, but we trained and armed the terror networks we're fighting now. Everytime you open your mouth without knowing anything about the past doh,") Golly Answer! No kidding! WOW! That's news to me! NOT! Tell me Answer- what part of "the enemy of my enemy" are you confusing with "good guys"? You really don't have any viable solutions for global terrorism do you? Why not just invite Bin Laden to a tea party and beg him to be nice? Maybe we can get that International community (the one that Saddam was bribing through the Oil-For-Food-Scam) to come along! After all- they're pure as the driven snow! "

Doh wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:55 PM:

" And here- Answer- Reporter Michael Yon's who an independent embed WITH THE TROOPS says this in his latest report: -"The focus on al Qaeda makes sense here, where local officials have gone on record acknowledging that most of the perhaps one thousand al Qaeda fighters in Baqubah were young men and boys who called the city home. This may clash with the perception in US and other media that only a small percentage of the enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda, which in turn leads to false conclusions that the massive offensive campaign underway across Iraq is a lot of shock and awe aimed at a straw enemy. But as more Sunni tribal leaders renounce former ties with al Qaeda, it’s becoming clearer just how heavily AQ relied on local talent, and HOW DISRUPTIVE THEY HAVE BEEN HERE IN FOMENTING THE CIVIL WAR." Read it here - http://tinyurl.com/2gk2ms "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 13, 2007 5:15 AM:

" The comment made about the oil-for-food scandal is right on target. Those who criticise the UN for corruption, need to look at our own country for similar examples. That scam ranks right up there with scalping the Halliburton company is giving our government. At times it seems like Spiro Agnew may have been reincarnated as Dick Cheney. Overcharges, selling contaminated water and food to the military and billing the government for luxury hotels (at a cost of several thousand dollars a day) for their employees, seem to be par for the course. And now to top it off, Halliburton is moving it's corporate headquarters out of the US. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with evading taxes? Father bob's comment about crooks, con-men and murderers seems to fit quite nicely. The real question should be: how many more Republicans will have to desert this failed man, and how many more will have to die, before he concedes his mistakes? Bush and Cheney make you proud to be an American. don't they? "

1 cav wrote on Jul 13, 2007 5:16 AM:

" Vic Sage wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:01 PM: " Advertising is about manipulating the public, while journalism is about informing the public. Advertising, not journalism, is now the dominant mode of discourse in the United States. George W. Bush was sold to the American people entirely as a product, as the image of a great leader who was, paradoxically, a “regular guy” with whom you’d like to have a beer — not as the reality of a combat-dodging C student and serial business failure You really like to make your own FACTS? By the way (for a reality check)check out Kerry and Bush's Harvard grades and see who had the highest grades! I don't think Bush has earned enough money,that he doesn't have to marry for it,like ketchup Kerry! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 13, 2007 7:39 AM:

" Why can't you guys defend your guy with out having to drag in a Democrat? I think that says something. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 13, 2007 7:53 AM:

" So what, Kerry was a dummy too. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 8:21 AM:

" All you Bush pushers, squirming and snarling like little animals caught in a trap. Clinton did this, Carter did that. The only thing that counts is that when your Republican chimpanzee filth in the Oval Office was explicitly warned that Osama bin Laden was going to attack the U.S., he did nothing. He has also done nothing to capture bin Laden since, and brags about the fact. What your Republican chimpanzee filth has done is lie to invade and occupy a country that never attacked or threatened the U.S., thereby destabilizing the Mideast and causing a civil war that has become an uncontrolled disaster. Your Republican chimpanzee filth has built permanent military bases there, planning to subjugate that country forever. So American troops will be slain there every day, for as long as we live, according to your Republican chimpanzee filth's little scheme for profit and world domination. By all means, wave the flag, but don't count the body bags. It isn't considered polite. Oh, and your Republican chimpanzee filth has accomplished one other little thing. He has destroyed the GOP. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 8:37 AM:

" "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000 *** "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000 *** "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." —second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 *** "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 *** "You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 *** "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004 *** "They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000 *** "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000 *** "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 *** "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 *** Bush is an imbecile. Period. Clearly, he must have had to cheat to even get his Cs in college. "

father bob wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:13 AM:

" do you think a young iraqi would react more openly to someone offering support and provisions, someone like them? or someone coming in the middle of the night holding a gun to his father's head and threatening his family? the same ones that have devastated his country and trying to force feed them democracy saying it will heal all wounds? people in that region have battled the "infidels" for centuries....always driving them our of their lands. what makes you think an idiot cowboy can change things.....other than offer more fuel for Al Qaeda's firepower. look at Hamas and how they have evolved from fighting for the common man. "

Doh wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:57 AM:

" (or someone coming in the middle of the night holding a gun to his father's head and threatening his family?) uhm....father bob....that is exactly what Al Qaeda has been doing to the Iraqis, and that is exactly why the Iraqis are helping the American forces to rout out Al Qaeda. You don't read any news do you. You're getting all this vomit from your Left-Wing Nutroot web-sites aren't you. ("...trying to force feed them democracy saying it will heal all wounds?") Huh? Are you an idiot or what? How in the hell do you "force" freedom on someone? That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have read in here. And God knows you Left-Loons have posted some doozies! Admit it bob- you have a very prejudiced and stereotypical view of the Iraqi's- don't you. You think they're all a bunch of simple-minded Arab savages who aren't sophisticated enough or worthy enough, for any kind of freedom like you and I enjoy. You're just racist- aren't you bob. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:34 AM:

" It doesn't matter what facts are presented. This is no different than when Clinton was in office. Hating and blaming the current administration is an American past-time. You people say, 'why can't you defend your boy'... it doesn't matter what is said... you will twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean. It's a ploy right out of the extremist play-book. --------------------------------------- Someone asked how a young Iraqi would react to two different scenarios - well, they are finally responding to us by working with us rather than working with aQ. They got tired of aQ killing them, and they see the way our troops are trying to help them. The arguments you are trying to form against us would make sense if you were forming them against the right people. ---------------------------------------- I, for one, am shocked that any of you could think so lowly of our troops that you would think that they're just going in and terrorizing innocent people. These are our kids... most are well educated kids who have been brought up in good homes with good values. They've been raised to respect life and human rights, they've been raised in our society with our values (and our means yours, as well)... yet you are so ready to believe that OUR CHILDREN are the bad guys jumping at the chance to go to a foreign land to kill, torture, or intimidate anyone they come across. ---------------------------------------- I fully understand that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but when you feel the need to denigrate our children and side with terrorists while calling your own country murderers and thieves, I find that repugnant. ---------------------------------------- "

Matt Toon wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:50 AM:

" I definitely believe that both Cheney and Bush should be impeached. I realize that they probably won't be impeached, but they should be. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:58 AM:

" No one party or president is really responsible for the current state of our world, either. These people have hated our way of life from the beginning. By 'these people', I mean Islamists - extremist Muslims. Extremists of any religion are dangerous and hate whole cultures based on how the other culture lives, worships, and governs. - - - Our current threat is is the groups of Islamists...and they hated us long before Clinton thought about running for ANY office. ---------------------------------------- It is a fact that Clinton didn't handle the OBL & terrorism situation the way that he probably should have. It's also a fact that Bush hasn't handled everything the way he should have, either. ---------------------------------------- The thing we all seem to be forgetting here is that when it comes to these extremists who wish nothing more than our total subjugation or destruction, we can't afford to run on political lines. ---------------------------------------- You can make fun of me all you want, but it won't change the fact that the terrorists hate us and are determined to destroy western civilization. They want to create a world-wide, totalitarian Islamic state. This isn't buying into rhetoric...it's open-minded evaluation of the situation based on history, human nature, and the nature of extremism. If you want fascism, my friends, you just keep enabling the terrorists... but as I've said, be careful what you wish for..... "

father bob wrote on Jul 13, 2007 12:56 PM:

" i see they just doubled the bounty on OSB to 50 mil. 6 years after the fact. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 4:20 PM:

" Permanent U.S. military bases, built in Iraq. The largest U.S. "embassy" in the world, built in Iraq. The Bush fascist scum have always intended to stay in Iraq permanently, subjugating the country, and even the Bush pushers here realize it. That's why we NEVER hear them mention the idea of U.S. troops EVER leaving Iraq. They avoid the subject as if it set off their Rove-issued Geiger counters. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 5:04 PM:

" Imagine a burning building, with the people inside scrambling to find the exits. Now imagine that building located on the deck of a large ship, isolated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, riddled with gaping holes and sinking fast. Keep that image in your mind, and add to it the tsunami that is fast approaching the ship's location. It will get there soon, but not before the Enola Gay, which is buzzing overhead with a special delivery item in its payload. Got that picture in your mind? Welcome to the Republican Party, July 2007. — David Michael Green "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 5:19 PM:

" The AP says U.S. troops battled Iraqi police suspected of links to Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen, killing six in a firefight between American soldiers and their Iraqi "partners." Friday's clash underscored the deep infiltration of militants in the country's security forces. Some more of that chimpanzee-brand "good progress" for you, Bush pushers. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 5:34 PM:

" The most chilling words ever to emanate from this or any administration were surely also the most honest these guys ever spoke. In the summer of 2002, a "senior advisor" to Bush (my guess has always been that it was Rove) spoke off the record to reporter and author Ron Suskind, and in so doing revealed the true project of the regressive movement, now firmly lodged in the White House. Suskind reported this conversation in the following paragraph from his 2004 article, "Without A Doubt", and the words have been frightening many a thoughtful reader ever since: The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Fortunately for the entire world, it turned out a bit differently. History's actors are now history's acted upon. Perhaps they are stunned to find that they are mere mortals, like the rest of us. And the empire has gone the way of every other empire before it. Only a lot faster. And they did, indeed, create realities through their actions. Those realities are called Iraq, global warming, Katrina, the debt, and more. — David Michael Green "

Doh wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:30 PM:

" ("The Bush fascist scum have always intended to stay in Iraq permanently, subjugating the country, and even the Bush pushers here realize it. That's why we NEVER hear them mention the idea of U.S. troops EVER leaving Iraq.") Are you completely clueless Vic? I mean really! Do we still have military bases in Japan? Yep! In Germany? Yep! Do we still have troops in Bosnia? Yep! Who DIDN'T think we would leave some troops in Iraq? It would be insane NOT to! When did Bush ever say otherwise? It's all a grand conspiracy with you Left-Wing Loons- isn't it? "

Doh wrote on Jul 14, 2007 12:06 AM:

" Video: U.S. TROOPS AND IRAQIS CELEBRATE VICTORY OVER AL QAEDA! That's right folks! They are literally dancing in the streets! Trust me- the Democrats in congress and the Anti-war lunatics on this site don't want to see this! Watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/yoe42d "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 14, 2007 8:38 AM:

" More cover-ups of Bush lies about U.S. troop deaths. The AP reports, "Two influential lawmakers investigating how and when the Bush administration learned the circumstances of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death and how those details were disclosed accused the White House and Pentagon on Friday of withholding key documents and renewed their demand for the material. The White House and Defense Department have turned over nearly 10,000 pages of papers _ mostly press clippings _ but the White House cited "executive branch confidentiality interests" in refusing to provide other documents. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee's top-ranking Republican, said Friday the documents were inadequate." "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 14, 2007 8:50 AM:

" Wow! I guess this is what this administaration meant when it said we would be met with open arms. Dancing in the streets, huh? Would you also say the enemy is in it's last throes now? Nice post, Goebbels. "

Understand wrote on Jul 14, 2007 8:55 AM:

" Wow, Mr. Jennings what a hateful little man you are. The real shame is that your acting like one of the people that you despise the most. With your arrogance, space hogging, and nothing's- ever- good- enough attitude your Americanism is really obvious. The good news is that you do have options, and I don't mean just writing a silly little letter to the editor. No, I'm talking a much bigger scale. (My husband made me delete this sentence to avoid any problems with the FBI). It is much easier and (and safer) to call all us sensible people-- concerned for our safety, murderers and thieves. How simple. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 14, 2007 9:26 AM:

" But in this case, unlike Germany and Japan, the Bush fascist plan is that U.S. will really be running the show permanently, from the shadows behind the puppet government. If Iraq's "leaders" cross the oil companies or Bush's other little pals in any way, we will suddenly discover they have become "terrorists." The world is just full of those "terrorists," isn't it? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 14, 2007 9:57 AM:

" The Associated Press says, "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave 'any time they want,' though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training." Too bad, prime minister. Doh and his fascist Bush pals say the U.S. is keeping its boot on your throat permanently. Now pony up that oil, and keep your mouth shut. "

1 cav wrote on Jul 14, 2007 10:47 AM:

" Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 10, 2007 5:28 PM: " Wow, what can I say? Your post at 4:57 seems to say it all. So now you're doing a better job than this administration is, with your propaganda, that is. You have convinced my once and for all, that you are certainly becoming more and more delusional by the day, Doh. I just have one question for you Doh: why are you unemployed? Given the times of your posts it's pretty obvious that you don't work. Why is that?. Now don't try to tell us that you are self-employed and can post all day and night too. Doh, you really need to seek professional help. Your delusions of grandeur are getting out of hand, buddy. " IT APPEARS Dohbaugh,has some kind of mental problem or personality problem. He never seems to have any facts or legitimate debate. His only means of enjoyment appears to be some kind of made up personal attacks. I surely there is some kind of mental health help offered in the county or state? "

1 cav wrote on Jul 14, 2007 11:00 AM:

" Vic Sage wrote on Jul 13, 2007 8:21 AM: " All you Bush pushers, squirming and snarling like little animals caught in a trap. Clinton did this, Carter did that. The only thing that counts is that when your Republican chimpanzee filth in the Oval Office was explicitly warned that Osama bin Laden was going to attack the U.S., he did nothing. He has also done nothing to capture bin Laden since, and brags about the fact. THE FACT is CLINTON and adminstration did nothing about bin Laden,sat on all the info they had about possible airborne attack. What do you think Sandy Burger went in the national archives and destroyed papers before Clinton's 911 appearence before the commision ?? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 14, 2007 12:09 PM:

" Sorry little guy, but you fit the classic description of a chickenhawk, and the louder you are about Bush's war on the people of Iraq, the bigger chickenhawk you are. I'll even bet that fake brother of yours would be a chickenhawk too, if he really existed, that is. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 14, 2007 12:28 PM:

" Anita, you made some pretty good points, however I hope you aren't saying it's just the left that twists things around to satisfy their ideas. I would say that is being done pretty well by those on the right side too. I understand your support for your little buddy on here, but I wonder if your being objective, in your analysis of the ideas being put forth by both sides. Certainly those of us on the left side will twist things around to suit our thoughts, but it is being done with equal fervor by those on the right side, including you little pal. By the way, even though I have given you a lot of barbs and digs, I think you have handled yourself with class and have done a good job of not getting down in the gutter with your responses. People like you, make this a fun site. Now if we could just get that little Dohnut to clean up his act. "

Doh wrote on Jul 14, 2007 5:01 PM:

" AP POLL: MORE AMERICANS APPROVE OF BUSH THAN THEY DO "THE MOST ETHICAL CONGRESS EVER"!- Read it here http://tinyurl.com/3e4qhq - Yet another poll showing Congress’ dismal approval ratings. This one comes at you from the Associated Press: (By DARLENE SUPERVILLE ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER July 13 2007) - "In the eyes of the public, Congress is doing even worse than the president. Public satisfaction with the job lawmakers are doing has fallen 11 points since May, to 24 percent, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. That’s lower than for President Bush, who hasn’t fared well lately, either. Bush has been taking heat over the Iraq war, his decision to spare a former top vice presidential aide from going to prison and his desire for an overhaul of immigration laws that critics said would give a free pass to illegal immigrants. His job approval rating in the AP-Ipsos survey remained virtually unchanged at 33 percent. The 24 percent approval rating for Congress matched its previous low, which came in June 2006, five months before Democrats won control of the House and Senate due to public discontent with the job Republicans were doing. Just two months ago, 35 percent of the public approved of Congress’ work. Approval among Democrats fell 21 points, from 48 percent in May to 27 percent. It remained low among Republicans, at 20 percent, and has not changed significantly in the past two months. Democrats won control of Congress on the strength of their promises to end the Iraq war, but so far have failed to do it. Bush vetoed one spending bill that included a deadline for ending the war, and Democrats don’t have the votes to override him. An increase in the federal minimum wage became law, but much of the Democratic agenda has cleared the House only to become bottled up in the Senate, where the party has a much narrower working majority. Here’s the most interesting part, though. Bush’s approval ratings on specific issues, including his handling of terrorism, is actually up. -Bush’s marks on his handling of the economy and domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, held steady, at 37 percent on the economy and 33 percent on domestic matters. Last month, Bush was at 37 percent approval for his stewardship of the economy, and 32 percent on domestic issues. -On handling of foreign policy, including terrorism, 38 percent approved, compared with 35 percent last month. -On handling the Iraq war, 31 percent approved, compared with 28 percent last month. -One-fourth of the people, or 26 percent, said the country is headed in the right direction. Last month, 21 percent said the country was on the right track." ------ GEEEE! I wonder how this is going to effect the 2008 elections? If the situation in Iraq keeps improving- then the Dems are done! And that is EXACTLY why they are pushing so hard RIGHT NOW (against the will of the troops) to get them out of there ASAP! Because the Democrats "Most Ethical Congress Ever" knows what the troops know- the surge IS working! And ANY kind of success in Iraq will be a political disaster for these traitors. And they damn well know it! "

Medic wrote on Jul 15, 2007 6:18 AM:

" DOH, I would listen to your opinions if I thought that you could actually manage to form one on your own. These talking points are old. The American people, or at least 75% of them, know the truth. End of story. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 7:49 AM:

" Thanks for your concern as to my mental well being, 1 cav. Your caring is quite touching, however maybe you should be more concerned about your little friend. You know, the other name you post under. Do you really think you are fooling anyone? Your need to perfect your skills in disguising before you continue with that one. Wow, talk about someone with serious issues. Keep it up little guy, you are slaying me. Oh, I get it, maybe 1 cav is the fake brother, the one who saw heavy combat. Typical little Dohnut style. Now that they have eliminated your ability to ghost post compliments to yourself, it seems you have created a new persona to do it. What's the matter little fella, aren't the kudos given to you by Anita enough to satisfy you weak and frail ego? I just wish the media would catch up with you on the great things happening in Iraq line. You're even out doing the Faux news folks in your flag waving and success stories. Perhaps you need to give Tony Snow a call. and offer him some advice on how to spin, oops, I mean sell this war. Have a nice day Doh, oops, I mean, 1 cav. wink wink "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 8:12 AM:

" Here's a question for all the Republicans. What President had the best economy since FDR (another Dem too)? I'll bet this was somehow the results of the Republicans too. Now don't try that old line about a Republican congress at the time, because, if you remember Reagan had a Democrat congress, and you guys didn't give them any credit. You can't have it both ways. OK, well then how about this one: what President has had the highest over all approval ratings ever? Now, how are you going to spin that one into credit for the Republicans? After Spiro Agnew, Watergate and the Iran contra scandal, you guys were so desperate for a Democrat scandal that you had to settle for a Democrat having sex with someone other than his wife. Big scandal, huh? 70 million to confirm what we already knew, that Clinton lied about an bj in the White House. Looks like the Republicans are ahead in recent major scandals, if you are keeping score on such things. And I didn't even list Libbygate. I wonder if Congress will ever get around to Cheneygate? I hope not, because I would rather not see 70 million wasted again to prove what most of us know already. I think we should leave that one up to the historians. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 9:09 AM:

" Newsflash! There is now a new definition of the word traitor: anyone who doesn't agree with the Bush thugs and apologists on here, and in Washington, on this unnecessary war are now traitors. Hilarious. I guess that means that over 70 percent of this country can now be classified as traitors. Sometimes the logic you use is beyond belief. Of all the baloney being spewed by you, this one was the best. Little guy, you need to engage your brain before you start posting, or perhaps stick to your cut and paste routine, and leave you idiotic foot notes out. You sound better when you use others ideas. You are really starting to sound rather foolish these days. I certainly understand your zeal, but you need to slow down and get your thoughts together, so you wouldn't keep making such an a$$ of yourself. Doh, you have to be the poster boy for the village idiot. Lastly, I see another big Republican is joining the others, in reining in this run away President. If this keeps up, Bush is going to lose his veto power. I wonder if you would call these dissenting Republicans traitors, too? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 15, 2007 11:09 AM:

" All you fascists seem to be able to do these days is attack a president who's been out of office this century. Why don't you defend your ideal Republican president, Mr. Bush? You always used to tell us how he was a great leader who was smarter than all the smart guys, and was somebody everyone would love to have a beer with, despite the fact that he's an alcoholic. Tell us how he'd loved to have been able to demonstrate his great courage in combat in Vietnam, but they just wouldn't let him, darn it. Tell us how heroic he was as he sat paralyzed in a children's classroom when the U.S. was attacked, and when he flew around the country all that day in a panic, hiding. Tell us how every time his daddy's Saudi pals had to bail out one of his failed business ventures, it was always somebody else's fault. Tell us how the disastrous civil war caused by his stupid, immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq is always going to be somebody else's fault, too — Petraeus's now, maybe? Tell us how no American has to worry about Bush's intelligence agents spying on them, as long as they have nothing whatsoever to hide. Tell us how he always says what he means and means what he says, even when he doesn't and even when no one can understand what he's saying, because it's so astoundingly stupid. Tell us how God speaks through him. Tell us again, please. Pretty please. I just love a good fairy tale. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 15, 2007 11:46 AM:

" The Associated Press reports that a Marine corporal testifying in a court-martial said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to "crank up the violence level." Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo testified Saturday at the murder trial of Cpl. Trent D. Thomas. "We were told to crank up the violence level," said Lopezromo, testifying for the defense. When a juror asked for further explanation, Lopezromo said: "We beat people, sir." Within weeks of allegedly being scolded, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman went out late one night to find and kill a suspected insurgent in the village of Hamandiya near the Abu Ghraib prison. The Marines and corpsman were from 2nd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment. Lopezromo said the suspected insurgent was known to his neighbors as the "prince of jihad," and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system. Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony. Four Marines and the corpsman, initially charged with murder in the April 2006 killing, have pleaded guilty to reduced charges and been given jail sentences ranging from 10 months to eight years. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 15, 2007 11:46 AM:

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 15, 2007 12:01 PM:

" More about Bush's lies, from Eric Margolis at SmirkingChimp: The latest whoppers from the White House's fib factory came this week as President George W. Bush (A) claimed U.S. forces in Iraq are fighting "the same people" who staged 9/11, and, (B) withdrawing U.S. forces means "surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida." These absurd assertions mark the latest steps in the administration's evolving efforts to depict the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as battles against al-Qaida. When marketers want to change the name of an existing product, they first place a new name in small type below the existing one. They gradually shrink the old name, and enlarge the new one until the original name vanishes. That's what's been happening in Iraq. When the U.S. invaded, Iraqis who resisted were branded "Saddam loyalists, die-hard Ba'athists, or dead-enders." Next, the Pentagon and U.S. media called them "terrorists." Then, a tiny, previously unknown Iraqi group appropriated the name, "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia." This was such a convenient gift to the Bush administration, cynics suspected a false-flag operation created by CIA and Britain's wily MI6. Soon after, the White House and Pentagon began calling all Iraq's 22-plus resistance groups, "al-Qaida." The U.S. media eagerly joined this deception, even though 95% of Iraq's resistance groups had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden's movement. Watch any U.S. network TV news report on Iraq and you will inevitably hear reporters parroting Pentagon handouts about U.S. forces "launching a new offensive against al-Qaida." Al-Qaida in Iraq didn't even exist before 9/11, but that didn't stop the president from trying to gull credulous voters. Polls show that in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, White House disinformation strategy has worked. Today, an amazing 60% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 15, 2007 1:08 PM:

" According to the LA Times, although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers. About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said. But keep all that quiet. The Bush family fortune also comes from Saudi Arabia, so we won't be hearing anything about this. "

Doh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 1:52 PM:

" Hmmmmmmm??? Is Senator John McCain a "chickenhawk"? Because he just got back from Iraq and he says THE TROOPS UNDERSTAND THE MISSION AND WANT TO FINISH IT. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE TROOPS SEE PROGRESS BEING MADE! So why do the Left-Wing Nutjobs in here continue to hide behind the phony excuse of getting the troops out of Iraq for their own good? And why do these same disingenuous traitors attack those of us who DO SUPPORT JOHN MCCAIN ON THIS ISSUE AND THE WILL OF THE TROOPS as "chickenhawks"? ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT JOHN MCCAIN IS A CHICKENHAWK? ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT JOHN MCCAIN IS LYING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND THE WILL OF THE TROOPS? ARE WE TO BELIEVE THE TROOPS ARE LYING? ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT GENERAL PATREAUS IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE THE LIVES OF HIS TROOPS AS CANNON FODDER AND IS MAKING THEM LIE TO COVER UP THAT FACT? WHY DO THE LEFT-WINGERS INSIST ON GOING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE TROOPS? ESPECIALLY THE LEFT-WINGERS WHO CLAIM TO BE VETERANS? WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? "

Doh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 2:14 PM:

" NEWSFLASH! Anyone who goes against the will of the troops to finish this mission (as was reported by Senator John McCain on the Senate Floor a couple of days ago)- is a traitor. Anyone who lies about and refuses to see the progress that the troops are reporting - is a traitor. Anyone who won't listen to the troops when they say they want to finish this mission so they won't have to go back there again in the near future and under worse circumstances- is a traitor. Anyone who denies the progress that our troops are claiming- is a traitor. Anyone who rejects the progress that our troops have paid for in blood and tears- is a traitor. Anyone who labels the efforts and sacrifices our troops have made as meaningless, pointless, and insignificant- is a traitor. Anyone who claims that our troops are systematically terrorizing the innocent Iraqi citizens- is definitely a traitor. Anyone who refuses to give our troops the time they need to complete the progress that they have earned- is a traitor. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 2:26 PM:

" Bush says he has to wait until September to determine what action needs to take place. That's silly, because all he has to do is to listen to the little Dohnut. If he does that, he will see that everything is going great. Somebody needs to let Bush know about this site too. Speaking of the little guy, where is he at today? Perhaps the medication finally kicked in. Maybe getting caught, once again, this time on the fake posting name, has finally caught up with him, and he is going to take a well deserved rest. Hurry back little one, we will miss you and all of your brilliant cut and pa...oops, I mean brillant analysis of this war. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 4:32 PM:

" Here's a good question for one of the Bush lovers: whose family was loaded up on an airplane and rushed out of the country right after 9/11? I guess the real question should be why? "

Doh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 6:01 PM:

" Hey Doughball- is Senator John McCain a chickenhawk? Is he lying about the troops making progress and wanting to finish the mission? "

Doh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 6:28 PM:

" Will you Dohbaugh- as a veteran of the United States Arm Forces- give your support to your fellow veterans (who are in the field of battle as we speak) by acknowledging their progress and their request for more time to complete their mission? Will you Dohbaugh- as a fellow veteran- stand up for your brothers in arms and give them the the right they have earned in blood and pain and personal sacrifice- to complete their mission? Will you state here and now that you will honor and respect their wishes? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 7:01 PM:

" I don't know why you can't understand the term chickenhawk. Let me try again, a chicken hawk is someone who got out of serving when they had the chance, but gets all gung ho, when it's other people are doing the fighting. John McCain is a veteran and therefore can't be a chickenhawk, like you and Dick Cheney, and as far as that goes, most of Bush's inner circle. Even George Bush is not a chicken hawk because he served, well sort of anyway, not counting the year he was AWOL. Do you get it now? Ranting and raving about how well this war is going, does not change your chickenhawk status. I still say that using your criteria, about 70 to 75 percent of the people in this country must be traitors, right? Actually, that traitor post makes you look, well how else can I say this, nuts. So now you're accepting my veteran status? What happened to the fake veteran claims of a few weeks ago? I have no problem with the troops, as they are only following orders, but I did not support this diversion on the part of Bush in the first placeand yes I support the troops, and the best way to show my support is wanting them to come home. So I guess I'm a traitor too, huh? That sure was a turn around about McCain on your part. When he spoke out on torture a few weeks ago, you mockingly referred to him as Saint John. Remember that? All of sudden he says something that agrees with you, and he is worth quoting. Another example of your hypocrisy. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 15, 2007 8:07 PM:

" Re: Doughbaughs's question about the economy, July 15, 8:12 A.M. "Here's a question for all the Republicans. What President had the best economy since FDR (another Dem too)?" OK.. Unemployment, June 2007: 4.5% June 1997: 4.4%. 30 year fixed home mortgage: June 2007: 6.15%, June 1997 7.5%. Inflation, June 2007, 2.69%, June 1997 2.9%. How can one set of numbers suggest a 'booming 90's economy' , while the other, slightly better numbers indicate an economic disaster? "

Doh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 8:27 PM:

" First off- I don't know if you are a veteran or not, but you don't sound like any veteran I know because you NEVER defend our troops against the slanderous accusations that are constantly hurled against them in here. And since I can't prove it either way- just like you have no proof whatsoever that my brother is anything but a Vietnam veteran (which he is) - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Which is not something you have given my brother, nor have you given any rationale as to why you doubt his story. So I'm a chickenhawk because I'm NOT a veteran and I support the wishes of our troops? And only VETERANS who support our troops are NOT chickenhawks? Is that what you are saying? And I do disagree with McCain on most issues- but this isn't one of them because for one thing- he just got back from talking with our troops. So how does that make me a hypocrite? And show me where 70-75% of the people know that the troops actually want to stay and finish their mission- then we'll talk about polls. And McCain didn't say the troops were just "following orders" he said they "understand the purpose", and independent embed reporters like Michael Yon along with numerous military blogs have been saying the same thing! So what's going on here? Is McCain lying? And more importantly- is General Patreaus simple using his troops as cannon fodder with little regard for their lives? "

Doh wrote on Jul 15, 2007 8:40 PM:

" Well Dohbaugh- since the President and Congress have the power to send troops into war- then by your definition any of them who have not served are all potential "chickenhawks". So which Democrat "chickenhawks" did you support in the last elections, and more importantly which Democrat "chickenhawks" will you be supporting in the next election? "

dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 4:46 AM:

" I give up, on the chickenhawk definition that is, because no matter how easy I try to explain the definition, the little guy just don't get it. For someone who likes to crow about how smart you are, you have to be the dumbest poster on here. Some terms and words have only one meaning, and your trying to put a spin of that meaning is just plain stupid, and you know it. By definition, you are a chickenhawk, get over it. You obviously don't like that label, but it's a fact. Just as your spin on this war has failed, your spin on this term has likewise failed. Sorry, old boy, you lose this round. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:54 AM:

" More evidence of Pentagon indifference to troop deaths, from USA Today: Pfc. Aaron Kincaid, 25, had been joking with buddies just before their Humvee rolled over the bomb. His wife, Rachel, later learned that the blast blew Kincaid, a father of two from outside Atlanta, through the Humvee's metal roof. Army investigators who reviewed the Sept. 23 attack near Riyadh, Iraq, wrote in their report that only providence could have saved Kincaid from dying that day: "There was no way short of not going on that route at that time (that) this tragedy could have been diverted." A USA TODAY investigation of the Pentagon's efforts to protect troops in Iraq suggests otherwise. Years before the war began, Pentagon officials knew of the effectiveness of another type of vehicle that better shielded troops from bombs like those that have killed Kincaid and 1,500 other soldiers and Marines. But military officials repeatedly balked at appeals — from commanders on the battlefield and from the Pentagon's own staff — to provide the life-saving Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP, for patrols and combat missions, USA TODAY found. In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates late last month, two U.S. senators said the delays cost the lives of an estimated "621 to 742 Americans" who would have survived explosions had they been in MRAPs, rather than Humvees. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:12 AM:

" Wow! Talk about spin! I just presented you- Dohbaugh, with the hypocritical and contradictory logic behind your ridiculous use of the "chickenhawk" label and you fold like a house of cards. And what's even worse- instead of admitting your inconsistency of the words use- you simply label me as "stupid" for pointing out YOUR unintelligent use of a word that is senseless to begin with. What a combination of wind and density not to mention hypocrisy. You also NEVER explained your rationale for doubting my brothers Vietnam service. I thought you said that *I* didn't answer tough questions? -hmmmmmmm- And this, after I explained MY rationale for questioning your service record while still giving YOU the benefit of the doubt. A courtesy that you have YET to extend (much less explain the absence of) towards me. So here we see Dohbaugh sticking with his same tired old playbook of projecting on to others the very transgressions that he is guilty of engaging in to begin with. Thanks for blatantly displaying your double-standard and inane hypocrisy. I appreciate you proving my point- in spades! "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:13 AM:

" Thanks, Dohbaugh - to be honest, I really DO try to listen to the other side... but the minute it starts on attacks, insults, or obnoxious behavior, I quit reading and move on to the next (and this goes for ALL posts, not just those by the left). ---------------------------------------- Since the first lines tend to have comments like "chimpanzee in chief", "snake oil", and crap like that, I don't get very far. I try to go back and skim them again later after I get over the disdain/disgust about the confrontational way those posts are written... but it's difficult to be open minded about someone else's point of view when they're engaging in that type of dialogue. --------------------------------------- For instance, comments by Americans calling Bush every nasty name imaginable: In my opinion, personal insults like "Chimpanzee in Chief" are shameful. You can dislike the president and his policies without being so disrespectful. He IS our president, like it or not. He deserves our respect. --------------------------------------- I don't believe that he is some inherently evil monster bent on world domination. I think he is a patriotic American dealing with a set of VERY DIFFICULT circumstances and trying to do the right thing for his country. ------------------------------------ I mean, think about it... the world he leaves behind will be occupied by his children and grand children... so even if he is being selfish about the way he is handling things, he would be doing what he thinks is best to leave a safe, healthy world behind for his offspring. Isn't that what all of us ultimately wants? A safe world for our children after we're gone? I don't wany MY kids forced into burquas or bomb belts. -------------------------------------- So the debate raging about the personal qualities of our presidents and how we got to this place is pointless. We can dwell on that, or we can look ahead and find a solution. In finding that solution, I believe that we have to finish the job we're trying to do over there. There IS progress. ---------------------------------------I think that the Iraqi people never fully believed that we would stick it out this long and that ultimately, they would have to deal with aQ or some other extremist regime after we left. I also think that they didn't know any different because of the world they live in over there. --------------------------------------- They are finally beginning to trust us... the PEOPLE have finally come to an appreciation of what the US & Britain are trying to do... AND they have finally had their fill of the extremists who have been trying to take over. --------------------------------------They see that the extremists are killing everyone who does not agree with them, including those of their own who don't toe the line. ---------------------------------------- So we can pull out and let the extremism spread until they manage to take over enough resources to destroy everyone in their path until they get to us, or we can continue to fight until we beat out the extremists... or we can sit around and call each other stupid names and throw stupid insults and be confrontational with each other until they lob a big bomb at us and put us out of our misery. "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:20 AM:

" Why did retired General William E. Odom says this? "No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days on the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods…In Iraq, combat units take over an area of operations and patrol it daily, making soldiers face the prospect of death from an IED or small arms fire or mortar fire each day. Day in and day out for a full year, with only a single two-week break, they confront the prospect of death, losing limbs or eyes, or suffering serious wounds." [Odom, "'Supporting the Troops' Means Withdrawing Them," Neiman Watchdog, 5 July 2007] "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Keith Olbermann: You have by now heard the remark -- instantly added to our through-the-looking-glass lexicon of the 21st century, a time when we suddenly started referring to this country as "the homeland," as if anybody here has used that term since Charles Lindbergh or the German-American Bund in 1940. Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling." Which, he took pains to emphasize, was based on no specific nor even vague intelligence that we are entering a period of increased risk of terrorism here. He got as specific as saying that al Qaeda seems to like the summer, but as to the rest of it, he is perfectly content to let us sit and wait and worry -- and to contemplate his gut. His gut! We used to have John Ashcroft's major announcements. We used to have David Paulison's breathless advisories about how to use duct tape against radiation attacks. We used to have Tom Ridge's color-coded threat levels. Now we have Michael Chertoff's gut! Once, we thought we were tiptoeing along a Grand Canyon of possible and actual freedoms and civil liberties destroyed, as part of some kind of nauseating but ultimately necessary and intricately designed plan to stop future 9/11s or even future Glasgow car bombers who wind up having to get out and push their failed weapons. Now it turns out we are risking all of our rights and protections -- and risking the anger and hatred of the rest of the world -- for the sake of Michael Chertoff's gut. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:29 AM:

" Bush has ripped apart the Constitution and destroyed a country that never attacked or threatened the U.S., but it would be mean if you called him a bad name. Poor Bushie. Boo hoo. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:30 AM:

" Chimpeach. Chimpeach. Chimpeach. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:41 AM:

" Bush and Cheney aren't necessarily done creating disasters yet. Gary Leupp: "Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran." That's the headline of a very frightening article by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in the London Guardian. Sub-heads: · Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out · President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved' What a nightmare Dick Cheney is visiting on our planet! Isn't it time we awaken to the fact that he's a crazed monster egging on a vain, cruel, delusional religious fanatic of a president as he inflicts incalculable suffering on the Middle East, sacrificing American blood and treasure in the process? Of course many of us have awakened to that fact, one reason why 54% of us want to see Cheney impeached. Yet he's still there, operating in his highly secretive fashion, gaining rather than losing influence according to MacAskill and Borger. "The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months," they write. They cite a "well-placed source in Washington" as stating "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." The source also states, "The balance has tilted [towards the advocates of an attack on Iran]. There is cause for concern." "

charlie watts wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:03 PM:

" What was the total number of American troop deployment in Iraq prior to the "surge"? What is the total number of American troops deployed in the "surge"? Total number of American troops deployed in Iraq as of today? " "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:15 PM:

" By the way, Bush and Cheney do not deserve "respect." They deserve prosecution. "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:39 PM:

" Respect is earned. It is not given because of a position one might hold in society. By that logic, we had no right to revolt in 1776 because, after all, King George was our king and deserved our respect. Dissent is not unpatriotic; asking questions is not supporting terrorism. Here we have the traditional simpleton view of the world and the war; if you’re not for Bush’s policies, then you are for our “kids forced into burquas or bomb belts.” Listen, the people who don’t support Bush’s policies want the very same thing – neither you, nor Bush, have a monopoly on wanting a “safe world for our children.” So personal qualities are pointless? When someone executes poor judgment, ignores facts, and puts party above policy, we have every right to ask questions. So we are to look ahead and find a solution in Iraq, huh? Maybe instead of saying, “we have to finish the job”, you (or Bush) should explain to us “the job we are trying to do” and how we define victory and maybe, just maybe, something called an exit strategy. Like the reasons we went into Iraq, we’ve had a variety of different mission goals and victory conditions. It is obvious that this administration had no post-combat strategy for Iraq. But, but, but... but there IS progress; no there isn’t; two steps forward and four steps back is not progress. It’s taken longer to secure the six-mile road from the airport to downtown Baghdad than it took us to defeat Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and fascist Italy. We can train an American soldier in under four months; it has taken four years and the Iraqi army is still not standing up. We had those 8 of 18 benchmarks met, now go research the 8 that were “met.” Benchmark: Violence is down in Baghdad, but up across the rest of the country, and overall, the level of violence is the same. Benchmark: Three Iraqi brigades were created to defend Baghdad, but they are under strength and unable to operate independently of US forces. Benchmark: The Iraqis reviewed their Constitution. Unfortunately the Shiites in the government pulled out of the review, and therefore eliminated the disagreements about the form of the government and no compromise was reached between the two factions. There are no unqualified successes to indicate progress is being made, sorry, that is the truth. Rather than discover the facts for yourself, I guess it’s much easier to sit here, wave the flag, claim a monopoly on patriotism, pretend Iraq is being won, completely ignore Osama Bin Laden (you know, the guy that organized the attacks on September 11, 2001), and beat the terrorist drum till everyone is afraid to step outside for fear of a “homicide” bomber. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 1:29 PM:

" Attention, class! Sit up straight. Miss Anita has called for civility! Now back when Bill Clinton was lying about sex, Miss Anita and her right-wing pals demanded that everyone show respect for the president, stop all that name name-calling, and resolutely refused to use terms like “Slick Willy” and “Bubba,” didn’t they? No, they screamed bloody murder, shrieked for impeachment and snarled that Clinton has somehow knocked the whole moral universe off its axis. Now, with the worst president in history hanging around our necks, we’re supposed to “forget the past” and refuse to examine unspecified any “mistakes” that might have been made — just as the right wingers have so nobly refused to examine any mistakes that Clinton and Carter might have made — so that the worst president in history can go unimpeded and uninsulted, creating fresh disasters like Iraq and Katrina for us to clean up after, and so that the political party that created this disaster of a president can retain its greedy, reptilian stranglehold on power. Next time you’re yattering on and on and on about all your fearsome “extremists,” Anita, take a good look in the mirror. You’ll find one of them hiding there. "

father bob wrote on Jul 16, 2007 2:41 PM:

" WOW!....according to John McCain there are 220,752,000 traitors in this country. "

father bob wrote on Jul 16, 2007 2:42 PM:

" No wonder he gets no financial support. "

Answer wrote on Jul 16, 2007 4:09 PM:

" Hey ItsJustDave, unless I missed it you never sourced that ridiculous made up piece of right wing propoganda you published a few days ago; that supposed interview with Nancy Pelosi. Admit it Dave, it was a post on a right wing blog site, with no basis in truth or fact. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 4:26 PM:

" You guys just don't get it, but don't worry, Doh will be on here later with all of his proof that Bush is doing the right thing, and things are getting better in Iraq. The problem is that you guys just don't understand how things work, but our buddy Doh does. Your also putting yourself in a position to be called a traitor, at least by him, for not agreeing with this war. Remember that Doh and Cheney say that it is un-American not to support Bush and this war. I'm sure that after Doh posts some of his idea, which he has described as brilliant, you will be swayed and realize the errors of your ways. Bring it on Doh, you have some converts to make over. Dazzle us with your brilliance. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 4:39 PM:

" It seems like the more McCain pushes this war the deeper in trouble he gets, wonder why? Maybe MacCain needs to listen to Doh to learn how to sell this war, because Doh is converting people on here right and left. Using Doh logic and spin, I'll bet he can make a case to prove that he has converted several on here to his way of thinking. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 5:40 PM:

" Hey Dohbaugh- according to your logic- FDR must have been the biggest "chickenhawk" of them all- huh? Lets see if you can run away from that question like you've been running away from all my other questions. Now then- weren't YOU the one who was whining about ME not answering questions? hmmmmmmm????? "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 5:51 PM:

" Excuse me Answer- but since you are calling Dave out for not answering your question- YOU never explained how Valerie(does my covert status look fat in this skirt)Plame was "covert" while using her real name as a member of the U.S. Government. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 6:06 PM:

" Another Republican "moral leader" from the Senate is on TV right now, explaining how his penchant for prostitutes is no biggie. Same guy who said Bill Clinton's dalliance made him "morally unfit" for office. LOL. "

Answer wrote on Jul 16, 2007 6:51 PM:

" Doh, that question has been asked and answered on these forums many times. Your long memory database may need a tune-up. The CIA says Valerie was covert when they asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak of their covert agent. "

Yawn wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:20 PM:

" Are you people still talking? Yawn! "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:20 PM:

" Really- Answer? Then why didn't Fitzgerald prosecute Richard Armitage for exposing Valerie(hows my spy makeup look)Plame? Why is that- Answer? "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:21 PM:

" Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston's (Vitter's Republican Congressional predecessor who resigned over a sex scandal in 1999) wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me." What we have here is another hollier-than-thou, Republican bedroom-police couple turned repentant sinners who plead for privacy after spending. If Mrs. Vitter really thought that privacy was so important, maybe she shouldn't have made those comments in 2000? I'll give Mr. Vitter about a week before he goes into rehab and professes his reaffirmation in Christianity; in two months he'll be back on the stump screaming against the sins of gay marriage and abortion. Can anyone say hypocrasy??? "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:24 PM:

" In 2003, Vitter proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages. In 2004, he said, "This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history... We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values." I guess it's okay to solicate prostitutes (but not use their services) in Louisiana. In 2006, he told The Times-Picayune, “I’m a conservative who opposes radically redefining marriage, the most important social institution in human history.” Obviously it is not really that important to Mr. Vitter. And the radical-right wonders why the majority of Americans laugh at them and their hypocrasy? "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:26 PM:

" Hey Answer - I just checked my long data base and I don't think it needs a tune up. See what you think: - According to Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times October 2, 2003, , Plame "leaked" her "covert" status to her beau Joe Wilson very early in their courtship, at least that's how old Joe tells it:--- From THE SPY WHO LOVED HIM:--- "Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson both happened to alight in Washington, their jet-set schedules intersecting, and spotted each other across a cocktail party filled with foreigners. "I saw this striking blonde," he recalled, still sounding smitten six years later. At first she said she was an energy analyst,***BUT CONFIDED SOMETIME AROUND THE FIRST KISS THAT SHE WAS IN THE C.I.A.*** "I had a security clearance," grinned Mr. Wilson, then a political adviser to the commander of U.S. forces in Europe." "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:00 PM:

" Give it up Doh, you are now, and will always be a chickenhawk. Get used to it. All you blathering will not change a thing. Don't you like your title? How do you like asking me questions and my refusing to answer them, like you have been doing for months now. Ask away, moron, and I'll pull the old little Dohnut routine and ignore them or only answer them by asking another question. How's it feel to get a dose of your own medicine? "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:14 PM:

" Vicky dearling, maybe you should re-read some of my posts. I CLEARLY stated that I did not think Clinton should have been impeached... but you don't care about that, do you... that doesn't go along with your view of anyone who disagrees with you. YES, I DO CALL FOR CIVILITY BECAUSE BEING A JACKA$$ GETS YOU NO WHERE!! So maybe just maybe YOU should take a good look in that mirror. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:15 PM:

" Anyone else notice how Dohnut is ignoring the 12:39 post by Mr Peabody? This has to be the best post on here for a long time, from either side of this issue. Old dohnut is stuck on the Valarie Plame issue, and whining about being called a chickenhawk, and will not take on the points made in the above mentioned post. As usual, he ducks the tough ones. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:28 PM:

" Awwwww you're not answering questions Dohbaugh? That's funny- because you had been answering everything until you were forced to defend your "chickenhawk" statement. hehehe What's the matter little Dohbaugh- did your alligator mouth just paint your hummingbird a55 into a corner little guy? LOL! And what questions did I refuse to answer again I'm still not clear on that? So I'm a "chickenhawk" just like the Great Democrat President FDR- who never served in the military a day in his life, yet who sent troops into WWII. No problem- I'll gladly share that title with FDR. Keep trying Dohball- maybe one day you'll be able to hold your own in a "big persons" debate. But somehow I doubt it! hehehe "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:31 PM:

" ("As usual, he ducks the tough ones") That's rich Dohbaugh! If anyone is ducking tough questions it you little guy. Now which Democrat "chickenhawk" are you going to vote for in '08? "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:50 PM:

" peabody - just because you don't agree with me or with President Bush or whoever does not mean that they don't deserve respect. You haven't done anything that I deem worthy of earning respect, so because of that (based on the way you define it), I don't feel the need to be respectful and call you MR or capitalize your name. How's that? How would YOU like to be treated the way you and your cronies treat our president? ---------------------------------------- I did not say ONE WORD about not dissenting...but you can dissent RESPECTFULLY. You can have class, or you can be a no-class POS. Refusing to show respect to the office of the President is NO CLASS. You can STILL disagree without being nasty or ridiculous. ---------------------------------------- Furthermore, comparing now to the Victorian Era doesn't even make any sense. King George was BORN into his office... a president is ELECTED. We live in a democracy today as does Britain. Talk about apples to oranges. ---------------------------------------- And yeah, if they take over, it WILL be burquas and bomb belts...don't you watch the news? Do you ever see a Muslim woman without a head covering? Haven't you seen the kids who have been caught and had been forced into jihadist training? Or is your head stuck in the sand while you keep thinking that it won't happen here? They are already here and already have compounds here. ---------------------------------------- And this Vitter thing? I didn't care about Clinton's extra marital affairs, and I don't care about Vitter's. There are a whole bunch more names that will come out before this is over...I don't care whether an official used a prostitute or an escort. His/her affairs, in my opinion, have nothing to do with his/her ability to govern. I know, it's illegal, but I don't think it should be illegal. Before someone wants to debate THAT point with me, I will not debate it in this thread, so don't even bother. ---------------------------------------- As for your other arguments - yawn. G'nite. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:52 PM:

" I didn't even read Peebody's 12:39 post because I usually don't read most of his posts- whether it's under the Vicky Sage or The Question names because it’s the same old blathering anti-war anti-American anti-military crappolla. Is that your little game Dohball- deflecting your (question-dodging) by throwing up other peoples inane questions for me to answer? Is that really all you have left little mental midget? Because if it is then why don't you address this---- ( Chad(USAF) wrote on Jul 15, 2007 8:04 PM: " While I would love for our guys (and a friend of mine) to come home now, we must keep the big picture in mind. For all those that claim rightly what a travesty it is how many lives have been lost, it would be a greater travesty to have let them die in vain. Let us not forget the lessons of Afghanistan in the 80's. There is a way to get out of Iraq, but a sudden and complete withdrawal is certainly not it.")----- Now THAT is truly best post on this entire site! "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:35 PM:

" Victoria wasn't even born 1837. "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:47 PM:

" Of course nobody reads my posts; I tend to make sense -- I always have. I could really care less if Doh or Anita ever read what I have to say; I don't have a very high opinion of either one. If it doesn't fit neatly into their narrow view of the world, they ignore it or skirt around the facts entirely. By the way, wasn't Anita the one saying that most of the childish behavior comes from the left? She's just going right along with the pack, using those symbols to circumvent the profanity filter like Doh and jumping on the name calling bandwagon. I wonder when I'll get my name because I don't march lock-in step with them. What will it be Doh? Ms. Peabrain? Grow up. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:55 PM:

" (“By that logic, we had no right to revolt in 1776 because, after all, King George was our king and deserved our respect.”) Are you suggesting a revolution against the President of the United States because you don’t “respect” him? (“Dissent is not unpatriotic; asking questions is not supporting terrorism.”) That depends on the type of dissent you are talking about, now doesn't it. Asking questions- no. But making accusations like calling our troops terrorists, claiming that this war is "creating" more terrorists, wanting to give Jihadists American civil rights including civil trials, blaming this country for terrorism while giving a complete pass to Al Qaeda, trying to deny the government the tools it needs to monitor terrorism, deeming all coerced interrogation as illegal "torture"? Yeah! That IS supporting terrorism. And as far as the "benchmarks" on progress? Just where is this textbook on building a Democracy? Show me where this has been done before. Show me the standard guidelines and timetables for building a Democracy in a Middle Eastern country made up of ancient tribes, that have never know freedom and were ruled by a murderous dictatorial tyrant for the last 30 years. Show me those timetable guidelines so we can all see just how behind schedule we really are. And while you're at it- remind all of us how long it took this little ole' country of ours to finally get its Democracy established. I believe it didn't get resolved until that little "dust-up" was settled between those two tribes know as the "Yankees" and "Rebels". Now how long did all that take again? Give me a freekin break Peebrain! Why is it the only time you Libtards want to be “patriotic” is when it comes to dissenting? And why is any other form of patriotism just a bunch of mindless gung-ho flag-waving to you people? Your entire opposition to this war is purely a combination of Bush Derangement Syndrome, Anti-Americanism, and good old fashioned Liberal partisan politics- and you damn well know it! Cut the phony "patriotic dissent" crap, come out of your Socialist-Jihadist-enabling closet, and just embrace your “traitor” title Peebrain! After all- you’ve earned it! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 7:22 AM:

" NEWSFLASH! Chickenhawk Doh busted (again). On this spot he claims that he didn't read Mr Peabody's post, and if you go to the Rep. Johnson spot, he responds to one of Mr Peabody's comments. What a cheap cop out to keep from responding to the comments and questions posted by Mr Peabody. You read it, and you know it, and this seems like just another cheap ploy to get out of some tough questions. In addition to being a chickenhawk, I guess he is a chicken in other ways too. cluck cluck cluck! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 7:45 AM:

" Technically, FDR would have to be classified as a chickenhawk. But unlike you, our resident chickenhawk, he actually saved an entire country. About all you have done is to come on here with your cut and paste radical right wing diatribes, Bush talking points, relentless name calling, bragging on your inane posts and make up stories about your relatives. And you wonder why I doubt that phony brother. If you bother to do any reading you would know that most historians place old FDR up there as one of the best Presidents in history, even above the sainted Reagan. To mention your name in the same post as FDR almost seems sacreligious to me. By the way junior, please enlighten us as to what party was it that didn't want us to enter WW II? cluck cluck cluck...I almost forgot, when are you going to bring 1 cav back? Usually when your taking a beating, someone magically appears to give you some kudos...hmmm? Lastly, it was good to see you giving kudos to a Democrat, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope of for you after all. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:31 AM:

" NEWSFLASH DOUGHBALL!!!- You can't read. My exact words were ("...because I USUALLY don't read MOST of his posts.") Thanks for confirming what we have always known- you lack reading comprehension skills! You really are just an idiot aren't you DoughBall. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:51 AM:

" and you wonder why McCain is washed up........................................... McCain was asked a simple question while chatting on his bus with reporters: Did he support the distribution of condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V. as part of American aid to the AID-infested region? McCain searched for words, glanced at the ceiling, paused awkwardly with repeated silences, asked his aids to tell him what his position was, said he'd never thought about it before, and hoped his physician friend, right-wing Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, could help him out. The New York Times reported a transcript of the incident and the telling Q&A that followed: Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?" Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy." Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?" Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me." Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?" Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it." Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?" Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before." McCain's question, "Are we on the Straight Talk express?", like his answer to Jon Stewart's question on The Daily Show, revealed everything the American people needed to know about John McCain. He was no longer aboard his own bus. McCain's quest for the presidency is probably over. Now he must begin a new quest: to see if he can get his soul back. Hopefully the devil doesn't need him anymore. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 10:06 AM:

" ("Technically, FDR would have to be classified as a chickenhawk. But unlike you, our resident chickenhawk, he actually saved an entire country.") Well well well- Looks like DoughBall is trying to move the goalpost on his "chickenhawk" criticisms. So you are calling one of the greatest War-time Presidents a “chickenhawk”. God you’re a tool. ("And you wonder why I doubt that phony brother.") Yeah. And I'm still waiting for your proof that his Vietnam service is phony and made up. ("To mention your name in the same post as FDR almost seems sacreligious to me.") Oh I see. THAT is "sacrilegious"- but your fellow Left-Wing Nutroots spewing any kind of derogatory crap that they can think of DOESN'T EVEN RAISE A SINGLE WORD FROM YOU. What a double standard. And you wonder why I doubted your veteran status. And FDR was a member of the Democrat party just like my family was and just like I used to be. But wait. Let me guess. I'll bet I'm lying about that too. Right little DoughBall? Why don't you tap in to those amazing psychic powers of clairvoyance that you think you possess and tell me more about what names you "think" I'm posting under, and what my financial status is, since you "think" I'm unemployed. By the way- how did your night-shift of palm-reading go? How's that career pay- little Doughball? If your palm-reading skills are anything like your reading comprehension skills then I'm sure you're starving. LOL!! So can we expect the Great DoughBall on cable TV communicating with the dead anytime soon? LOL!!! Sorry little guy- you're a joke! "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 17, 2007 10:06 AM:

" But where is your loyalty to your Monkey King, Miss Anita? Why don't you want to praise your Chimpanzee in Chief's "personal qualities" any more? Tell us again what a great, brilliant man your Republican leader is. I promise we won't laugh. We will guffaw. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 10:21 AM:

" Hey DoughBall- you're still ducking yet another tough question- aren't you little psychic dude! I know you have a hard time with reading comprehension skills, so I'll keep reposting it so you can keep ducking it:- Which potential Democrat "Chickenhawk" are you going to vote for in '08? - Now go ahead and duck that one again little guy. quack quack quack! LOL! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 10:52 AM:

" You still didn't answer any of his questions, now did you, windbag? And you won't either, and everyone knows it. I think most people have you figured out, chickenhawk. How does it feel to be the joke on this site? I can always tell when I'm getting to you little fella, because you start making no sense at all. 1 cav huh? Tell us how you're kicking butt again, that's always good for a laugh or two. cluck cluck cluck "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 12:19 PM:

" I don't know why I keep trying to explain things to an obvious moron, but I'll try again. Look little fella, there is no way I can prove you don't have a brother who is a vet of Vietnam. I simply made the assumption that you were lying due to your dishonesty in the past, your posting under multiple names, your giving yourself kudos, your absolute refusal to accept your chickenhawk status and your obvious insecurity about many other things. That's enough for now. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 12:32 PM:

" According to my dictionary either spelling is correct, do you really want to start that game, if so I would point out to you that it is armed services, and not arm services, as you posted in error a few days ago. I'm willing to overlook your miss-keys if you're willing to do the same, either way you're still a moron. I really think your real problem is that you are so outnumbered on here and have actually had to resort to posting under another name to try to give your side more credibility. Perhaps those who used to post on here in support of this war got so embarrassed by you that they couldn't take it any longer. We do know that there are those who agree with you, at least 25 percent of the country, so what other reason could there be for their departure? "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 17, 2007 1:25 PM:

" More accusation, misreprestations, and of course, lots of name calling, personal attacks, and vulgarities from our esteemed Doh. You think someone at the JG-TC might do their job, just for once. Doh, you are sad for two reasons. First, you actually get off on these forums. Look who you are talking with -- a bunch of uneducated, rural, redneck, Bible-thumping, inbreds (some liberal, some conservative.) You actually care about "winning" an online argument with these people? We're not even going to get into the whole online part -- some people simply should not have access to the Internet (I guess it's your God-given right to be confrontational and crude online, however.) Secondly, you rant and rave like a 10 year old who has no grasp of logic OR proper USE of THE English LANGUAGE!!!!!! Get an education and get out of the small town. If your goal is to be the biggest troll on the smallest forum, well done Doh. Did you want a Bozo button for your accomplishment? "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2007 2:16 PM:

" Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war. Often, there is a further connotation that "chickenhawks" falsely believe that their support for military action is a mark of personal courage analogous to actual combat, thereby demeaning those actually serving while elevating themselves.[1] The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe ardent supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat; it is seldom if ever used with respect to supporters of the (more broadly supported) war in Afghanistan as such. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the anti war political left; political right in favor of military action are generally but not always on the receiving end of the insult. The label is not usually applied to women (who are barred by law from serving in combat). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem, that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and/or that it suggests ideas that are contrary to fundamental principles of the American republic. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 2:46 PM:

" ("there is no way I can prove you don't have a brother who is a vet of Vietnam.") - No you can't. ("I simply made the assumption that you were lying due to your dishonesty in the past, your posting under multiple names, your giving yourself kudos,")- Nope! I never did any of those thing. Now show us your proof that I did. ("your absolute refusal to accept your chickenhawk status and your obvious insecurity about many other things.") - Wrong again Dohbaugh! No insecurity here. As a matter of fact- I gladly wear the label of "FDR Chickenhawk"! I will gladly wear it with pride! ("According to my dictionary either spelling is correct, do you really want to start that game,...") - What are you talking about Dohbaugh? I seriously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. And what questions did I still not answer? I know you're getting rattled big time- but you're making even LESS sense than normal. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:05 PM:

" ("First, you actually get off on these forums. Look who you are talking with -- a bunch of uneducated, rural, redneck, Bible-thumping, inbreds (some liberal, some conservative.) You actually care about "winning" an online argument with these people? We're not even going to get into the whole online part -- some people simply should not have access to the Internet (I guess it's your God-given right to be confrontational and crude online, however.) - Actually Peabody- you make some very good points! I do believe you are correct. These silly pi55ing matches with Dohbaugh are a waste of time and an annoyance to everyone. And they really serve even less of a purpose than all the other ranting in here. ("Secondly, you rant and rave like a 10 year old who has no grasp of logic OR proper USE of THE English LANGUAGE!!!!!! Get an education and get out of the small town.") Please don't mistake my hurried typing as a lack of education or a less than adequate grasp of the English language. And you would be wrong to assume that I reside in a small town. And if you want to have an adult debate based on logic and facts, then I would be more than willing to join you in such a discussion. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:17 PM:

" Sorry the dictionary thing went over your head, little fella. I would explain it to you but you still wouldn't get it. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:24 PM:

" ("According to my dictionary either spelling is correct, do you really want to start that game, if so I would point out to you that it is armed services, and not arm services, as you posted in error a few days ago. I'm willing to overlook your miss-keys if you're willing to do the same...") I was never making fun of your spelling Dohbaugh. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:49 PM:

" I have to leave for a while Doh, but go back and read your post of 10:06 today. Read it real slow carefully, and you might just get the spelling remark I made to you. It's really not that difficult. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 17, 2007 5:01 PM:

" Answer: I have given up trying to debate you with facts and research. Nearly every time that you have called on me to source my posts, I have complied, only to have you come up with some bizarre statistic or obscure quote. I'll leave it to you to do your own research (try Dogpile, Google, or if you wish to really get facts, Lexis/Nexis). There are some posters that have opposing viewpoints that respectfully disagree with me, and I'm more than willing to engage them. I may be wrong, but you, and your alter-egos, seem interested in only "winning" the argument and getting the last word. I have gotten dragged into the gutter by trying to make my points several times, and have decided that I will no longer do so. If you can disprove anything I post, please feel free to do so. If you disagree with me, that's cool, too, but I'll not do your homework for you any longer. Respectfully, Dave "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 5:36 PM:

" I'm afraid you're misstaken Dohbaugh. The only thing I could see was the word "sacrilegious". And if that is what you are referring to- then you are wrong- I wasn't questioning your spelling; I was questioning your hypocrisy at considering my citing of FDR as "sacrilegious" while at the same time you turn a blind eye toward people on your side when they spew hateful and false accusations towards our troops. Picking on your spelling errors and typos were never on my mind in that post. And why would it be- I type like crap. And your lack of reading comprehension skills was in reference to you mis-quoting my Jul 16, 2007 9:52 PM post. And if that is not what you are talking about, then I really have no idea where you were going with that. Sorry. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 8:33 PM:

" Fair enough. If you notice I spelled it on way and you spelled it another way, so I assumed you were questioning my spelling. If you weren't, it was an error on my part. Any more conversation on this topic would be beating a dead horse. Case closed a far as I'm concerned. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 8:17 AM:

" From today's New York Times: President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan. The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years. In other words, Cheney and Bush have wasted six years, thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars, accomplishing NOTHING — except, of course, the enrichment of their criminal no-bid pals. "

Answer wrote on Jul 18, 2007 9:00 AM:

" ItsJustDave says he is no longer debating with "facts and research" so we can surmise that Dave is now debating with "lies and gut feelings?" Please Dave, don't get all holier than thou, and accuse me of being a belligerent poster, because the vast majority of my posts prove the exact opposite. I occassionally (as I did when I made fun of you by changing your post name, like you did with Urban I might add) have stooped to name calling or taking shots at people but that is certainly not my style. Yes, sometimes I like to tease by pointing out the flaws in arguments with what I intend as good natured debate humor, or even the occassional dig. So, I will apologize for my offense of mocking your post name. Now, back to the point, I already did the research Dave, the ficticous conversation you posted claiming it to be an interview with Nancy Pelosi was a comment on several rightwing blog sites, but is not sourced or documented in any newspaper article that I could reference. I do not have a subcription to Lexis/Nexis so if it is available through that source I would love the link. "

AllYouNeedIsLove wrote on Jul 18, 2007 10:40 AM:

" I don't agree with the Tony Snow rationalization of the Iraqi Congress taking summer break. He stated the White House supports their vacation because our Congress takes breaks and also because it is so hot. However, the Iraqi Congress will be sitting indoors air-conditioning- they won't be meeting outside in the middle of the desert heat, like our soldiers have to do everyday! The Iraqi Congress has got to do something...but maybe the Bush Administration's corruption has spread too much in Iraq and because of this, their government is quickly becoming as corrupted as the Bush Admin.! Everywhere the Bush Admin. goes, chaos and unhappiness is sure to follow, because they refuse to do the right thing and help people. They always choose the cheap and easy way out, their way or the highway. One of the saddest things is their obvious disrespect for the soldiers: not taking care of them after they come back from the war and are hurt (need to take care of the wounded) , contaminated water supply (disgusting- they should at least have the decency to give soldiers clean water!) and cheap humvees instead of the MRAPs. The USA Today stated that over half of our soldiers that died in Iraq by IEDS could've been saved if Bush Admin. had bought MRAPs instead of Humvees. What's ruthless is they gave some of the Iraqis and others MRAPs, but not our soldiers! They had requests for them dating back to 2003, but never listened to what the soldiers said they needed. Over half of our soldiers could be alive today, despite the war, if our leaders put the money into the right thing. (not into a no-bid contract! The Bush Admin. is about as dirty as they come. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 18, 2007 11:18 AM:

" AllYouNeedIsLove - you cannot fault the administration for the humvees...CONGRESS holds the purse strings. The money congress authorizes only goes so far. Compromises must be made. If you want to scream about inadequate supplies for our troops, then you need to go after congress, not the administration. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 12:43 PM:

" One online wit gave us this nice, little summary of the Bush policy: The invasion of Iraq has made the world a safer place - we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and we're winning, and winning means achieving victory, but we cannot cut and run because the insurgency is in its last throes and if we waver they'll come here to fight us like they already are even though we're not wavering. They're dead enders and Baathists and foreign fighters and Islamofascists and they're the exact same people who attacked us on September-The-Eleventh, and we know they're coming because we have a gut feeling, except there's no credible evidence and they aren't coming here after all, except they probably are. And if they do, just remember that we warned you. But they won't, because we're winning and the bottom line is that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. So bring it on. "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 1:13 PM:

" AllYouNeedIsLove- you're blaming corruption in the Iraqi government entirely on the Bush Administration? Give me a break. We are talking about a brand new democratic government made up of tribal members that have known nothing but cronyism in a corrupt society run by a murderous dictatorial tyrant. And you expect that to simply end over-night? Is this a major problem? Yes! Does this need to be fixed ASAP? Absolutely! But again- you war critics are acting like there is a standard play book on building brand new Arab Democracies out of former tyrannical regimes, and that we are woefully behind the historically excepted timetables. NEWSFLASH! This kind of Arab-Democracy-building has NEVER been attempted before. We are learning as we go along. And how long did it take our own Democracy to finally establish itself? And our country didn't have anything resembling the hurdles that Iraq is facing. Just give it time! And as for your MRAPs story- you're putting all of this on the shoulders of the Bush administration too? How about calling into question the innate red tape and bureaucracy in the Pentagon that has been around during every Administration? Maybe we should see if California Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband had any military contracts that were related to this story. You seem to have no problem pointing out the corruption all through the Iraqi government- why don't you dig deep into our own government (beyond the Bush Admin) and see what role the members of "The Most Ethical Congress Ever" have played in this story? Or do you think their hands are completely clean in all of this? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 2:54 PM:

" "AllYouNeedIsLove- you're blaming corruption in the Iraqi government entirely on the Bush Administration?" Of course. Who else? The Iraqi government was CREATED by the Bush administration. Everything that happens in Iraq is now the RESPONSIBILITY of the Bush administration. Remember what Colin Powell warned the Chimp — about the Pottery Barn rule? "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 3:13 PM:

" ("The Iraqi government was CREATED by the Bush administration.") Really Vic? Did the Bush Admin vote the members of the Iraqi government into office? And there is a limit to the amount of influence we can force on to their government if they are truly to be a free an independent Democracy. And if the Iraqi government DOES establish itself and things continue to not only turn around but actually settle- will you be back on here giving full credit to the Bush Administration? "

Charlie Watts wrote on Jul 18, 2007 3:31 PM:

" Remember Doh, the Iraqi government was the best that American money could by at the time. "

Charlie Watts wrote on Jul 18, 2007 3:33 PM:

" Vic, what was the potter barn rule, I'm drawing a blank. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 5:14 PM:

" The Pottery Barn rule is, "You break it, you own it." "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 5:27 PM:

" Charlie how did we "buy" the Iraqi government? We payed for it's creation and freedom with our blood. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 18, 2007 7:22 PM:

" I just noticed this from the peabody person: "Look who you are talking with -- a bunch of uneducated, rural, redneck, Bible-thumping, inbreds (some liberal, some conservative.) " ---------------------------------------- First, I imagine you are being so nasty and hateful because you have been out-debated... but if you ARE so much smarter than us, and if you ARE so much smarter, AND so much more educated, then maybe you should go away because we aren't worthy of you. "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 18, 2007 7:52 PM:

" Sorry, forgot to add trailer park trash; how could I forget them? "

Answer wrote on Jul 18, 2007 8:56 PM:

" AnitaS says congress holds the pursestrings so they're responsible for the lack of armored vehicles. I say, oh really? Tell me Anita, which appropriation requests for war funding did congress not approve? Which branch of government requested the funds in large blocks of money with little or no strings attached so they could use the money as the needs on the ground dictated? Which branch of government is the Pentagon a part of? Which department in our government had the responsiblity of spending the appropriated funds? How many times did the executive branch ask for additional funds for armored troop carriers, and how many times did congress say no? The truth is this was just another of the mistakes of an administration that has made a habit of this kind of performance. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 19, 2007 12:57 AM:

" No, Answer... when you only have a certain amount of money, you have to budget. Come on, you're smarter than the questions you just asked. The newer armored vehicles are much more expensive... the pentagon DID want more expressly for the better vehicles. Also, those vehicles had to go 'back to the drawing board' to find ways to lower the cost of producing them while not compromising the integrity of the vehicle... and it has not been cost effective until just recently... and with Congress being so stupid... "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:28 AM:

" Good point, Answer. Anita's comnent was astounding in in its ignorance. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:49 AM:

" Paul Craig Roberts wrote, "Think about the Bush Regime's changing explanations for the failed US occupation of Iraq. Shortly after Bush's May 2003 announcement of "mission accomplished," the mission revealed itself to be very much unaccomplished. Americans were told that the cause of the snafu was a small Sunni insurgency of two or three thousand at the most inspired by "die-hard Baath party remnants. Remember the propagandistic deck of cards identifying the most wanted down to the less wanted? Americans were assured that once Saddam Hussein and his relatives and henchmen were rounded up, our troops would be pelted with the promised flowers instead of roadside bombs. When the roundups, trials, and executions failed to fix the problem, the "die-hard" explanation disappeared. A new explanation, with no continuity to the old, took its place. The new explanation was that Syria was allowing foreigners to cross its border into Iraq to commit jihad against the American troops. This explanation lasted until it became all too clear, despite the propaganda, that the "foreign fighters" were remarkably well accepted by, and concealed within, the Iraqi communities that were suffering all the collateral damage of the conflict. When it came time for the US to create an Iraqi government, it was evident that it would be one dominated by Shi'ites. Then, for a limited time, it was permissible to recognize that the insurgency was popularly based in the Sunnis. As the insurgency evolved into what the Iraq Study Group described as a Sunni-Shi'ite civil war with US troops unclear on which side they stood, the Bush Regime and the captive media began blaming Al Qaeda for the escalating violence. Americans were assured by the Ministry of Truth that there wasn't a civil war, just outsiders stirring up conflict. This enabled Big Brother to deny that there was a civil war and to revive fear of terrorist attacks in the US and UK, the new Oceania. The Al Qaeda explanation was soon discarded into the memory hole. The explanation implied that Oceania's invasion of Iraq had greatly expanded the ranks and strength of Al Qaeda, thus contradicting Big Brother's claim that his war in Iraq was making Oceanians safe by stamping out terrorism. The Al Qaeda explanation had to depart for another reason as well. Cheney, Israel, and the neocons, the rulers of the new Oceania, plan to attack Iran, and so the insurgency in Iraq is now being blamed on Iran." Oceania, of course, is a reference to George Orwell's "1984," a novel we all seem ot be living in now. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:32 AM:

" "Fox News on Tuesday interviewed Pentagon reporter Rowan Scarborough about his "startling allegation" that "elements within the CIA are sabotaging our own War on Terror." Scarborough, a former columnist for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times, is the author of Sabotage: America's Enemies Within the CIA, which claims that "CIA bureaucrats are undermining President Bush and the War on Terror through disinformation, incompetence, and outright sabotage." So the CIA are anti-Bush "terrorists," now, eh? One just never knows where you fascist Republican nut jobs are going to turn up "terrorists" next. "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 7:46 AM:

" AnitaS, did you read my post? Show me which request for war funding, supplemental or otherwise, made by the pentagon or the Bush admin that the "stupid" congress (which for the vast majority of the war was controlled by the Republican party)turned down? I'll give you a hint, it will be at least as hard to find as WMD in Iraq. "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 7:49 AM:

" AnitaS, did you really mean it when you said "until recently it wasn't cost effective' in referring to the lack of MRAPs? So, exactly what is the "cost justification" for hundreds of killed and likely thousands maimed? Where is the "break even" point? How much is one dead GI worth? Apparently far less than the cost of MRAPs. You may want to rethink that argument... "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Answer- I've been looking at USATodays reporting on MRAPs and I find it very interesting that their story has now morphed into an OpEd hit-piece on the Bush Admin incompetence’s. I'm afraid there is much more to this story than Rumsfelds stubbornness or the Administrations lack of foresight and planning in this war. A couple of months ago USAToday ran this story: CORPS REFUSED 2005 PLEA FOR MRAP VEHICLES ( http://tinyurl.com/35l5cc ) - And why did the Marine Cops refuse that request? - "brigadier general Dennis Hejlik and other officials said the Marines determined in 2005 they could protect troops better with armored Humvees than MRAPs. Even if the Marines acted on Hejlik's February 2005 request, there weren't enough vehicles to fill it, said Tom Miller, then head of the Marines' MRAP program. That argument doesn't make sense, said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "How is it possible that a request that is literally life or death got lost?" asked Biden, a major supporter of the MRAP. Hejlik, now a major general, said Wednesday that the primary threat to Marines in Iraq in early 2005 was from bombs that tore into the sides of vehicles. Hejlik commanded Marines in Iraq at the time; he now heads the Marines' Special Operations Command.....The Marines determined in June 2005 that Humvees with reinforced armored doors provided more protection for Marines, Hejlik said. It "was the gold standard that would provide the necessary protection." ---- And then there was this from USAToday: ( http://tinyurl.com/yod8eu ) MRAPS CAN'T STOP NEWEST WEAPON: - "WASHINGTON — New military vehicles that are supposed to better protect troops from roadside explosions in Iraq aren't strong enough to withstand the latest type of bombs used by insurgents, according to Pentagon documents and military officials. As a result, the vehicles need more armor added to them, according to a January Marine Corps document provided to USA TODAY. The Pentagon faced the same problem with its Humvees at the beginning of the war....The Army has tested armor that appears to protect MRAPs from the explosives, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, who confirmed the document's authenticity. Brogan leads Marine Corps Systems Command, the lead agency for the MRAP program. "How rapidly we can engineer that onto these vehicles is yet to be seen because it is significantly heavy," he said." - But wait! In this USAToday article it clearly states that manufactures will have a difficult time filling the orders: (http://tinyurl.com/2wjxkh)- "Combined with orders by other services, the total cost of the new vehicles through July 2009 will be almost $25 billion, Pentagon records show. The Marines and Navy want 3,500 MRAPs, while the Air Force and special operations units are seeking another 1,000. However, there may not be enough material and production capacity to field the MRAPs quickly, according to the memo and Pentagon officials. No single company can provide more than 1,200 of the vehicles per month, which is the Marines' production goal, said Chris Isleib, a Pentagon spokesman." - But Wait again! In yet another USAToday article, -(http://tinyurl.com/32hboy) - who do we find opposing the production of the MRAPs, and why? - "The Pentagon's decision to build more MRAPs MAY ENCOUNTER OPPOSITION FROM REP. JOHN MURTHA, DEMOCRAT-Pa., WHO LEADS THE COMMITTEE THAT WRITES THE DEFENSE BUDGET. MURTHA SAID HE WOULDN'T SUPPORT MORE THAN $6 BILLION IN MRAP SPENDING FOR NEXT YEAR BECAUSE CONTRACTORS CAN'T BUILD THE VEHICLES FAST ENOUGH." --- Now isn't it interesting that USAToday, after covering the many problems and delays that are effecting the MRAPs production, come out with an OpEd piece a couple of days ago and declare: It's all Bush's fault! Isn't that fascinating - Answer? "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 11:21 AM:

" Answer- Now about those WMD in Iraq: Why was Saddam keeping those stockpiles of "pesticides" in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground, and that pesky little stockpile of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium in Al Tuwaitha? I don't recall your answer on that........... "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 19, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Thank you, Doh. That's exactly right. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Doh and Anita, even Bush has admitted Iraq had no WMDs. Do you pretend to know more than the monkey man you worship? "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:18 PM:

" ("Doh and Anita, even Bush has admitted Iraq had no WMDs. Do you pretend to know more than the monkey man you worship?")- Well now Vic- I guess I'm not a Bush "worshipper" after all, am I. And I since you think Bush is an idiot in the first place- how can he possibly be right about no WMD? Besides, "dissent" from Bush is a patriotic act, isn't it? The fact remains- that no one, including Bush, has ever given a reasonable explanation for those "stockpiles" of "pesticides" and uranium. "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:20 PM:

" You're welcome Anita! "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:44 PM:

" Doh, not one point in your research addresses my points to AnitaS. I don't read the USA Today and I didn't blame anyone. My comment was directed to AnitaS and her argument that the Congress through their "control" of the "purse strings" was somehow the cause of a lack of APC's for our soldiers. I also criticized her argument that it was somehow not "cost effective" until recently to protect our soldiers with better armored vehicles. I could care less about the editorial opinion of the USA Today, my criticism is of incorrect information and a poor argument. Now if you care to respond to that for AnitaS, then be my guest. "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:48 PM:

" That's the WMD we went to war for? pesticides and yellowcake under IAEA seal? Surely that's not your arguement Doh, where is the VX, tons of it, where is the other poisonous gasses, and the drones that could be unleashed on New York, and the reconstituted nuclear weapons? Please, that argument is over. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 19, 2007 3:31 PM:

" So you're saying, Answer, that you would have been willing to ante up that much cash to purchase these vehicles? Above and beyond that, if all the money gets spent on a FEW of these, then what about all the troops who would have been TOTALLY unprotected because they'd have been on foot or in unarmored vehicles? ---------------------------------------- Let me see... I have enough money to buy 5 pairs of sandals to shoe five kids... or enough money to buy one pair of boots to adequately shoe one child while the rest go barefoot... inadequate is better than nothing in a case like this. THAT is what I mean by cost effective. ---------------------------------------- On top of this, these vehicles couldn't have been produced quickly enough, so had the Pentagon purchased the MRAPs instead, the scenario would be that we've just spent all this cash on something we need NOW that we won't get for a year. So how many will be going without NOW? "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:14 PM:

" Answer- why was the IAEA, an organization charged with keeping a lid on nuclear proliferation, allowing that much fissile material to be kept by a bloodthirsty tyrant who had already demonstrated a desire to construct a nuclear weapon? And let's not forget the IAEA is the same agency that had responsibility for monitoring North Korea's nuclear program throughout the 1990s. And in October 2002 Pyongyang stunned IAEA inspectors with the announcement that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons. And let us all so remember that the NYT reported last Nov that: "Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." And what were "pesticides" which have dual usage as chemical WMD doing hidden in camouflaged bunkers at obvious military installations? Why was this stuff there and what was Saddam planning on doing with it? "

father bob wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:43 PM:

" The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis. On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of United Nations sanctions. French intelligence also had informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence. Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department. CNN reported on 14 March 2003 (before invasion) that the International Atomic Energy Agency found the documents to be forged The Sunday Times of London dated August 1, 2004 contains an interview with an Italian source describing his role in the forgeries. The source said he was sorry to have played a role in passing along false intelligence. Although the claims made in the British intelligence report regarding Iraq's interest in yellowcake ore from Niger were never withdrawn, the CIA and Department of State could not verify them and are said to have thought the claims were "highly dubious." March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic." The U.N. spokesman wrote: The I.A.E.A. was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis, the I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:29 PM:

" Attention father bob - the Intelligence pertaining to the Iraqi envoy to Niger to purchase yellowcake uranium is NOT based on the phony Italian documents. It is based on British Intelligence in (The Butler Report) and that is what Bush cited. And the British STILL maintain that it is true. Read the entire time line of events here:- (http://tinyurl.com/9cjy8)- And YES the "Downing Street Memo" is also a fake and has NEVER been proven to be authentic. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 19, 2007 9:22 PM:

" Answer: Your changing my post name did not offend me much at all. That has nothing to do with my stance. The main thing was the military deaths, which I sourced, and then got dragged into an irrelevant (in my opinion) discussion of statistical nonsense. When I have been wrong, or at least been presented with a reasonable viewpoint from those who disagree with me, I repectfully disagree, move on , and gain a new respect for the posters. Two examples are Early Bird, who has disagreed with me many times, but has given me food for thought. Doughbaugh has also earned my respect, although early on I considered him a Bush-hating radical not willing to even consider other viewpoints, probably due to his bouts with Doh, whom I also respect, even though he may be a bit more defensive of the right than I am. Yes, I also respect and often side with Anita and Billie, two other similarly passionate but respectful contributors to this site. I really regret that the JG-TC has no longer left the "pardon Libby" string active, because that one was one of the most civil on this site, and certainly had enough activity to continue. That string showed tremendous willingness to actually debate without malice. Perhaps things will change in the future, but as of now, I really hesitate to always be on the defensive and considered a "bush worshipper' , which I certainly am not. "

father bob wrote on Jul 20, 2007 10:16 AM:

" hey Einstein you need to do a little more in depth reading of your own....................................... but i forget...you're the only poster that utters any words with any true redeeming social value on these boards.................................... "The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis. On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of United Nations sanctions.".................................... there....can you read and chew gum at the same time?? "

Answer wrote on Jul 20, 2007 11:10 AM:

" Uh, Dave, I never questioned your "military death statistics" at all. Now you have really lost me. I just asked you to source the supposed interview with Pelosi. It was so obviously made up I decided to research it origins. You know what I found? It never happened. The entire "interview" is a made up post on several right wing blog comment boards. You are a good researcher, and although our political leanings are polar opposites, I appreciate reading your thoughts. That's why I don't understand why you would stoop to posting such obvious nonsense? "

Charlie Watts wrote on Jul 20, 2007 2:25 PM:

" Let me see if I have this correct, all the documents that one site quotes are real and all rebuttal documents are false. All the documents the other side quotes are real and all rebuttal documents are false. I feel like I’m reading the lost novel by Joseph Heller. "

Doh wrote on Jul 20, 2007 4:55 PM:

" Calm down father bob- I'm not trying to get in to an insult-fest with you. The fact is - Bush was citing British Intel on the Niger story, and the British Intel *did not* rely on the phony Italian documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing their reports. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA. The final analysis of this story was summed up in "The Butler Report" and it said: ("It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from *several different sources* indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.")---- And this is what the Butler Report said about Bush's claims: ("By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” WAS WELL-FOUNDED.") To sum up: Not only do the British STILL maintain that this is true, but Joe Wilson (the person who originally claimed that Bush was lying about the Niger Intel) said this in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 19th 2003: ("...I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur.") "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 20, 2007 7:05 PM:

" For years, I have seriously wished some reporter would ask Bush and Cheney to name ANY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION they would accept on the power they so ardently and obviously lust for. They could not and would not name it. They are de facto totalitarians, moving inexorably to become de jure totalitarians. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 21, 2007 8:53 AM:

" Dick Cheney is officially acting as President while George Bush undergoes a medical procedure. Now that's scary. I think we should all pray that nothing goes wrong during Mr Bush's medical treatment. I just hope that Cheney doesn't do anything drastic during this brief time period, such issuing a pardon to himself for his alleged war crimes, or turn the EPA or some other government department over to Halliburton. "