Not only did CBS News anchor Katie Couric publicly confess her gross bias against the Bush administration, she implicated all the other "journalists" at the National Press Club [emphasis added]:

“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

ADDENDUM (Good Lt.): For Bo and posterity, here's a video of a half dozen or so leading Democrats (Albright, Clinton, John Edwards, Pelosi, Biden, Bayh, Berger, Rockefeller, Harry Reid, etc.) 'being misled' ... by themselves and their intel in 1998 and beyond.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.

I believe the talking points are in and the Democrats are going to try to spin General Petraeus' report on Iraq as "The Bush Report". Washington Times:

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' " ....

"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress ... but the plural of anecdote is not data."

She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

I think Bill Ardalino might have something to say about "the ground truth", Mrs. Pelosi.

...the positive change in Fallujah since my January visit is astounding.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Say WHAT?!

Don' they know that the Democrats are trying to pick up seats in Congress? Don't they know that Harry Reid, the Glorious Leader, proclaimed the war over and lost already? Why don't the Iraqis listen to General Reid? Maybe they're on the BOOSH payroll...

This simply will no do! More defeatism! More pullouts! More slaughter! More Senate seats!

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Dan Riehl adds another installment to the "Historical Perspective the Mainstream Media/Democrat Noise Machine Refuse To Add" series.

Four Years of War in Iraq and Afghanistan: Total of 4,000 fatalities (yet another 'grim milestone').

Vietnam fatalities: 1965 - 1,863; 1966 - 6,143; 1967 - 11,153; 1968 - 16,592; 1969 - 11,616; 1970 - 6,081; 1971 - 2,357.

Riehl notes that we lost four times as many soldiers in 1968 alone than in four years and two theaters in this war.

Yup. This war is just like Vietnam.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

David Horowitz lays an incomparable smackdown on Algore and his assaults on fact, history and reason.

Read it all, and serve your favorite lib a nice helping of contemporary history regarding UN resolutions, violated treaties, and an distorted lies that Gore and his ilk have effectively convinced themselves of since the war began.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 01:07 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

You leftist morons knew it would come to this. From a vet, and none other than the esteemed Uncle Jimbo:

Posted by: Good Lt. at 12:07 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Off subject but the Dow is at all time high again. Damn that George Bush. It's his fault. Go Exxon/Mobile but remember Wal-mart sucks.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 16, 2007 01:35 AM (fNvh1)

2 BOOSH!! MAKING THE ECONOMY WPOK?///??

DAMN BOOSH!!!1!!11!!

Posted by: Good Lt at June 16, 2007 01:44 AM (yMbfY)

3 Hard to believe Uncle Jimbo is from the People's Democratic Republic of Madistan!

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at June 16, 2007 02:16 AM (Aj6tl)

4 Shamless behavior of these liberal and or SCARY HARRY REID

Posted by: sandpiper at June 16, 2007 10:19 AM (mY5+n)

5 Did uncle Jimbo actually say Hairy Reed? Or am I imagining it? LMAO!

Posted by: Barry at June 16, 2007 11:42 AM (blu+l)

6 Haha, Jimbo is the bomb!

Posted by: Roberto C. at June 16, 2007 02:13 PM (iD1fP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

GOP campaigns - start getting your ads together.

Harry Reid has confirmed that he was indeed attacking Gen. Peter Pace in the Politico story.

Nice try at narrative control by the nutosphere, but they failed. As we've always maintained, if you lie down with nutroots, you're gonna say and do stupid things to please them.

And Harry Reid indeed has said and done a stupid thing here to please the Nutroots. His own Macacca moment? Probably not (the media won't give it any play like they did to the Macaccagate), but definitely embarrassing and well below the expected conduct of a member of the "austere" US Senate. Certainly not below the conduct of a modern Democrat, however.

Harry Reid wouldn't know the difference between a corporal and a lance corporal, but he knows Gen Pace is "incompetent." Bad news, Senator. The public trusts the military far more than they trust you pampered morons sitting on your fat as*es declaring the war lost in the comfort of your air-conditioned offices in the DemCongress.

If you want to see how they try to obfuscate, slither out of, and deny their involvement with this demagoguery after being forced to admit they were wrong, read down a few posts at TPM. The conceding post reads thus:

Okay, we've obtained a tape of the controversial Reid conference call with liberal bloggers.

Yes, he did in fact say that Pace is "incompetent." But the context shows that the controversy's way overblown. Take a look.

Did he say it, Greg? Yes. Did he say it to liberal bloggers? Yes. You and your horde spent your day trying to refute it and to deny it, and the truth hit you square on your noggin. See Insty for the "plausible deniability" exercise put on by the members of the conference call. In true Clintonista fashion, they all play the "I don't remember/recall/have knowledge/see it in my notes" card, but don't outright deny it because they likely knew what the truth was. They were there.

But remember, people. It was the "nuance" of the remark that matters. It was the "context." From liberal talker Taylor Marsh:

Calling a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "incompetent" is anything but unremarkable.

Trust me when I say we're going to be eating this for a very long time. Next our presidential candidates will be asked if they agree with Senator Reid's assessment of General Pace. Insert your favorite question about this nightmare here.

There is yet another aspect of this event. How did Politico.com get even the partial quote? That's yet another troubling aspect of this sorry situation.

Remember this incident the next time the Nutosphere tries to jump all over any right-blogger or right-politician for making a snafu - the "context" is what's most important. Which means (to them) that they may agree with what he said but regret that anyone outside of their little cabal heard it.

Addendum: DaveC in the comments points out that I clumsily worded a passage above when I said that Reid attacked "the Troops" as opposed to General Pace. He was, upon reflection, right about that, and I have amended said offending passage. I would also point out, however, that this is the second time this week that Reid has attacked military members - the other day, he preemptively declared an effort that hasn't even fully been implemented 'a failure.' I consider that an attack on the troops engaged in the surge effort, since he told them they failed before they even did anything. So I will make no apology to Reid on this basis. He's on a hot streak this week, so to speak.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:36 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 670 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Good article. Thanks!                   USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 15, 2007 01:06 AM (2OHpj)

2 I don't know the difference between a corporal and a lance corporal, but if there is a corporal out there with a lance, I wish he'd jam it into Harry Reid's face.

Posted by: Rome at June 15, 2007 01:10 AM (/GrlO)

3 I'm no fan of Harry Reid but isn't it disingenuous to label an attack on the military leadership as: "Harry Reid has confirmed that he was indeed attacking the Troops in the Politico story."?
there is obviously quite a difference in attacking the top brass vs. attacking 'troops' ? please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: davec at June 15, 2007 10:02 AM (kcDpP)

4 davec-

Noted and amended.

However, couple "the surge has failed" before it has even been fully implemented (saying that the troops are failing at what they're commissioned to do before they've even done anything) with lambasting General Peter Pace (a patriot and tireless defender of the country, and a Marine corp leader) as "incompetent," and you have the makings of attacking not just the brass, but also the boots on the ground.

In the particular instance of Gen. Pace, you're point is well taken.

Posted by: Good Lt at June 15, 2007 10:12 AM (yMbfY)

5 Agreed, Reid is a huge Weasel who is playing politics with the current situation in Iraq to further the agenda of force withdrawal.

Posted by: davec at June 15, 2007 09:53 PM (kcDpP)

6 The troops depend on good leadership. Criticism of a general! Whats the third reich coming to? How's that surge working out BTW? What was the objective of that again? Seems to me that the generals should stop playing politics and focus on the situation in Iraq and the politicians should be playing politics. I appreciate a politician who will say what needs to be said.  "I don't remember", "We never said that" and  "Let me check my notes" hey, thats classic republican speak these days. Then there is the spineless silence when we have to look at what this Iraq "strategy" is costing us and what the payoff may be. Why didn't the republicans want to spend the extra money on the extra armor for humvees? body armor? increased veterans benefits? extra training, health care for national guard dependents? How can you justify not giving someone in Iraq combat pay? (watch Cspan, you might get more nasty stuff than trolling some blog site) You can glad talk all you want but there are facts about what is happening and the people in the U.S. have a right to know what they are. And BTW yes you are misquoting Reid a bit aren't you? Though it makes little difference. He is not happy with the performance of Pace or Petraeus and neither are the American people. It would be spineless not to demand some accountability from them.

Posted by: philip at June 15, 2007 11:54 PM (eA6sJ)

7 philip:
I think it's distasteful to make fun of mentally challenged people so i'll just say this:

1. "The Surge" with the full amount of troops only has begun this weekend.

2. Is there some magic armor that protects Humvee's against 500lb roadside bombs? they are not adding more Humvee armor now -- they're looking to replace them with mine-proof vehicles.

Posted by: davec at June 16, 2007 12:14 PM (kcDpP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Increasingly subservient to the Democrat lunatic fringe, Harry Reid has begun to include serving members of the armed forces in his verbal assaults, and, apparently, the MSM are helping him cover it up:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:20 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush has indeed been a weak leader, but has not shown anywhere near the level of treason and utter hopelessness that the Democrats have shown.

After years of undermining, meddling, micromanaging, opposing and interfering with the military's mission in Iraq in every way they possibly could, the Democrats are now trying to blame the troops for the Democrat-declared "loss" in Iraq while the troops are still fighting there.

As Dennis Kucinich said recently, "it's Congress's war now." That's not constitutionally accurate, but in the sense that a loss would be the DemCong's fault, he's exactly and unintentionally right. Name one thing the Democrats have done to show they support the war effort or that they haven't been an obstacle to giving the Troops what they've needed since 2003. They've already tried to hold them hostage twice just this year over funding. That's Democrat "support."

Congrats, losers. Way to support the war effort that you voted for.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

From the LA Times, via NRO, we get Marines sick and tired of people declaring the war lost when they're in the middle of fighting it:

Under a sweltering Iraqi sky, [Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, commanding general of Marine Forces Central Command] asked for questions from his troops.

Many were reluctant, but Marine Lance Cpl. Jack Kessel, 19, of Raleigh, N.C., stepped forward. Something had been gnawing at him as he and his buddies go about the business of winning hearts and minds in al-Anbar province: “How are we supposed to fight a war when people back home say we’ve already lost?”
...
Marines continue to exceed their re-enlistment goals. A recent study showed that those who have deployed twice to Iraq are more likely to re-enlist than those who have gone once. The Marine least likely to re-enlist is one who has not deployed to Iraq.
...
Mattis told the Marines to believe their own eyes rather than news accounts about who is winning the war. Don’t be discouraged by politicians and pundits who haven’t been to Iraq: “Don’t hold it against them. The only reason they have that freedom of speech is because you’ll fight for it.”

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:25 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

Unfortunately, they're not on America's side.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Allahpundit has the Video here at Hot Air.

Posted by: Howie at 11:36 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Cindy Sheehan, noted psycho-hosebeast and defiler of her son's memory, is fed up with Americans' refusal to embrace isolationism and become a large, repressive, socialist paradise like her best bud Hugo is creating in Venezuela.

From Breitbart:

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized an anti-war movement with her monthlong protest outside President Bush's ranch, said Tuesday she's done being the public face of the movement.
"I've been wondering why I'm killing myself and wondering why the Democrats caved in to George Bush," Sheehan told The Associated Press while driving from her property in Crawford to the airport, where she planned to return to her native California.

"I'm going home for awhile to try and be normal," she said.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:10 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Associated Press:

ORCAS ISLAND, Wash. (AP) - Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.
Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas

Posted by: Bluto at 08:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a little late to this, but its low-hanging fruit.

We all know John Edwards is an insufferable hypocrite and profound jackass. His most recent attempted "nuance" was referring to the global war on Islamic terrorism as "a bumper sticker" and "a slogan," while pointing out that calling it a war on terror is "not a plan."

Contradictory lies and previous heroic stances aside, I should probably point Edwards and his moronic legions to another bumper sticker and a slogan that wasn't a plan:

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

To nobody's surprise, Amnesty International criticized the United States and Israel far more often and viciously that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, etc.

As Amnesty releases its annual report on human rights for 2006, amid highly choreographed public relations events, and repeating the familiar condemnations of Israel and America, NGO Monitor has also published a report on Amnesty's activities in the Middle East. The result is not a pretty picture for those clinging to the "halo effect."

Using a detailed and sophisticated qualitative model for comparing relative resources devoted to the different countries, this report clearly shows that in 2006, Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation of human rights to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights.

During the year, Amnesty issued 48 publications critical of Israel, compared to 35 for Iran, 2 for Saudi Arabia, and only 7 for Syria. Many of the attacks directed at Israel took place during the war with Hezbollah, but this terror group and state-within-a-state also got relatively little attention from Amnesty.

Furthermore, as Amnesty has almost no professional researchers, many of the "factual" claims in these reports were provided by "eyewitnesses," whose political affiliations and credibility can be only guessed. And the language used in these reports also reflects an obsessive and unjustified singling out of Israel, with frequent use of terms such "disproportionate attacks," "war crimes," and "violations of international humanitarian law."

Truthout!

ht: LGF

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh no! What's that song?

Posted by: Bluto at 09:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Citizens Against Government Waste has named prominent Defeatocrat John Murtha (D-PA) Porker of the Month:

Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.) the May Porker of the Month for throwing a temper tantrum and threatening his colleagues over a challenge to a $23 million pet project in the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Featured by many leftist anti-war blogs, he claimed to have murdered and burned hundreds of innocent Iraqis in a mosque. One problem: he only spent six weeks in the army before being kicked out. Now he faces federal charges for trying to fraudulently collect veterans' benefits.

From the Associated Press: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:06 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

House dotard and unindicted Abscam co-conspirator Jack Murtha is making the news for shouting threats at political opponents on the House floor: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:03 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

What say the koolaid drinkers now? Most "open, most ethical government ever?" Hah!

The Democrats have demonstrated that they're far worse than the Republicans they were railing against for the same "crimes," and that they have no intention of cleaning up the corruption in Congress.

By Democrat logic, the Democrats are all the arbiters of the Culture of Corruption and are by extension all criminals now. With power comes responsibility.

Go ahead. Try to spin the bald-faced lies the Democrats told the voters during the 2006 election cycle. The American people are noticing.

Hence, 29%. See y'all in 2008. You too, pro-amnesty Republicrats.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I tell you, the Dems look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and it's a Socialist duck.

Here is the Dem agenda, espoused by Carter, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Ted
Kennedy and others: (1) Big government, because it's needed to impose social control, (2) High
taxes, because money is needed for big government, (3) Economic leveling, because wealth
redistribution is key, (4) Controls on capitalism, because capitalism is bad, (5) Top-down
political structures, because Socialists favor cooperation instead of competition, so competition
must be suppressed from above, (6) Pro gun control, to help facilitate top-down government
control, (7) Pro-global government, because Socialists are transnational, and abjure the nation
state, ( Pro `Doom Theory', because these theories justify big, global, top-down government,
(9) Antiwar, because this is not their war, it's the Republican's war, they hated seeing Americans
rally around Bush in times of trouble, and they will do anything to keep the Republicans from
claiming glory in winning this war, (10) Anti-military, because the military is strongly anti-
Socialist, (11) Pro-Islamist, because Socialists have common cause with Islamists in opposing
Republicans, and they want the Islamists' help to beat Bush in this global struggle, (12) Anti-
Israel, in order to be pro-Islamist, (13) Anti-Christian, because it distracts from the pursuit of higher Socialist Ideals, (14) Pro Moral Relativism, because according to Marx, and dialectical materialism, morality is constantly in flux, changing, and less important than striving for
Socialist ideals, (15) Equivocation on the Constitution, because the Liberal Democracy
articulated in the Constitution is at odds with Socialist ideals.

In Canada, at least Socialists have the gumption to admit that they're Socialists.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at May 18, 2007 12:22 AM (L/SIz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I guess the lockstep Pelosi-Reid foot soldiers who routinely bloviate in the comments here can rest assured that not even one out of three people in this country approve of the Democrat congress.

I can only hope the Democrats keep doing what they're doing - ensuring a lost war, raising taxes by the largest amount in world history, trying to shut down talk radio because they can't effectively compete, holding our Troops hostage while their approval whittles down to nothing, etc.

Don't blame us. Blame those rightwing neeeeeocons at Gallup.

Even Bush has a higher aggregate approval rating.

Too sweet.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:32 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

We've been saying this for years, much to the dismay of our political opponents.

If you're not actively against radical Islamists, terrorism or indiscriminate murder in the name of Allah, then you're objectively pro-terrorist. Al-Qaeda obviously sees it this way, and the Democrats are the useful idiots who enable them by doing their propaganda work- dutifully demoralizing the enemies of radical Islam. Buried in the aforelinked WaPo article, we find this:

Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a telephone interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

But he added: "I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him."

And Orwell was a smart guy - had the left pegged years before we had them pegged.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:01 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Where are the Democrats supporting the Troops who are currently ALIVE AND FIGHTING? Oh, wait. They're only useful to the Democrats if they're dead. I forgot.

Memorial Day is about honoring the fallen, not about holding antiwar rallies over the graves and memorials of America's war dead.

There are 364 other days on which you should (and will) have your pathetic protests. Memorial Day belongs to the war dead, their families and the country who loves and supported them. We honor their memory not be decrying the wars in which they fought, but by remembering why they fought and died in them.

And if the Democrats can't figure out the "why" of the current war (it certainly ain't oil, lefties), then there is no use explaining it to them. They don't care. Hence, they're not honoring the war dead. They're spitting on heroe's graves as part of a cheap publicity stunt. Sponsored by the Democrats.

These are the folks who refer to America's struggle as a "mistake," a "blunder," a "lie," a "crime," etc. By extension, they're indicting the soldiers who executed that policy as foot soldiers in these "crimes" and "lies." They don't support the Troops, because they don't support the mission for which the Troops fight.

Of course, we shouldn't expect much from a candidate who hired two of the most vile and hate-filled liberal bloggers on the web and didn't even know it until it blew up in his face.

ht: Bryan at Hot Air

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:38 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

So 2,700 active-duty troops petitioning Congress to support the war isn't news.

Retired generals who have been against the effort for years are suddenly news. Three of them.

What the hell is up with this? Why is the news media ignoring the Troops? Why are they trying to suppress one half of the "story" - the half that doesn't go along with the Democrats?

Posted by: Good Lt. at 05:01 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just checked the Appeal For Courage web site and the number of signatures is now up to 2,931.  So 2,931 of our military gets no press coverage but a web site with disgruntled soldiers who want us to get out of Iraq, funded by VoteVets.org that took $75,000 from George Soros is news and was covered by every MSM in the U.S.
 
Nah, there's no liberal bias in our news media.

Posted by: retire05 at May 10, 2007 06:26 PM (soP1A)

2 I'm having trouble getting to the Jawa Report today. It doesn't like to load. Anyway, the scum that is at the core of the MSM is not 'American'. Remember that they are largely 'one worlder' elitist socialists. You NEED to be manipulated for your own good!  Social justice requires you to hate who THEY TELL YOU TO!  The people NEED the elitist view to help keep those nasty 'thug-nazi' US troops from hurting your poor impressionable minds.  The approved 'elitist' Generals can say what they like, and you should listen to THEM!                     ...   Doesn't it make you sick?      
                                             USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 10, 2007 07:24 PM (2OHpj)

3 Ok,  the Jawa Report is seriously hard to access today (for me). I'm going to check my computer out, and see what's up. Plus, I will be taking a long weekend, so I'll miss a lot. Have a good weekend all.                             USA, allthe way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 10, 2007 08:20 PM (2OHpj)

4 DDOS/Spam attack. Happens quite often. Just bear with us.

:-)

Posted by: Good Lt at May 10, 2007 08:42 PM (yMbfY)

5 If the soldiers are so stupid that they are in Iraq, why in the world would such great thinkers bother to listen to the lowly likes of them?
John Kerry spelled it out for them very clearly.

Posted by: Miss Pish Pot at May 10, 2007 09:06 PM (ULPDp)

6 hahahahaha  is over the troops are coming home soon. loser lol all the talk talk bla bal got you nowhere not even a inch lol well keep up the blabal bal  and thank you.

Posted by: I suck cocks in Texas at May 10, 2007 09:13 PM (9Xis6)

7 The MSM is only interested in DEAD troops. That's what they like.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 10, 2007 09:45 PM (p52Ne)

8 Cleanup in aisle #6.

Islamist cockroach spray needed.

Posted by: Good Lt at May 10, 2007 10:37 PM (yMbfY)

9 The liberal left-wing news media are only interested in lies and fabrications they dont care about the truth

Posted by: sandpiper at May 11, 2007 09:23 AM (stdEd)

10 hahahahaha  is over the troops are coming home soon. loser lol all the
talk talk bla bal got you nowhere not even a inch lol well keep up the
blabal bal  and thank you.

NOW DO YOU SEE what happens to your brain when you BANG YOUR HEAD on a stone floor,  hundreds of times per day, while praying?  As you continue, with these endless mini-concussions, you will lose more and more brain tissue.  The areas to die first are the complex reasoning areas (frontal lobes).  Second to die are the areas concerned with moral reasoning, and empathic thinking (pre-frontal cortex).  The speech and language centers (Broca's area, Wernicke's area) are also eventually compromised, as you can see above. 

The last to die are the vegetative areas, and the older, simpler cortical areas, sometimes called the 'reptilian brain'.  The individual remains alive, but their capacity for complex reasoning, moral thought, and language, are severely and enduringly compromised.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at May 11, 2007 01:11 PM (L/SIz)

11 There is a picture on the following web location which shows a devout Muslim's forehead after many years of prayer.  The file is called 'Muslim head callous.pdf'

http://www.box.net/shared/7dnvimtb5z

The man shown is the 'General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood' in Egypt, Muhammad Mahdi‘Akef.
The darkened callous on his forehead marks a religious Muslim who prays a great deal, striking his head on a stone floor many times per day for many years.  The callous is commonly seen among devout Muslims.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at May 11, 2007 02:29 PM (L/SIz)

12 Well I am one of those troops. I am too worried about having to hire a lawyer to stop the VA hospital in Ann Arbor MI from ignoring me.  As far as the media goes the Walter reed story was just to bash Bush. It was not to really help people like me who have not even been given a Veterans advocate or patient advocate yet. The media could give a fuck less that I cannot use my GI Bill since my disability prevents me from going to college right now. Remember Kerry says I'm just a dumb hick so college would help. The media could give 2 fucks that I have had to turn down higher paying jobs because the work is too hard for me to perform.

If the media actually asked my opinion as a OIF and OEF veteran which I am of both, I am to the point I would have to tell them.  "Thanks for nothing media pig." "you were not there for me in 2003 when I was there, and today you defend the terrorist more then me." "mr. media guy you can respectfully suck my ass, and go die"


Sorry but after 4 years of pain worse then your most painful tattoo I am at a wits end with this shit.
I still love America but I am just now a pissed off one who believes I am getting fucked by it.

Posted by: Legrand at May 11, 2007 11:53 PM (/etUv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment