November 21, 2005
*Sigh*
Not that killing the al Qaeda in Iraq leader--and the man personally responsible for beheading innocent civilians---would really end the Salaafist insurgency in Iraq. It wouldn't. But it would be nice to know he was dead.
Vengeance: natures way of calming the nerves.
Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.
Not that they ever would come out and say, "We hope we lose."--Okay, occasionally they do actually let that slip from time to time-- But they do constantly downplay any good news and constantly barrage us with 'cover up' stories when there is even the slightest hint that some civilian in Fallujah might have got his feelings hurt because a U.S. soldier didn't present a search warrant from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon entering his house in the middle of a firefight.
Hence, the Left is skeptical of any and all progress in Iraq.
So, if we seem to bring you too many "Yipee, Zarqawi is dead" stories, please forgive us. Unlike our friends on the Left, we are anxious to see the enemies of the United States of America dead.
Call it being overzealous for the cause of America.
On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top Al Qaeda operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the two-story house.However, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Sunday that reports of al-Zarqawi's death were "highly unlikely and not credible."
"I don't think we got him," said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, answering questions from reporters about whether al-Zarqawi had been killed in Mosul. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said there was "no indication" that the terror leader had been killed.
Hat tip: Ron Wright who pointed us to this post by Evan Kohlmann and Dan Riehl, who has more here.
UPDATE: Howie e-mails me with this article from CNN. Apparently, Zarqawi's family and 'tribe' have disowned him. Don't worry al-Khalaylehs, every family has a 'Zarqawi' or two they are ashamed of.
UPDATE II: Let me be clear on this, I used the word 'hard Left' to describe those who want us to lose not 'liberal' or 'Democrat'. Yes, I believe the people over at dKos want us to lose. They don't want our soldiers to die, but they do want us to lose. They actually believe America is the greatest force for evil in the world. If you believe that then the conclusions to be drawn are inevetable.
If we are the bad guys then the only thing for a moral person to do is to support our enemies.
And, yes, wishing for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq now is the same thing as wishing for our enemies to win.
It doesn't matter if in your heart you love America. Withdrawal is failure. Hence, wishing withdrawal now is wishing failure.
I am not Jesus. I don't care what is in your heart. What I care about is the extent to which you support the victory of the United States of America.
In the comments though, Ryan (unlike the madmatt troll) raises a legitimate concern wanting some evidence that the Left celebrates. Okay Ryan, here you are. Of course, they don't come out and say "Hooray, Zarqawi" but they do boo the home team. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
From the Democratic Underground:
I wonder when he can stop talking about Zarqawi, I want a new Boogie Man!Nothing will happen with Zarqawi until October 2006 Just in time for the election, in an appearance to make it look "normal" when Diebold once again scams an election.
We can't pull out of Iraq now. After all, we almost caught Zarqawi. I'll bet if we stay another year we'll almost catch him 10 or 12 more times. Plus we'll kill his No. 2 man at least twice. What a steaming crock of bullshit.
I don't think Al Zarqawi was there, and I don't think they thought he was there. This is like all those stories about how certain they were that they had killed Hussein in the first bomb attack of the war, or that they'd killed Bin Laden when they murdered that poor farmer and his two sons with their unmanned drone. They just want Americans to say "Wow, look, they have a reason for all this stuff" and go back to watching Family Guy before BushCo quietly says "Well, we missed him, but it was close."
It's a good thing they missed him...otherwise they would have to invent another Al-Qaida terroist for us to focus on.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:36 AM
| Comments (142)
| Add Comment
Post contains 843 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: madmatt at November 21, 2005 09:01 AM (h1rMx)
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:03 AM (nt3NF)
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:09 AM (nt3NF)
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (ads7K)
But don't you DARE question their patriotism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (8e/V4)
How's everyone doin'??
Posted by: Laura at November 21, 2005 09:15 AM (L3PPO)
Unbelievable! What are you guys smoking? No wonder the Right is burning up the last shreds of credibility.
Posted by: Ed at November 21, 2005 09:23 AM (yfKhZ)
"Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ?"
Okay John, www.liberalsmustalldie.com, there's your link.
"I would like to see why anyone who celebrate."
Look in the mirror perhaps.
"The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site."
Gee, I wonder how you know those two...
"Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations."
Yeah, more like an atmosphere of general glee. I guess they're saving the champagne until he releases his next headchopping video. Liberals all need to be killed in as painful a manner as may be contrived by modern technology.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:31 AM (0yYS2)
The fact that you feel the need to lie about the issue says an awful lot about the security of your position.
Posted by: Tom Ames at November 21, 2005 09:34 AM (XuQJ6)
Just how stupid do you think your readers are? You must have a pretty low opinion of your wingnut buddies if you think that "logic" makes any sense at all.
What am I saying? You all bought into Bush's idiotic war, so you must be very gullible or very slow. You probably think everything Rush says is gospel, too.
NOBODY celebrated the report that Zarkawi wasn't among the dead. He's a murdering terrorist who deserves death and I defy you to find a single Liberal who actually was pleased he escaped.
And your misleading headline doesn't accomplish anything but brand you as a liar.
Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 09:35 AM (CMyz0)
Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 09:41 AM (5Caqu)
Really, man. If you want to make an argument against liberals, don't make it so stupid. You hurt the cause.
Posted by: Bruce at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (SSjeP)
Posted by: Paul Turner at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (4lS1R)
"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
Why do you call this a sign of dismay?
Can't you stop lying for even a moment?
Stupidity: it's a renewable resource!
Posted by: Fred at November 21, 2005 09:49 AM (eO3MK)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (0yYS2)
Untreated syphilis can damage the brain and cause dementia.
Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (7Fqgx)
If we win, you lose but can continue to live in a free country and have all the rights free men enjoy, including, as demonstrated here, freedom of speech and expression. If the other side wins, you will be put to death, pay the dhimmi tax, be forced into slavery or have to convert to Islam. The way I see it, I prefer to win the war, but you libs, well, you seem to want to test fate. So be it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 09:55 AM (rUyw4)
It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand.
I'm off now to take a shower and wont be back. May I suggest that as an appropriate response for the rest of the commenters?
Posted by: Observer at November 21, 2005 10:11 AM (8x2CG)
Posted by: norbizness at November 21, 2005 10:12 AM (EneHm)
Are all liberals opponents of the Iraq war?
Are all opponents of the Iraq war liberals?
Are all liberals the same?
Are they secular humanists and elitist academics, who drink chardonnay, drive Volvos, speak french, and just want to give Zarqawi a great big fat hug?
Or are they dirty scruffy pot smokers and filthy degenerates who just want to root for the downfall of America?
Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol.
And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll.
Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 10:14 AM (7Fqgx)
Posted by: Independent at November 21, 2005 10:17 AM (2MDoJ)
So I guess Bush was right after all-- they do hate us for who we are, they hate us for our freedoms. Thanks for affirming that.
So are you libertines as willing to change your lifestyles in order to suit the terrorists as you are to see the U.S. change its policies to suit them? I think not. What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us. Too rich. It boggles the mind how myopic you people are.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
"This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low. It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand."
Somewhere a pot and a kettle are laughing hysterically at that statement.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (nt3NF)
"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.
What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd."
Dr. Shackleford describes this as "dismay."
Dr. Shackleford is a liar. Unambiguously so.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 10:25 AM (2yc8s)
I realize in asking these questions I am hurting the American troops, for that I am sorry...but I just had to know.
Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 10:27 AM (dXncd)
Damn you editorial board!!!
;-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:38 AM (JQjhA)
If you read all the comments in the entire thread it becomes clear that the majority of people there would prefer to have Zarqawi alive and well if his death would mean potential help for the President.
Posted by: traderrob at November 21, 2005 10:40 AM (3al54)
Personally, I think some of the commenters are 'idiots'.
But that is just my opinion. Opinions, by definition, cannot be 'lies'.
But thanks for playing.
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:44 AM (JQjhA)
If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win.
First of all, we outnumber you. Check the polls.
Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it. Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military.
Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield. Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet. And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter.
So go ahead and start a civil war. I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead. It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying...
Posted by: joviel at November 21, 2005 10:46 AM (tgsAE)
I think the overwhelming defeat of the cut and run resolution has something to do with it, and the thought of Zarqawi being killed scared them as well.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 10:49 AM (RHG+K)
joviel,
us "fascists" are well armed. I personally have 2,000 rounds of armour piercing just waiting for you to bring it. And I know where to instantly get 2,000 more. What are you going to use? Foul language? Your own anti-gun dogma has reduced you to no better than sheep to the slaughter if you ever think to bring your "revolution". We'll gleefully mow you down by the thousands.
And no, you don't outnumber us. Temporary dissaproval of Bush doesn't a Liberal make. Every poll puts self-proclaimed Liberals in this country at less than 20%, while self-proclaimed conservatives approach 35%. Just bring it dudes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)
I was in Desert Storm, and I know what soldiers complain about, and I'm just not seeing much of that from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather bright, optimistic men and women, some no more than children to my eyes now, who believe in what they are doing and who want to help the people of Iraq become free and prosperous, so that we never have to fight them again. If only political correctness hadn't stopped us from taking out Saddam in '91, we wouldn't be here today, but the liberals interfered then too, and look where it got us; into another war.
For any society, war is eventually inevitable, because all it takes is a madman to invade peaceful neighbors, but many are avoidable if only the leadership has the backbone to do what is necessary when necessary. If Europe and America had stood up to Hitler at the first, he never would have invaded Poland or Czekoslovakia, but we didn't so we had to fight another war because of our leaders' timidity and shortsightedness. There is no such thing as "peace in our time" without the willingness to fight for it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:56 AM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (N0a7W)
No?
I guess Max is too busy spending time between San Francisco and NYC. Man, I love characitures that are real........
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (JQjhA)
lying is out of the question."
Let's roll the tape. Dr. Shackleford wrote that "when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead (Dr. Shackleford write like Tonto talk), there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops."
For this, he cites this quote from a liberal: "The death of Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism, and one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
Either Dr. Shackleford is a liar, or he should consider remedial reading.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (2yc8s)
I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen.
Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 11:13 AM (dXncd)
So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror.
Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 11:18 AM (7Fqgx)
The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.
Posted by: ATS at November 21, 2005 11:22 AM (aDFHl)
The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.
Posted by: ats at November 21, 2005 11:23 AM (aDFHl)
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:32 AM (ads7K)
Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 11:38 AM (5Caqu)
Shall I make a big blog headline out of that saying "Conservatives call for the destruction of America"? It would be as big a lie as your rantings that liberals openly support the killing of American soldiers.
Improbulus, I've argued with you before and you just spit venom and vulgarities without any kind of reason or thought. Rant away, so that all will know you for the fool you are.
I do hope you meet up with my son someday. He's a Marine, a Liberal and a Democrat - and proud of all three. According to your silly rant he should be rooting for his own death in Iraq. Since he's a liberal and you are calling for the death of all liberals, maybe the headline should be "Conservative calls for death of American Marines."
Then again, I doubt you'd really want to meet up with him. He has this silly idea that the Constitution means we're all equal citizens, left, right, liberal, conservative, man, woman, etc. And that anyone who wishes for the death of other Americans like you do, doesn't have a very good grasp of what being a Patriot or an American is all about.
Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 11:51 AM (CMyz0)
Posted by: Rodney King at November 21, 2005 12:22 PM (IpG/2)
circlejerk,
you're just spouting neo-Lib talking points. You haven't a shred of empirical evidence that we're "losing" the war on terror. So far, zero terrorist strikes on the U.S., that's my evidence.
The neo-Lib message is so convoluted and backasswards that half of you neo-Libs don't even believe terrorism is a real threat, and the other half of you believe that "we had it coming to us" because of our "foreign policies". Yet the same hippie degenerates who decry our "foreign policy" are the first decadent westerners jihadis would decapitate if they had the chance. You're a bunch of clueless morons with a death wish.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 12:49 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 12:54 PM (7Fqgx)
Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:07 PM (7Fqgx)
Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:08 PM (7Fqgx)
Isn't this the same Zarqawi whose training camp the Pentagon located 2-3 times before the Iraq invasion, but Bush chose not to bomb his camp because he feared it would undermine the case for going in? And then Colin spent all this time in his 2003 UN speech talking about how bad Zarqawi was, as a reason for attacking Iraq, despite no cooperation between Zarqawi and Saddam.
"On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy [Zarqawi's] Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108880
The article estimates Zarqawi alone is responsible for 1000 deaths since then, deaths that only happened because of political opportunism by your personal heroes.
Posted by: clb72 at November 21, 2005 01:12 PM (MGcSD)
That's pathetic. What is the average period of time between (Islamic) terrorist strikes in the US? 10 years or so? I sincerely hope that the efforts of the Bush administration will help slow down the terrorists, but there's really no way to measure. I do know that the frequency of terror strikes happening in Iraq since we invaded is practically daily, and at huge cost to the people we're supposedly trying to liberate. Imagine how they must feel when Bush says we're fighting terrorists there so we won't have to at home. No wonder 85% of them want us to leave.
Posted by: Randy at November 21, 2005 01:27 PM (bc3Ko)
let me show you mine:
"That year [1996] the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported last week. This prompts two questions: If President Clinton could have taken bin Laden into custody, prosecuted him for murderous attacks on Americans in Somalia and spared the lives of thousands who were killed or wounded in future attacks, why didn't he do it?"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:38 PM (8e/V4)
Randy,
circlejerk appears to have figured out a way to measure it. Ask him. I did, and so far zip, nada, bupkiss.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:40 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 01:46 PM (ads7K)
The White House hasn't clearly answered that question, and that is a large part of the problem, IMHO.
Do you define it as the destruction of terrorist organizations and the rouge governments that support them? If so, we've still got Syria and Iran to go for sure, and potentially other countries as well.
Do you define it as the destruction of radical Islam? That would involve not only overthrowing governments, but eradicating entirely the most violent sects of Islam, and ruthlessly hunting down its members and destroying them. After what Germany attempted to do in WWII this seems unpalatable to most, but it is possible. The British, after all, were able to destroy the Thuggee. This destruction of violent Islam would also have to be done while encouraging the more liberal forms of Islam to fill the power vacuum in Islamic countries.
Do you define victory as the total destruction of Islam itself?
I think President Bush and most people would define victory as the destruction of terror organizations and the government that support them, but Bush has gone both beyond that and has done less than that at the same time. Bush has undoubtedly brought down two terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this has triggered Libya to turn over their WMD programs, and spurred democratic revolutions in several countries. But while the governments were relatively easy to topple, cutting out terror groups is a bloody, tedious process, but one that certainly can be done. So this goal is partially over, and perhaps once we’ve established democratic governments that are strong enough to stand on their own, with military and police forces strong enough to fight their own internal terrorists, we can declare this a victory.
Or perhaps we should fight for the second or third types of victory.
Islam itself states it is incompatible with other religions that can otherwise coexist with each other. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians have all proven they can lives side-by-side with one another (and in my church at least, under the same roof), but Islam states bluntly that they world must be totally Islamic. At some point, there will perhaps be an all out war on Islam brought about by Islamic delusions of world conquest, but is now that time?
I, like Sean, hope sensible minds will take control of Islam and moderates will reform the religion. If not, they may set the stage for a war that will make the Crusades look like child’s play.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 21, 2005 02:27 PM (g5Nba)
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 02:46 PM (ads7K)
Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:15 PM (c1Sxs)
Posted by: Laney at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (a6MF7)
Posted by: John Gillnitz at November 21, 2005 03:22 PM (eHLUP)
Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:31 PM (c1Sxs)
Just for fun I still have a W sticker on my truck, and not one of you lefty shitheads have the guts to even say anything to me. Unless you are on the computer and then you pretend to be bad asses. Please, all of you lefties, it's just about pizza delivery time, you had better report to work or your mommie might kick you out of the basement. LOL!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 03:37 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: The Heretik at November 21, 2005 03:44 PM (mLyjh)
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 04:11 PM (0jJ9w)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:27 PM (rUyw4)
Mike,
funny you should say that. Most people currently fighting the war in Iraq DID vote for Bush.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 04:30 PM (8e/V4)
Even when the leftists and liberals did everything in their power to keep the military guys votes from being counted. The hypocricy of these liberals knows no bounds!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:34 PM (rUyw4)
10 points if you can tell me where that's from.
Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 21, 2005 04:37 PM (gxVyt)
God Bless USA!!!
Posted by: jesusland twotooth at November 21, 2005 04:42 PM (YClF7)
Some of you are passionate, some apparently have some serious personality disorders. Vitriolic refexive name calling and dreaming of the deaths of those with whom you disagree are not signs of good mental health or social adjustment. They are signs of childishness and an inability to communicate in any effective way.
Make your point, back it up with facts, and maybe...just maybe someone will really consider what you are saying. But if you are compelled to toss around horrible invectives and profess hatred and intolerance of anyone of differing opinions you just label yourself as an unbalanced weirdo and I don't believe thinking people follow the lead of such hyperactive overcharged zealots of either side of this war argument. Real wisdom is never accompanied by such unwarrented dogmatic aggression.
Just my 2 cents and a plea for reason in on line discussions. This forum can be good but wading through the nut-job posts is getting a little tedious. Happy Harping!
Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:18 PM (6pXHD)
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:25 PM (ThwLj)
The problem with liberls and democrats is that all traitors, sickos and such we have encountered on this blog are liberals and democrats. So they get grouped together. As long as the liberal establishment contains people like Greg the traitor, Colon Baber, Ernie and such you will naturally be suspect. Kick the deviates out of your group then dialogue can begin for the good of all.
I will not work with muslims when they claim Osama ben Laden and rat face Zaqueery are part of their group. I will not work with liberals while they agree with commies like Greg the traitor and Colon Baber.
Clean the grap out of your ideals or be considered one of them.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 05:26 PM (ZaAd/)
Better go rip that big fat W bumper sticker off your car asap.
Posted by: the_truth at November 21, 2005 05:29 PM (ocHBO)
So you hope we do "pullout and run" so you can "stick it" to the republicans? possible Iraqi civil war, emboldened Jihadi warriors, and a caliphate state, but you'll get your zinger!! what an american!
I bet you also "support the troops" right?
Posted by: dave at November 21, 2005 05:33 PM (CcXvt)
Ask for facts and I guess this is what you get; wild emotional and a mob mentality devoid of introspection or dispassionate analysis.
Ask for reason and thought and you get a red-faced rant, full of hyperbole and devoid of rational discourse. Oh well, I asked for it. Manners, like good taste or class, are something that as an adult you either have or you do not. At least its obvious who is who in here. A Boor is a boor on either side of the argument.
Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:41 PM (6pXHD)
That's (barely) debateable.
But just in case I have some great news for them: Rummy and Bush are still running the show in the war.
Posted by: Robert at November 21, 2005 05:43 PM (cETWZ)
I think that's bullshit. The distinction between "the Left" and "liberals" was made in an ass-covering addendum, and it's nothing other than silly hair-splitting anyway. In the original post, "the Left" clearly refers to those who harbor left-wing beliefs; I wonder where you draw your line between mainstream liberals and far-to-the-margins wacks. I don't see any evidence that you show much respect for either. The real distinction, to me at least, is between liberals whose beliefs reflect nothing other than knee-jerk partisanship and liberals whose views are based on actual coherent outlooks/reading up on facts (I don't think that the Iraq war should ever have been about a left/right split -- just sanity versus insanity). In any case, my response to you is that I was referring to the substance of the post and I think "Update II" is disingenuous.
I live in neither San Francisco or NYC, incidentally. Nor does splitting my time between two locations take up all my non-flying hours. Still I'm curious which liberal caricatures (and as a caricature of a liberal elitist I have to inform that you misspelled that word) I confirmed in my post. Is it the caricature of liberals who post to conservative blogs without actually reading what they're responding to? I was unaware of that one. Or is it the caricature of liberals who reside in New York state and the Bay Area? Because that's not really a caricature; it's a fact of demographics.
Best,
Max
Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 05:44 PM (36mN0)
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, seeking common ground for their political future together, agreed Monday there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, and that resistance was the right of all -- but that acts of terror should be condemned.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Egypt-Iraq-Conference.html
Posted by: bobby at November 21, 2005 05:45 PM (nP2fm)
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:59 PM (frPZV)
"As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost in examples of justice and liberality."
--- George Washington, Letter to the Roman Catholics, March 15, 1790
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 06:02 PM (frPZV)
the_trooth,
maybe you've been living in a cave because you appear not to have noticed that when given a chance to vote for a troop withdrawal, only 3 Dem moonbats voted for it. The rest must have been hiding in that cave with you. Thrash about mindlessly all you want, but the troops are staying until the mission is completed and the President calls them home. You don't like it? Then win some elections for a change.
It's obvious that you absolutely need America to fail in Iraq so that you can regain political power. But we aren't going to hand Iraq to terrorist anarchy just because you Libs have a greater loyalty to party than your own country.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:17 PM (8e/V4)
That's why I sometimes refer to you as neo-Libs. You're primarily Leftists and soft stalinists, not Liberals in the traditional sense (Washington wouldn't even recognize you), while the old school Kennedy Liberals have migrated to the conservative camp.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:21 PM (8e/V4)
Comparing Kazinski and Mcveigh sickos to muslims terrorist is an example of why a shut-in should stay in the fire house. The Irish are "correctly or not" fighting for their countries freedom. Religion is a secondary issue. Mcveigh and Kazinski where not religious zealots. Comparing two killers to thousands is stupid. Mcveigh was striking back for what he perceived as liberals taking over the country. Mainly, Clintons gang of social misfits like Janet Renos killing hundreds of men, women and children at Waco, Tx.
And since you are a booring idiot with nothing new to add. Time to get lost. We've heard the same bullshit before.
Go get bugger by a muslim. That is if your boyfriend isn't one.
You can bet your ass that the sorry assed government employees that were having fun killing these people were 100% democrats. As most parasites living off the tax payers are.
Your bullshit don't hunt here.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:14 PM (ZaAd/)
Ok, how bout 99.99999% of terrorists are muslims. Better?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 07:19 PM (8e/V4)
A real liberal would side with the people not the dictators. Scratch beneath the surface of the "hard left" and what you'll find is hard core green, marxist, socialist, communist - but I repeat myself.
Centrist Dem
Posted by: Demi at November 21, 2005 07:50 PM (Yxvls)
You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the ass. Now go back to the DU swamp and wallow with your fellow traitors. The HYPOCRISY of you liberals is beyond the pale.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 08:21 PM (rUyw4)
Ever notice how most of the posters who threaten violence and dream of killing have "Jesus" in their handle? I can see these interbred Billy-Bobs laying back, masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind, then heading off to their local Southern Baptist bible-thumper on Sunday so they can proudly feel that they are more born again than their neighbors...
Guess what guys? Jesus wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, you poor pathetic hypocrites. Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate. This what religion does to the feeble-minded. I'll take a moral atheist over you amoral holyrollers anyday.
If your type gets into heaven, I'm not going. I have some standards, you know.
Posted by: Joviel at November 21, 2005 09:47 PM (tgsAE)
how bout we aren't traitors who have put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country. That's gotta be good for at least a couple of degrees, no?
Posted by: dcb at November 21, 2005 10:43 PM (8e/V4)
This sounds to me like a classic case of projection.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:02 PM (ads7K)
Posted by: DMan at November 22, 2005 03:02 AM (6pXHD)
bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope.
Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 22, 2005 09:47 AM (gxVyt)
You are exactly correct, but given that any society is comprised of a ratio of sane to insane people, and that the insane ones are more likely to engage in abberant behavior, such as murdering innocent people in the name of X and fighting against the US military, and that insane fanatics going against the US military have a pretty short life expectancy, the ratio quickly becomes skewed in the favor of the sane people. In Iraq, a country of 25,000,000, the US military could not hold one inch of ground if the people didn't want us there, at least not without massive slaughter on a daily basis. So, the fact that 14 of 18 provinces are peaceful, and trouble is mainly concentrated in a few cities, tells me that the "insurgency" consists of a tiny, infinitesimally miniscule minority of thugs and idiots who are lining up in the express line to go meet their god, and the rest of the people are trying very hard to live normal lives of peace and prosperity, if only their "brothers in allah" would stop murdering them.
"I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen."
I hope so too, but they probably won't, because that's a one-way street with little chance to turn around. Once one is within that society, to leave means nothing less than death. Most likely, we'll have to keep killing them for a long time to come. Your lack of optimism is realistic and valid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:14 AM (0yYS2)
You idiot. Jesusland is a place. It says nothing about religion. Can you be as stupid as you seem?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 10:17 AM (rUyw4)
Do you even know what fascism is, little boy? And what makes you think you would win any fight? Do you have fully automatic, armor piercing protest signs or something? There are over 200 million guns in America, almost completely owned by we evil non-libtards.
"First of all, we outnumber you."
Which is why you can't win national elections. Because you outnumber us. Right?
"Check the polls."
You mean that ones that are written and conducted by liberals, in liberal areas, with questions slanted to produce a desired result? Let me poll you: Is pedophilia okay or is George Bush evil? Oh, wait, sorry, you're a liberal, so it would be "all of the above".
"Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it.
Yeah that's great. Guess what? A liberal with a gun just makes a more justifiable target. When TSHTF and you go out on a rampage with your black and islamic brothers, destroying the very city you live in, it will just make it that much easier to identify and kill you.
"Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military."
Wow, that's really impressive. What was your unit? Dates of service? Duty posts? MOS? You do know that real veterans, like me, can spot a faker a mile away, don't you?
"Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield."
You keep thinking that.
"Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet."
That's funny. Well, I am a vet of Desert Storm, and I know that battlefield survival requires brains and balls, of which you fairy-ass liberal nancy boys have none. One guy I shared a tent with in Iraq, and stood guard duty every day, told me that he would surrender rather than fight because he didn't believe we should be there in the first place. He was another liberal who joined the Army because he wanted the free college money, and was horrified when he discovered we were going to war, and actually tried to desert, but got caught. You don't impress me much, because I've seen your kind and know them well. You are chickenshit cowards who shit yourselves and run at the first sign of trouble.
"And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter."
That's so funny in so many ways that you'll never understand. Thanks for the laugh!
"So go ahead and start a civil war."
It's your fellow idiot libtards who are always going on about a revolution, so go ahead and start one, you little chickenshit punkass bitch.
"I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead."
And I would gladly give you the opportunity, and then add your empty skull to my collection of fencepost ornaments.
"It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying..."
And not likely considering that you'd soil your pants and cry like a little girl at the first hostile contact. I've been shot at before, and by a real man, so I'm not worried about a little nancy-boy like you, or any other liberal waste of space.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:48 AM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 10:59 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: THANOS35 at November 22, 2005 11:16 AM (66BHq)
Do not think for one moment that we don't know you for the traitors you are, or that you will escape justice forever. Because of the efforts of groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, ANSWER, the Dhimmicratic party, et al, it's only a matter of time before the government is weakened to the point of being incapable of defending our nation, and then we shall see a wave of attacks as never before imagined, and our infrastructure will collapse, and there will be riots in the streets of every major city every day that will make the current events in Europe look like a frat party. That's when the gloves will come off and you will have to choose between standing with your country, or with its enemies, but it will be too late for you; you have already chosen, and your corpses will be stacked with all the other enemies of liberty, and nobody will shed a tear for you, because you are traitors.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 11:53 AM (0yYS2)
fluffy,
it's some kind of a big secret that the Left is fully vested in the defeat of American "empire" in Iraq? Not at all. The future of the American Left for decades to come depends on it. You know it, we know.
You see, we don't use the word "traitor" the way you use "nazi"-- i.e., for shock value. The American Left are LITERALLY traitors. Read Rusty's latest post for a more in-depth explanation.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 12:23 PM (8e/V4)
To the right, it's all about being on the winning side. They always beat their chest about winning the elections (no matter how many American voters they disenfranchise to do it).
In this case, maybe the lefties are on the side of the insurgents, because they want to be on the winning side. After all the US forces are led by Rumsfeld, and a President who couldn't lead his country out of a rainstorm.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 01:40 PM (cETWZ)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 01:49 PM (s5QlR)
Bill,
You have no idea why the Pentagon passed on Zarqawi, therefore you have no real point to make. The best you can do from the comfort of hindsight is say it was some kind of a blunder. Beyond that it's just hot air. But it wasn't nearly the blunder Clinton made when he refused Osama Bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a platter. Answer that one if you really came here for some kind of dialogue.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 02:55 PM (8e/V4)
When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"?
Oh that's right, we save the forests by opening them to logging companies, we help get cleaner air to breathe by rolling back emission standards, and we support the troops by baiting our enemies and reducing veterans benefits back home.
We also get to support the war by reducing taxes for the rich.
Makes as much sense as Christians who favor the rich over the poor.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 03:11 PM (cETWZ)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 03:46 PM (V2qBv)
Bill,
I'm afraid your superiors have lied to you again. Here is the audiotape of Bill Clinton himself admitting to the Long Island Association in Woodbury, New York, during the group's annual luncheon in February 2002 that he refused Sudan's offer because he had no "basis" on which to hold him.
http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:10 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:25 PM (V2qBv)
So, I am to assume upon hearing President Bush on TV saying that, peaceful people all over the world, grabbed their AK-47's and their Quran and headed for Iraq? ready for Jihad because Bush said "Bring it on" ?
The only people harping on those words are the left, indeed I can say without a doubt, not one terrorist, or insurgent fighting in Iraq came to do so because of a invitation from the President of the United States "Bring it on" statement.
I can also say without a doubt that the left is enbolding terrorists by attacking the troops and the war on a daily basis, with calls for a withdraw, and asking if troops should be prosecuted for "war crimes", Bin Ladens words in regards to Mogadishu is a testament to what terrorists think about the U.S armed forces, and they're correct in the fact that when the killing starts, the politicians want them home.
we support the troops by baiting our enemies
tough words to our enemies in a time of war? who has heard of such ? I'm to assume the President should tell them "we'll stop if you stop?" - "Say Uncle!!"
what about your sides plan to run? that is supporting the troops? has that not emboldened our enemies?
With all this talk of a withdrawal "Time Table" they now know, they only have to wait us out of Iraq.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 04:42 PM (CcXvt)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:45 PM (V2qBv)
Bill,
let's talk about Bill Clinton, then we'll talk about Bush.
The only reason Bill had no "basis" to take Osama, and that there was no "linkage" between the terrorists acts and bin Laden is because Bill was still treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, with formal rules of criminal evidence, probable cause, proper jurisdiction and yada yada yada instead of as a national security threat issue-- even after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. That is why he had no "basis" and no "linkage". The fact is however that we already knew Al Qaida was involved in the '93 bombing, and we already knew Osama was AQ. But treating AQ as a national security threat instead of a law enforcement issue would have been far too controversial for Bill. It was a hot potato, and Bill avoided hot potatos at any cost. Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud.
Now Bush. I haven't the slightest clue why Bush or whoever neglected to bomb Zarqawi. But given that Zarqawi was pretty much a nobody back then, and that Iraq was an extremely target rich environment at the time, I'm going to chalk it to a pretty big blunder (but still smaller than Bill's) that is now only apparent in hindsight. I fail to see how "politics" had anything to do with it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:46 PM (8e/V4)
In other words, terrorists are listening carefully to some American citizens and some American politicians, but not at all moved by something the President says.
Does that argument really make sense to you?
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:50 PM (V2qBv)
The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there. They had to muddy up the issue a bit, because they knew Zarqawi was not really being trained by Saddam's people. Saddam didn't like Zarqawi because he felt Zarqawi was a religious fanatic.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:00 PM (V2qBv)
Clinton fired cruise missles at a terrorist training camp when he thought bin Laden was there. He was 45 minutes late. On that day, he had spent the entire morning in deposition answering questions about oral sex. Clinton had a drug factory in the Sudan bombed. The CIA said that the factory was making explosive materials. Republicans lambasted him for this bombing, saying he was trying to "change the subject." According to the 9-11 commission report, Clinton "shook the trees" in the intelligence community relentlessly leading up to 2000. They were able to thwart a planned bombing of airports on New Years 2000. I'm really not sure what you mean by the "if he had the balls" thing. The record shows Clinton was completely immersed in fighting terrorism.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:14 PM (V2qBv)
I thank you for your reply to dave.
Your reply was right on target.
A lesson for the both the left and the right is to "switch" your complaint.
That way you can see things from both sides.
Could you imagine the reaction if someone high-up in VP Al Gore's office was accused of outing a CIA agent?
Could you see Scalia dumping states rights to hand Gore the Presidency in 2000?
Could you imagine the howls of dissent if Clinton told our enemies to bring it in?
Is there any doubt we'd live in a one party country if the Dems were in charge on 9/11/2001?
This is why we need to scrap the 2-party system.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 05:16 PM (cETWZ)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM (V2qBv)
My response to that is Gannon/Guckert: Secret Service and FBI records show that a male prostitute under an assumed name visited the Whitehouse at night without checking out over 15 times and the media isn't interested???!!! People who believe in a liberal media conspiracy need to explain that one to me.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:38 PM (Mt1UV)
Robert, with respect, I do doubt that. Remember that when 8 servicemen were killed in Mogadishu, barely a couple months into Clinton's first term, some republicans were calling for him to resign. Throughout the 90's republicans looked for any way to bring the democrat down. If Gore were in the Oval Office on 9-11-01, I have no doubt that Congressional republicans would have called for his resignation and called for immediate investigations.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:47 PM (Mt1UV)
What an idiotic statement! three words said by the President three years ago -- versus day after day of the media making statements about torture, and "possible" use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq, Cindy Sheenan, anti-war protests covered 24/7, fake coffins and "Grim Milestones", Micheal Moore movies, congressman calling for a full withdrawal of troops, hours and hours of media coverage of Senators and Congressman accusing the President of the United States of lying about the intelligence.....
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:10 PM (CcXvt)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:24 PM (Mt1UV)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:26 PM (Mt1UV)
Anti-war protests covered 24/7?
By who, Al-Jazeera?
I remember them briefly being covered by the press before the war. I also remember the protesters were mocked in that same coverage as "professional protesters, tree-huggers, pacafists, etc.
I think a better name for the protesters might be "prescient".
I also remember the president saying he will not govern based on the ideas of "focus groups". Which must have sent the energy company executives into a tizzy.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 06:33 PM (cETWZ)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:37 PM (Mt1UV)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:40 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (Mt1UV)
If you believe the words of terrorists, you are indeed special.
So let me see if this makes sense to you:
United States attacks and destroys all terrorist, and insurgent resistance in the City of Fallujah.
Terrorists attack a wedding party, during a strike against civilian Hotels in Jordan killing fellow Muslim citizens then quote it was justified because of the American attack on Fallujah, I don't even know how you even had the balls to quote that.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (CcXvt)
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:56 PM (Mt1UV)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:57 PM (rUyw4)
You used one of the most unpopular terrorist attacks, to prove a point that terrorists do not care what the U.S people, or politicians say, I guess I missed the point.
It's not questioning the Government that is "unamerican" it's the constant attack against the United States armed forces, that is unamerican -- even your comments regarding civilian attacks, using chemical weapons (and you accuse me of hysteria?) point to the fundamental point I am making, you believe the worse of the U.S army at any given time, without proof or doing any research. You believe the enemy -- that my friend is unamerican.
It's the same as the people that are demonstrating outside Walter Reed and taunting wounded soldiers, and people carrying flag-draped coffins in Veterans days marches, that crosses the line from questioning the Government, to attacking the Soldiers and that is unamerican.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 07:10 PM (CcXvt)
Bill,
sounds like spin to me. An argument could just as easily be made that Bush could have strengthened the terrorism case BY bombing the camp. Obviously, when handed a list of several hundred viable targets by the Pentagon, Bush made some choices, and now the usual political spinmeisters and conspiracy theorists are having their usual heyday with it.
Similarly, I'm not going to second guess Bill. Hindsight is 20/20, and I only raised the issue because people in glass houses like that shouldn't throw stones.
And I never got caught up in the Monica affair given I was a Democrat at the time. I still like Bill, actually, but he perjured himself in a sexual harrassment suit and he was rightly punished for it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 07:57 PM (8e/V4)
When did Murtha, Michael Moore, etc carry out any, never mind constant, attacks against the United States armed forces?
By the way, you might want to point your missives at the Republican controlled Congress, who can't find a cut to veteran's benefits they won't support.
I don't think Bill believes the enemy, he's just pointing out what they've said.
You believe the Bush administration even though, at this point, it flies in the face of common sense.
Here's some news for you, sometimes those in authority lie.
And unless you are a CEO or part of the top-earning 1% super rich in this country, your President is not acting in your best interests.
Just thought you should know.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 07:58 PM (cETWZ)
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?
Michael Moore
Comparing the terrorists in Iraq, who use homicide bombs to kill civilians and united states soldiers to the founding fathers of America, and saying they'll defeat our Soldiers -- I'm sure you don't find that offensive but I'm sure the soldiers do.
Robert: He does believe the enemy:
hey were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot.
That isn't a quote from anywhere, that is his words.
I believe the Bush Administration because I say attacking the troops is unamerican?
Reality called, says he misses you.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 08:15 PM (CcXvt)
I apologize.
I didn't realize you were in Fallujah during the attack and saw it with your own eyes.
How long have you been back?
Are you going back there anytime soon?
I hope not. I'm looking for troop-supporters, like you, to help fight the veterans benefit reductions the Republican-controlled Congress is trying to push through.
Feet still firmly planted on the ground,
Robert
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 12:35 AM (cETWZ)
The liberals and democrats screwed it up. It's resonable debate only if it fits their childish view of things. Anything else is unreasonable debate. Now go get your paycheck from the taxpayers and piss and moan about not getting a raise for sitting on your ass.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:44 AM (ZaAd/)
your weakly veiled sarcasm is pretty pitiful.
let me break it down for you again so maybe you can comprehend:
"used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians"
1. Phosphorus rounds, or shells are not chemical weapons.
2. The United States Armed Forces does not target Civilians.
You and Bill however, continue to make my point. When someone says something bad about Soldiers (murder/chemical weapons/torture/moonbat theory) you're on-board, you're so there, wearing your Che T-Shirt, and flying your American flag upside down, burning with fake outrage.
Here is a little newsflash for you if you believe that large portions of the U.S Armed forces, which is made up of your fellow countrymen have no problem murdering civilians, using chemical weapons and routinely take part in torture and murder then you're no longer questioning the Government you're attacking the soldiers.
Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too, and then say they were fighting against the Government and their War.
Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 07:00 AM (CcXvt)
dave,
Robert accuses them of wantonly killing civilians with chemical weapons and the he cries in his soup for their "veterans benefits". LOL! These people just won't get their story straight. More likely he thinks he's found a wedge in yet another lame attempt to vilifiy "Bush".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 08:59 AM (8e/V4)
Thank you! And thank you for defanging the trolls on this thread. They truly are scum. They demoncrats did everything in their power to disenfranchise military personel in the last election, and then they have the cheek to come in here and accuse our soldiers of all kinds of atrocities.
I tell you I am sick of their kind. I would hate to know what I would do if one of these punks even tried to spit on one of our soldiers in my presence. Jail or not, I would do everything in my power to put the little punks(guy or girl) lights out.
When all the soldiers get back, the Left in this country will have some things they will have to answer for.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 10:22 AM (rUyw4)
WTF are you talking about?
You're both on this thread to vilify the left because in your tiny minds, those that think this war is wrong hate our soldiers.
(and those that think 2+2 doesn't equal 6 hate numbers).
Idiots.
Listen up morons. I like the soldiers. I feel bad they've been thrown into a disastrous situation without the proper numbers or battle gear (like the cut in veterans benefits we're not supposed to talk about that either--lest the hypocrisy becomes overwhelming).
Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in?
Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops?
No we cut taxes for the richest 1% earners in this country, but pay no attention to the fact our soldiers were sent to battle without the right gear.
(See, 2+2 does equal 4).
You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick.
BTW, you're the last 2 people to admit it. Everyone else already knows.
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:15 PM (cETWZ)
I apologize for sinking to their level in the last reply.
It's just that it's aggravating to have them make believe they miss the point so consistently.
First they start by saying the left hates our soldiers, unlike the Bush supporters.
When I point out Bush's "bring it on line", they dismiss it.
When i point out the lack of funding for the war and the vets, they miss that one too.
They may not be idiots, but they play idiots on the web.
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:22 PM (cETWZ)
Robert
Robert accuses Soldiers of commiting atrocities in the battle for Fallujah, then wrings his hands in anguish that Veterans are not getting their benefits, what next Robert are you going to suggest we need to purchase Ace bandages for those injured by repetitive stress syndrome from kicking puppies?
Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in?
Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops?
Are you? no one is idiot!
let me guess you had a pan drive, to collect pans from your neighbours to melt down to make bombers ala WWII?
You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick.
Bzzzt! wrong, I didn't vote Moron! thanks for playing!
You don't care about veterans, or the soldiers, you're just playing that card as a "zinger" towards the republicans the closest your side gets to Veteran care is standing outside Walter Reed taunting the wounded soldiers.
You're slime.
Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 03:03 PM (CcXvt)
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:15 PM (cETWZ)
Care to lie about me again?
The soldiers represent Americans. I am an American.
Why do you hate our soldiers??
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:18 PM (cETWZ)
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
This is what you get when a cartoon character leads your country.
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:20 PM (cETWZ)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM (rUyw4)
You know damned well the Demoncrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers, and you are a liar if you say otherwise.
You accuse others of missing your points, and then ignore anything they say, so pot...kettle....black, do these words mean anything to you?
Now, what I think. I wish our soldiers were home today, not tomorrow. I have too many friends and relatives either wounded or killed(my wife's cousin was killed there last year) in Iraq already. But I have enough sense to know that we cannot leave Iraq until we have the situation stabalized, and their Army or Guard is ready to take over. If Iraq is left to the radicals, then it will be used as a springboard to engulf the region in a major war, most unlike what we have there now.
No one I know wants a war just for the sake of war, and the Left constantly saying that is nothing but a lie. If you think that, then you, sir, are wrong...wrong....wrong!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 04:07 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 05:37 PM (8e/V4)
Oh that's right, because someone with a keyboard and internet access said so.
How about a little proof? And don't tell me its because some film maker made a comment about how our troops shouldn't be in Iraq.
1) he's a film maker, and 2) he's right.
Now to your second point: I agree, we need to get our troops out of harm's way, but that's going to be a difficult task. The US is in a "you broke it, you fix it" situation.
Unfortunately, I think Civil War in Iraq is inevitable due to tribal history.
I don't have any answers for how we can make this work for both the US and Iraqi citizens.
Another of my concerns is that the US does not want democracy in Iraq. Our nations history has often shown this to be the case (Chile 1973, Iran 1952, etc). Are we really going to sit by and let Iraq control their own resources and cut better deals with the Chinese than with us?
I tend to think that those who pushed this war will think it was unsuccessful if that happens.
One thing we should all (left, right and middle) have learned from this debacle is that "BEFORE we let our leaders start a war is EXACTLY the time to question them".
I'm all for disdain of the Dems and the Left, but
it's because they let themselves be cowed by a bunch of clueless cowboys.
The tough questions (like "where's the proof", "what's the plan", etc) were never asked for fear that their Patriotism would be called into play. What a bunch of weenies.
As to jesusland carlos,
I've already pointed out how concerned the republicans are for our troops. (Not at all).
So other than me and you, who else?
Happy Thanksgiving to the troops. Hope to see you back in the US soon.
Posted by: Robert at November 24, 2005 11:05 AM (cETWZ)
34 queries taking 0.072 seconds, 297 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.