Pentagon: You’re Either Blogging With Us Or Against Us
Pentagon: You’re Either Blogging With Us Or Against Us
Soldiers’ blogs are increasingly being shut down by the U.S. military.
In November, the Pentagon issued an advisory titled “Loose blogs may blow up BCTs [Bridade Combat Teams].” In an August video message, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker warns troops about the dangerous nature of blogs:
Our adversaries have the ability to take our utterances, our writings and our pictures and do all kinds of things to harm us.
New York Army National Guard Spc. Jason Christopher Hartley had his blog shut down, was fined $1,000, and was demoted from sergeant. Hartley noted that blogs “get shut down almost as fast as they’re set up.”
But not all blogs. “The ones that stay up are completely patriotic and innocuous, and they’re fine if you want to read the flag-waving and how everything’s peachy keen in Iraq.”
A recent Washington Post story backs up Hartley’s observation. The U.S. Marines were so happy with Bill Roggio’s right-wing blog “The Fourth Rail” that they invited him to come to Iraq and cover the war. When he needed an affiliation with with an organization to get media credentials, the conservative American Enterprise Institute graciously offered him one.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
122 Responses to “Pentagon: You’re Either Blogging With Us Or Against Us”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I did not know that join the "Arm of One" made you a MIND OF ONE.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:44 amAll you hear from these military folks are discussions about "Democracy". It really bothers me. Were they discussing "Democracy" when they were storming beaches at Normandy. No. They were fighting the enemy.
Do our soldiers fight in wars anymore?
January 4th, 2006 at 10:49 amDo our soldiers fight? Or do they nation-build? How can you delegate political roles to soldiers and expect them to NOT be political?
January 4th, 2006 at 10:52 amThe post-Saddam occupation of Iraq is one of the worst misuses of the American military in our history. Despite the fact that our troops are doing the best job they can to secure (and re-secure) parts of the country, the term "Secure and Hold" is meant to be a temporary objective, not a multi-year project...
We owe so much to the troops, the least of which are (1) Committing our troops only under the gravest of threats and (2) NOT misusing them to accomplish loosely defined long-term objectives.
The civilian pentagon is batting 0/2
January 4th, 2006 at 10:58 amSoldier bloggers: You’re either with us or we’ll shut you down
The Pentagon is shutting down soldiers’ blogs, which seems reasonable enough to protect national and operational security, except that the policy is not uniform. If the blogs are a flag-waving, all-positive-news, “patriotic” blog, yo...
January 4th, 2006 at 10:59 am'See no truth,hear no truth and speak no truth'. This never works, people in the military still have thoughts and opinions of their own, no matter how much brain washing they try.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:03 amBringing "freedom" to the Iraqi people, not our soldiers.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:03 amMy brother, a decorated fighter pilot, served for eight years under a Commander-in Chief he did not vote for and presumably, had no personal respect for. However, NEVER once would my honourable brother say or do anything to to demonstrate a lack of respect for President Clinton, his advisers or the mission to which he was assigned. Think Pessimism and progs who contribute here ALWAYS seem to ENJOY dissent in the ranks.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:11 amThe pace of their freedom taking is quickening.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:13 amNesxt thing you know, we're NEXT. IF we let this bastard get away with it.
He's planning to be in Chicago this Friday spewing his lies. Susan and I will be there with mic in hand as well as a camera to record the goings on.
Here's some info from an email I received:
"Mr. Bush is visiting the Board of Trade and then speaking to the Economic Club of Chicago at the Hilton at 720 S. Michigan Avenue. The Hilton is right across from Grant Park, where the demonstration will occur."
"There was some discussion about doing a demonstration at the Board of Trade, but that is a very crowded area. There may be a few protesters there, but, since no one knows how the "authorities" will act, it is best to stay with the larger group - safety in numbers."
"It is recommended we meet up in Grant Park at 11AM. For those of us coming in from the suburbs, we could plan to meet at Union Station at 10:30 on the Chicago River side and then go down to Grant Park as a group."
"We're hoping that several thousand people show up, and from the number of groups represented last night, that does seem possible. The more people that show up, the more "tolerant" the authorities will have to be."
"For those of you who remember 1968, this is a very significant site. We don't want a repeat of that, but we do want to be heard and we want Mr. Bush to feel unwelcome in Chicago."
"Just like any peaceful protest, stay with a large group. If police or other authorities ask you to do something that you know violates your constitutional rights, this is not the place to have that discussion. There will be several legal groups monitoring the situation and police reaction."
So, if you're from Chicago like me, here's the ample opportunity to show your support for impeachment. The time in NOW to ACT. Let's get off our asses and stop the excuses and get this prick out of the white house.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:19 amThis is my first comment on TP, and I consider myself a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I don't affiliate with either party, and I am definitely a Bush-hater.
I believe in free speech, and the the truth should out, generally. But now that we are in this war (a war I didn't agree with), I feel that we ought to do what we can to win it (which I define as establishing a relatively peaceful and stable Iraq, without a significant lasting US presence). And part of winning *any* war is winning the PR battle.
Don't blogs like the one cited (go read it, I did) harm that effort? Every war sucks. Every war has propaganda. To what extent is it important for Joe on the street to know that soldiers are unhappy, to see gory images, if it undermines the effort to win the conflict and get people home?
Or put another way, short of uncovering the types of things that are illegal even during war, how do blogs like this one *help*? Clearly something about them is valued over their detrimental effects. What is it?
January 4th, 2006 at 11:21 am#11, Kit, the point is this, I think: its not so much the shutting down of the negative blogs that is the issue, its the fact that it does not seem to be uniform - blogs which are positive are allowed to continue. Is blogging itself the problem, or only having an opinion which appears to contradict the position of the administration? If you think that holding a differing opinion is 'detrimental', then perhaps you are not interested in the truth so much as 'winning the PR battle'. I would say that lying about the conditions in Iraq by only allowing positive blogging is not 'winning the PR battle'.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:32 amNo, mighty, it's about Bush's credibility. You will never in a million years argue a logical, cogent, healthy comparison between Clinton and Bush.
Bush is a feeble-minded war criminal.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:33 amMy brother, a decorated fighter pilot, served for eight years under a Commander-in Chief he did not vote for and presumably, had no personal respect for. However, NEVER once would my honourable brother say or do anything to to demonstrate a lack of respect for President Clinton, his advisers or the mission to which he was assigned. Think Pessimism and progs who contribute here ALWAYS seem to ENJOY dissent in the ranks.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 4, 2006 @ 11:11 am
I have some questions for you MA. What in the world does Clinton have to do with anything? People aren't questioning the actions of this administration because they didn't vote for Bush or because they don't have respect for him. They are attempting to hold elected officials accountable for policies and procedures that are detrimental to the american people. If the Bush administration was democratic, I would still be outraged by their actions. Towing the party line has never been a hobby of mine.
Any soldier that is willing to put his/her life on the line for this country should enjoy the same freedoms that civilians do. It should frighten the heck out of you that even within the ranks of the military, dissent is being squashed. Your brother made the choice to keep any concerns he might have had to himself. Good for him. That doesn't mean that all military personnel must follow his example. What works for your brother may not necessarily work for the next man. It doesn't make your brother any more or less honorable than those currently serving who choose to express themselves.
Why are you so afraid of differing opinions? It seems to make you nervous when everyone isn't marching lock step behind Bush. Welcome to America. *waving* Remember that we are the land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE. There is nothing brave about being a sheep.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:33 amI'm an Army civilian, and I get the memos and briefings about blog security. The big issue is soldiers potentially giving away too much information that can then be used against them by enemy forces. I agree that this is a realistic national security concern.
Of course, many times this issue is expanded to justify shutting down soldiers' blogs that speak poorly of the war--i.e., showing "lack of morale" to enemies. I agree with ICV that, if soldiers' blogs are being shut down for security reasons, the powers that be shouldn't discriminate between pro- and anti-war soldier blogs.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:36 amBE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE........only if you think like me.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:38 amHmm. Let me put this another way.
Let's assert for sake of argument that the war in Iraq *IS* going terribly, and the administration is hiding that.
Let's further assert that soldiers post blogs saying how miserable they are, showing pictures of terrible living conditions for both soldiers and Iraqis, that they express doubts they can win, and so on.
However, let's further assert that these blogs do not present evidence of ar craimes or other atrocities (which is not germane to this debate; I think those things *should* be reported in any way possible).
So, the war is sucking, the administration wants to gloss over it, but soldiers in the field report that truth.
How does that help? In what way does it improve the situation over there?
And because war is so terrible, don't you think even a conflict with very noble goals would have plenty of these "I hate it here" blogs?
January 4th, 2006 at 11:38 am#14, you wasting your time 8, MA is in the 'dissent is treason' camp. Links rechts, links rechts...
January 4th, 2006 at 11:39 am#17 Freedom of Speech is our right. We aren't a nation of people with one goal at a time above all others. We are a complex nation that has the right to say anything we want, whenever we want. We shouldn't be shut up or shut down because it is seen by some as counterproductive to certain of goals.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:43 am#17, I boil it down to this: blogs are an opinion (as you correctly assert, they don't usually carry a lot of evidence - they are subjective), suppressing an opinion in favor of another opinion is deceitful. It erodes the public trust in government and that is more damaging to the country long term than the effect it has on the conflict.
Put another way, would you trust a government with you or your son's life, if you knew they lied to you (by omission) about what they did with that trust?
January 4th, 2006 at 11:44 amyou're either fer us or a Guinness...
January 4th, 2006 at 11:47 am#8 honourable? Like colour? Like George Washington said 'it would be unpatriotic NOT to question our president.' No one should tow a line they disagree with just because they think speaking their opinion would somehow harm the nation. That is not rational and not what our nation is about.
Freedom. What's the problem with it?
January 4th, 2006 at 11:48 amTheodore Roosevelt -- no greater superpatriot -- said in 1918 during the First World War: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
January 4th, 2006 at 11:52 am#17 Kit:
So, the war is sucking, the administration wants to gloss over it, but soldiers in the field report that truth.
How does that help? In what way does it improve the situation over there?
Comment by Kit — January 4, 2006 @ 11:38 am
The current administration continues to attempt to snow the american people into believing that things are going great in Iraq. Whenever negative media reports surface, the spin machine revs up and glosses over things by blaming the media, liberals or unpatriotic americans. Negative reports are blamed for causing low troop morale and are said to give aid and comfort to "the terrorists" (whoever they may be). How telling is it then for military personnel to blog about lack of equipment, poor living conditions and homesickness? If venting about things improves the mental health of a soldier, then I say blog away. Better that avenue than holding it in until u explode.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:53 am"Servile and morally treasonable".... yup, that wraps it up for this thread.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:54 am#24, didn't the body and humvee armor question that has trickled into the media come from the dissent of the troops? And Rummy's famous 'army you have, not the army you want' incident.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:56 am"My brother, a decorated fighter pilot, served for eight years under a Commander-in Chief he did not vote for and presumably, had no personal respect for."
Right, MA. I'll bet your brother wished Clinton had lied him into a war where 2100+ of his fellow troops were killed, weakened our national security by bogging us down in an occupation without end, and got a chance to protect the investments of Big Oil and other fatcat Republicans making a killing in a country that never attacked us.
I'll bet your brother really hates the fact that while Clinton was President for 8 years, no soldiers were lost on his watch, Clinton sucessfully prosecuted a war against fascist genocide, and brought the criminal AQ perps to justice for the 93 WTC bombing. Of course, Clinton furthered US interests using diplomacy rather than war. He made the USA the toast of the world. After 5 years of Bush criminal incompetence, we are an international pariah on our way down the road to a dictatorship.
Given Bush another couple of years....he'll lose the entire military. Except your decorated brother.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:59 amOk, one last comment and I'll shut up before I make myself a nuisance.
I think we're in this war for the wrong reasons (oil cronyism, revenge for Daddy, etc.). I think that the ill-defined "War on terror" has been used an excuse for a major power-grab by the Nixon Republicans and neocons who are still running the show.
Those things should be investigated, and done so at the highest levels. Likewise, the way the war (any war) is prosecuted should be subject to audit. There are international and national rules, and our government should act within those.
Any blog (or other source) that reveals information that truly threatens national security should be contained. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. But it's pretty clear that this blog is no security threat.
I think that the government probably takes these blogs down because: a) They are annoying to military brass, and b) On balance, they are thought to do more harm than good.
I'm just not sure how an individual soldier, short of being a whistle-blower, really contributes much to the conversation. What the system should do is pass information up, and have routine auditing mechanisms that report to Congress on potential problems. I suppose what you guys are really saying is that because you don't trust the system, these everyday reports are needed in place of that. But do we really learn much from vanilla stories about how war sucks? And are we suprised that any administration would be happy to have free puff pieces out there by friendly blogs? Heck, I'd be not at all suprised to find that Info Ops. *creates* some of the friendly blogs.
I guess the thing is that I believe this decision is fairly typical of what any administration would do in any conflict. It would be interesting to see if this approach holds should a Democrat have to clean all of this up in '08.
Anyhoo, thanks for being civil. I've kind of gotten addicted to this site; I may post more in the future since I didn't get reamed this time.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:06 pm“The ones that stay up are completely patriotic and innocuous, and they’re fine if you want to read the flag-waving and how everything’s peachy keen in Iraq.â€
I think this quote reveals a lot ... he didn't say completely patriotic OR innocuous but completely patriotic AND innocuous.
Those words mean different things ... to include them together in a way that conflates them is saying that the blogs that are allowed are "flag-waving pro war and unlikely to harm or disturb anyone" ... the first part sounds like he doesn't like the ideology represented, the second part sounds like an admittal as to why they're allowed to "stay up". Anyone else follow my logic?
Again, everyone seems to be jumping on this bandwagon of, "I see smoke so there must be a fire". We should expect that ...
January 4th, 2006 at 12:13 pm1) The military would like a blog that's pro-military (not a difficult concept).
2) The military would stifle a blog that was not innocuous.
Freedom of Speech is our right. We aren’t a nation of people with one goal at a time above all others. We are a complex nation that has the right to say anything we want, whenever we want.
Don't confuse the freedom of speech with the right to be heard ... I can say anything I want theoretically, does that mean you have to listen or, worse, facilitate my speech to others ... nope. If I wanted to stand up at an office meeting and drone about what I think needs to be improved, is my boss limiting my free speech for informing me that I'm not using an appropriate forum for my comments ... nope. No one's saying the military can't speak ... they just can't reveal certain things in an incorrect forum ... if they have a beef, voice it along the appropriate channels or else pay the consequences.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:19 pmI think, Giacomo, at the end of the day you are more interested in stating a correct description than you are with actually being somebody or having any type of engaging personality. Try focusing more on the spirit of a thread and less on how you might figure to be a part of it. Jeesh, take an early day! Go have a power lunch! You'll thank me!
January 4th, 2006 at 12:24 pm#29 Kit:
I suppose what you guys are really saying is that because you don’t trust the system, these everyday reports are needed in place of that. But do we really learn much from vanilla stories about how war sucks? And are we suprised that any administration would be happy to have free puff pieces out there by friendly blogs? Heck, I’d be not at all suprised to find that Info Ops. *creates* some of the friendly blogs.
Actually Kit, rather than have the administration highlighting puff pieces and outright buying news stories in Iraq I would prefer that we try something that actually works. Explore all diplomatic avenues. Tone down rhetoric against other nations (telling folks to "bring it on" isn't a great strategy for peace). When we must wage war, do so intelligently and strategically. When you do those things, you don't have to purchase positive press. It will come automatically.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:32 pmTry focusing more on the spirit of a thread and less on how you might figure to be a part of it. Jeesh, take an early day! Go have a power lunch! You’ll thank me!
Do you not get mad that TP makes an inference (which may or may not be true) and that everyone just jumps aboard? It's like one big party of back-slappers here, "We're right aren't we ... Yes we are ... here's more proof ... you're right ... how about this ... right again ... wow, Bush is so evil". Bush becomes more and more evil to most here precisely because you've already decided he's evil and filter any and all information as an addition to that ideal.
People aren't sheep ... I would think that "you'd" turn the critical eye that seems so keen and sharp toward Bush onto all situations and not just ones that adhere to "your" pre-conceived notions.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pmGiacomo,
No doubt the military and soldiers would like a pro-military blog, but the blog should also be respectful to
free speech. In other words, the blogs should be pro-military, but also have the right to be anti-Bush as much as it would be pro-Bush.
It's bad enough that our soldiers are being used by a Chickenhawk fraternity administration as cannon fodder, but when they take away their rights to free speech, the chickenhawks take away their chances to believe that there is a life in the military.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:49 pmNo doubt the military and soldiers would like a pro-military blog, but the blog should also be respectful to
free speech. In other words, the blogs should be pro-military, but also have the right to be anti-Bush as much as it would be pro-Bush.
I agree with you Jimbo. I realize the inference here is that liberal blogs are stopped and conservative blogs are allowed ... but citing one case (and having that person himself saying the blogs that are allowed are more innocuous) is pretty flimsy proof of the overall assertion. I've read blogs by soldiers who aren't pro-Bush (I saved them in my favorites on my other computer though) ... as far as I know, they're still up and running.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#17
Because the sooner that the country comes to the realization that the occupation of Iraq is a bad thing, the sooner we can get our soldiers out of harms way and out of the freaking desert.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:13 pmIt is, and always has been, a soldier's right to grumble. In the past they grumbled to each other, as well as in letters home. Modern technology allows them to grumble on the internet.
Are the soldiers' letters home being censored, blacking out anything that sounds like they don't like being there? If those letters were posted on the internet by their families, would those sites be shut down as well?
These soldiers are citizens of the United States. Citizens of the United States have a right to free speech.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#36 Giacomo:
I agree with you Jimbo. I realize the inference here is that liberal blogs are stopped and conservative blogs are allowed …
You are always quick to point out when people are "reaching" to make a point and when you perceive them to be making assumptions that aren't true. Aren't u guilty of the same with that statement? Who besides you has referred to the military blogs as either conservative or liberal? Nobody. You assume that any blog critical of this administration or the Iraq war is liberal. Therein lies the problem Giacomo. There are just as many conservatives concerned about the direction in which this country is headed.
but citing one case (and having that person himself saying the blogs that are allowed are more innocuous) is pretty flimsy proof of the overall assertion. I’ve read blogs by soldiers who aren’t pro-Bush (I saved them in my favorites on my other computer though) … as far as I know, they’re still up and running.
Comment by Giacomo — January 4, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Citing one case (yours) is all that you are doing. What is the difference? How about a discussion about why Bill Roggio's blog is so celebrated that he was given press credentials to go to Iraq? He isn't a journalist. His blog is just fine (pro Iraq Invasion), however blogs by soldiers that aren't favorable to the administration's goals are shut down. Go ahead and explain it Giacomo, but do it without a lot of spin and semantics. As my name implies, I prefer my debates Str8UpNoChaser.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:46 pmSee, Giacomo, I KNEW you had it in you! You deviated from the norm! You're a champ! I disagree with about half of the posts on this site. If not more. And if you don't see contrast in the commentary you're choosing not to.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:49 pmIt is my personal belief that this site is, like Air America, to overcompensate for the negligence of the Deomcratic party for many years while the GOP mastered infiltration. I don't care what people say on this site. I'm glad they're here. I'm glad you're here. Genuinely.
armies have censored operational intelligence in letters home since at least the Great War. it saves lives in the field. question is: is this example part of a deliberate pattern of suppression of the truth or not. from the embedding of the media, the unusually large number of independent journalists killed by the coalition, to stories planted in the iraqi news with us bribe money, I have to say "yes".
January 4th, 2006 at 2:03 pmLast point, your rights in the military are way different than your rights as a civillian, If you try to equate this with your civillian rights then you are making a mistake. however no decision should ever go unexamined.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:11 pmTo what extent is it important for Joe on the street to know that soldiers are unhappy, to see gory images, if it undermines the effort to win the conflict and get people home?
Well, to the extent that people realize that war is not a sport to be entered into lightly, if ever, and certainly not something to be turned into a jingoistic, nationalistic, polititcally expedient prop for someone's reelection campaign, then yes, let the people who are on actually on the ground tell what kind of hell-hole they have been sent to by hubristic warmongers and their compliant "loyal opposition." How do you know if you are winning if those who control the flow of information have no interest in allowing the truth to come out? Have we forgotten every lesson we should have learned from Vietnam? Or just that you cant' show the truth on the evening news?
January 4th, 2006 at 2:14 pmMighty Aphrodite,
January 4th, 2006 at 2:17 pmGood for you. I served with plenty of conservative officers who were very vocal about hating the then CIC, Bill Clinton. I hope you're not suggesting that only liberal soldiers have the gall to criticize the president.
By all means, keep bringing up Clinton. This can help highlight some differences such as:
1) Clinton never used the troops for political backdrop.
2) Clinton never accused his critics of being against the troops.
3) Clinton's supporters never claimed the troops are with them, against you.
4) Clinton didn't send them to war on bad intelligence.
5) Clinton fired his Sec of Defense after 18 soldiers were killed for lack of armor.
6) Clinton used the army to bring a brutal dictator to justice, prevent an ethnic cleansing, and kick al Qaeda out of a European region.
7) Clinton apologized for not preventing a genocide in Africa.
8) Clinton did not fire generals who disagreed with him.
9) Clinton destroyed what remained of Saddam's WMD capacity in 1998, making invasion totally unecessary.
Anyone got more? I like this thing about bringing up Clinton. We need more of it. Don't you miss the days when the worst complaint anyone had about the President was that he cheated on his wife? If that's your worst complaint, I wish I had your problems.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:28 pmwith morons like this, no wonder you're losing the war
January 4th, 2006 at 2:31 pm… the first part sounds like he doesn’t like the ideology represented, the second part sounds like an admittal as to why they’re allowed to “stay upâ€. Anyone else follow my logic?
Trying to. What about the link in between, "they're fine" with the qualifier, "if you want to read..." It doesn't sound like the person is really making a qualitative statement re the blogs stay up, more of a contrasting one. Maybe we are both parsing a little too much out of a short sentence.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:31 pmTo all the trolls on this board. Remember: you heard it here first from ME!!!!!!
Before long the US will be pumping money and weapons to the Iraqi Sunni muslims it is FIGHTING NOW so that it can act as a COUNTERWEIGHT to the Shite majority and its de-facto alliance with Iran. It will do this so that the Shite minority in Saudi Arabia doesn’t become uppity and dream of greater autonomy, all of which means that over 2,100 of your soldiers will have been killed, and thousands more mutilated, for NO GOOD reason. On the whole, you’re too ignorant about the rest of the world to intervene in a productive manner overseas. You just don’t have the IQ for it, and you must accept that as fact of life.
So stop attacking other countries. Spare a thought for the children of those soliders who will grow up not having a father or a mother. Apart from sexual abuse is there anything worse than that?
January 4th, 2006 at 2:35 pmWhy is this a surprise? I don't recall that the military has ever been the baston of free thought and speech. Everyone thinks and acts alike so there is no dissention or whistleblowers.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:39 pmBush becomes more and more evil to most here precisely because you’ve already decided he’s evil and filter any and all information as an addition to that ideal.
There is some truth to that, but I think you are caricaturing it a bit. Just as there are trolls here, i.e. M.A.'s "filthy left" comments immediately come to mind, there are some on this side that do likewise. But I don't see where the topic was inherently anti-Bush. Rather, I see it for it as a free speech issue, and an issue of what we are to/can/should expect when the administration, any administration, says we are at war. And try having this discourse at Red State or Freeperville or LGF. I'm sure the insults would be just as bad, if not worse, except of course then it would liberals/Kennedys/non-GOP military are evil, unpatriotic, treasonous, etc.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:57 pm#49 you are wrong. The military is a bastion of free thought, however, free speech... no.
Military memebers don't have a right to free speech. Just as they don't have a right to run for public office while on active duty. It's all part and parcel of the whole military gig.
As for these blogs, it's not surprising they would be shut down. These are basically high tech "bitch books". We used to have to keep them hidden when I was in the Navy. The brass doesn't like to hear about these kinds of things becaus they CAN be security leaks. Especially if you have highly classified jobs.
The military has a hard time dealing with these blogs because they aren't used to the new medium of communications. They DO try to be accomodating to a point. A really good book was written about this very thing by Colby Buzell. His book is definately worth a read.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:58 pmAren’t u guilty of the same with that statement? Who besides you has referred to the military blogs as either conservative or liberal? Nobody. You assume that any blog critical of this administration or the Iraq war is liberal. Therein lies the problem Giacomo.
Fair enough ... I should've said pro-war or anti-war and left out the part about political ideology. A statement about "right-wing" blogs being ok was made in the report, so I may not be that far off with my point.
Citing one case (yours) is all that you are doing. What is the difference? How about a discussion about why Bill Roggio’s blog is so celebrated that he was given press credentials to go to Iraq? He isn’t a journalist. His blog is just fine (pro Iraq Invasion), however blogs by soldiers that aren’t favorable to the administration’s goals are shut down.
The difference is I'm not asserting that there's a conspiracy to stifle dissent. The burden of proof is on TP who has stated that "Soldiers’ blogs are increasingly being shut down by the U.S. military" and then reported about a blogger who was shut down. That blogger stated that his site was dropped because he was critical of the war (or not wildly patriotic), but he himself admitted that other blogs who were more innocuous than his are allowed to remain. So what's the issue ... the fact that they're anti-war or the fact that they're not innocuous. People jumped on the former and turned into chicken little ... I asked (and others asked) why they assume it's not the latter. (Look at post 49 for an example).
Everyone assumes that the military is acting in an improper manner why ... because that further bolsters their opinion that the war is bad, Bush is a liar, the military kills women and children?
Maybe we are both parsing a little too much out of a short sentence.
You're probably right ...
Well, to the extent that people realize that war is not a sport to be entered into lightly, if ever, and certainly not something to be turned into a jingoistic, nationalistic, polititcally expedient prop for someone’s reelection campaign, then yes, let the people who are on actually on the ground tell what kind of hell-hole they have been sent to by hubristic warmongers and their compliant “loyal opposition.†How do you know if you are winning if those who control the flow of information have no interest in allowing the truth to come out?
I don't think anyone is so dumb as to think war is a great thing. While it may not be a fair comparison, use your logic with a WWII backdrop ... talk about hellholes. If the public had an inkling about how badly that war went at times who knows what would've happened ... the flow of information, for better or worse, has always been very tightly controlled during "wars". Perhaps the military believes that civilians are ill-prepared for the costs of war in terms of life, and will make decisions and take stances that could be detrimental to the war effort ... war isn't waged by popular vote unfortunately (but perhaps fortunately).
January 4th, 2006 at 3:11 pmThere is some truth to that, but I think you are caricaturing it a bit. Just as there are trolls here, i.e. M.A.’s “filthy left†comments immediately come to mind, there are some on this side that do likewise ... I’m sure the insults would be just as bad, if not worse, except of course then it would liberals/Kennedys/non-GOP military are evil, unpatriotic, treasonous, etc.
I thought it was IRI that used that term ... anyhow, you're right that the phenomenon I spoke about is not just a TP issue but a "human" issue. I would have hoped that the progressives would be more ....... progressive when encountering new info. though.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:14 pmSo stop attacking other countries. Spare a thought for the children of those soliders who will grow up not having a father or a mother. Apart from sexual abuse is there anything worse than that?
Comment by bad genepool
Listening to the idiotic musings of poorly raised and educated children like yourself?
January 4th, 2006 at 3:16 pm#31 Reveal certain things in an incorrect forum. That is subjective. I find speaking out for everyone. When we stifle those in the military, we may find it much harder to get the class of folks we want. We are already having an extremely tough time recruiting now and this does not make it more attractive.
I am not confused at all.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIRI is to be ignored. He provides nothing positive and, if you will look at other posts of his, he is an extremist. If he wishes to humiliate himself that is fine, I would rather us not give him undue attention.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:20 pmNew York Army National Guard Spc. Jason Christopher Hartley had his blog shut down, was fined $1,000, and was demoted from sergeant. Hartley noted that blogs “get shut down almost as fast as they’re set up.â€
Good. MSM is bad enough without the ranting of disaffected boys in uniform. There has never been a happy soldier in war time and if there were they were surely nutcases.
It's amazing to me that "Think Communist" wants to give our enemies yet another weapon to use against our soldiers. I guess it shouldn't be.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pmBush does NOT want any soldiers in Iraq to tell the truth, about his fiasco, so he wants them silenced!
The Iraq occupation must END ASAP!
January 4th, 2006 at 3:31 pmIn my 17 years of experience in the active army and the reserves, #14, Mighty Aphrodite, your brother would be the exeption rather than the rule. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, I routinely heard self-described conservatives, enlisted and commissioned, active and reserve, engage in the following behaviors:
January 4th, 2006 at 3:35 pm1. Declaring that Clinton was unfit to lead,
2. Fantasizing about Clinton's assassination,
3. Making disgusting sexual remarks about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, who was a young teenager at the time,
4. Stating their intentions to vote multiple absentee ballots against Clinton in the 1996 election,
5. Fantasizing about then-VP Gore's assassination.
So kudos to your brother. I'd like to meet him and buy him a beer. He'd be the first conservative in uniform that I've met that was actually worth a damn. The ones I know today do a lot of cheering for the Bush administration, but they do everything they can to get out of the next mobilization.
I thought it was IRI that used that term … anyhow, you’re right that the phenomenon I spoke about is not just a TP issue but a “human†issue. I would have hoped that the progressives would be more ……. progressive when encountering new info. though.
Comment by Giacomo
Progressives don't "encounter" new information. They ignore it.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:36 pmBush does NOT want any soldiers in Iraq to tell the truth, about his fiasco, so he wants them silenced!
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Who said anything about Bush shutting down blogs. Do you honestly think that he has so much time on his hands as to care what Private Disaffected posts on a blog? It's the military's job to handle this issue and help their soldiers ... it's also their job to win the engagement. How they operate is to assist that end ... not to stifle "free speech". Soldiers do not have the same liberties (espcially "in country") as civilians can excercise.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#57 IRI:
Good. MSM is bad enough without the ranting of disaffected boys in uniform. There has never been a happy soldier in war time and if there were they were surely nutcases.
Oh STFU why don't u? Isn't it funny how you've gone from referring to soldiers as honorable men fighting for our country to calling them "disaffected boys in uniform". Are the only honorable soldiers those that share your political views? What a crock.
It’s amazing to me that “Think Communist†wants to give our enemies yet another weapon to use against our soldiers. I guess it shouldn’t be.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 4, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Another weapon...you've got to be kidding me. You really believe that Bin Ladin is in a cave reading blogs right now? Do you really believe that Al Zarqawi has time in between bombings to check out blogs? Give me a break.
No new weapon is needed by "the enemy". They can use any weapon they choose against our soldiers because we have placed them in a centralized location to act as bait. Remember we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. This is a terrorists dream. Instead of spending years plotting to pull off something spectacular, they can pick off soldiers daily. But I guess none of that matters as long as you feel safer lying in your bunkbed wearing your Winnie the Pooh pj's. You're so full of shit that I can smell you from here.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:38 pmHe’d be the first conservative in uniform that I’ve met that was actually worth a damn. The ones I know today do a lot of cheering for the Bush administration, but they do everything they can to get out of the next mobilization.
Comment by progressive soldier
Bullshit from a ratbastardcommie liar.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI knew the minute i looked at the McCain anti torture bullshit …I did not mention anything about stopping CIA from handing prisoners to foreign countries for torture…I knew I knew it I knew it , worthless rhetoric by bush and his cronies once again ….its all spin once again…. what i would like to see is an American hostage in iraq waterboarded live on video …They should have a medic present to revive him a couple of times just like the CIA. then once again tip him upside down into a bathtub made of glass filled with water so we can all see…the American hostages last breaths …That might make America come to upstorm the Idiot Nazi of a president …HAS ANYONE SEEN THE ALEX JONES AND THE OLD BUSHES BEING MONEY LAUNDERERS FOR HITLER…..thats whats happening to your country at the moment……..
January 4th, 2006 at 3:45 pmAnother weapon…you’ve got to be kidding me. You really believe that Bin Ladin is in a cave reading blogs right now?
I'd be surprised if Al Qaeda leadership wasn't.
How come when I said that the NY times helped terrorists when they revealed the NSA is eavesdropping on them ... the progressive response I got was "Terrorists aren't stupid ... they know we have that technology ... they were avoiding correspondance that could be traced".
Now you say that the terrorists "Don't read US Soldier blogs" and "Don't have time because they're on the run".
Which is it ... are they savvy computer experts who can deftly move amongst us in our own country or are they illiterate cave men lacking the inclination to source intel from our own news and blogs, whilst on the run in their own country .
I realize you weren't the one who said the original statements, but I find it odd that the arguments seem to consistently (and "contradictorily") change.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:45 pmI knew the minute i looked at the McCain anti torture bullshit …I did not mention anything about stopping CIA from handing prisoners to foreign countries for torture…I knew I knew it I knew it , worthless rhetoric by bush and his cronies once again ….its all spin once again…. what i would like to see is an American hostage in iraq waterboarded live on video …They should have a medic present to revive him a couple of times just like the CIA. then once again tip him upside down into a bathtub made of glass filled with water so we can all see…the American hostages last breaths …That might make America come to upstorm the Idiot Nazi of a president …HAS ANYONE SEEN THE ALEX JONES AND THE OLD BUSHES BEING MONEY LAUNDERERS FOR HITLER…..thats whats happening to your country at the moment……..
January 4th, 2006 at 3:51 pmAnother weapon…you’ve got to be kidding me. You really believe that Bin Ladin is in a cave reading blogs right now? Do you really believe that Al Zarqawi has time in between bombings to check out blogs? Give me a break.
One is dead and the other is hiding in some hole in Iran. I guess you think those are the only two enemies we've got?
No new weapon is needed by “the enemyâ€. They can use any weapon they choose against our soldiers because we have placed them in a centralized location to act as bait. Remember we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. This is a terrorists dream. Instead of spending years plotting to pull off something spectacular, they can pick off soldiers daily. But I guess none of that matters as long as you feel safer lying in your bunkbed wearing your Winnie the Pooh pj’s. You’re so full of shit that I can smell you from here.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
I'm not a big fan of the way the war is being fought. I Think the Sunni Triangle should have been laid waste and salted in the first week of the war but we just can't bring ourselves to kill "innocents", can we? Who's doing is that I wonder?
But here's something you don't know or don't think about because you are too busy hating Bush and decent Americans. Our boys are dying not only to keep us safe at home but to avoid the one sure tactic the American people will demand if we are attacked again on the scale of a 9-11. GENOCIDE. It's the one sure thing that works.
Whomever said, "we can't kill a billion Muslims can we?" either doesn't know that yes, we can, or doesn't really want to think about it. There is a reason so many of the Islamic states are starting to fall in line and liberalize and it has nothing to do with your wishing it so.
You should really leave the thinking to those of us with a brain.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:53 pmyou know to join the army you must have a minimum IQ of about 2 or 3 ..its blood money your paid in ....Im against any army there really to protect dictatorships against a rebellion...then the dictatorship starts a war to justify why the armys there in the first place ...sell weapons to foreign countries by the ship load then start a war with their neighbours its big money ...BUT to kill for a living because your cannot get a job in civilian street ..have shit for brains eh ....stuff armies
Al Queda please waterboard the next American hostage you get and i hopre its an army boy ...live by the sword die by the sword complete idiots all of you
January 4th, 2006 at 4:08 pmwhat i would like to see is an American hostage in iraq waterboarded live on video …They should have a medic present to revive him a couple of times just like the CIA. then once again tip him upside down into a bathtub made of glass filled with water so we can all see…the American hostages last breaths …
Comment by Bushes best friend
What I'd like to see is your head sitting on your chest in a jihadi video. In fact, that almost happened to Rachael Corey's parents last week. Left Wing Losers just don't quite get the picture.
In a separate incident on Wednesday which further underscored the growing lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian gunmen burst into a house in and tried to kidnap the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was killed in 2003 as she protested the impending demolition of a house in the southern Gaza town, according to their host.
The five gunmen, who also appeared to be affiliated to the ruling Fatah movement, eventually relented after being told who their targets were, according to Samir Nasrallah, in whose house the couple was staying.
Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to stop it from demolishing Nasrallah’s house. Her parents, Craig and Cindy, have repeatedly visited Nasrallah since. They left Gaza safely after the incident, Nasrallah said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/666195.html
January 4th, 2006 at 4:11 pmBullshit another army moron with shit for brains
January 4th, 2006 at 4:13 pmcannot ever remember seeing a beheading video from Palestine only Iraq say ...and to be honest by god did they deserve it ... live by the sword die by the sword.??
the dogs of war
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
OZZY
January 4th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#67
So, you are saying decent Americans will call for Genocide against Arabs, if we are attacked again on a scale of 9/11.
You are a fvcking crazy nut job.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#71
That is actually War Pigs. Dogs of War was a Pink Floyd song.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:21 pm"What I’d like to see is your head sitting on your chest in a jihadi video. In fact, that almost happened to Rachael Corey’s parents last week. Left Wing Losers just don’t quite get the picture."I-RIGHT-I
Left Wing people don't get the picture? Is that the picture where you 'wish' decapitation to occur? What again separates you from other rightwing terrorists? Is it that you haven't committed a crime yet, or that you haven't been caught?
I'm failing to see any difference in your attitude, than the head choppers, yet I see a lot of difference between the attitudes of the head choppers and 'liberals'. Clearly you're fighting a jihad, because I don't recognize anything 'american' about you or your values. That's what's 'not gotten' here - at least by you...
January 4th, 2006 at 4:26 pmposter 61 > Bush claims that he is "commander in Chief" of the armed forces, so he can tell the military to silence soldiers who criticize him on blogs!
Only Bush and his cronies are furious about bloggers!
January 4th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#69
Yo I-RIGHT-I. Do you read what you quote or do your handlers tell you it is not important.
Here is your quote:
Here is what you wrote:
Do you see what is wrong? The name is Corrie not Corey. Know what you are quoting if you plan quoting something. It shows just how much you don't give a crap.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:36 pmranting of disaffected boys in uniform.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 4, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Private Disaffected posts on a blog
Comment by Giacomo — January 4, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Coincidence? I think not. Either you both read through your talking points memo today or IRI and Giacomo are the same person. LMAO That's hilarious! Is that why Giacomo posted when I addressed IRI? CTFU
#65 Giacomo/IRI:
Another weapon…you’ve got to be kidding me. You really believe that Bin Ladin is in a cave reading blogs right now?
I’d be surprised if Al Qaeda leadership wasn’t.
Blogs? Seriously...blogs? How ridiculous do u sound? These fear tactics are not going to work. We have this thing called free speech in America. That right doesn't go away during war time. This administration have you and your ilk scared to tell yourself the truth let alone discuss it with others. Everything is a security risk. Look around u dude. Despite the administrations rhetoric, we are not safer. Borders aren't protected. Harbors aren't safe. Loose nuclear material hasn't been secured. Chemical plant security hasn't been increased. If an attack happened tomorrow, we wouldn't be ready for it. Yet all they have to do is tell u that u are safer if they shut down blogs and u believe it. Could your head be buried any further in the sand? The only reason we haven't had an attack is because they don't have to bother to plan one. They can just have their fun blowing up our soldiers that are trained for military action, not to serve a bait.
How come when I said that the NY times helped terrorists when they revealed the NSA is eavesdropping on them … the progressive response I got was “Terrorists aren’t stupid … they know we have that technology … they were avoiding correspondance that could be tracedâ€.
It wasn't just a "progressive response". Do you really believe that before the NYT story, terrorists were unaware that the US wiretaps? Was that really a revelation to them or is it a convenient excuse to hide behind? Rhetorical question really.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:39 pmHa ha ha ...Im sure that blogger is some guy general in an army base sitting writting responses the army has been programmed with Ha ha ha
January 4th, 2006 at 4:40 pmHey anyway all you soldiers in Iraq now will have died in five years from depleted uranium shells poisoning
thats why they employ dumb shitasses for the army that dont have a brain ...helps you see they dont know why there dying of the poisoning
January 4th, 2006 at 4:46 pmThree places Americans don't have all of their rights.
1. Jail/Prison
2. Public Schools
3. The Military
January 4th, 2006 at 4:57 pmFor Truth,
You forgot a big one.
4. At Work
January 4th, 2006 at 5:20 pm5. Under Bush
January 4th, 2006 at 5:52 pm6. As a government employee (political oppression)
January 4th, 2006 at 6:41 pm7. On the phone (wiretapping)
8. On the internet (wiretapping)
#59 those are crimes punishable under the UCMJ if I'm not mistaken. You think those same conservatives would turn in someone who made similar comments about Bush today?
I was in during the 1980's and no one talked too much about the CIC. Mostly they appreciated the large salary increases that came on board, but generally the troops I knew had no affinity for Reagan. Of course I was fortunate enough to see the imortale SGT York in action and things like that always made us lose respect for the admin.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:23 pmMan, is someone scared to death.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:33 pmCoincidence? I think not. Either you both read through your talking points memo today or IRI and Giacomo are the same person. LMAO That’s hilarious! Is that why Giacomo posted when I addressed IRI? CTFU
Talk about a huge reach ... anyone who has read both of our posts knows that we aren't the same person ... believe what you want though. His post was just prior to mine and I used the same word ...
It wasn’t just a “progressive responseâ€. Do you really believe that before the NYT story, terrorists were unaware that the US wiretaps?
Well ... I was unaware of them, as likely were you. But I'm sure Al Qaeda knows more about this stuff than you or I. Your point doesn't really address my question but rather snipes at one part of it ... which of the two is it. Are they savvy enough to know how the NSA operates or are they too stupid to read military blogs (which could reveal some info.). On one hand you tell me the enemy is incredibly knowledgeable and on the other you say they wouldn't read a blog ... ?
We have this thing called free speech in America. That right doesn’t go away during war time.
Actually it does for the military (in spite of the fact that you used bold type to make your point (which is kind of annoying)).
January 4th, 2006 at 9:41 pmFYI DUmmy Liberals, soldiers do NOT have the right to free speech, or many of the other things talked about in the constitution. That soldier has NO right of free speech. Shutting down his blog is totally legal under the UCMJ.
And in fact, it is dangerous as the enemy can use it against us,the same way they use all the quotes from Teddy "gimme another shot" Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi against us. All you dummy liberals that deny the threat of the islamic radicals are fools, pure and simple. Bush has faults, plenty of them, but by God atleast he is DOING SOMETHING about that threat.
BTW- to the guy that said that Bush knew 9-11 was gonna happen? you are a nut bag, seek help SOON.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:33 pm"Al Queda please waterboard the next American hostage you get and i hopre its an army boy …live by the sword die by the sword complete idiots all of you"
You know what loser? You talk a lot of crap about soldiers. Wonder how much youwould say in front of one...........
Friggin whimp
January 4th, 2006 at 11:15 pmThis whole thing is sadly funny on all sides. I'm not sure what's dumber, the rightwingnuts like Dummy liberals with their ball-scratching insults, or the article itself that fails to mention the role the liberal blogs have played in the censorship.
The military only really got a bug up its ass about disrespect for the dead after the huge stink that the liberal blogs made late last September about an amateur porn site that gave free access to people who could prove they were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some of those people (that's right, some not even close to all) sent really gory pics as proof, and the site published them. Well, that got the liberal blogs into a tizzy about "Gore-For-Porn." In turn, that got picked up by the mainstream media, and the military was pressured to crack down on graphic pics on milblogs.
The amateur porn site, of course, was shut down and its operator put in jail. The liberal blogs fell silent on that issue and let the guy rot. Even though the porn itself was no big deal; the gore was no worse than gory pictures from other wars; and there was no trading of "gore for porn," but rather gore was accepted as one -- but not the only -- form of proof of being deployed.
The liberal blogosphere's unstated objection was that the porn site guy didn't include a bunch of mawkish, anti-war cheeseball crapola with the gory pics -- you know, a liberal version of those yellow ribbons on the SUVs of Middle America.
Fast forward to now, and the Pentagon shuts down milblogs with anything other than a sanitized view of the war. Congratulations, liberal bloggers, particular John Aravosis of Americablog.com, which rode the bogus "gore-for-porn scandal" story for all it was worth. Because of you, a candid window into the battlefield has been shut down.
No one should kid themselves about the "antiwar liberals." Even though I'm one of them myself, there are a whole lot of antiwar liberals who are puritan censors underneath the skin and as such are no better than the rightwingnut fringe.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:40 pmName the Military base you want to meet at and which gate and I would be happy to meet you there.
BTW, US Army bitch.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:16 amcwilson,
The only problem with your entire post is that is is the right wing conservative media that is worried about porn or gory pictures.
See as soon as you labeled the media as liberal, you lost all credibility.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:19 amBush only wants his propaganda view of the Iraq Occupation foisted onto Americans, so soldiers are not allowed to blog the truth any longer! Bush wants fiction only, not reality!
January 5th, 2006 at 1:41 amAn intelligent man once said that real thruth can only be found inside opposite opinions. Closing down left blogs and securing all 'right' blogs is something every sensible person expects from the thief-in-chief. However, it should scare the s**t out of everyone looking for thruth in life and in open discussion. The problem of the 'right' is that their arguement(s) makes even less sense than the current 'war' in Iraq. The left arguement is far more sophisticated and will always contain more truth than the tiny amount of sense that is in the 'right' arguement. (I admit there is a little sense in it) Therefor, the right-wingers use everything they can use to keep the guerilla-attack on the left going. This goes from banning black people who once misparked their car from democratic power to shutting up everyone making sensible points in the mass media (just read Michael Moore). Bush-supporters, answer me this question: How was it necessary to start a $231,581,455,625 war when you have thousands of nuclear missiles (enough to bomb the earth to atoms) and the best-funded military of the world? All Saddam needed to hear was: "give up now, or we'll kick you so bad your children will still feel the pain". ANY US president worthy of the name diplomat could have talked/threathened Saddam out of power, out of office, out of Iraq, INTO the Den Hague court for war crimes. But talking does require sense and diplomacy.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:32 amName the Military base you want to meet at and which gate and I would be happy to meet you there.
You Know of Course Violence is a form of immaturity ..just look at the mentallity of this guy
and by the way read -- The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 - David Ray Griffin
Once you read this unbiased book (factual written with no point of view and a guy that has no bad feelings towards bush ) then I might appreciate your comments
January 5th, 2006 at 7:55 amListen up Dummy, I have seen books that claim to have evidence that Elvis is still alive. Doesnt mean I buy it. You are a nut Bag. Seek help, SOON.
BTW Jericho, name the last dictator that was diposed without violence. Good Luck. You are a tool.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:35 am"Griffin draws heavily on three similarly skeptical examinations, by Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson and Thierry Meyssan, whose The Big Lie was a bestseller in France,"
That settles that. Any book that relies on meyssan is totally discredited from the start
January 5th, 2006 at 10:49 amLive by the sword die by the sword Ha ha ha dogs of war
5th January
The U.S. military, meanwhile, said a roadside bomb killed five American soldiers patrolling in the Baghdad area. Earlier, Iraqi police Capt. Rahim Slaho said a U.S. convoy was heading for Karbala when it was attacked 15 miles south of the city, and that five soldiers were killed.
Another two U.S. soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb near the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, Iraqi police said.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:52 amDummy Liberal you are really a Nazi like Bush your feurer in fact you must work 24 hours a day on this Blog site..
Wanker
January 5th, 2006 at 10:55 am#78 - HA too funny.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:15 am#67 You declaring your intelligence tells us all you don't have any. Like we can all see clearly, those who talk of their "brains" must have a reason they feel the need to tell others. They don't think anyone will notice if they don't. They are right. Pun intended.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:23 amDL - You should try to find a girlfriend. Your anger is palpable and damaging to yourself. The thoughts that you form are scary and near pathological. Until you get needed assistance, you are doing no good for your cause. You just look like a madman (not unlike Saddam) to those who you are seemingly trying to convince. When others see ranting like yours, with the namecalling and constant talk of filth and dirt, it really does appear frightening rather than your intention of sounding "smart."
I'm not trying to help you, but as a progressive, I would love for others to want to progress too. If you are representing your party, you are doing it no favors. Delay mentioned those like you as easy votes. This is because your anger overtakes you to such a point that it makes you easily manipulated. Scum like Delay use people like you to further his pocketbook because you are SO EASY.
Again, no favors from me here, I just can't keep watching you nearly implode daily. It is very stressful seeing your manic posts every single day. I know you don't care about others and won't care what anyone here thinks because we are "filthy." Filthy? Doesn't that sound irrational to you?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:34 amDim-Boy,
Nazi? let's see? have I imprisoned and executed jews? No. Have i invaded western Europe? No And neither has President Bush.
In the battle of common sense, you lose.
And by the way,5 posts doesnt indicate "living on the board" You have more posts than that by FAR. Do YOU live here 24/7? again, you lose.
Seek help
January 5th, 2006 at 11:40 amYou want to see imploding people, go read moveon or dim-o-craticunderground. THOSE people are imploding daily. I have been nothing but calm. Idiot liberals dont make me mad, they make me laugh. In typical idiot liberal fashion, you ignored everything i posted,and instead MADE UP something and claim I posted it.
Liberals cant handle the truth, because it makes them look like tools
January 5th, 2006 at 11:44 am#89
Good job, I am already aware there are three places Americans don't have their rights.
1. The Military
2. Prison/jail
3. Public School
Keep up the good work informing us liberals about this so we can become more outraged and inform others.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:02 pmYou call your self Dummy Liberal
you are no Liberal
I call myself Bushes best friend ...that i am certainely Not
whats this to Prove Bush is a NAZI
you dont have to kills jews etc just beleive in their way thats all ..JUST LIKE YOU wanker
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/150305martialpreview.wmv
January 5th, 2006 at 12:27 pmdont you have a soccer game you need to go riot at?
Jeez, some people's kids.....................
January 5th, 2006 at 1:23 pmYou are very ignorant please state your views on bush being a Nazi on my Link "You Cant can you"
January 5th, 2006 at 1:27 pmNeD, you just can't hide, you aren't clever enough. And laughing? We know better.
SHAVE THAT STUPID MUSTACHE.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pmAnd Dummy, you post here under several names and we all know it. Again, you aren't as clever as you think you are. You do, indeed, live on this board.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:22 pmThe only problem with your entire post is that is is the right wing conservative media that is worried about porn or gory pictures.
SpudgeBoy, that's not so. It was the liberal blogosphere that got its knickers in a twist over the issue in late September. The biggest instigator was John Aravosis at Americablog.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pmcwilson,
You proved yourself wrong. If the media was so liberal, they wouldn't have needed to be 'forced' by a liberal blog to cover the story. How do sleep at night with such conspiracy theories and clear nonsense disrupting your reality?
January 6th, 2006 at 3:09 amIt’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.'’
This applies to "human rights also" and the abolition of Death Penalties in Europe
To protect us from evil goverments
January 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pm[...] The Pentagon shuts down soldier blogs critical of the war effort, promotes those that are rah rah. [...]
January 6th, 2006 at 4:11 pm[…] The Pentagon shuts down soldier blogs critical of the war effort, promotes those that are rah rah. […]
Pingback by a dude somewhere
So? What's your point? Here's a hot flash for you Einstein...soldiers (most of them) like to WIN. The little assholes that post anti-American CRAP in the guise of American Fighters are lucky the brass shut them down. The real men and Americans would have shut them down and kicked the living shit out of them. That's a good thing.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:15 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pmBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pmFree Porn Free Full Length Porn Movies Free Full Length Porn Movies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pmFree Porn Free Cartoon Pokemon Porn 100 Free Porn
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 11:21 pmFree Porn Free Gay Porn Free Porn Vids
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 3:15 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 10:50 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pmComputer Shut Down Problems
Pc Error Repair Software
April 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm