Tammy Duckworth’s husband called to Iraq.
By on Feb 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Tammy Duckworth’s husband called to Iraq.
“The husband of Tammy Duckworth is being deployed to Iraq, where his wife lost her legs in a helicopter crash before making a bid for Congress. Brian Bowlsbey, 39, a longtime Illinois Guardsman, has not been sent there previously. … ‘It’s not something that we’re really eager to do, but it’s part of the job and we’ve trained for it for 19 years,” he said. ‘If you believe in the United States you stay in and you keep doing it and you accept the risk.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
God Bless Him and keep him well until he returns home.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pmAnd with that attitude about service, all I can say is that he has my utmost respect and admiration. Its more than the repugs in charge would do.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm‘If you believe in the United States you stay in and you keep doing it and you accept the risk.’â€
We are losing our best and brightest in Iraq.
The Neocons are throwing their lives into the meat grinder they created in the middle east, for a pack of lies, to hide the real reasons they invaded the middle east.
Bush is sacrificing the greatest resource we have, our young, on the alter of his real god, corporate greed.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pmWell said Wayne, I couldn’t agree more!
February 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pmI know he must feel torn and I feel for him.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pmI hope Mr. Bowlsbey comes home safely. That family, and so many others, have sacrificed enough for Bush’s vanity war.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:15 pmAs a USMC vet of the first gulf war, I know the thoughts he is experiencing. I am distressed on how the civilians have destroyed the military which had been resurrected after Vietnam.
I hear nothing from civilians except they support the troops or they want the military out of Iraq. If you support the war, then join the fight. If you are against the war, stop typing in this blog and start writing your representatives / senators and get out and voice your dissent for what is happening.
Just do something.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pmIf you are against the war, stop typing in this blog and start writing your representatives / senators and get out and voice your dissent for what is happening.
Just do something.
Comment by mark
We are against this war AND we write a constant stream of letters to our representatives & senators. Many of us have been to war protests.
Thank you for your service, mark.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:26 pmHe should refuse to go to Iraq, because he might lose his legs too or even his life.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:26 pmmark > I have written probably several hundred letters to members of Congress, before the Iraq war started and up to the present. Blogging on here is just extra.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pmYes, I saw this on Hardball tonight. Absolutely heartbreaking.
I admire the H-E-double-hockey sticks out of Brian Bowlsbey…I only wish he had a Commander-in-Chief that was worthy of his loyalty.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pmstop typing in this blog and start writing your representatives / senators and get out and voice your dissent for what is happening.
Just do something.
Comment by mark
Some of us are doing everything we can do.
I have written and I have marched.
I have been protesting treatment of vets since the first gulf war, bro.
I can chew gum and blog too ;)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pmJay Randal sez:
He should indeed refuse, but not for those reasons. Brian knew the risks when he signed up. However, he should understand that his loyalty is misplaced, and it is not dishonorable to refuse to serve a dishonorable master. On the contrary, it is his duty to refuse orders that are unlawful…and the invasion and occupation of Iraq is exactly that.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pmmark,
One can support the troops and want them out of Iraq.
It is precisely for that reason (supporting our men and women) that we want them out of a no-win situation.
We are not liberators. No candy. No flowers.
Just death. Death greeted us.
Death for no good reason. No wmd’s. No terrorist links.
No good reason for American citizens to die or be maimed.
So we are doing something… Trying to protect our men and women.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:36 pm#16 I so hope they don’t have kids. That would just multiply the tragedy.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pmI think he is wrong here. If you believe in your country, you fight to take it back from a fanatic thug, drug dealer, oil profiteering junta. I would rather refuse or make a clear statement that if somebody happens to me, those bastards in the government are to held accountable for that…and some hundred of thousands more bodies. I agree with the poster saying that this was heartbreaking.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pmI totally agree Juan. When does it get to the point where people say “NO, I’m not fighting in your bullshit war, Bush.” Are we automations or human beings?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm#19 Ask Ehren Watada. And send his defense fund money (I am sure you can Google it).
February 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pmi think the burden is on us, not our soldiers, to stop this war now.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:26 pmAre we automations or human beings?
Comment by buzzbomb
Objectors who refuse to deploy get thrown into jail by the Bush Administration. Makes for a hard choice, become a convicted felon or go to Iraq and die.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:28 pmI know about Watada and I think the longer this slogs on with zero hope for anything that resembles victory or purpose, more soldiers will tell Chimpy to go to hell rather than be killed or maimed for his ineptitude, greed, and need to save face.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm>We are losing our best and brightest in Iraq.
Well they sure aren’t found in this group.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pmWayne- I understand what your saying, they’re in a tough spot. I guess it is up to us to bring an end to Boy Kings war.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:34 pm#24 Thank you for lowering the mean IQ.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pmWell they sure aren’t found in this group.
Comment by Vince P
Well they sure aren’t found in you are they?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:36 pmWell they sure aren’t found in this group.
Comment by Vince P
Vince is preening in the mirror and talking to himself again, just ignore…
February 16th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#23 Maybe buzz, Watada is almost certainly home free because of double jeopardy and judicial interference. They screwed themselves because they wouldn’t put the war on trial.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:36 pmSo Vince, you didn’t know the pony plan?
Troop redeployment (Admin plan) in 2006 etc?
WTF you been boy?
Getting your hiney greased?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:39 pmYes Vince, you are a shining beacon of enlightenment and wisdom.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pmDuring the last years of the Vietnam war the US soldiers started fragging (killing) the officers who forced them to go into the rice paddies and jungles seeking the Viet-Cong. This is going to start happening in Iraq soon. Even some Generals might get fragged.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm30: yeah.. you want some?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm#33 Greased hiney? Want some? That is what you asked? Oh, you are really one of those SF liberals, aren’t you???
February 16th, 2007 at 11:45 pmCome on, dont feed it.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pm30: yeah.. you want some?
Comment by Vince P
No.
For those whom ponder my position of homosexuality, I will tell. You go thru the grinder three times.
if your gay on the first go, you go again, if your gay on the second you go again, if your gay on the third try.Your out. But this does not go for gays alone. It goes for liars, and cheats, for hate and for greed.
It is known, Vince
Such is why I don’t judge.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pmIt’s not done by me!
Heh
Yes Vince, you are a shining beacon of enlightenment and wisdom.
Comment by buzzbomb
Vince had a chance and lost it.
So sad.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pmSorry Juan, he is just so much fun. You can’t help but enjoy someone like HIM.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pm30: yeah.. you want some?
Comment by Vince P
Have I use of a flat tire?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:50 pmYou can’t help but enjoy someone like HIM.
Comment by JPark
To tell you the truth, Im laughing. :D
February 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pmTo tell you the truth, Im laughing. :D
Comment by Juan C
Me too
February 17th, 2007 at 12:01 amLOL
#40 Aww. Don’t be too hard on him. It is possible he lives near a chemical plant or maybe his father worked with asbestos. His lack of intelligence might be explainable.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am>#33 Greased hiney? Want some? That is what you asked? Oh, you are really one of those SF liberals, aren’t you???
I thought regressives dont stereotype?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:52 am>if your gay on the first go, you go again, if your gay on the second you go again, if your gay on the third try.Your out
Wow. I dont see what justifies that attack on my culture. but if it makes you feel better.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:53 am>Vince had a chance and lost it.
So sad.
Comment by Zep Tepi
What did I miss?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:54 amWhat did I miss?
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Aside from a brain, the ability to reason, a functional intellect and a rational ability to see the world? A lot :)
February 17th, 2007 at 1:03 amWow. I dont see what justifies that attack on my culture. but if it makes you feel better. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 12:53 am
Says the gay man, that feels like he can slam Islamic culture because it makes him feel better. Hypocrite much?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:04 amif your gay on the first go, you go again, if your gay on the second you go again, if your gay on the third try.Your out.
I didnt understand.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:08 am#43 Are you new? Regressive is a word for Republicans. Der.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:08 amIslamic culture is sort of an oxymoron. It’s like saying Diversity in the Borg.
Now, go ahead and keep ranting about gay people and defend the bloodthirsty Mohemmedans.
I love how you guys shift all your so-called princples depending on who you talk to.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:08 amWhatever, Vince. Take a deep breath and meet some Muslims so you can learn how you have been lied, again, by your government.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:14 amVince, take a course on diversity, you disgusting bigot.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:19 amJPark: How is the koran organized?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:22 amI’ll wait while you google for the answer.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:25 amHow is the koran organized?
Comment by Vince P
The Koran is organized in 114 chapters and arranged by length rather than topic or date of revelation.
Next?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:32 amJust as I thought, the people who know nothing about Islam seem to think that their emotions contradict people who do know what Islam is about. In other words, JPark is driven by prejugdice and stereotypes and not any actual understanding.
Now watch as they howl what an idiot I am , yet not one statement of fact demostrating that.
What an old boring script.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:33 amBarfly: Thank you for looking that up. You’re the first person ever to do so in the years I’ve been talking about it. Hopefully you’ll continue to learn more about it.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:38 amIslamic culture is sort of an oxymoron. It’s like saying Diversity in the Borg. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:08 am
That’s funny, coming from a gay republican. Most members of your political party would say the same thing about a gay republican, or gay morals, or gay morality, or even gay culture. Yet here you are.
Now, go ahead and keep ranting about gay people and defend the bloodthirsty Mohemmedans. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Yet, you post ranting bloodthirsty posts. That makes your post ironic, and you a right wing religious hypocrite. You have more in common with those bloodthirsty Mohmemmedans, than you do with america, or american values.
I love how you guys shift all your so-called princples depending on who you talk to. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Yet, this is exactly what you do, no wonder you accuse everyone else of it….
February 17th, 2007 at 1:44 amJust as I thought, the people who know nothing about Islam seem to think that their emotions contradict people who do know what Islam is about. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Spoken like a true hate monger. Didn’t you get the memo? Progressives are secular humanists that are against all religions. You need to go back to your religion re-education camp skippy.
In other words, JPark is driven by prejugdice and stereotypes and not any actual understanding. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Says the person that thinks there’s no Islamic culture. You’re a real wack job.
Now watch as they howl what an idiot I am , yet not one statement of fact demostrating that. What an old boring script. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:33 am
You are an idiot, the facts speak for themselves. And your hate speech is the boring old script. It was the same script used to kill millions of Jews baby gay hitler.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:48 amI’m an American, not a Republican. I dont belong to a party. I’ve said this before but you insist on being a liar about it.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:49 amHow is the koran organized?
Comment by Vince P
In pages…within a book.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:50 amBarfly: Thank you for looking that up. You’re the first person ever to do so in the years I’ve been talking about it. Hopefully you’ll continue to learn more about it. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:38 am
What’s really sad is that you think you’re the first fool to come spout this hate rhetoric. Just because people don’t take the time to respond to your hate rhetoric, you assume they know nothing. When in reality, it’s an indictment of your ignorance not theirs.
So tell me, how do you justify that Christianity and Judaism both say you’re a worse threat than Islam – as does the american military?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:50 amI’m an American, not a Republican. I dont belong to a party. I’ve said this before but you insist on being a liar about it. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Yet you act 100% for Republican causes. You may not believe you belong to a party, yet here you are, as their slave, their token, their spokesman, and their fool. You belong to them, you’re just too ignorant to know it, skippy.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:51 amIn pages…within a book.
Comment by Juan C — February 17, 2007 @ 1:50 am
What Vince lists as relevant, is as relevant as Queer is Folks is to his identity. But he’s too ignorant, and bigoted to know it.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:52 amValiant, your ranting doesn’t cover up you know nothing.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:54 amReminder of what you’re facing:
http://terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf
February 17th, 2007 at 1:57 amValiant, your ranting doesn’t cover up you know nothing.
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:54 am
You wrote Valiant, but described yourself. Typical CON.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:02 amReminder of what you’re facing:
http://terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 1:57 am
You and the rest of the radical Christian/Jews are a great reminder of what we face. You have all of the advantages, and education of our country, yet you’re radical freaks. So we’re quite aware of what the terrorists are like. See, we know it well, it’s you that’s clueless. You think it’s an Islamic issue, when in reality, it’s a radical religious issue – of which you’re also a part of.
Why are you so radical Vince, why are you a Religious Terrorist? Israel?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:04 ammore emotional ranting.
Does anyone know how to debate beyond a grammar school proficiency?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:08 amAnyone not in a state of delusion nor a Jew hater like cowardVenus might be interested in this one too
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/
February 17th, 2007 at 2:11 ammore emotional ranting.Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
I agree, but we’re used to your posts.
Does anyone know how to debate beyond a grammar school proficiency? Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Sure, but unfortunately none of you are conservatives.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:13 amDoes anyone know how to debate beyond a grammar school proficiency?
Comment by Vince P
No, Vince. Go to bed now.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:15 amAnyone not in a state of delusion nor a Jew hater like cowardVenus might be interested in this one too http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:11 am
So then your Jew Hater tag, must mean that Israel is the heart of your ideology?
So anyone that questions your motivations is a Jew Hater, and you accuse others of being Haters that can’t debate. Look in the mirror Skippy, it’s you that you hate.
I don’t hate Israel, but you do hate Islam. That’s the difference, you are the bigot, that accuses others of your shameful behavior. Arab/Ismamic Hater. What a bigot you are.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:16 amNo, Vince. Go to bed now.
Comment by Juan C — February 17, 2007 @ 2:15 am
Vince accusing others of the inability to debate, is like Bush accusing others of being inarticulate ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:18 amDoes anyone know how to debate beyond a grammar school proficiency?
Comment by Vince P —
OK, Vince; what is your plan to stop Sunnis from blowing up the wellheads, and oil terminals? You’re so well versed in politics, you must have the answer, right? Remember, as civil war further fractionates the populace, we’ll have to restore order by using the only locals we can trust: the Kurds. How will your plan incorporate the Kurds into the security mix? They are enemies of both the Sunnis and the Shia, as well as the Turks. It must be a good plan, so put up, or pipe down.
We always hear from conservatives (even those too cowardly to call themselves such, after the quagmire they cheerled us into) how democrats have no plan, well, what do we do when the escalation only increases the body count on all sides?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:19 amSomeone’s articulation skills are not a function of Bush’s, so the validity of that observation is not changed by who makes the statement about the other person.
You should try to avoid logic.
Well girls, time to go out. Have fun in the echo chamber.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:25 amSomeone’s articulation skills are not a function of Bush’s, so the validity of that observation is not changed by who makes the statement about the other person. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Ah, the simple analogy escapes yet another brain damaged conservative.
You should try to avoid logic. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Coming from someone that doesn’t know what logic is, how ironic!
Well girls, time to go out. Have fun in the echo chamber. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Says, the loudest, and one of the dumbest echoes. The silence will be a nice change, when you’re gone Vince. Your echo is just as grating as your hate speech.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:29 amVince P and michael have the same bed-time. Coincidence, or is the shift at the RNC coming to an end for the night.
What a bunch of sleazy, hateful and dishonest set of people you are Vince and company.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:30 amVince accusing others of the inability to debate, is like Bush accusing others of being inarticulate ;)
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus —
Or worse!!! :)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:30 amWell girls, time to go out. Have fun in the echo chamber.
Comment by Vince P
Gee, I hope it wasn’t too much for ol’ Vince; he ran like a scared rabbit when I actually challenged him to debate. What an intellectual weiner.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:31 amVince P, they gay conservative that readily bends over for the GOP calls others ‘girls’. Ironic huh? Project much Vince?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:32 amWhat an intellectual weiner. Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 2:31 am
Vince is totally a bottom for the GOP, he doesn’t have a wiener anymore ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:33 amWell girls, time to go out. Have fun in the echo chamber.
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Gee, where would a gay man be going this time of night?
The bars are closing, is Vince is going to his other job?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:36 amShouldn’t you change your name to valiantVince etc.? It would be more fitting.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:38 amI can only hope that he stays safe. How many more people must die? As much as I hope that he is safe, I also hope he can help the Iraqi people while he is there. Whether or not the war was just, we must still do our best to make Iraq a better place. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in the sentiment that that isn’t a priority for this administration.
http://openpolitik.com
February 17th, 2007 at 2:39 amThe bars are closing, is Vince is going to his other job?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 2:36 am
Isn’t Vince Jeff Gannon’s middle name? I know what the ‘P’ stands for, and it’s a synonym for coward ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:40 amShouldn’t you change your name to valiantVince etc.? It would be more fitting. Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 2:38 am
It would but since the trolls never think for themselves, it’s all the same ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:41 amTrue.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:44 amjihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. It is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.
These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution….[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.â€
Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.â€
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them…†(Hidayah)
The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ) agrees, saying that if unbelievers “refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them…â€
All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.†This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad†as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,†devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.†It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,†and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.â€
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.†In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,†because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.â€
February 17th, 2007 at 3:24 amVince, don’t you have a GOP Operative to bend over for, little girl? Or is your entire life spent spreading anti-islamic hate rhetoric?
You’re a sick freak, you prissy little princess.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:30 amBarfly: Your questions are irrelevent, that’s why I don’t answer them. The threat is there. Retreating only guarentees that the next time we fight them they will be stronger than if we didn’t let them regroup.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:31 amValiant is the winner at insipid name calling. yay valiant!
Sudden Jihad Syndrome
INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2O, 2007
Terror: It looks like the Muslim teen who opened fire on shoppers in a Salt Lake City mall is yet another case of “sudden jihad syndrome,†a condition in which normal-appearing American Muslims abruptly turn violent.
Taken together, this and other cases add up to an invisible jihad inside America. But don’t tell that to the FBI. The politically correct bureau does everything it can to avoid recognizing the obvious Islamic factor in these heinous crimes.
Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian Muslim immigrant, was loaded with enough ammo to “inexplicably†kill dozens of victims — and he would have, if an alert off-duty cop hadn’t returned fire and stopped him. Talovic still managed to methodically murder five and wound four others with a shotgun. Witnesses say it was an act of coldblooded violence aimed at random victims — something otherwise known as terrorism. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Talovic attended Friday prayers at a mosque about a block from the mall.
Yet the FBI saw no religious motive, and quickly ruled out terrorism. Nor could it find anything to indicate terrorism in several other Muslim-tied cases since 9/11, including:
A 30-year-old Muslim man, Naveed Afzal Haq, who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center in Seattle, announcing “I’m a Muslim-American; I’m angry at Israel.†An Egyptian national, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot two and wounded three at an Israeli airline ticket counter at LAX. A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Hinrichs, who blew himself up with a backpack filled with TATP (the explosive of choice in the Mideast) outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque. A 23-year-old student, Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed the throat of his Jewish friend in Houston after apparently undergoing a religious awakening (he went to a local mosque afterward). The D.C. snipers — John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, both black Muslim converts — who picked off 13 people in the suburbs around the Beltway as part of what Muhammad described as a “prolonged terror campaign against America†around the first anniversary of 9/11, which he had praised.
Omeed Aziz Popal of Fremont, Calif., who police said hit and killed a bicyclist there then took his SUV on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, mowing down pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him, whereupon the Muslim called himself a “terrorist.â€
A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, who stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring drivers and pedestrians, while repeatedly yelling, “Die, die, die, kill, kill, kill†— all, he said, on orders from “Allah.â€
A 22-year-old Iranian honors student, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to “punish the government of the United States†for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations.
Described by other students as “kind and gentle,†Taheri-azar was a student council president and a member of the National Honor Society in high school. He told the judge he was “thankful you’re here to learn more about the will of Allah.â€
He wrote a letter to a TV station citing Quranic verses justifying his attacks and told a detective that Muslims “all over the world are being killed, and now it is the people in the United States’ turn to be killed.â€
This is not terrorism, the FBI said. Just some nutty kid. In all these cases, the feds’ first reaction was to shrug. They said the perps were lone individuals who just went ballistic after having a bad day, as if anyone could have done such crimes.
But they weren’t just anyone. They were all young Muslim men. Of course, the FBI can’t treat all law-abiding young Muslim men as potential killers. But neither should the agency ignore this trend. We’re likely to see more of these seemingly random domestic attacks. They may seem isolated, but all have radical Islam at their nexus. They’re not “senseless†or “utterly inexplicable†or “impossible to rationalize,†as the media intone. They are purposeful. These men act as conscripts called up for a mission, sick as it is.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:36 amVince Pee is a cut and paste troll from here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
It’s total crap (poo).
Best Mushroom Cloud
February 17th, 2007 at 3:41 amBarfly: Your questions are irrelevent, that’s why I don’t answer them. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Your posts are irrelevant (and poorly spelled) and that’s why we make fun of you!
The threat is there. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:31 am
For religious fanatics? Of course the threat is there, and right here with you!
Retreating only guarentees that the next time we fight them they will be stronger than if we didn’t let them regroup. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Stupid remark of the week, formed out of ignorance, and bigotry.
I’m still waiting, is it the Israeli connection Vince? Or are you too much a pansy to answer a direct question?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:43 amValiant is the winner at insipid name calling. yay valiant! Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:36 am
Says the hypocrite that calls Islamic people names. Insipid is a great description of you – coward boy.
Still waiting Vince, are you Jewish, Christian, or something else. Answer the question – coward.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:45 am>Still waiting Vince, are you Jewish, Christian, or something else. Answer the question – coward
Yes.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:47 amMy work here is done.
‘Night, seditious ones.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:48 am>Still waiting Vince, are you Jewish, Christian, or something else. Answer the question – coward
Yes.
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:47 am
Thanks for proving you’re a coward for not answering the question.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:50 amMy work here is done.
‘Night, seditious ones.
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:48 am
You think spreading hate, bigotry and religious intolerance is ‘work’? Maybe if you work for the SS, you hate mongering fool.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:50 amVince P, spreads sedition against america’s constitutional protections of religious freedom, then says goodnight to himself. What a freak!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:51 amIt was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who recruited an entire division of Muslims for the SS.
So no, that wouldn’t be me.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:52 amIt was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who recruited an entire division of Muslims for the SS.
So no, that wouldn’t be me.
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:52 am
It was Leo Strauss, that supported the SS and Nazi rise to power, and later founded the NeoConservative movement – I think it is you. He also claimed that the only thing Hitler got wrong, was he should have gone after Islam – sounds very familiar SS boy(girl).
February 17th, 2007 at 3:56 amIt was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who recruited an entire division of Muslims for the SS. So no, that wouldn’t be me. Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007 @ 3:52 am
So then you must hate the Christian churches, since the Evangelicals brought Hitler to power, and the Catholics stood by to allow millions of your fellow Jews to die?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:59 amVinceremos, Vince P and michael have left the building, so they can enter each other ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 4:08 am13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)
Vince is a propagandist and disinfo artist, like anyone associated with David Horrorshitz. You can read the truth about his spurious claims at the above link.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:15 amFrom that wiki page (which agrees with me, the irony)
In Spring of 1943, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, (aka Amin al-Husseini), was recruited by the Nazis to assist in the organization and recruitment of Bosniaks into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units in Yugoslavia. He was successful in convincing the Bosniaks to go against the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar, and Banja Luka Clerics, who had since 1941, forbidden Bosnian Muslims to collaborate with Croat-Nazis (Ustashe).
The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states that “The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises”. According to Aleksa Djilas in The Nation That Wasn’t., al-Husayni “accepted, visited Bosnia, and convinced some important Muslim leaders that a Muslim S.S. division would be in the interest of Islam. In spite of these and other propaganda efforts, only half of the expected 20,000 to 25,000 Muslims volunteered.” (from The Black Book of Bosnia by Nader Mousavizadeh, (Editor), Basic Books, New York, 1996, p. 23)
Pavelic, the leader of the Croat-fascist Ustashe, objected to the recruitment of an exclusively Muslim division and was concerned about a Muslim bid for independence, considering Muslim areas a part of the Nazi-created “Independent State of Croatia”, which included Bosnia. As a compromise the division was called “Croatian” and included at least 10% Catholic Croats.
Al-Husayni insisted that “The most important task of this division must be to protect the homeland and families (of the Bosnian volunteers); the division must not be permitted to leave Bosnia”, but this request was ignored by the Germans (German archives cited in Lepre, p34) [2]
The incorporation of Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen SS required changes to be made to Nazi racist ideology and propaganda, and also required special privileges, which included that they were not required to eat rations of pork or drink alcoholic beverages [citation needed].
According to Chris Bishop, “Himmler convinced himself that Balkan Muslims were neither Slavs nor Turks, but were really Aryans who had adopted Islam.” (Source: “SS: Hell on the Western Front. The Waffen SS in Europe 1940-1945″, 2003. p.70). He believed the Muslims of Bosnia to be the same, racially, as the Croatians, and saw the Croatians as descended of Gothic and Persian stock
February 17th, 2007 at 4:38 amVince the ironic idiot: From that wiki page (which agrees with me, the irony)
The selective quotations of a poor propagandist. Key stuff you left out:
The Handschar are infamous for being the only Waffen SS division to mutiny, and the first known troops to revolt from within the Nazi system…
Bosnian Muslim clerics issued three declarations (fatawa), all publicly denouncing Croat-Nazi collaborationist measures against Jews and Serbs: that of Sarajevo in October 1941, of Mostar in 1941, and of Banja Luka on November 12, 1941 [1].
Despite Pavelic`s assurances of equality, it wasn`t long before many Bosniaks became dissatisfied with Croatian rule. An Islamic leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influental post in the (local) administration. Fierce fighting broke out between Ustase and Partisan groups. A number of Ustase units believed the Bosniaks to be communist sympathizers, and burned their villages and murdered civilians.
The Fall of 1942 saw SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and SS-General Gottlob Berger approach Hitler with the proposal to raise a Bosnian Muslim SS division.
(…)
Recruitment for the division fell as the war progressed and when rumors spread that the division was going to fight the Soviets, the Muslims deserted in droves. [citation needed]
At the end of 1944, the separate Kama division was merged into the Handschar division.
Service
The Bosnian Waffen SS units were originally recruited to combat Muslim and Serb Partisans, including residents of villages from where many of the recruits themselves originated.[3] They operated in north-eastern Bosnia and partly in Srem. They were reluctant to participate in such actions, having enlisted in the Waffen SS on the mistaken belief that such service would resemble that of the Bosnian gendarmerie under the Habsburg empire, and those who joined, did so because they wanted a formation of their own to protect their homes. [4]
Desertion and Mutiny
In late summer of 1943 [citation needed], they were sent to Villefranche-de-Rouergue in Aveyron, France[5] for retraining. On September 17-September 18, 1943 [citation needed], a number of soldiers staged a mutiny against their German officers, killing eight [citation needed]. Those who escaped attempted to join the French resistance (French Partisans)[6]. The SS-Handschar division were the only known example of a Waffen SS mutiny[7], and the first known revolt from within the Nazi system…
Role in persecution of Jews
A well-known and controversial claim that “Jews and Serbs, both… were persecuted by the Nazi Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian brigades during WWII†contains only a grain of truth. In Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, the infamous Bosnian Waffen SS units played no role in the removal of Jews on their territory, which was carried out by Germans and Croats who were responsible for the high levels of Jewish deaths in those regions during the Holocaust.
The claim that “Hanjar troopers, a special Waffen SS company, killed 90% of Bosnia’s Jews” was shown to be a false claim, as well as impossible, since most of Bosnia’s Jews were either in Jasenovac or Auschwitz concentration camps, or already dead by the time the Handschar division became operational.
The SS Handschar division from the day it was formed until the day it was wiped out in Hungary did not provide troops to guard any concentration camp. There were some personnel, especially a battalion commander Egon Zill, a former concentration camp commander who was sent to the division because of incompetence. However, he was failure as a field officer and sent packing.
Nevertheless, despite the hyperbole about the Handschar, there are few documented atrocities by the division. Even the Jewish Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal had to admit that in the Balkans, the Handschar were clean compared to many of the other formations fighting in Bosnia including the Wehrmacht troops[citation needed].
Role in persecution of Muslim and Serbian partisans
Handschar participated in the largest anti partisan sweep of World War 2, Unternehmen Maibaum. Cooperating with 7.SS Prinz Eugen which did little in this operation.
The Division participated in Wegweiser, Save, Osterei, Maibaum, Maiglöckchen, Vollmond, Fliegenfänger, Heidrose and Hackfleisch operations from February to September of 1944.]
The Lehi, OTOH:
In 1940, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany. It offered assistance in “evacuating†the Jews of Europe, in return for Germany’s help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine. Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig. Lubenchik told Von Hentig that Lehi had not yet revealed its full power and that they were capable of organizing a whole range of anti-British operations.
On the assumption that the destruction of Britain was the Germans’ top objective, the organization offered cooperation in the following terms: From the NMO side: full cooperation in sabotage, espionage and intelligence and up to wide military operations in the Middle East and in eastern Europe anywhere where the Irgun had Jewish cells, active and trained and in some places with weapons. From the German side, the following declarations and actions were demanded: (1) Full recognition in an independent Jewish state in Palestine/Eretz Israel (2) On the same level of importance and in practice, to allow all the Jews wishing so, or about to leave anyway from their place in Europe, by their own will or because of government injunctions, with no restrictions on their numbers, the ability to migrate to Palestine. For this purpose there was expressed a need to cancel any transfer plans of Jews to distant countries like Madagascar.[10]
On January 11, 1941 a letter was sent from Der Marvitz, the German Naval attaché in Ankara, depicting an offer to “actively take part in the war on Germany’s side†in return for German support for “the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reichâ€.[11][12]
February 17th, 2007 at 5:16 amNever be fooled by a propagandists selective quotations.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:18 amRETRIBUTION HAPPENING
February 17th, 2007 at 5:50 amVermont, home to progressive Democratic threat Howard Dean has the highest per-capita soldier death rate of any American state with troops in Iraq.
One of two Marines seen recruiting in Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11 was transferred to and killed in Iraq.
And now Duckworth’s husband is being sent to the front.
‘If you believe in the United States you stay in and you keep doing it and you accept the risk.’â€
Uh? Duh? Hello?
Since when did the military become the nations “welfare youth camp”?
There have always been risks in the military and anyone who signs up knows this BEFORE they enlist. Again I ask, since when did you Liberals make the military the nations “post leave the nest babysitter”?
Welcome to the new world people. Us Conservatives want OUR MONEYS WORTH out of these “troops” we have deployed in Iraq.
No more sitting around with a thumb up their ass getting paid and getting fat while us Conservatives have to foot the bill. These boys need to get their asses in gear. No more patty cake here. Lets see some results for a change.
We are doing the American taxpayers a great service by DEMANDING the American troops STEP UP TP THE PLATE and give us a better performance.
Hopefully Duckworth is a fighter and not a silly “Liberal Progressive Useless Eater” getting fat stateside.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:22 amTammy Butterworth = Mrs Nagasaki-Worth now that she cant walk she will be getting as fat as a tick on a hound.
How about the “Tammy Butterworth Workout Video”?
It could bring her some extra cash and then she wont have to rely so much on socialized welfare for her existence. I say put Tammy Nagasaki – Worth to work in some way and make her “pull her own weight”
And by the looks of that Nip, I wiil venture to say it will be a great load for her to bear indeed in the years ahead.
Thank you for your service Tammy, better luck next time?
February 17th, 2007 at 6:50 amPatty Duckworth and Cindy Sheehan could always make a few low budget “dyke” movies I suppose, if hubby dont make it. It would sell “millions” of copies, right LibProgs?
February 17th, 2007 at 7:00 amSgt. Stryker,
In addition to posting the exact same remark twice here on the Michelle Malice thread, you also submitted here where it actually belongs. Tammy Duckworth already served in Iraq and lost both legs there. Is that your idea of getting ‘OUR MONEYS WORTH out of these “troops†we have deployed in Iraq?’
Her husband is named Bowlsbey; he is not Mr. Duckworth. Can’t you give a person who is possibly about to risk his life or at least some limbs the respect of addressing him by his proper name?
You obviously have some sexist problems, as seen from your treatment of Ms. Bowlsbey and in writing “These boys need to get their asses in gear. †While calling Mr. Bowlsbey by his wife’s name, you don’t even acknowledge that American women are also stationed and dying or getting seriously injured in Iraq.
BTW, why aren’t you there, Sargie?
Comment by Lora
February 17th, 2007 at 7:08 amMelissa Spencer and Rufus Grady,
February 17th, 2007 at 7:10 amYou really know how to show your support for troops who risk their lives and limbs for this war of choice, don’t you? BTW, why aren’t you in Iraq or at least Afghanistan?
Sgt Stryker USMC
Rufus Grady
Melissa Spencer
The only three anybody who has come onto this site for the first time needs to read, in order to understand just how much respect, support, and esteem the rightwing really holds for the troops. These total wankers, will go on and on about how lefties don’t support the troops, and then go straight into accusing them of being lazy:
And to top it all, gloating about their injuries:
Yes people, these are the total bastards that are sending your children off to die. They mock the sick and infirm (Michael J Fox for example) they spit on the poor, and they not only want your kids to go to war for them, they actually want your kids to come home either as cripples or corpses.
And remember, these same cowards wouldn’t be caught dead within five miles of a slightly iffy neighbourhood, never mind a warzone.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:40 amThe Bush Trade-off: Corporate Greed for 3,000+ Human Lives (our military) and untolled numbers of innocent Iraqis!
February 17th, 2007 at 10:10 amUndeniably, Bush’s legacy will be that he is “THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY”.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:11 amwell… some interesting comments last night…
until it turned into the VANCE & VALIANT SHOW…
and now it seems a few sickos get up early to post their hate and ignorance…
…
my 2 cents – i truly feel for this soldier… but i would have much more respect for him had he pulled a “WATADA” and fought for the truth…
‘If you believe in the United States you stay in and you keep doing it and you accept the risk.’
that is just not logical, in this case… it’s no longer, never has been, about the united states…
February 17th, 2007 at 10:57 am…
oh no!!! so sorry VANCE!!!
i meant VINCE … vince with an I… of course…
February 17th, 2007 at 10:58 amJust for the record: Listening to Randi on AAR yesterday, I was not surprised to hear how this adminsitration says that the Sunnis are the ones who are killing the troops with roadside bombs and gunfire, etc. I am surprised, however, to hear that as it turns out it’s the Sunnis who are supported by our good “friends” the Saudis. Iran on the other hand, is demonized as a terrorist-supporter by the administration but is actually supportive of the Shiite, not the Sunnis. How all this adds up in the eyes of the administration, the military, or anyone, is quite beyond me. I guess all concerned are just hopeful that no one is keeping score or paying attention to what side each other is on. This only illustrates how no one really knows what in the f* we’re doing over there.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:12 amLibreal is surprised the Sunnis are supported by Saudi Arabia and the Iranians are supporting the Shiites?
What planet have you been living on? Everyone knows that.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:19 amTop Ten Reasons Why You Might Vote Democrat in 2008
1. Everything changed on 9/11
2. Republicans are evil
3. You’re picky about which lies you opt to believe
4. If we don’t vote, we have no right to complain…right?
5. Republicans are mean
6. Voting for Hillary or Obama would prove once and for all that you are
truly more liberal and open-minded than your Republican brother-in-law
7. Republicans are stupid
8. Ralph Nader is still an egomaniac
9. Republicans hate us because we’re free
10. You’re certifiably insane
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at
http://www.mickeyz.net.
Ten Reasons Why Militarism is
Bad for Queer People
http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_21.pdf
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer (lgbtq) people cut across race, class,
gender, and nationality lines and represent a
full spectrum of political opinions.There
are queer people in the military and a
visible queer presence at almost every
recent peace rally. Queer organizations,
listserves, and communities have been rife
with debates about what position to take on
a war with Iraq. Meanwhile, lgbtq people
remain under attack by military and
fundamentalist governments around the
world, including the U.S.While some might
argue that war is not a queer issue, the fact
of the matter is that state violence has been
a central theme in the history and lives of
lgbtq people for centuries. No matter what your politics, here are
some basic facts to keep in mind about war’s effect on queer
people’s lives:
1.War decreases civil liberties,freedom of expression,and dissent.
In times of crisis, already marginalized groups and under-resourced
populations are blamed and attacked. Jerry Falwell, Religious Right
figurehead, accused queer people and feminists for the 9.11
terrorists attacks two days after they took place:“I really believe
that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the
gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all
of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger
in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’â€
In the wake of 9.11, progressive social justice organizations who
speak out against military action are often criticized for being un-
American or paving the way for more terrorist attacks. In addition
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender anti-war activists are
frequently targeted by the police at protests, marches, and rallies
and face harassment and physical violence if put in prison.
2.Hate crimes increase during periods of militarism.
Since the attacks of 9.11, the number of hate crimes has risen
dramatically across the board in the U.S. Attacks against Muslims,
South Asians, and those of Middle Eastern descent skyrocketed, and
hate crimes based on sexual orientation rose 7.2% from 2000.
Hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation ranked
fourth highest category in 2001.The rise in hate crimes since 9.11
suggests that queer people are among the
first to be victimized in a climate of
militarism, violence, and fear. Queer people
of color are doubly impacted, facing
harassment and violence not only on the
basis of their racial identity, but also
because of their sexual orientation. In the
name of national security, the Bush
administration has turned a blind eye to
violence against queer people and people of
color since 9.11
at the hands of the military.
Sexual orientation is often used as a way to
criminalize social justice activists who are
working for peace. Bolan Aleksov, a gay
man from Yugoslavia, was arrested by the
State Secret Service in 2000 because of his
involvement with the anti-war group,
Women in Black. During the course of his
interrogation he was beaten and endured
anti-gay epithets by the police. In Uganda
in 1999, five gay, human rights activists
were held and tortured in military detention
centers and forced to flee the country.
4.The military discriminates against
lgbtq service people.
The military has always been hostile to
queer people. As a result of the “Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell†policy, set in place by the
Clinton administration, queer service people
are required to keep their sexuality a secret
or face discharge. In this atmosphere of
secrecy, discrimination and harassment are
state-sanctioned. In 2001, as attention and
spending on the military increased and the
U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan
was at its height, 1250 service people
where discharged for being lesbian, gay, or
bisexual, the highest number of discharges
since 1987.The Conduct Unbecoming
report, issued by the Service Members
Legal Defense Network, also found 1075
cases of harassment and intimidation of lgbtq servicepeople, up
from 871 in 2000.
Discrimination against queer people seems to be one of the
military’s top priorities. At a time when the ability to communicate
with a wide range of people across the world is extremely
important, the U.S. military has fired service people with valuable
translation and language skills because of their sexual orientation.
In the fall of 2002, as an extensive military build-up was taking
place in the Middle East, the Army discharged nine student
linguists, including students of Arabic and Korean, for violating the
“don’t ask, don’t tell†policy.
5.Militarism threatens lgbtq immigrants.
Queer immigrants and asylum seekers face significant challenges to
immigrating even in peacetime. Because homosexuality is considered
a crime and/or disease in many countries, lgbtq immigrants are
often fleeing state-sanctioned torture, forced psychiatric treatment,
persecution, rape, and imprisonment on the basis of their sexual
orientation. Few immigration officers are trained to solicit
information about past abuses in ways that are sensitive, and queer
asylum-seekers are often reluctant to tell officials about their sexual
orientation for fear of further persecution.While one partner of a
heterosexual married couple can sponsor the other partner for
immigration, because same-sex couples are not legally recognized as
family in most of the world, couples often have to immigrate alone,
cannot sponsor their partners, and cannot receive the rights that
immigrating families receive.
Since 9.11 many countries, including the U.S. and several European
countries, have used national security and the threat of terrorism to
justify restrictive immigration policies and the crackdown on illegal
immigration. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people who
have fled persecution in their own countries now risk being arrested
as illegal immigrants and deported back to those countries
6.War is divisive for the lgbtq community.
As the government wages war on Iraq, heated debates have broken
out in lgbtq communities about whether to publically oppose the
war. Large organizations fear being labeled as unpatriotic and
losing funding if they speak out against the war.There have been
widespread accusations of racism in the lgbtq community, and even
calls to boycott or withdraw membership from lgbtq advocacy and
support groups who have not made public statements in opposition
to the war.
7.Militarism and war diverts support
for lgbtq people.
The focus of the U.S. government on the
“War On Terrorism†has come at the
expense of basic support services for lgbtq
people. Community organizations that
provide support for queer youth, HIV/AIDS
counseling, and referrals have experienced
extreme budget cutbacks, while government
spending on the military has skyrocketed. In
February 2002, President Bush proposed a
national budget for FY 2003 that would
raise defense spending by nearly 13%, the
greatest increase since the Reagan
Administration’s Cold War era budget. In
2004, President Bush hopes to increase the
US military budget to $399.1 billion, while
funding to social services would be
sacrificed in order to support this increase
in military spending. Recently, Illinois cut
$2.5 million designated for AIDS/HIV
support services and Massachusetts cut
funding for its Safe Schools Program that
provides support for lgbtq students and
youth.
8.Militarism encourages a climate
of fundamentalism.
In the past months, the fundamentalist
government of Egypt has made mass
arrests of anti-war activists and queer
people. Egypt has long been criticized for
its human rights abuses against its lgbtq
citizens, and is currently notorious for the
arrest of 52 gay men charged with
“debauchery.â€Two days before
international anti-war demonstrations in
February 2003, Egyptian State Security
Police also arrested 11 antiwar activists in
Cairo.The Bush Administration considers
Egypt a major ally in the Middle East. Not
only has the U.S. not spoken out against
the Egyptian government’s human rights
abuses, in 2002 it pledged $10.3 billion in
aid along with the European Union and
World Bank.The heightening tension in the Middle East and U.S.
military action in Iraq have allowed the recent arrests of gay men
and antiwar activists in Egypt to go unchallenged.
Five months after the 9.11 attacks, as the U.S. was engaged in
bombing Afghanistan, Pat Robertson, a religious fundamentalist
leader notorious for his anti-gay agenda, attacked Islam and
Muslims.“[Islam] is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist,â€
Robertson said.“They want to coexist until they can control,
dominate and then if need be destroy.†It seems that many
fundamentalists make no distinctions in their hatred of peace
activists, queers, or people of different ethnicities and religions.
9.Militarism perpetuates rigid gender norms.
At its most basic level, militarism is rooted in traditional,
heterosexist ideas of gender that define masculinity as physically
powerful and aggressive and feminity as meek and passive.This was
made clear in debates about whether or not to allow women to fight
in front-line combat during the first Gulf War.These gender norms
have historically been used to marginalize and criminalize queer
people who often challenge the legitimacy of these norms.
Increasing our dependence on the military and making war a
priority strengthens the heterosexist, patriarchal culture that
promotes war, intensifying the stigmatization of those who defy that
culture.
10.War kills queer people.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:25 amThere is no question that war kills innocent people. It is estimated
that 1 in every 10 people is queer.This means that out of the 1.5
million Iraqis who have died in the last decade because of sanctions
and bombings, 150,000 where queer. 15,000 queer people where
sent to concentration camps during the Holocaust, the global
North’s most famous example of genocide and militarism. It is
estimated that over 300 lgbtq people died in the attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon. From queer servicemen to
civilians, to political prisoners and prisoners of war, war threatens
everyone’s life.
Ryn Gluckman is a queer activist and writer. S/he is the Program
Coordinator for the Population and Development Program at
Hampshire College and sits on the Board of Directors for Children
of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere
#121- I knew it but, apparently, not everyone. Talk to most people, and they don’t know the difference. I wasn’t writting this factoid for you who apparently is so all-wise, but for anyone who doesn’t know and wasn’t familiar.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:27 amLiberal: Fair enough. I misconstrued what you were trying to say.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:38 amanother randi listener! … i could’ve guessed!
i got from that info from randi that the crime is in the fact that dubya is friends with the saudis who are helping the sunnis who are also “the ones who are killing the troops with roadside bombs and gunfire, etc”…
a fact, and it’s ramifications, that seems lost on the vincebot…
February 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am“ misconstrued what you were trying to say.”
imagine that…
think someone needs to bookmark dictionary.com…
February 17th, 2007 at 11:43 ameveryone should, matter of fact…
Here’s my dueling article..
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That’s because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.
Going to war is mean, so we shouldn’t do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, “no,” so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don’t they know we’re nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more toys, money than Harry, so take half of Bill’s money and give it to Harry.
The only exception to this rule is for people who aren’t liberals. They’re racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have “cooties” for disagreeing with them, because there really isn’t any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.
Now, that’s not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that’s primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.
Why don’t they learn anything from failed liberal policies? Because there is nothing underpinning them other than feelings and so even when they don’t work, their good intentions are treated, by other liberals at least, as more important than the results of their actions.
Just to name one example of many, look at Vietnam. South Vietnam was policing its own country and holding off aggression from the North with the help of the United States. But, people get hurt in wars, so wars are bad. As a result of thinking that went no deeper than that, liberals in Congress cut off the aid and air support we promised the South Vietnamese. The result?
The conquest of South Vietnam, a holocaust in Cambodia, millions dead and in prison camps, another million boat people, a crisis of confidence in America, and our country’s reputation around the world was left in tatters, which led to a revolution in Nicaragua, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a lack of faith in the U.S. military which wasn’t truly restored until Operation Desert Storm.
So, we’re talking about one of the most shameful and damaging mistakes in American history. Yet, the left is pushing to do the same thing in Iraq, despite the fact that catastrophic consequences would surely also follow a U.S. retreat in that country.
But, this isn’t just about foreign policy. Look at Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty,” which did nothing to reduce the poverty rate despite the trillions that were spent; however, it did help drive the illegitimacy rate among black Americans from 22 percent in 1960 to 70% in 2005.
You could go on and on with these sort of examples — rent control, which causes housing shortages, the minimum wage, which costs poor people jobs, the liberal insistence on putting “making nice at the U.N.†above looking out for American interests. That’s what happens when you make decisions based on emotion and wanting people to like you, rather than using logic and doing the right thing.
Unlike liberals, conservatives tend to be primarily concerned with pragmatism, not niceties. This is one of the biggest reasons that conservatives have such a healthy respect for the traditions and institutions that have been proven to work over time and such contempt for those that don’t, like the United Nations and the federal government.
Does that mean conservatives are opposed to change? No, not at all, but there is a great reluctance to tinker with ideas and concepts that have proven successful time and time again throughout history, because the more they’re changed, the more likely they are not to work.
Moreover, in Thomas Sowell’s immortal words, conservatives believe that, “There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.” Because of this, conservatives regularly do something that liberals seldom do: they consider the long-term consequences of their policies.
Sometimes in politics, that’s a tough duty. It’s always easier to say, “We’re going to use someone else’s tax money to give you this right now,” than it is to say, “We’re going to keep government out of your way and let you do this for yourself.” But, that’s the path conservatives have chosen for themselves. They’re willing to be attacked and called, in some form or fashion, “mean” in order to advocate policies that are good for the country.
In the end, that’s what liberalism versus conservatism all comes down to: sappy, feel good emotionalism that sounds appealing, but doesn’t work versus doing things the right way, even when it’s not easy.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:44 amkaty: My position is my own and is not a function of anything that Bush does or does not do. Islamic Revivalism started in the late 1800s long before your boogeyman was born. Policy makers in Washington seem to have had a giant blind spot to the true ramifications and even now after 6 years after 9/11, the vision is not yet 20/20.
None of you fools even bother to look there, yet you harp at those who have. So lazy. So hypocrtical.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:49 ambut doesn’t work versus doing things the right way, even when it’s not easy.
Comment by Vince P — February 17, 2007
Lying to the American people is considered the right way? Only to a republican.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pmUnlike liberals, conservatives tend to be primarily concerned with pragmatism, not niceties.
So, selling weapons to terrorists, and then lying about it is pragmatism?
Only to a republican.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pmSometimes in politics, that’s a tough duty. It’s always easier to say, “We’re going to use someone else’s tax money to give you this right now,â€
Ironic that you would assert this, after republicans have given hundreds of billions of tax dollars to Bush’s cronies which have dissappeared into the black hole of Iraq. Yeah, real tough duty, shoveling tax dollars into a bonfire.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pmNone of you fools even bother to look there, yet you harp at those who have. So lazy. So hypocrtical.
Comment by Vince P
mmm…I guess that teaching those evil-Muslims to make explosives really backfired now. Or giving them weapons against the soviets, or putting the Shah or, you know my point, Vince. I guess. Yeah…we are so hypocrites…
February 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pmand a lack of faith in the U.S. military which wasn’t truly restored until Operation Desert Storm.
That would be a lack of faith in the leaders. Not the troops. Funny thing about Desert Storm; if Bush hadn’t given Saddam the ok to invade, we would never have needed to out him. Talk about incompetence . . .
February 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pmThat’s what happens when you make decisions based on emotion and wanting people to like you, rather than using logic and doing the right thing.
Then dont cry “momma” when some guys blow your WTC.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pmBecause of this, conservatives regularly do something that liberals seldom do: they consider the long-term consequences of their policies.
Trickle down economics made the deficit worse.
Bush had no plan for after the invasion.
The list is quite long . . .
February 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pmYou do realize that most of us are FOR the war in Afghanistan, right?
Sorry, I dont agree here. Then Iran should attack US soil due to the 4 carriers you have over there? Or Iraq should have attacked US before 2003?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pmWe cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.
Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”
- Ronald Reagan
February 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pmPlease explain your statement, now that I have clarified mine.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
You dont fight terrorism with a war. I guess the lesson is obvious. In Afghanistan you were after Osama, right? But then this country had the biggest opium production ever. We all know why US went there. Terrorism is fought with internal police work. Invading a country to disarm some people and find a guy is, besides a violation of any international law, a stupidity.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm- Ronald Reagan
Comment by Vince P
Isnt that the guy who sent Rummy to shake hands with Saddam?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pmWould you prefer I found some Karl Marx for you? heh. idiot.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pmVince P quotes from the traitor Reagan; why am I not surprised? Didn’t you know he was merely on duty when the USSR fell? He had nothing to do with it, other than doing some political grandstanding that produced nothing.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:51 pmReagan only escaped being impeached by developing Alzheimer’s – Lawrence Walsh didn’t want to put the doddering old fool on the stand, and show the country what kind of leader they had been following; a delusional, senile, old man.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pmThe Soviet Union didnt’ fall Reagan, it fell under Bush, idiot.
Here’s good news from iraq… lets bury it
Sunni tribes in troubled Anbar province have begun working closely with U.S. and government forces, contributing nearly 2,400 men to the police department and 1,600 to a newly organized tribal security force, authorities say.
U.S. troops are training and equipping the new tribal forces, which are called Emergency Response Units (ERUs), and are charged with defending the areas where they live, according to the local U.S. commander.
By a U.S. count, 12 of the Ramadi area’s 21 tribes are cooperating in the security effort, six are considered neutral, and three are actively hostile. That is almost the reverse of the tribal posture last June, when three were cooperative and 12 were hostile.
For nearly four years, the tribes around Ramadi survived by playing both sides, working with U.S. forces when it suited them, while at the same time helping or tolerating Sunni insurgent groups and al Qaeda in Iraq — the terrorist organization once led by Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi.
That changed in August, according to U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, which has been responsible for security operations in Ramadi since June.
Al Qaeda in Iraq — which has also turned its intimidation tactics on the tribal leaders — kidnapped and killed Sheik Khalid of the Albu Ali Jassim tribe and left his body where it could not be found, preventing the family from burying him within 24 hours as prescribed by Muslim tradition.
“Al Qaeda overplayed its hand,” Col. MacFarland said at his headquarters, a dusty base on the west side of Ramadi.
At a meeting that month, several sheiks drew up an 11-point declaration vowing to fight al Qaeda, within the rule of law, and declaring solidarity with coalition and government security forces.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:57 pmComment by Melissa Spencer — February 17, 2007 @ 6:50 am
From under which rock did you slither?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pmSuch unwarranted prejudice, bigotry and ignorance is disgusting to read — and to think that our soldiers are dying and soldiers like Duckworth are wounded in the name of slime like MS is a perversion.
#115 bruce,
February 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThanks for your eloquent comments on the three scums of America who have posted here today.
This is a neat little video explaining the tribal politics and what our past mistakes were
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbfO3LV0FhI
February 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThe Soviet Union didnt’ fall Reagan, it fell under Bush, idiot.
Well pinhead, who do republicans credit with the fall of the USSR? Bush?
Ha, ha, ha, …
February 17th, 2007 at 1:30 pmHere’s good news from iraq… lets bury it
Sunni tribes in troubled Anbar province have begun working closely with U.S. and government forces, contributing nearly 2,400 men to the police department and 1,600 to a newly organized tribal security force, authorities say.
Propaganda. These “authorities” have been wrong about everything, and you still listen to them?
Pathetic.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm“Al Qaeda overplayed its hand,†Col. MacFarland said at his headquarters, a dusty base on the west side of Ramadi.
How many times have we heard this before?
At a meeting that month, several sheiks drew up an 11-point declaration vowing to fight al Qaeda, within the rule of law, and declaring solidarity with coalition and government security forces.Comment by Vince P —
Man you are so gullible. Four years and over three thousand dead American soldiers later, and you still swallow fairy tales.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThe Psychodynamics of the Radical Liberal Mind
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The first step toward an in-depth understanding of adult behavior is to comprehend its origins in childhood. Whether adaptive or maladaptive, the enduring patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that define adult personality begin in the early years of life. In fact, our earliest experiences with caretakers and others, acting on inherited temperament factors, strongly determine our later personality traits, including those expressed in political values and beliefs.
The dispositions of the liberal mind are no exception: his hopes and fears, beliefs and passions, values and morals are in great measure the legacy of his childhood from birth through adolescence. The traits that define who he is are the traits that lead him to pursue particular goals in the political arena and to use particular methods to achieve them.
The radical liberal mind’s goals are now familiar, of course, but another brief summary will prove useful in highlighting their essentially childlike nature. Just noted were the grandiose goals of providing for everyone’s material welfare and healthcare, protecting everyone’s self-esteem correcting all social and political disadvantages, educating all citizens, and eliminating all class distinctions.
In his pursuit of these goals, he intends to construct a universal human family, one united in bonds of mutual love, concern, caretaking and tolerance. Through drastic government action the radical liberal seeks the following:
* A powerful parental government to provide everyone with a good life and a caring presence
* An elite corps of surrogate parents that will manage the lives of the people through approximately equal distributions of goods and services, just as real parents provide equally for the needs of their children
* A guarantee of material security from the state, similar to that which a child expects from his parents
* A form of parental social justice that cures or mitigates all states of deprivation, inequality, suffering and disadvantage
* A guarantee that negative rights for the protection of individual liberty will yield to positive rights that reduce or eliminate inequalities of wealth, social status and power, just as good parents would balance benefits to their children
* Government laws that will punish the “haves†for their excesses and compensate the “have-nots†for the pangs of envy, just as good parents would do for their children
* Government directives from wise and caring officials that channel the citizen’s initiative and industry through social programs and tax incentives, just as wise parents determine the directions of the family’s labors
* Government policy that instructs the people in how to relate to each other politically, just as good parents instruct their children in how to conduct themselves properly
* Permissive laws passed by sympathetic legislators that lower the obligations of contracts, ease codes of acceptable conduct, and relax the burdens of established institutions such as marriage and adoption procedures, just as indulgent parents would do
* Government welfare programs that free the citizen-child from the duties of altruism, just as parents do
* An international caring agenda that will enhance the family of nations by understanding everyone’s hardships, tolerating destructive actions by others, and empathizing with aggressors to bring them to the negotiating table, just as good parents do in resolving family disputes
These and other goals dear to the modern liberal heart are remarkable for the childhood needs they address and the adult needs they ignore. As noted in more detail below, what the radical liberal mind really longs for, as revealed in his political goals, is a child’s relationship to a loving family whose caretaking compensates him for the injuries he suffered in his early years. He seeks all of this in the contemporary political arena.
The major problem he faces is that a substantial portion of the population is still competent: it is a population that deeply reveres individual liberty, readily accepts its responsibilities, and passionately opposes its destruction. It is not about to yield to the liberal’s mad dream. Because competent people know that they can direct their own lives and provide for their own security through voluntary cooperation, and because they love a world of freedom in which to live as they choose, they have no need for, and indeed vehemently reject, the oppressive intrusions of liberal government.
What the competent citizen wants, in contrast to the modern liberal, is a coherent and dependable structure for ordered liberty, secured by a limited government that respects the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual and protects his property rights against the constant invasions of collectivism.
The liberal mind rejects this prescription on principle and attempts to overthrow it in government policy. What the liberal seeks in order to feel secure is the modern welfare state with its endless guarantees and endless regulations. This goal is literally fantastic in its own right. But equally irrational is the method by which he attempts to achieve it.
He is willing to use any kind of government power, including power which destroys the foundations of civilized freedom, in order to get what he demands: government insured safety and security over the entire lifespan, along with accommodation to his neurotic demands. He seeks through the state that degree of coercion needed to redress the trauma, injustice, helplessness and humiliation experienced at the hands of his original caretakers. He hopes to do this by passing laws that indulge his impulses and exempt him from the proper obligations of mature adulthood.
Considered in its entirety, the liberal’s goal of making the state into an ideal parent/family and his method of achieving it by compelling competent people to do his bidding constitute the radical liberal agenda. Above all, the agenda is a blueprint for the use of irresistible government power. Driven by his irrational needs and desires, the radical liberal mind is more than willing to sacrifice the noble structure of liberty that originally defined America for the shabby asylum of the modern welfare state.
Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area
February 17th, 2007 at 2:09 pmHe received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area
Comment by Vince P
As I’ve said many times, and bears repeating: a degree isn’t a guarantee of intellectual integity. This guy has many preconcieved notions which don’t bear on reality. And the highly partisan tone of his assertions:
[Liberals are] willing to use any kind of government power, including power which destroys the foundations of civilized freedom, in order to get what he demands [. . .]
Shorter version: And liberals ended slavery. Boo hoo.
Vince, we feel sorry for you, really. Anyone that deluded is obviously going to have a hard time understanding the truth, so why bother?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pmLyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is a Forensic Psychiatrist. Which means he’s an ambulance chaser. And Vince P is stupid enough to believe him!
Tell me Vince P, if this is the case, why are extreme religiosity like you demonstrate a legitimate symptom of mental illness?
Go see a psychiatrist, and give them your writings. See how short the window is before you get medicated, skippy.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pmSo Vince hangs around with the Townhall twits?
That explains everything.
And next, the Doughy Pantload will tell us how to solve global warming, by just ignoring it!
February 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pmDr. Insanity (Rossiter) says the reason that Conservatives aren’t funny is because they’re too nice. Of course, lack of a sense of humor, is also a symptom of mental illness. Sounds like the doctor needs some time on the couch. You sure can pick the weirdest, most screwed up people as Heroes Vince – why is that? Do they remind you of yourself?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmSo Vince hangs around with the Townhall twits?
That explains everything.
And next, the Doughy Pantload will tell us how to solve global warming, by just ignoring it!
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Vince P is to Judaism, what David Duke is to Christianity. Yes it does all make sense – huh?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pmI still can’t believe those TREASONOUS al Crackkker heathens in her district…
…refused to elect a genuine war hero like Ms. Duckett…
…but believe that that roly-poly fat bastich Henry Hyde was worth voting for…
…those suburban al Crackker Bushite TRAITORS in Duckworth’s district are disgraceful and disgusting…
February 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pmHenry Hyde wasn’t running. The seat was open. I think Rostom or something simliar is the guy who won. The voters not fooled by shameless choice of a candidate who’s appeal was her leglessness.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThe voters not fooled by shameless choice of a candidate who’s(SIC) appeal was her leglessness.
Comment by Vince P
Who’s is the contraction of “who is.” Perhaps you mean “whose” here. and you are “shameless” for thinking Duckworth’s only appeal was her lack of legs; she spoke very eloquently–and with firsthand knowledge–on what is wrong with Bush’s policy in Iraq, but I suppose all that was over your head.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThe voters not fooled by shameless choice of a candidate who’s appeal was her leglessness.
Comment by Vince P
You’ve got a lot of damn gall to call out someone who lost her legs serving, while you are safe and sound in your basement. Coward.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pmPlease dont impose on me your cultural ideas, regressive.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pmHahha Michelle Malkin is exposing you people’s asshatteriness to the world right now.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pmPlease dont(SIC) impose on me your cultural ideas, regressive.
Comment by Vince P
The same could be said to you, Vince.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pmI havent told anyone what to do. I have merely provided information.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pmPlease dont impose on me your cultural ideas, regressive.
Comment by Vince P
A regressive is a republican, no matter how hard Vince tries to re-brand the word.
But he’s just a straight-up coward.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pmHahha Michelle Malkin is exposing you people’s asshatteriness to the world right now.
Comment by Vince P
Ooh, she’s posting on her crappy blog. Big deal.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:05 pmHenry Hyde wasn’t running.
I have merely provided information.
Comments by Vince P #s 165 & 171 respectively
Vince,
1) I never said he was…(Hyde represented that district for years)…
2) needlessly…
February 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pmWell, Malkin would last two seconds in a face to face with me. Words on blogs are nothing. Just like the ones I just wrote. It is when you are in person that you people fold like a house of cards held up by lies.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 17, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
When and where you little pussy. I can hardly wait. Come get some of my jackboots you lilly livered bastard you.
Bring it boy.
Where in LA? you want to meet?
Bring that little cocksucker Barfly with you. Rachel needs someone to kick their nuts up to their chin with.
We do EVERYTHING together.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:01 pmGino.
Gino, you pathetic little hag. Come to the midwest. We know how to fight unlike you Californians. Bring your shit over here.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:52 pmRachel can kick her own nuts, thank you.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWe know how to fight unlike you Californians. Bring your shit over here.
Comment by JPark
J, we Californians can fight with the best of them. Why you dissin’ Cali? It’s not like the midwest has any shortage of cowards, and as a former Iowan, I think your assertion is shit.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pmBarfly, I was being an ahole, deal with it.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pm>Barfly, I was being an ahole, deal with it.
Ah, the words of a true Regressive.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:25 amAh, the words of a true Regressive.
Comment by Vince P
JPark isn’t a republican. What the hell are you talking about?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:46 amI liked this:
Hello everyone! Because it’s Monday, I’d like to refer to a little bit of history – namely the famous quote by a famous Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
It’s a great quote, but it goes on from there: “Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat and advance.”
That preamble is a powerful statement – one I still live by every day. And also at night as well, when I’m at the park walking my Portuguese Water Dog, Mr. Chuffles.
Mr. Chuffles loves midnight walks in the park! Oh the trouble we get into!
But I digress.
See, I only bring up the FDR quote because lately, I have been really fearful of posting at the Huffpo.
What was I scared of? Well, lots of things. It seems that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party — now caught up in a Moveon.org/HuffPo trance – has quickly become a sum of its countless fears. The party that once resisted fear has now become one that champions it in every strange and shadowy shape.
If the country and perhaps the geopolitical balance weren’t at stake, it would be funny. Actually, even with those in peril, it’s still funny. Very, very funny. I am fearful that it may be the funniest thing ever. Almost as funny David Mamet’s napkin art. Or Rebecca Pidgeon’s downloads. Remember those?
Hilarious stuff!
You say that the Republicans are fear mongers, what with their inconvenient reminders that terrorism is rampant in the world. But it seems to me that the real fear mongers are on the left, as amply demonstrated here with this list I made after reading a week’s worth of Huffposts, all while sitting in my underwear under a sun lamp:
THE HUFFPO LIST OF THINGS TO BE FEARFUL OF!
Fear of a loss of individual liberty in response to the war on terror.
Fear that the paranoia over terrorism will erode everything this country was founded on.
Fear that liberals haven’t degraded the education system enough so most people still know that Abraham Lincoln and FDR suspended many liberties to deal with similar crises
Fear of Mel Gibson
Fear that your angry denunciations of Mel Gibson will not detract attention from the rampant anti-semitism found at the Huffington Post.
Fear that Ari Emmanuel’s “brave” attack on Mel Gibson said more about Emmanuel’s opportunism than any sincere belief.
Fear that Emmanuel’s client Michael Moore might be a bigger anti-Semite than Gibson.
Fear of George Bu$H
Fear that Bu$h is to blame for everything
Fear that Bu$h isn’t to blame for everything
Fear that if you continue to blame everything on Bu$h, you won’t actually figure out who really is to blame for your problems
Fear that your spelling of Bu$h reflects your intellectual prowess, in a nutshell.
And for that, you still blame Bu$h
And your parent$
Fear of Walmart
Fear of people who shop at Walmart
Fear that you might actually save money if you shopped at Walmart
Fear that Walmart has done more to help the poor than any social program ever created by our government.
Fear of all forms of energy except for the ones that don’t work
Fear that people will realize the easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gases is to convert to nuclear energy
Fear that your activism will be exposed as a front for your narcissism
Fear that low taxes actually do create prosperous societies
Fear that people will find out what a hypocrite you are because you call for higher taxes while using tax shelters
Fear of mean people
Fear of judgmental people
Fear of appearing narrow-minded
Fear of intolerance
Fear that with your tirades against SUVs, Wal-Mart, meat, cigarettes, guns, whisky, and organized religion, you are the judgmental, intolerant one.
Fear of 3d ultrasounds that show fetal development
Fear that your children won’t carry on your failed politics as religion/lifestyle
fear of being judged in the afterlife
fear of being judged in this life
fear of that dark facial freckle
Fear that your new age health practices won’t be able to save you from that dark facial freckle
Fear of writers asking for fair compensation given there are ads sold by barry diller on the pages.
Fear that people will notice the contradiction between pushing for higher minimum wages and not paying the writers on your website.
Fear of not being invited to arianna/denton blog loft parties.
Fear of all country singers except for the ones that hate Bush
Fear that Deepak is laughing all the way to the bank
Fear that the exposure that you’re being for the ‘common man’ is a joke considering you go to the only clubs and bars roped off to keep those people out.
Fear that when they take away your anger there will be nothing left.
Fear of free speech when it mocks your beliefs.
Fear of free speech when it speaks back to you.
Fear of free speech when it comes from Christians.
Fear of free speech when it comes from me.
Fear that your definition of free speech – that only you get to be heard– won’t fly with us Wal-mart shoppers.
fear of a police state unless of course it actually is a police state, like, Venezuela
Fear of Hugo Chavez dying
Fear of Castro Dying
Fear of Communism dying
Fear of Israel and their determined desire to blow up terrorists
No fear of Hezbollah and their pleasure in blowing up citizens
Fear of black Republicans
Fear that one day blacks will figure out you’re the racist for always treating them like helpless victims instead of responsible individuals.
Fear that your comments are default responses to people who already agree with you
Fear that maybe shame is a good thing
Fear of rightwing “Repuglicans”
Fear of “crackpot Christians”
Fear that these fears do not measure up to the more legitimate fear of crackpot Islamists who blow you up in order to sleep with 72 virgins who are most likely lousy in bed anyway.
Fear of losing the next election
Fear that you’ll have to put your support behind a candidate who was already exposed and rejected by the American public.
Fear that it might be Gary Hart.
And he still won’t trim his eyebrows
Fear of Big Brother
Fear of group think
Fear that your lockstep obedience to progressive boilerplate is a purer example of subservience than anything you’d ever find in “Repuglican” circles
Fear that people will realize that a record of no terror attacks on the U.S. in five years, and liberating 55 million people in two Muslim nations, is not so bad.
Fear of having to come up with a new dehumanization campaign for the next Republican president.
Fear of not having to come up with dehumanization campaigns for radical islamists, kim jong II, the iranian mullahs and the EU and Russian oligarchs who took oil bribes from Saddam to keep him in power.
Fear that Foucault is not holding up to scrutiny.
Fear that common sense is making a comeback.
Fear that all those colonics did absolutely nothing for you.
Fear that grad school did even less.
Fear of the death penalty actually being a deterrent.
Fear that you’d experience more happiness from a Big Mac than from that bag of overpriced organic produce you bought at Knoll Organic Farms in Brentwood.
Fear of school vouchers
Fear that school vouchers will enable poor minority children to attend your children’s private schools
Fear of a Marine knocking on your Prius’s window to discuss your bumperstickers.
Fear that your own sense of rebellion is a farce and every opinion you have is safe and only voiced among those who agree with you
Fear of your conscience telling you even though you are supposed to like it, you really think NPR – especially its self serious whispering, wimpy bumper music and simpering anchors — sucks.
Fear that the right to free speech is being curtailed.
Fear that when you bravely proclaim you’re speaking “Truth to power,” those who live in countries where the right to speak is truly curtailed are laughing bitterly at you.
Fear that your anti-Americanism is becoming even boring to you.
Fear that you hate the right for the same reason you hate your dad because you know that he is right and that you are a loser and you will always be a loser and that you are sabotaging your life and those of everyone around you because that makes you that angry.
Fear that everyone will notice that other than incessant complaining you haven’t come up with a single solution.
Fear of never having a bad thing to say against the real tyrants of the world while having a rich vocabulary against a milquetoast GOP congressman from Georgia.
Fear of someone sitting you down and forcing you to deal with the fact that even if global warming was absolutely manmade and as bad as Gore says it is, that the threat of islamic terrorists getting WMDs and using them is far greater and imminent and requires offering at least moderate allegiance to the current president of the United States and to Tony Blair and Sen. Lieberman.
Fear of people snickering at you when you use the terms ’sustainable’ and ‘indigenous peoples’.
Fear of Nascar
Fear of Nasa
Fear of Nas (rapper)
Fear of NA (narcotics anonymous)
Fear of N (nitrogen)
Fear of nothingness
Fear that even if the democrats win the 08 election, Europeans will still look down on us and Muslims will still want to kill us.
Fear that capitalism actually works better than any other economic system
Fear that America really is the freest country in the world
Fear that going it alone when you think you’re right is more moral than trying to build a coalition with dictators, thieves and cowards.
Fear that this post will be front-paged.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:38 amFear that you’ll feel compelled to write a list of my fears as a response to this blog
Fear that I’ll want you to do exactly that, because it provides light entertainment for me, personally.
Fear that I love you for that. (it’s true!) .
Fear that I have to run!
My soaps are on!
My soaps are on!
Comment by Vince P
Rachel, give it a rest. You’re so transparent.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:10 amVince P
Actually it takes more moral maturity to be a liberal, and far greater moral strength because, ultimately, to be a liberal you have to step back from your emotions, think things through and defend your principles even when it is inconvenient. You can’t, like the rightwing, base your personal superiority on a “Because I say so.”
Liberals had the same basic emotional reaction to all of the same stimuli as you Rightwing do, heck we see a child getting killed, our immediate reaction is “Bring on the death penalty.”
The difference is we then stop and think about it.
You see, with you Republicans, you have nothing but emotion backing you. Iraq war? The evidence was shaky at best, the basic war-front is looking entirely less then winnable without taking measures which would prove unwinnable at home (IE: Introducing the draft) and it is hellava expensive. This is the liberal viewpoint in a nutshell.
The “Conservative” viewpoint is that one should not lose face. A pure emotional argument, disguised frequently as “You do not support the troops” or “Don’t embolden the enemy” or whatever, the fact is that while the leftwing is more concerned about the practical situation, you righties go on all about the fact that you don’t want to look silly.
Take your pick on science. Evolution, which has far more in the way of proof for it, and a lot less disproving it, versus the specific creation fairy tale favoured by a specific religion. The leftwing favours teaching evolution, because while a lot of lefties are in fact Christians who would emotionally like to see their kids getting more into religion, but they realise that:
1: If you are going to teach Christian creationism you probably should teach Hindu, Budhist, Norse, Egyption, pagan etc… creation theories too. The funds and the hours needed in order to do this would prove impractical.
2: School is not where you should get your religion. That is why you have churches, Sunday schools, etc…
3: The sheer amount of time it would take to put 1 into place would be impractical, so lets go with the best idea of teaching our best knowledge to our kids – rather then the mystical claptrap of a dozen different religions.
Embryonic stem cell research? The rightwing argument is that you are killing babies. The leftwing argument points out that those “Babies” are getting incinerated anyway – so they may as well do some good. Rightwing, as you will not goes for the emotive argument, leftwing goes for practicality,
Enviromentalism? The Earth is the only enviroment we have which we know can support us, the bulk of our scientists, who have spent their entire lives studying the climate say we need to get off of oil, we have just seen over the last six years cataclysmic effects on the enviroment, we have cleaner alternatives available (BioEthanol, BioDiesel) and changing over to alternatives would also solve the problem of all of that middle eastern nationalist terrorism we are facing (What sparked Osama was not, as is popularly reported, religion. What set him off was US military bases in his home country – Saudi Arabia.)
To the rightwing of course, this is all a ploy to get “The Power.”
Leftwing reasons it out, rightwing appeals to emotion.
Gay marriage? Leftwing viewpoint? It doesn’t hurt anyone so why not?
Rightwing viewpoint? It is basically an attack on the institution of marriage (Yeah like divorce wasn’t) and should be stopped. (Their thinly veiled viewpoint is more along the lines of not being able to insult gays for being promiscious anymore, but try getting them to come out and say it.)
Torture? Leftwing says its wrong, even though we don’t like terrorists. Reason? It brings us down to their level, is highly unreliable at best, creates martyrs to the cause, and breeds psycopathology in the torturers. Further, the ban on torture was designed specifically for this sort of situation.
Rightwing? 9/11. A pure call to emotion.
Civil rights like privacy? Leftwing: They are rights which are central to the idea of America. Besides, how seriously can you take someone arguing that they are being set aside for the sake of security when there are only thirty guys listening in who are fluent in Arabic languages?
Rightwing? 9/11. A pure call to emotion.
Groupthink? Leftwing remembers how it hurt several leftwingers throughout the past, never mind how it hurt the right – and so we advocate openly voicing criticism.
Rightwing? Don’t demoralise the troops by criticising el presidente.
Corruption? Rightwing viewpoint seems to me to be “But he did it too” even when he didn’t. Whether it is a president lying Congress into backing a pointless war, a massive bribery scandal incorporating the Republican’s basic election funding machine (K Street) or even a sex cover-up scandal. It is in essence, a call harkening back to preschool.
Leftwing viewpoint is lets get rid of all of the corrupt bastards, especially those on our side of the political fence.
Taxes? Leftwing viewpoint is that if you are going to have a government, it costs money – so you have to raise taxes accordingly. Lefties don’t like paying tax anymore then righties do, but we recognise that you don’t get a free lunch in this world, and that saying dropping taxes will raise income is in fact, illogical and therefore either a indication that you are a liar, or just very, very stupid.
Rightwing viewpoint? We don’t like paying taxes so lets not. Oh, but don’t mind us when we whine about potholes in the road, a high crime rate, and the fact that there are all of these dirty beggars around.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:15 amVince P
Another little point:
You do realise that LBJ was a liberal, and Nixon (The guy who got America out of Vietnam) a conservative don’t you?
Oh, wait, I was assuming you had two brain cells to rub together.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:25 amBruce,
February 18th, 2007 at 8:15 amYou expressed everything so well, but it’s probably all lost on the trolls here.
#165 Roskam won over Duckworth.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pmShe spent $6 million and he spent $11 million — everyone from the president on down had to come to his support because the vote was too close to call until the election.