Comments on: ThinkFast: April 2, 2007

By: impeachcheneythenbush

impeachcheneythenbush — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:24:36 +0000

For the second year in a row, President Bush will skip the tradition of throwing out the ceremonial first pitch in Washingtonâ€™s baseball home opener. With Bushâ€™s approval ratings stuck in the low 30s in recent polls, a White House spokeswoman â€œwas asked whether the president feared heâ€™d get booed. â€˜No,â€™ she replied. â€˜Certainly not.â€™â€ Last Opening Day, Cheney filled in for Bush and was peppered with loud boos.

More than likely it’s the Secret Service strongly advising that he not do this. Hard to control security at an event like that.

By: ForTruth

ForTruth — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:05:57 +0000

Kinda like eating for world hunger.

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:30:03 +0000

IF THESE FANS ARE TRUE AMERICANS, THEY’LL BOO CHIMPya OUT OF THE STADIUM AS HE SLINKS OUT WITH HIS SIMIAN TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS, SOBBING BECAUSE NOBODY LIKE HIM ANY MORE? THEY NEVER DID TO BEGIN WITH, THE NAZI-FASCIST CRIMINAL!!!!!

ITS TOO BAD McPAIN AND Graham WEREN’T SHOT BY THAT SNIPER—TWO LESS repugnant-repubs TO WASTE OUT ALREADY SCARCE OXYGEN IN THE ATHMOSPHERE—–WORTHLESS VERMIN TWATS!!!!!

YEP, THE VIOLENCE GROWD GREATER AND CHIMPya, FRANKENCheney, Rove, Bushland Uber Allies AND ITS SUPPORTERS LIKE McPAIN and Graham AND THEIR LIES GROW GREATER AND GREATER “Every Day In Every Way Things Are Getting Better And Better—We Can Walk In The Streets—-We Can Buy Rugs—–The People Have Electricity(LESS THAN WHEN Saddam WAS STILL IN POWER)—–We Are Winning(IF YOU GO BY THE NUMBER OF DEAD BODIES, MAINLY OF CIVILIAN INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHILE THE REAL VILLAINS THUMB THEIR NOSE AT THE U.S.)——Things Are Looking Up, So Put On A Happy Face(THE SNICKERING SKULL-FACE OF DEATH, WHICH SHOULD TAKE ALL OF Bushland Uber Allies AND ITS SUPPORTERS TO WHERE THE WOODBINE TWINETH, THAT PLACE WHERE NO MAN RETURNETH FROM, THE ROAD TO MICTLANTECHUTLI, THE DUSTY AND FINAL ROAD TO DEATH!!!!!)!!!!!

TYPICAL repugnant-repub MOVE OF PUTTING CRONIES WITH NO EXPERIENCE, ABILITY OR QUALIFICATION INTO POSITIONS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CONNECTIONS TO THE APPOINTER, IN THIS CASE Ah-nold the GROPENSFUHRER—-I KNEW HE WAS A NAZI CREEP AS WELL AS A TWO-BIT ACTOR, BUT, HEY, THEN SO WAS Reagan—-ONCE A NAZI ALWAYS A FASCIST-NAZI CREEP!!!!!

Al Qaeda “is still humming along,” WHILE CHIMPya and FRANKENCheney ARE TWIDDLING THEIR THUMBS STUCK UP THEIR FILTHY ANUSES AND WORRYING ABOUT THEIR LEGACIES AND WHETHER THEY WILL BE PROSECUTED AND PERHAPS EXECUTED FOR THEIR HIGH CRIMES AND WAR CRIMES—-SWEET JESUS ALMIGHTY, WHAT AN USELESS PAIR OF CRIMINAL FASCIST-NAZIS THESE TWO CREEPS ARE—–GET OUT THERE AND CATCH THESE TERRORISTS!!!! DO SOMETHING USEFUL FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF LYING ALL THE TIME AND THINKING OF WAYS TO ENRICH YOUR CRIMINAL SELVES AND YOUR CRIMINAL CRONIES!!!!!

FRANKENCheney MEETS THE Wade-MAN!!!! YOUR EYES WILL NOT BELIEVE, YOUR SENSES WILL NOT DETECT, YOUR HEART WILL POUND IN YOUR CHEST AS THE DAMNING CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE TWO MONSTERS IS REVEALED!!!!! AMERICA, DON’T YOU DARE MISS THE TRUTH REVEALED ABOUT FRANKENCheney MEETS THE Wade-MAN!!!!! COMING SOON TO YOUR LOCAL CONGRESS-THEATRE!!!!!

THE GROWING CLIMATE DIVIDE IS PRIMARILY THE FAULT OF CHIMPya AND Bushland Uber Allies AND THEIR CRIMINAL SUPPORTERS LIKE Inhofe, Sensenbrenner, Crichton, ET CETERA AD NAUSEUM—-THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FROM EVERYTHING FROM CRAZY WEATHER WORLDWIDE TO MELTING POLAR ICE CAPS, POLAR BEARS AND OTHER ENDANGERED SPECIES IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION, MORE CASES OF INFECTIOUS BACTERIA, VIRUSES AND MOLDS ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF MANKIND, OXYGEN BECOMING SCARCER, ULTRAVIOLET CANCER-CAUSING RADIATION FROM SUNLIGHT AND COSMIC RADIATION BOMBARDING US THROUGH HOLES IN THE OZONE LAYER, A MYRIAD OTHER ILLS, PAINS AND DANGERS TO MANKIND CAUSED BY THIS EVIL F*CK CHIMPya AND HIS EVIL MINIONS!!!!!

THE FIX IS IN AND DANGEROUS TERRORIST David Hicks IS GIVEN A MERE SLAP ON THE WRIST TO HELP STOOGE AND TOADY, THAT FOUR-EYED BALDING CREEP John Howard POLITICALLY WITHOUT A THOUGHT TO THE ETHICS, MORALS AND LAW INVOLVED IN THIS MESS, THIS BALLS-UP, THIS COCK-UP PERPETRATED BY CHIMPya, FRANKENCheney, Howard, Bushland Uber Allies, AND THEIR CRIMINAL, LAWLESS, ILLEGAL WAR-CRIMES MACHINATIONS TO PERVERT THE RULE OF LAW INTERNATIONALLY AND MAKE A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE!!!!!

SHIT ON YOU TOO, GOOGLE(tm) AND YA NERDY FOUNDERS!!!!!

By: barfly

barfly — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:02:33 +0000

85, youâ€™re repeating the notion that Bush â€˜41 conspired with Hussein on the invasion of Kuwait, something for which there is no evidence. Dale

I’m repeating the established fact that Bush 1 gave Saddam the go-ahead to invade. His representative, April Glaspie, told Saddam that the US wouldn’t interfere if he invaded Kuwait. And yes, there is evidence.

And the containment strategy wasnâ€™t workingâ€¦ Hussein continued to slaughter his own people, continued to support terrorism (remember his payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists?),

More bullshit from the Right. Saddam gave money to families who were displaced by Israelis because a family member happened to blow himself up in a terrorist act. In many cases, they didn’t even know what their sons were planning, until the bulldozers showed up to raise their house. Boy, you’ll swallow any Rightist talking point, won’t you? It’s like your laughable defense of the SSI cap the other day; you showed you knew little about the subject, other that what you had previously been spoon-fed by the likes of Rush, and Hannity.

By: JosephW

JosephW — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:40:56 +0000

A couple of comments:
Regarding the Balkans (Kosovo was specifically mentioned by Mark), there’s a hell of a lot more at work concerning the last fifteen years of disintegration in the former Yugoslavia. Keeping the history lesson somewhat short, Yugoslavia was in a state of decline in terms of national unity from the instant that Tito died. Tito was the SOLE glue holding the country together following its re-establishment at the end of WWII. During the war, Croatia was a semi-independent nation controlled by an Axis-sympathizing leadership, the Ustashi; the rest of Yugoslavia was chopped up and divided among the Axis powers: Italy annexed Montenegro and the Kosovo area; Bulgaria annexed Macedonia; Hungary annexed Slavonia (lying just to the north of Belgrade); Germany directly annexed Slovenia and occupied Serbia (Bosnia was split between Croatia and German Serbia). Resistance fighters from all occupied Yugoslavia operated in a sort of “unity” government which split apart as the Axis armies pulled out of the country with Tito’s fighters emerging as the victors. Under Tito’s very firm grasp, Yugoslavia’s constituent parts (which had been put together after WWI pretty much under Serbian domination) were pulled back together in a sort of “equal partners” deal (no single “republic” was supposed to be any more powerful than the others; any one which exceeded its bounds was firmly dealt with by Tito). Once Tito died, however, the “federation” began coming apart at the seams as Serbian Communists started pushing for more power in the government (the Serbs were still technically committed to the “rotating Presidency” but the President had little real power); naturally, the other 5 republics were not as happy. Also, Tito had inadvertently given Serbia “extra” power by making two Serbian provinces (Slavonia and Kosovo) “autonomous” regions with equal status to the republics, except for the Presidency. Under Tito, the ethnic divisions were muted, but the old rivalries started flaring up after a little more than 4 decades. Croatia started the move towards independence with Slovenia following very quickly (Slovenia’s independence was the first recognized by the central government since the Yugoslav Army would have to go through Croatia to keep Slovenia, and the Army couldn’t fight the Croatians while trying to reign in the Slovenes). Croatian leaders initially only wanted independence for the republic’s Tito-era defined borders, but following the Bosnian declaration of secession, and the Serb efforts to annex the majority-Serb territories, the Croatians then sought to annex Bosnia’s majority-Croat territories. (Unfortunately, under Tito, Bosnia had become a real melting pot with Serb, Croat, and Slavic Muslim towns nestled side by side, except for narrow areas along the Serbian and Croatian frontiers.) Then, Serbia declared that it would fight to keep all Serbs under Serbia’s control, with Croatia making a similar declaration to keep all Croats under Croatia’s control (Croatia had a large Serb population, while a much smaller Croat population lived in Serbia). Following the resolution of the Bosnian conflict, Serbia then faced troubles with its Muslim population in the Kosovo province. Milosevic set the course by appearing in the city of Kosovo (which played a key role in Serbian history) and making the declaration that Kosovo would remain the “heart” of Serbia. Unfortunately, the Kosovars in the province (ethnically speaking, the Kosovars are Albanians) proved resitant, demanding their province become an independent state. To lessen this happening, Milosevic began a policy of relocating ethnic Serbs (who’d fled Croatian and Bosnian territory) into the Kosovo province for several years; after the Serbian population grew large enough, Milosevic demanded that a referendum would be held to determine the province’s status. The Kosovars rejected this demand and announced that they would not vote in the referendum and would reject the results. Milosevic then pushed for another round of ethnic cleansing, this time of the Kosovars. (Yes, THAT’s the short version. The long version would delve back to the 14th Century with the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans and move up to WWI and the founding of the “Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes”.)
Second, regarding the “many on the left *and* the right” feeling a need to topple Hussein that Dale invoked, sorry, man, but it WAS a neocon agenda. The “left” wanted to remove Hussein for his flagrant abuses of human rights violations. The “right” firmly SUPPORTED Hussein until he became more trouble than he was worth. I don’t want Dale to forget that it was the REAGAN administration that supplied Saddam with intel in the 1980-88 Gulf War against Iran. It was the REAGAN administration that provided Saddam with the INGREDIENTS to manufacture both chemical and biological weapons (and also provided hardware to allow Saddam to deploy those weapons). It was the REAGAN administration that sat by and did NOTHING while Saddam used chemical warfare on not only his Iranian adversaries but also Kurds and Shi’ites living inside Iraq’s borders. Only after Saddam invaded Kuwait did Saddam become “problematic” and even then, it was the BUSH I administration which should be held accountable for failing to direct its Ambassador to Iraq to CLEARLY spell out US opposition to any invasion; instead, April Glaspie was instructed to state that the US held no position on inter-Arab disputes–not surprisingly, Saddam read that as an “all-clear” to proceed as he wanted. When Saddam did invade Kuwait, the Kuwaitis then proceeded to pull the most elaborate propaganda campaign to get the US to “liberate” their country (in the meantime, young Kuwaiti men were busy battling in Cairo and Parisian discos to see who could score the most booty rather than trying to fight to free their homeland). The truth in Kuwait was that, for the average Kuwaiti, life proceeded pretty much as usual (at least until Desert Storm began). The Kuwaiti propagandists and their US neocon supporters made all sorts of promises to improve life for the average Kuwaiti as well as the over 50% of Kuwaiti residents who weren’t citizens (they were largely the “guest workers” who did all the drudge work that was too demeaning for the Kuwaiti elite); of course, once the country was “liberated”, the status quo was re-established (women didn’t get the right to vote or sit in Parliament for another decade). Following the “liberation”, Bush I made comments that suggested anyone or any group that managed to overthrow Saddam would receive the full backing of the US and when the “no-fly zones” were established, Kurds in the north and Shi’ites in the south thought they would have that support and attempted to break Saddam’s control. Their failure was the DIRECT result of the NEOCON refusal to back just “anyone” (the NEOCONs wanted someone that they could control, as they thought they’d had with Saddam). The “left” denounced the Bush I failures to deliver the support he had promised. Clinton, it should be noted, while supporting the desire to topple Saddam, NEVER openly pressed the issue nor did he promise to back any group as openly as Bush I had. Clinton supported an INTERNAL coup, one that had the support of the Iraqi people, but he didn’t make any strong attempt to directly topple Saddam. Dubya, on the other hand, has given over half a dozen DIFFERENT (and almost completely non-related) “reasons” for invading Iraq. And “toppling Saddam” was NEVER the main focus (Saddam’s “toppling” only became a key point in the days immediately prior to the opening “shock-and-awe” campaign; even then, Dubya only pushed for Saddam to “leave” Iraq, as in “go into exile”).
Incidentally, Dale, this whole Iraq fiasco has shown how NOT to deal with the Middle East. While it’s fine and dandy to talk about removing “madmen” from power, if you don’t have a f***in’ clue who’s in the wings waiting to take over (or who has a reasonable chance at coming into power), you shouldn’t even think about removing the madman, as there’s always another madman waiting in the wings. (That was actually one of the main reasons that Qaddafi has stayed in power since NO ONE in any intelligence agency–not even MOSSAD–has a clue who’s likely to take power if Qaddafi goes.)

By: Nat

Nat — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:09:20 +0000

And the containment strategy wasnâ€™t workingâ€¦ Hussein continued to slaughter his own people, continued to support terrorism (remember his payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists?), and continued to attach coalition aircraft in the no-fly zonesâ€¦ a condition that HE AGREED TO in order to stop the Gulf War.
Comment by Dale â€” April 2, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

-The containment strategy was working. It kept weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam’s hands and it kept Iraq’s neighbors safe and the world safe. Both Colin Powell and Condi agreed with this in 2001.

-It was typically for all Muslims countries to give to the family members of people who had blown themselves up.

-When did he agree to a no-fly zone?

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:53:45 +0000

#86 no, the record clearly shows that they were not able to come up with acceptabel alternatives to Sadaam. The record also clearly shows that the Rpublican party marched in lock step agaiinst Clinton at every step. The record also shows that he did not have his own party’s backing, nor the military’s backing. Thuus as the record clearly shows he did not invade Iraq. The opinion of the UN was nto even afactor. You have to have support at home before you even think about apporaching the UN. Bush 43 defnately was trying to sway the UN, but since their information and assessments did not match the policy Bush was pushing, they coul dnot support it. Which I find funny because the Bushhinista’s allways seem to hollar that Bush was enforcing UN mmandates. Interesting isn’t it?

As to the BushI?Kuwait deal Bush 1’s handpicked appointed person told Sadaam that the US had no interest in Arab/Arab conflicts. Sound like agreen light to invade an autonomous dictatorship led country to me. YYes Kuwait iis far closer to being a dictatorship than it is to being the freedom loving democracy that Bush I claimed it to be.

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:45:59 +0000

#84, I’m more inclined to think that they were worried that they wouldn’t have UN/world support (which Bush ‘43 didn’t)

#85, you’re repeating the notion that Bush ‘41 conspired with Hussein on the invasion of Kuwait, something for which there is no evidence.

And the containment strategy wasn’t working… Hussein continued to slaughter his own people, continued to support terrorism (remember his payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists?), and continued to attach coalition aircraft in the no-fly zones… a condition that HE AGREED TO in order to stop the Gulf War.

By: barfly

barfly — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:36:34 +0000

btw, I brought up the Clinton/Kerry/etc statements to point out that many on the left *and* the right felt the need to topple Hussein; that it wasnâ€™t just a neocon agenda (unless you believe Clinton is a neocon :-)
Comment by Dale â€” April 2, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

How about following that up with a condemnation of the guy who set up the situation for Clinton? If Bush 1 hadn’t ok’d Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, Clinton wouldn’t have had to deal with the situation left to him by two preceding republican administrations. It wasn’t until faced with the consequences of their failure, that president-elect Clinton chose to continue the containment strategy, which was working, by the way.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:17:59 +0000

#82 but Clinton and his administraion did not topple Sadaam because they knew what would happen, they listened to the CIA and the military. They did not seek out only those opinions that were in alignment with their own. They aslo knew that they had no better option than to leave him be. Unfortuantely the republican party has to see the failure in all it’s glory befoore they will admit they were wrong, if they ever will.

By: Nat

Nat — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:15:14 +0000

Most wanted Saddam out of power but the Neocons chose the stupidest and most irresponsible way to do it and acted like war criminals in the process.

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:07:37 +0000

Excellent points mark… not that I agree with you, but I do enjoy discussing with you. Unfortunately I don’t really have time to respond fully. I agree that *you* didn’t say he has no right to his point of view, didn’t mean to imply that you did.

By the definition of propaganda that you posted, then most of what TP posts here (and what’s posted by commenters) is propoganda… “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”, i.e. the progressive movement.

I post here, not to try to disrupt threads as some have said, but to engage in friendly discussion… I rarely resort to personal attacks, I try not to just ‘troll’ (though I admit I have once in a while). I know I probably won’t change anybody’s mind, but for me, I’d rather discuss an issue with someone whom I know disagrees with me, than post 10 or 20 (yes, I agree’s) or (you’re right).

For those who’ve expressed the wish that I *don’t* post here… well, sorry… unless/until TP bans me, I don’t plan on stopping. (And note… I’ve *never* posted under an alias… I’ve always attempted to be upfront about who I am when I post.)

btw, I brought up the Clinton/Kerry/etc statements to point out that many on the left *and* the right felt the need to topple Hussein; that it wasn’t just a neocon agenda (unless you believe Clinton is a neocon :-)

By: Nat

Nat — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:58:33 +0000

Subjective opinionâ€¦ many on the right AND the left (Pres. Clinton, Sec. Albright, Sen Kerry, Rep. Pelosi) have advocated the toppling of Hussein. This is *your* opinionâ€¦ or should I say â€˜propagandaâ€™?

And that’s why they supported the Iraq Liberation Act which proposed funding opposition groups in Iraq to topple Saddam. Unfortunately we have a republican controlled Congress in 1998 which would not provide the funding even though most of them voted for the Bill.

Then why did we take action in Bosnia? If the criteria for taking action is the certainty that things will change for all time (and if 700 years isnâ€™t enough, then â€˜all timeâ€™ is a valid timeline), then we may as well not take action ANYWHERE in ANY circumstance. Letâ€™s all bury our heads in the sand.

It was a NATO led mission to stop ethnic cleansing.

Immaterialâ€¦ even though a manager may have a better view of the â€˜big pictureâ€™, he still needs to know whatâ€™s happening on the production line to make informed decisions. By ignoring that factory worker, his decisions will be based *only* on his own preconceived notions.

You still have to verify what the worker is saying. The worker may have various reasons for painting a certain picture.

Immaterialâ€¦ if you assume that heâ€™s possibly just repeating what he watches on FNC or reads in a Coulter book, then youâ€™re implying that heâ€™s not a thinking individual, and you ARE denigrating him.
Comment by Dale â€” April 2, 2007 @ 11:23 am

I don’t have any idea what his motives are and you don’t either.

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:55:20 +0000

In any event, itâ€™s nice to see that you still have the stones to reply to me. Thereâ€™s one way, at least, that you and Shakey Jake differ. ^_^

Comment by TripMaster Monkey â€” April 2, 2007 @ 11:36 am

Doesn’t take stones, TMM, just patience :-)

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:35:23 +0000

I guess I lied…

Main Entry: proÂ·paÂ·ganÂ·da
Pronunciation: “prÃ¤-p&-’gan-d&, “prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

#1 seems to be antiquitated.

#2 and #3 seem to cover our topic here.

The last thing i will add is that whhent he right continually briings up the statements of Clinton the right is using those statemments as propaganda, not the left. The right holds them up to be pondered as if everyone in America who opposes Bush supported everything Clinton ever did. That is hardly the case..

By: jspot » Blog Archive » Bush Bails on Baseball Day

jspot » Blog Archive » Bush Bails on Baseball Day — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:18:50 +0000

[...] Hat Tip: Think Progress [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:16:01 +0000

Sorry Dale but saying that we should not ever go in there in the first place is not an opinion, every reason given for going in has been debunked, and as time rolls on we are finding more and more that they knew before hand that what they were telling “We the people” was wrong when they were telling us and that they knew it at the time. It goes back to fixing the facts around the policy. Anyhow I find it continually more and more interesting that you and your kind keep bringing up Clinton as if everyone who opposes Bush was somehow a supporter of Clinton, I for one was not. But since you bring him up…Whatever Clintons statements may have been, he never ordered the invasion of Iraq. He and his administration knew what the consequences were, as did the military at the time and they military held to those beliefs till the administration pushed out the competent and replaced them with the complicit politically reliable friends. And once again my opinion is my opinion, when it begins to be used to support a wider political agenda it becomes propaganda. And whether you like it or not the corporals statements are propaganda in the way they are being used.

You assume I supported going to Bosnia and being the worlds police man? I did not however the biggest difference I see between the two is that we created the situation in Iraq. The situation in Balkans was pretty much an organized military campaign by a military power to exterminate a civilian population with little or no military protection. I see no organized military or government other than ours in Iraq right now. Face it is Iraq had the resources of the Sudan or of Rwanda, we never would have given it a second thought.

Not surprisingly you completely missed the point on my analogies being that in both situation people had wide views of a situation based on their narrow view of the picture, I knew from the moment I wrote it that it would fly over your head at mach speed. Of course I find it interesting that you discount my friends opinion for stubbornly holding onto only what he knew and refusing to change…I think you made a point for me and for all opponents of the wart with that statement, thank you very much.

Lastly you are assuming that he has completely formed his opinion on his own. I mealy pointed out that we have no idea if he did or not, you stubbornly refuse to admit that there is even a possibility that he might be subject to limbaugh/fox/coulter bullshit.

Anyhow, since you seem to be strongly supporting the message I’ll ask you what if this is as good as it gets? What then? And refusing to believe that is not an option, this is a hypothetical question. I always hold open the option that things may improve. Though John McCain taking a stroll through Baghdad with a company of infantry clearing the path and flanks while helicopters run security from above is hardly a show of how safe it is there.

Bob His opinion matters, but it is not reflective of the facts as we know them. Look at John McCain and his view of Iraq that he is trying to sell. What he says is not supported by factual information. Dale is selling the corporal’s opinions as if we should take only that opinion into account and drop all others. And ultimately he is using it to distract from reality and try to draw the conversation into the alternate reality world that the republicans have worked very hard to create. In that he has done a good job. I am now done with this topic.

By: chimpeach

chimpeach — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:13:05 +0000

#62 Dale

Weâ€™ve heard a lot about civilian casualties, and weâ€™ve heard about our soldiersâ€™ casualtiesâ€¦ what about terrorist casualties? Why havenâ€™t we heard totals for how many terrorists weâ€™ve killed in Iraq?

Hey, that’s a great idea! Let’s be sure that we’re counting “terrorists”, though, and not insurgents or Shiite or Sunni militia. I’d love to know how many actual terrorists we’ve killed there. How many do you think there have been?

By: hacker bob

hacker bob — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:54:29 +0000

N O

Comment by shane â€” April 2, 2007 @ 10:40 am

Shane,

Really, in your own words, I would like you to tell me why the opinion of the Cpl. does not matter. Why is your opinion any more valid than his? Or mine? You say “for all we know he is in Texas”. So. I am in NC, I have been to Iraq twice. Does my opinion count for anything?

I am curious.

By: shane

shane — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:53:55 +0000

Ah, the whole RNC-operative paranoia again.

Comment by Dale â€” April 2, 2007 @ 11:25 am

If you are just interested in the policies that Republicans believe in why aren’t you on one of the neocon sites talking to like minded people who are working towards a common goal. Or you could even go on a nonpartisan site and spread your opinions.

But you choose to come on a progressive site where people have totally different opinions and beliefs than you.

So either you are incredibly stupid and haven’t noticed that this isn’t a site for people who believe what you believe, you are totally unable to find a neocon site, or you are here to try and disrupt these threads from accomplishing.

What you don’t realize is that your right wing neocon talking points just fortify our anger and embolden us to fight harder for what WE believe in. If that’s your goal, to help us win our fight, then you are doing a great job. If your motive is to prove you are correct in your assumptions your mission has failed.