‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers
By on May 1st, 2007 at 9:36 am
‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers
On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Here’s a by-the-numbers look at the situation then, compared to the situation now:
| May 1, 2003 | Today | |
| U.S. Troops Wounded | 542 | 24,912 |
| U.S. Troops Killed | 139 | 3,351 |
| Contractors Killed | 69 | 916 |
| Journalists and Media Assistants Killed | 11 | 167 |
| U.S. Forces in Iraq | 150,000 | 146,000 |
| Size of Iraqi Security Forces |
7,000-9,000 | 334,300 |
| Number of Insurgents | less than 5,000 | ~70,000 (Sunni only) |
| Insurgent Attacks Per Day | 8 | 148.9 |
| Cost to U.S. Taxpayers | $79 billion | $421 billion |
| Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq | 75% | 24% |
| Percentage of Americans who Believe The Iraq War Was “Worth Fighting” | 70% | 34% |
| Bush’s Overall Job Approval | 71% | 32% |
View Most Popular
Pretty bad report card there, Dubious..........
May 1st, 2007 at 9:39 am"You're doin' a heck of a job George!"
May 1st, 2007 at 9:41 amSAD!
May 1st, 2007 at 9:42 amThree Cheers for the "USS Mission UnAccomplished"
May 1st, 2007 at 9:43 amhappy 'mission accomplished' day everyone... look forward to seeing you all here, in the same boat, next year
May 1st, 2007 at 9:43 amThis is a great chart of the costs of the war and occupation of Iraq. While it can be legitimately argued that there have been some benefits, would BushCo be willing to put a similar chart of those benefits up against this chart of costs? The cost-benefit ratio is poor and gets worse with every passing day we remain in this mission after the mission.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:44 am*sigh* i'm so glad that "major combat operations have ended" four years ago, otherwise we'd have a real quagmire over there.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:44 amYou're fired.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:45 amThe "US forces" tally should include the US paid mercenaries, should it not. It is my understanding that the total is closer to 300,000. Otherwise, the table makes it appear that there are less US forces in Iraq today than on May 1, 2003 when, in fact the number has doubled.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:46 amJK
I'm glad we're making progress over there. Yep, victory is just around the corner.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:47 amA question libs: How do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror? Or is it just for your own amusement? Who cares if we embolden the enemy and hinder the war effort as long as you can bash Bush, right?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:52 am"Six more months and we're gonna turn the corner."
May 1st, 2007 at 9:54 amSo little empathy for the ordinary Iraqi. No of Iraqis killed =>600K? Displaced from country=5mill out of total pop of 25mill? Homes destroyed, hours of electricity, safety, oil output, GDP......
May 1st, 2007 at 9:54 amyou want someone to run your corporation for you, chimpy? Get Trump.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:55 amAnd somehow, W can look at those numbers and see "progress". Man needs to have his eyes checked out. Actually, he needs to have more than just his eyes checked out.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:55 amMaybe we should start referring to the occupation of Iraq as "Mission Impossible - 5", with the number referring to the year or sequel we are currently living. It's concise, military sounding, and thoroughly accurate.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:56 amI know the Mission Accomplished thread is going to get the most traffic today, but I'd appreciate it if you'd visit this one, too. Thank you.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/30/pump-bid-for-new-orleans-may-have-been-rigged/
May 1st, 2007 at 9:56 amI agree w/ you completely, whenwego. I shudder to think of the karmic payback we will eventually get for this.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:57 amComment by MAF54
A+ on creative combination of talking points. You are well on your way to a career as a fantasy author, or a neocon pundit (basically, the same thing).
May 1st, 2007 at 9:58 amaWol's struttin' and winnin' the war, and creatin' his doll, has highlighted his incompetence, ineptitude, and disconnect, and if there is anything that emboldens the enemy and destroys troop morale, it's having a complete incompetent as the commander in chief.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:02 am#11 MAF54
"...embolden the enemy..." Do you mean all 2000 of those outside forces who are fighting in Iraq? Your analogy should be reversed. It is the inflammatory presence of the U.S. military that is emboldening the enemy to remain in Iraq. As in Vietnam, commenter #11 wishes the United States to remain at war in perpetuity, resulting in an endless number of American and, in this case, Iraqi deaths. There has been enough needless bloodshed. Support the troops-Bring them home-now.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:03 amComment by MAF54....
May 1st, 2007 at 10:03 amWe are no longer fighting a "war on terrorism"... guess you haven't heard?
Ironic, isn't it, that the persistent trolls argue that troop withdrawal would be "admittence of defeat"
Yet, Dumbya declared “Major combat operations have ended." on May 1, 2003!
So, in essence, our Thief In Charge stated we won.
since we've won, no need to spend extra time roaming the playing field.
time to go home and spend that time with the family....f'ing now!!!
Unless, of course, his statement was premature, in which case, just shows he and this administration, don't have a friggin' clue about military actions and consequences (Major surprise, there, huh?)
May 1st, 2007 at 10:05 amBush is doing a great job making America weak - his number one goal.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:06 amthinkprogress.org is once again telling its readers half of the truth.
the Mission Accomplish banner, speech, etc was ment to tell the European nations that refused to help that Hussein was out of power and that now they could come in and help. Bush thought that the corrupt, in bed with Hussein French and Germans would step up to the plate and help out its allies. Bush didn't count on the level of corruption and connection between France and Hussein, Germany and Hussein and the United Nations and Hussein.
Mission Accomplished = Hussein is out of power in Iraq, France and Germany now it is time to keep your promise. Bush was naive to believe that the french who have been in bed with Hussein since he first came into power, were going to help.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:07 amI'm just wondering how this is going to be spun by the White House... especially with Dubya's veto of continued funding happening today...
Creative Writing majors... take notes
May 1st, 2007 at 10:07 am334,000 Iraqi security troops....who provided that number?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:08 am# of Insurgents that read this blog and get "emboldened: ZERO
# of Right Wing Trolls who read this blog who can't handle FACTS:: 12,437
May 1st, 2007 at 10:08 amHow do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror?
Comment by MAF54
The information on this thread are called FACTS.
You can look it up later.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:08 amRaven: Really? Who said so? Let's-negotiate-with-terrorists Pelosi?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:08 amI DARE YOU TO ANSWER THIS, CONS
Let's imagine that 4+ years ago, you went to your boss or partners or board of directors with a plan for a project.
Four years later, it turns out:
- your project was based upon knowingly falsified data
- your project has gone 20,000 % over its budget
- your project has gotten over 3,300 of your employees killed and 24,000 injured
- your project has no realistic end in sight
- your project has exposed your company to virtually unlimited financial liability
- your project has brought your company to impending bankruptcy.
Against that backdrop, ask yourself this -
May 1st, 2007 at 10:09 amif this was you,
HOW FIRED WOULD YOU BE?
valiantthehater,
Is that water heavy?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:09 amYou should have civilian casualties on the chart!
I'm not sure what the number was then, but it's over 500,000 now with over a million refugees.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:09 am#11 – Try a mint or a stick of gum. Your breath tells me that you sucked your point of view straight out of Limbaugh’s @ss. The illegal war of aggression this regime chose in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. It has to do with no bid contracts and paychecks for cronies.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:10 amMAF54,
Wow. You guys sure are irrepressible. I admire your romantic attachment to a lost cause - even if it is evidence of a disordered, diseased, and uninformed mind. Allow me to respond.
"How do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror?"
Read Buckly's Op-ed today calling the war lost. You might know him as "the father of modern conservatism." Why don't you go over to the NRO and call him a traitor? Also, the "war on terror" is one of the most asinine semantic constructs ever. With terrah attacks up to 40,000 this year, the war appears to be helping make terrah more popular than ever before - but wait, I guess for you that means we are winning. Even the asshat army of Mayberry Machiavellis in the Whitehouse have quit using it. Find a new stupid name for your failed war.
"Or is it just for your own amusement?"
I'm really not amused by seeing our soldiers die and get maimed. That is why most of the liberal folks at TP want them home. Republicans on the other hand - your president in particular - seem to find this to be an endless source of entertainment.
"Who cares if we embolden the enemy and hinder the war effort as long as you can bash Bush, right?"
I really love this one. Like, embolden them more than they are right now? Really? Cause they seem pretty emboldened to me right now. And how is it bashing Bush you idiot? Look at the numbers. Look at the unmitigated failure that is right in front of your eyes.
I hope you are paid well for your shillery. Just remember, you can't take it with you.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:12 amComment by MAF54 — May 1, 2007 @ 9:52 am
How do YOU expect to win a "war on terrorism" when you are unwilling to look at the reality of the situation, set tangible and achievable goals, define our mission over there, and stop creating more terrorists than you can possibly EVER kill?
"Spreading defeatism" is proving to be much less harmful to our country, our troops, and to Iraqis than the false progress and half-baked assessment that Bush is giving to the American people (and maybe even believing himself)
May 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am#24: Ah. So instead of resorting to normal diplomacy (like calling the French President or the German Chancellor), the Bush administration chose to set up an elaborate show on the deck of a carrier hoping that France and Germany would get the hint? What's that? Mime diplomacy? "Guess what I'm trying to say?" diplomacy?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am#11 – Try a mint or a stick of gum. Your breath tells me that you sucked your point of view straight out of Limbaugh’s @ss. The illegal war of aggression this regime chose in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. It has to do with no bid contracts and paychecks for cronies.
Comment by Dreary Urbanite — May 1, 2007 @ 10:10 am
why do some liberals insist that this was an illegal war? where do you people get your talking points? Al Franken, Michael Moore. I mean Dreary Urbanite, you claim that #11 got his talking points from Limbaugh. It is obvious that you got your talking points from places like thinkprogress.org, huffandpuff post, Dailycoocoos, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Kucinich, and all the other wackos from the left.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.â€
And, that is when we should have begun withdrawing our troops. Staying any longer only became an occupation. And what country wants another country to occupy them? Would you want someone to invade this country and then continue to occupy us for another 5 years? I think not.
This travesty has got to end. Are you mad yet. If so, call or write your representatives and let them know what you think. Do it daily until they get the message.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:13 amHow do you think spreading defeatism like this
Comment by SMF54 — May 1, 2007 @ 9:52 am
How can defeatism include "Mission Accomplished" and "Major Combat Missions have ended"? Sounds like victory to me.
Why so negative?
to help us win the war on terror? Or is it just for your own amusement?
Yeah, and terror has gone up, what? 25% Worldwide! That's a great victory plan there. George Bush is kinda the Matt Millen of the Military.
But your rebuttal posts do amuse, that's for sure.
Who cares if we embolden the enemy and hinder the war effort as long as you can bash Bush, right?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:14 amPure Projection, plain and simple. Please provide facts this helps the enemy (and while you're at it, please give specific definitions of "the enemy", including what they look like, who they assossiate with, and where they live)
By the way, the bashing Bush thing, will happen with me all the time. He is not an intelligent man, he's been spoon fed all his life, he's failed at almost everything he's been in charge of, and most of all, he's orchestrated the deaths of over 600,000 innocent civilians and soldiers, all because of lies and disceptions, as well as showing no remorse.
So yes, I will bash Bush, every. single. f'ing. time.
Got it? Good!
Nice historical revisionism there valiant - create your own reality so that you don't have to live in the one you made yourself.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:15 am11
How do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror? Or is it just for your own amusement? Who cares if we embolden the enemy and hinder the war effort as long as you can bash Bush, right?
How is doing the prudent thing here, that being, saving what is left of our brave troops' lives and bringing them home and maintaining security here equate to defeatism? How do tax cuts for the wealthiest American's aide the war effort? An effort that everyday Americans aren't asked to sacrifice for, making it very easy for someone such as yourself to cheer on the death of our patriots who have been thrown into a completely mismananged war, and an effort that the privileged are rewarded with share-holder profits and tax breaks. Then you have soliders returning home to broken families, inadequate psychological and medical care and no job prospects, but by preserving the remaining strength of our armed forces, bringing them back to recoup and engaging in diplomatic and political means to fixing the botch job the GW & Co., fed our sons and daughters to is emboldening the enemy how?
This si one of the cheapest of the GOP talking points. If, as can be inferred by your post, you do indeed believe Al Qaeda et al., wish to establish a "world-wide" caliphate and destroy America, wouldn't they have taken the oppurtunity - while our defenses are spread thin with all the Reservists etc., OVER IN IRAQ - to have launched that massive ground attack on America while we are stuck OVER IN IRAQ? Yes, they probably would, if they had anywhere near the MEANS to do so. So right there, logic trumps your assinine argument of emboldening the enemy by7 leaving. We embolden them be BEING there. This OCCUPATION, like it or not, is exactly on par with Osama's "justifications" for the 9-11 attack. This OCCUPATION is killing more AMERICANS than 9-11 KILLED. And YOU SUPPORT THIS OCCUPATION.
You are either a moron or a traitor, or both, if you are deluded enough to believe that solely using military force will solve problems that are much deeper rooted in politics and foreign relations than bloodshed. Cause and effect would lend that the build up of unresolved, ignored, grievances in the Middle East, Spain, SE Asia etcetera EMBOLDENS terror, bombing villages EMBOLDENS terror. Saving our soliders lives by taking them out of this completely mismanaged war (have we heard from Gen. Shinseki lately? Maybe if we planned and executed from the first place we would have had a much better time of assembling some order over there...) does NOT embolden terror. It would actually work to deflate the whole U.S. Occupier image that infuriates Muslims world-wide. Get a clue.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:15 amDreary Urbanite: Ah yes. I forgot how you libs think: Defending the nation against a deadly threat is bad, but if it involves covering at least some of the costs (that is, making money) it's just obscene. Money's bad. Security is bad. Bringing justice to evil is bad.
Whatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:16 amBUSH RUNS AMERICA LIKE A BUSINESS
Here's what he did to his other businesses...
GW Bush Jr bankrupted - Arbusto Energy Corp.
GW Bush Jr bankrupted - Spectrum 7 Corp.
GW Bush Jr bankrupted - Bush Exploration Company
GW Bush Jr bankrupted - Harken Energy Corp
Not a good track record eh condumbs?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:16 am"A question libs: How do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror? Comment by MAF54"
A question to the Repugs, please explain what the "war on terror" is. And what do we have to do to win this "war"?
The only thing Iraq has to do with terrorists is that Bush has made it a breeding ground for new terrorists. When you kill innocent people, their relatives are often mad at you and start to view you as the enemy. We have made more enemies in Iraq than we have made friends. And, I feel much less safe now than I did before we invaded a country that was no threat to us.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:17 amComment by MAF54
Are you kidding me? Spreading defeatism!?! I'm 110% in support of the soldiers doing their duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, but 1000% oppossed to them being left hangimng out to dry by our inept "Leaders" trying to prop up their legacy.
Comment by valiantthehater:
You need to brush up on your talking points. First the administration proclaimed that it was the carrier crew's idea, the W.H. had nothing to do with the banner, then after it was revealed the W.H. paid for it, they said it was to celebrate the carriers mission being accomplished. Spin, spin, spin, deflect, deflect, deflect....the REAL Bush legacy.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:17 amCONS, WHY DIDN'T BUSH LISTEN?
"Now, you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam, [but] I don’t think so. I think if we had done that, we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded."
- Dick Cheney, 1996
"Even if Hussein were captured and his regime toppled, U.S. forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power. Removing him from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad , our forces might still be there.''
- former Secretary of State James Baker, 1996, currently an attorney to both GW Bush and the Saudi Royal Family
May 1st, 2007 at 10:17 amthe Mission Accomplish banner, speech, etc was ment to tell the European nations that refused to help that Hussein was out of power and that now they could come in and help
Comment by valiantthenondebater — May 1, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Okay, this may be the most idiotic defense of Mission Accomplished ever. I mean...EVER
Is it redundent to ask for links and proof?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:19 amCONS FURIOUS W IS SO IMPOTENT!!!!!!!!!!
It drives the CONDUMS crazy that Bush has become a EUNICH and IMPOTENT utterly powerless to control the CLUSTERFUCK in iraq .
Look at their posts, wretched bitter losers who cannot accept they backed a retard and failure.
IT IS HUMILIATING TO THESE CONDUMS THEY NO LONGER CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.
THEY ARE 29%
THEY ARE IMPOTENT
THEY ARE IRRELEVENT
May 1st, 2007 at 10:19 amWE ARE CONTARDS AND THIS IS OUR SONG
WE ARE CONTARDS AND THIS IS OUR SONG
by: nixyestyx 10/24/05 06:15 pm
Msg: 28162 of 60890
7 recommendations
It's the liberals. It's the ACLU. It's Clinton . It's Monica. It's the "climate of permissiveness". It's France . It's the liberal media. It's Clinton 's p* nis . It's Hillary. It's Gov. Dean. We never could have known they'd fly planes into buildings. "No actionable intelligence". They didn't tell us to do anything. O'Neill's lying. Clarke's lying. General Shinseki's lying. The Union of Concerned Scientists is lying. Our own weapons inspector David Kay's lying. Wilson 's lying. John Dean's lying. Newsweek lied! CBS lied! Everyone's lying but us. We had to lie. We never lied.
Plame outed herself. Her husband outed her. The liberals outed her. No one outed her, since everyone already knew her covert identity. Rove had nothing to do with it. No comment. Lib'ral, lib'ral, lib'ral.
It's the libs trying to pull Schiavo's feeding tube. It doesn't matter that DeLay pulled his own dad's feeding tube. "Culture of life". It's Janet Jackson's boobs; it's the Statue of Justice's boobs. Reading the news might cloud my judgement. It's the "decade our government...blinded itself to our enemies". It's the homosexuals wanting to marry. "Restore honor and dignity to the White House". A decision to go to war wasn't a decision to go to war. "No actionable intelligence". It's the pledge of allegiance. They're taking God out of America . Osama didn't tell us when, how, where, and by what means he'd attack, and he didn't leave a forwarding address. The 9/11 panel is biased against us. Saddam = Al Qaida. Saddam = Al Qaida.
Chalabi's an honorable man and I believe everything he says about WMDs. Chalabi's a crook and he passed secrets to Iran . Chalabi's the liberals' fault because they didn't shoot us when we started using his "intelligence". Chalabi? I don't know any 'Chalabi'!
It's just a few dead-enders. They'll be gone when we capture Saddam. They'll be gone when we capture Saddam's sons. They'll be gone when we hand over "sovereignty". They'll be gone when Iraq has elections. They'll be gone in 12 years. They'll never be gone.
We fight them in London so we don't have to fight them, er, uh, well, can't get fooled again!
Bolton didn't lie! He just knowingly gave incorrect answers under oath.
Aw, so what's another ISLAMIC STATE in the mideast? It's not like Bush has made it a home for terrorists or anything!
No one could have anticipated that a category 5 hurricane aimed directly at New Orleans would have destroyed it! No one could have anticipated that they might need federal assistance quickly! Of course no one's in charge of accepting the generous aid offered by other nations -- isn't that the mayor's responsibility? Being a judging supervisor for the Arabian Horse Association is ample experience to head FEMA! It's the mayor's fault! It's the governor's fault! It's Howard Dean's fault! It's CBS's fault! It's the Monica Crime! Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo! Libtards killed Terry Schiavo! Wah! Wahhhhhhh!
It's all these former staffers hawking their books. Money never corrupted anyone. "I'm a uniter, not a divider!" It's the stem cells. It's the feminazis, the intellectual elitists, and the ecoterrorists.
It's Cthulhu. It's the martians.
It's anyone but Bush.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:20 amWhatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law.
Comment by MAF54
....and MAF54 plays the proverbial "Nazi" card.
Dismissed.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:20 amSo, MAF54 - it's either the Islamo-"insert your favorite dig here" or the Bush-Cheney dictatorship? That truly is something to ponder.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am24
VV is once again spreading complete rubbish. Since when was it made clear at the onset of that speech that it was directed to the Europeans? Are you completely nutty? When did GW point out that he speaking to the French and Germans directly when he declared "All major combat operations are over?"
Gimme a break - this is insane - even for a zealot like yourself.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:26 am"the Mission Accomplish banner, speech, etc was ment to tell the European nations that refused to help that Hussein was out of power and that now they could come in and help"
that's the funniest thing i've heard today. oh wait...
"Whatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law."
nevermind
May 1st, 2007 at 10:27 amThis guy was also for retreat. Oh well.
AL-MASRI JOINS ZARQAWI. And there's some interesting history on when he entered Iraq: "He probably entered Iraq in 2002, before al-Zarqawi, and may have helped establish the first al-Qaida cell in the Baghdad area." Pre-invasion? But I thought Saddam and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other. . . .
May 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am"the Mission Accomplish banner, speech, etc was ment to tell the European nations that refused to help that Hussein was out of power and that now they could come in and help."
No, dear, it wasn't, which is why you are unable to support this little fantasy of yours. Nice try, though. Alas that cruel reality has a habit of destroying such things. The rest of your post was so laughably idiotic that it requires no response.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:27 amAnd the mission goes on. What is the mission exactly?
More Iraqis will be killed, more troops will coma back in bodybags.
Wasting human lives and our money: the Bush legacy.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:28 amTweedster,
Where to begin with your "logic"?
1) There are about 150,000 troops in Iraq. Do you have any idea how big our military is? Try over 1 million. So this spread thin crap is just that, crap. Stop with the left wing talking point.
2) Our troops in Iraq don't need liberals like you to save them. If you are correct taht they want saving, why is it that most of them hate Democrats, hate the media and actually want to stay in Iraq and finish the job they started? Stop victimizing our troops, they aren't victims and they don't need Liberals to come and save them. You Liberals love, adore victimizing people.
3) Tax cut for the wealthiest? another ridiculous left wing talking point. ex-President Clinton in 1997 passed the largest tax increase in the history of America. Bush came in and reversed this tax burdens. You might want to check the fact that thanks to Bush a family with children receive higher tax cuts than they did under Clinton, as one example that the tax cuts are for everyone. Not to mention that if you are poor, in America, guess what? YOU DON'T PAY TAXES! once again, stop with the Liberal talking point.
4)American's aren't asked to make sacrifices? Please, another ridiculous, stupid Liberal talking point. It is YOU Liberals that refuse to make sacrifices. When asked to make sacrifices on privacy issues, all you Liberals do is cry and whine and run to the ACLU. It is you Liberals who refuse to make any type of sacrifice to defend this nation from terrorism. You speak of making sacrifices, well then why don't you sacrifices some of your privacy so that our government may fight the terrorist? Are you willing to make sacrifices? Money sacrifices as the left has led you to believe is not the only way to make sacrifices for the war effort. Once again, stop with the left wing talking points.
5) "You are either a moron or a traitor, or both. Comment by Tweedster — May 1, 2007 @ 10:15 am" Typical attacks from the left wingers that hate anyone that they disagree with.
I would suggest that you follow your own advice and YOU get a clue.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:28 amHow bout a comparison of Haliburton's bottom line, maybe thats what he's refering to.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:28 amDAY 1460 SINCE MISION ACCOMPLISHED
Just another miserable pathetic milestone in the optional preemptive CLUSTERF*CK we know as Iraq .
History will forever hold account W as the miserable failure who is responsible and the ignorant retards who supported him.
We told you so.
http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/05/happy_3rd_birth.php
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1137153381
http://www.albasrah.net/images/war_crimes/index.htm
http://www.robert-fisk.com/the_evidence.htm
May 1st, 2007 at 10:28 amhttp://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html
ALL THAT PICTURE IS MISSING IS HEIR BUDWEISER mc-cain launching a missle across the deck of that flat top and burning it down to the waterline like he did on the ENTREPID.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:29 amWhat about the 50,000 or so mercenaries in Iraq? The Blackwater and other forces? Don't forget them in the numbers.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:31 amPaulB, Tweedster,
are you people kidding me? you guys swallow all the left wing kool-aid that is given to you, eh?
why don't you do some research, get an education and find out the facts of why the Mission Accomplish speech was given. Why don't you read Tommy Franks and how it was his idea to do this to get France and Germany to jump on board. Gen. Franks didn't take into account that France and Germany were both in bed with Hussein and it was these two nations along with Russia who were helping Hussein stay in power, kill millions of children and take profits from the food for oil program which was completly corrupt in the UN.
You both know that you sound extremely ignorant, right?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:31 amPatrick1 is wearing his black burka today as a sign of respect for his dying idealogy. Still saluting failure and excusing incompetence to the detriment of the Country? What a despicable fake American.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:32 amAh yes. I forgot how you libs think: Defending the nation against a deadly threat is bad
I am more worried about another attack happening here. Aren't you?
but if it involves covering at least some of the costs (that is, making money) it’s just obscene.
So we went in to get rid of Saddam, establish Democracy, and then steal the only thing that would make a Democratic Iraq viable - you know, oil? By the way, as far as making money, unless you are a contractor you are probably not making money off this bloodshed. Unless you're Dick Cheney.
Money’s bad. Security is bad. Bringing justice to evil is bad.
Huh? Security is bad when what you want to protect is left more vulnerable - like if all our soldiers are across the globe leaving the hen house dorr wiiiiid open. Hey, how about our ports controlled by Dubai! I feel SAFER! You're a crock pal!
Whatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law.
Do you live in Afghanistan? Are you completely nuts? What, pray tell, is an islmist?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:32 am"Ah yes. I forgot how you libs think: Defending the nation against a deadly threat is bad"
LOL.... And what "deadly threat" is that, dear? Has it really escaped your notice that Iraq was not, in fact, a threat, deadly or otherwise?
"but if it involves covering at least some of the costs (that is, making money) it’s just obscene."
Dear heart, one of the problems that we have with the war is that the costs have not, in fact, been covered, but have instead been passed down to our children. Moreover, I love how you ignore the vast cost overruns and the literally billions of dollars of rampant fraud and thrown away mney that was the real subject of the post you were responding to.
"Money’s bad. Security is bad. Bringing justice to evil is bad."
Nice strawman, dear. Got an argument that you haven't pulled out of your ass?
"Whatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law."
ROFL... No problem, dear, since that little fantasy of yours is no more likely than the other fantasies that you and those like you have been spinning. Unlike you, dear, we don't live in a state of perpetual fear. You should try it out here in the real world sometime. You might even like it here.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:32 am...it can be legitimately argued that there have been some benefits...
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — May 1, 2007 @ 9:44 am
i'd be very interested to know what you think those benefits are,
May 1st, 2007 at 10:32 amespecially from a PLC point of view...
seriously... thanks...
READ ABOUT THE REAL ISSUE
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2510#more
There is a huge issue we are facing that the war and conflicts around the world are only symptoms of. Stand by DEPLETION OF EVERYTHING COMMIN' ATCHA LIVE!!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:32 amTribes claim leader of al Qaeda in Iraq killed
Unconfirmed reports that al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been killed come from local tribes and not Iraq's intelligence services or military, an Iraqi government spokesman said today
It's amazing how they trot this out today to DEFLECT away from the "Mission Accomploshed" debacle. I don't believe a word this adminstration says. Never did. It's all smoke and mirrors courtesy of Turd Blossom.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:33 amHallo Zooey!!
Hope you're having a good day.
This was the FIRST DAY that I really had NO pain in my mouth....then I scalded the CRAP out of my mouth!!!
~:O
May 1st, 2007 at 10:36 amDefeatism is pushing the US into two wars and not committing enough troops and allies to win quickly.
Defeatism is creating more terrorists by being seen on the TV killing Arabs and Muslims everyday.
Defeatism is alienating long standing allies in a rush to war.
Defeatism is not pushing Israel into dealing with the Palestinians.
Defeatism is grinding the US military into the Mesopotamian dust in a vanity war.
Defeatism is Abu Ghraib torture.
Defeatism is Guantanimo Bay torture and imprisonment without recourse.
Defeatism is using the fight against terrorists as a blunt political tool to beat the opposition with.
Defeatism is lying to the American people about the progress of this misbegotten war....Mission accomplished...few dead enders...stand-up/stand-down----last throes...
That's defeatism.
-GSD
May 1st, 2007 at 10:37 amTHERE HE GOES AGAIN O'L FLAT TOP GEORGE DO YOU FEEL SAFER NOW WE'LL DO YA PUNK?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:37 am#49: Whatever. Welcome to my ignore list.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:38 amValiantheretard stop embarrassing yourself
FACTS HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS. Read and weep you pathetic retard revisionist.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
You both know that you sound extremely ignorant, right?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:38 amHey valiantthehater! You didn't answer me? Why didn't US resort to normal diplomacy? Why suddenly use this freakish mime diplomacy?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:40 amsometimes the posts fall into a place that would be hard to do on purose:
Mission Accomplished = Hussein is out of power in Iraq, France and Germany now it is time to keep your promise. Bush was naive to believe that the french who have been in bed with Hussein since he first came into power, were going to help.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 10:07 am
I’m just wondering how this is going to be spun by the White House… especially with Dubya’s veto of continued funding happening today…
Creative Writing majors… take notes
Comment by raynman — May 1, 2007 @ 10:07 am
that was some seriously convoluted spin there! ... and a new twist to boot! ... well, new to me... how do they come up with that stuff???
May 1st, 2007 at 10:40 amso is MAF54 actually Jake?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:42 am#48. Rarely has there been a more concise listing. Well done.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am74-no, he's Rove!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:44 amHmm.. Where to begin with the total crap that was VT's response? Let's take it from the top.
"1) There are about 150,000 troops in Iraq. Do you have any idea how big our military is? Try over 1 million. So this spread thin crap is just that, crap."
No, dear, it isn't, which is why you can't find any real experts to agree with you. You really should look at the facts sometime, including the facts about just how much of our military consists of actual troops in the field, how, when, and how often they are deployed, and so on. You should also look at what our own military experts are saying, including those very generals that Bush insists the Democrats aren't listening to.
"2) Our troops in Iraq don’t need liberals like you to save them."
Really, dear? So you're going to personally bring them home? Provide them with the equipment they need? Give them the support, the rest, the training, the health care, and the benefits they require?
"If you are correct taht they want saving, why is it that most of them hate Democrats, hate the media and actually want to stay in Iraq and finish the job they started?"
ROFL.... Gee, I dunno, dear. Maybe because you're simply making shit up, as usual?
"Stop victimizing our troops"
We aren't, dear; we're just trying to bring them home.
"3) Tax cut for the wealthiest? another ridiculous left wing talking point."
No, dear, it isn't, which is why are you wholly unable to defend against the reality of this "talking point."
"ex-President Clinton in 1997 passed the largest tax increase in the history of America."
ROFL.... Is this really the best you can do, dear? That "largest tax increase in the history of America" balanced the budget and led to one of the most prosperous periods in the history of America, despite the ravings and the gloom-and-doom predictions of those like you.
"Bush came in and reversed this tax burdens."
Thereby yielding record-breaking deficits that continue today, passing the burden of debt onto our children. On a bang-for-the-buck basis, this was the single most ineffective economic stimulus package "in the history of America."
"You might want to check the fact that thanks to Bush a family with children receive higher tax cuts than they did under Clinton, as one example that the tax cuts are for everyone."
ROFL... Dear heart, what percentage of the overall Bush tax package went to this mythical "family with children?"
"Not to mention that if you are poor, in America, guess what? YOU DON’T PAY TAXES!"
Yes, dear, you do -- state taxes, sales taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes, and quite a few others, as well. On a percentage of income basis, the poor in this country pay more of their income in taxes than do the wealthy.
"4)American’s aren’t asked to make sacrifices? Please, another ridiculous, stupid Liberal talking point."
Really, dear? What "sacrifices" have we been asked to make?
"It is YOU Liberals that refuse to make sacrifices. When asked to make sacrifices on privacy issues, all you Liberals do is cry and whine and run to the ACLU."
LOL... Gotta love this spin. Dear heart, when you can show us that any of this crap has made us any safer, we might take you seriously. Alas, you cannot, since the evidence to date is that our liberties have been infringed with no corresponding improvement in security. In any case, there's this little thing called the Constitution. I suggest you take a look at it. You might also want to take a look at what Benjamin Franklin had to say about security.
"5) “You are either a moron or a traitor, or both. Comment by Tweedster — May 1, 2007 @ 10:15 am†Typical attacks from the left wingers that hate anyone that they disagree with."
ROFL.... Pot, kettle, black, dear heart.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:45 amHey valiantthehater! You didn’t answer me? Why didn’t US resort to normal diplomacy? Why suddenly use this freakish mime diplomacy?
Comment by ValiantLivesInUranus — May 1, 2007 @ 10:40 am
what? Diplomacy was used with Iraq from 1990 until the day the war started. Not that you Liberals would know this, or care. You pacifists were around during WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, etc, etc. The faces change, people change, but the talkings points are all the same. Nothing original, no educated talking points and very poorly informed crowd.
not to mention that what most liberals want is a Bush hate fest, they could careless about our troops.
If Democratic politicians wanted our troops out from Iraq they could do it bey defunding the war. Furthemore, if Democrats were so interested in ending the Iraq War ASAP why have they waited about a week before sending the President the bill that they signed, why? hmmm....becausee they want to play politics, plain and simple. Why didn't the Senate send the bill to the President on the same day that they signed it, or the next day? why wait and give it to him today? because they are playing politics with our troops. So much for Democrats caring about our troops. please, troops are a lot smarter than this, there is a reason why the America military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. Believe, they don't buy into the left wing talking points. They know that they aren't victims and they know Democrats don't care about them.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:47 amValiant Valiant, good try...once again, you have nothing to stand on...
Where to begin with your “logic�
1) There are about 150,000 troops in Iraq. Do you have any idea how big our military is? Try over 1 million. So this spread thin crap is just that, crap. Stop with the left wing talking point.
So we have 1 million combat troops do we? Or is that 1 million total enlistment, including all the support people, medical staff, administrators, etc. etc. Oh, right, you don't provide links. How many of those "over 1 million" are trained for urban/desert warfare? How many reservists have had their tours extended because our armed forces are so robust and fresh? How many?
2) Our troops in Iraq don’t need liberals like you to save them. If you are correct taht they want saving, why is it that most of them hate Democrats, hate the media and actually want to stay in Iraq and finish the job they started? Stop victimizing our troops, they aren’t victims and they don’t need Liberals to come and save them. You Liberals love, adore victimizing people.
You're absolutely right. I forgot about that well renowned study detailing how much service people HATE Democrats, HATE the media (reallly Democratic they are...)? Is there a victim when one of our soldiers dies? You apparently don't think so. I'm not victimizing anyone, just acknowledging FACT. Something you are incapable of apparently. BTW, notice how much HATE crops up in your discourse. Weird.
3) Tax cut for the wealthiest? another ridiculous left wing talking point. ex-President Clinton in 1997 passed the largest tax increase in the history of America. Bush came in and reversed this tax burdens. You might want to check the fact that thanks to Bush a family with children receive higher tax cuts than they did under Clinton, as one example that the tax cuts are for everyone. Not to mention that if you are poor, in America, guess what? YOU DON’T PAY TAXES! once again, stop with the Liberal talking point.
So he didn't cut taxes for corporations and the wealthiest 1% dramatically? News to me! Guess what, if you have NO income, you can't BE TAXED!!! So therefore, you must be leading a great life, especially with the way public assistance, health, and education has been gutted. But then again, that's what people like you need! You need a concrete way to JUDGE someone's worth and a concrete way of showing your supposed superiority. Another reason you have no compassion for our troops, many of whose families did not receive the main fruits of Bush's tax relief for the wealthy and the corporate. Nice try.
4)American’s aren’t asked to make sacrifices? Please, another ridiculous, stupid Liberal talking point. It is YOU Liberals that refuse to make sacrifices. When asked to make sacrifices on privacy issues, all you Liberals do is cry and whine and run to the ACLU. It is you Liberals who refuse to make any type of sacrifice to defend this nation from terrorism. You speak of making sacrifices, well then why don’t you sacrifices some of your privacy so that our government may fight the terrorist? Are you willing to make sacrifices? Money sacrifices as the left has led you to believe is not the only way to make sacrifices for the war effort. Once again, stop with the left wing talking points.
Wait, I thought we were fighting terrorists in Iraq? Hold on, by bringing about the biggest tax in recent history, we must then be offsetting some of the cost of this war through our tax dollars! Hold on, habeus corpus and torture DO help fight terrorism! Hold on, you are completely lying!!!
5) “You are either a moron or a traitor, or both. Comment by Tweedster — May 1, 2007 @ 10:15 am†Typical attacks from the left wingers that hate anyone that they disagree with.
I would suggest that you follow your own advice and YOU get a clue.
Once again with the HATE VV. I don't hate you, I just hate that you lie to us, and you lie to yourself, and you hate people for not thinking like you, I mean for not buying your lies. Nice try!
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 10:28 am
May 1st, 2007 at 10:47 amHeckuva job, Bush. Heckuva job, Bush supporters.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am"are you people kidding me? you guys swallow all the left wing kool-aid that is given to you, eh?
ROFL.... Coming from you, dear heart, I'll take that as a compliment.
"why don’t you do some research, get an education and find out the facts of why the Mission Accomplish speech was given."
Oh, we have, dear, which is why we know you're full of crap and why you are wholly unable to support your lovely little talking point.
"Gen. Franks didn’t take into account that France and Germany were both in bed with Hussein and it was these two nations along with Russia who were helping Hussein stay in power, kill millions of children and take profits from the food for oil program which was completly corrupt in the UN."
My goodness, dear, but you really have swallowed the Kool-Aid, haven't you? Pitcher and all? This is laughably silly stuff, you understand, right?
"You both know that you sound extremely ignorant, right?"
ROFLMAO.... No comment necessary.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:49 am#60- Valiant
So,according to you, it was Tommy Franks idea to make the President stand in front of the nation and the world to declare it "Mission Accomplished'...because of France and Germany not siding with us...
Interesting news... and weird indeed.
So that makes Tommy Frank the 'Commander in Chief". !!!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:51 amPaulB, thanks for the retort...Valiant is really sad but I need to set it straight for her from time to time...so sad though...really
May 1st, 2007 at 10:53 am#85 The claim made in #60 has been thoroughly debunked, but in any case the claim is so ludicrous that it is essentially self-debunking.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am…it can be legitimately argued that there have been some benefits…
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — May 1, 2007 @ 9:44 am
i’d be very interested to know what you think those benefits are,
especially from a PLC point of view…
seriously… thanks…
Comment by katy
_________________
A case could be made that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a benefit, given his history of atrocities against his own people and his invasion of Kuwait. However, I would argue that containment of Hussein had many of the same benefits with much less cost and that "history" does not equal "imminent threat". Everything the U.S. did after the "mission accomplished" date was a policy and diplomatic failure of the highest degree and giving the military an impossible task. So, all in all the miniscule benefit that might be argued came at much too high a cost. The occupation should be ended because there are increasingly diminishing returns.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:55 amI thought MAF54 was Mark Foley. Hey Mark - stick to what you know, paedophilia thread coming later today.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:55 amValiant - just retire. You have been thoroughly debunked.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:56 amBut Bill Clinton lied about a blow job and thats much more important to remember.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:56 am"not to mention that what most liberals want is a Bush hate fest, they could careless [sic] about our troops."
i know! just look at what crazy liberal condoleeza rice said: "But I will tell you this, the benchmark that I’m looking at — the oil law is important"
May 1st, 2007 at 10:57 amhttp://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm
May 1st, 2007 at 10:57 amComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — May 1, 2007 @ 10:55 am
i agree with you... i really was hoping there was something, anything, good from any of this...
May 1st, 2007 at 11:00 amthanks again...
Blow jobs are depraved and evil!
Shooting and killing are much easier to swallow...
Right Valiant?! You HATE HATE HATER!!!!
bwhaahahahahahahahaabwabwabwhaaaaaaaaaBHA...
ha
May 1st, 2007 at 11:00 amGreat MAF - using other means other than military to get Iraq a bit more stable does not equal defeatism. I understand that your camp's usual method of solving all problems is via military, and when anyone anywhere tries a different approach, it's the same as giving up, but then we don't live in the same Bizarro world you do.
As the majority of the experts (who are largely ignored by the current admin when it doesn't suit their fancy), this mess in Iraq can only be solved politically.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are terrorists and crazy plots in a lot of places besides Iraq. But your camp is too stupid and predictable, which is why the terrorist leaders love it - Bush is playing right into their hands.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:01 amvaliantthehater,
Is that water heavy?
Comment by Zooey — May 1, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Mornin' Zooey. Really, shouldn't she get DEPROGRAMMED or something. She's like white noise droning on and on and on ...
May 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am"So,according to you, it was Tommy Franks idea to make the President stand in front of the nation and the world to declare it “Mission Accomplished’…because of France and Germany not siding with us..."
VT is referring to this story:
Of course, even assuming that this were true, it doesn't change a damn thing. It was still an idiotic thing to do, and what VT apparently doesn't realize is that this Franks comment just makes it dumber!
May 1st, 2007 at 11:02 amPaulB,
where to begin to refute your lies, half-truths and complete distortions?
1) You are a Liberal, by nature you are inclined to lie and believe anything that you are told against Conservatives and Republicans.
2) You are wrong, tax cut for the rich is a left wing talking point to get ill-informed indiviudals like you all riled up. the left knows how to control its people very well. They are aware that you are, for the most part, a bunch of poorly educated mass.
3) Poor people in America don't pay income taxes. Sorry, try again. As for property tax, talk to Democrats, they love property tax. Sales taxes, yes they pay these, but these are paid by everyone regardless of income. Income taxes are NOT paid by the poor in America. Check the facts, "dear". You will see how poorly informed you are. and the "mystical" tax cut with families for children....well, once again you show your poor education. Here a simple way to check it, why don't you check an income tax form from the 1990s and its rules to one today and you will be amazed at how the tax cut for having children is greater today than in the 1990s under your god Clinton.
4) So, you claim that Americans are not willing to make sacrifices, and when I show you that it is Liberals that aren't willing to make sacrifices you call it spin. Typical, typical of Liberals. As you have agreed, it is YOU liberals that aren't willing to make sacrifices. Your government has asked you to make sacrifices on your privacy to help the war effort against terrorists, why aren't you willing to make this sacrifice?
5) Also, get a clue, ex-President Clinton didn't balance the budget, you moron. The power of the purse lies on Congress. 2nd grade Constitutional class. Only Congress can balance the budget, and what party had control of Congress when the budget was balanced? that's right "dear" Republicans.
6) I would sugget, "dear" that you get an education and you try to open up a book once in a while. Here is a secret for you, thinkprogress.org and the left don't have your best interestet at heart.
7)finally remember, there is a reason why the military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. try to guess why?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:02 amWe need to drill this into the minds of the voters/taxpayers:
Dollar cost, so far, per US citizen = $1,403
Per Taxpayer = $3,368
Cost PER MONTH per taxpayer, interest not included, on an $8 billion/month war ONLY $64!!!
(I must be doing the math wrong, no way we are that stupid. What about this, tho- we could have paid EVERY IRAQI CITIZEN $16,840 instead of bombing them to the dark ages. They'd kiss our collective asses )
May 1st, 2007 at 11:03 amSpeaking of Mark Foley - the ebay price of the George "Top Gun" W Bush action doll commemorating today's events is dropping faster than his pants in a Capitol washroom...
May 1st, 2007 at 11:03 amPaulB and Tweedster, well done on the talking points. It's circular stupidity with Vapidselfshater. To hold it to a point would be as difficult as finding part of it's family tree that actually branches out.
It's the day for the trolls to dust off old fear points but they aren't prepared for the truth to hit them in the face.
It won't change their hatred for everything not approved by the Cheney and Rove company. But there are millions of americans now seeing the emperor without his clothes.
You and others have pointed out much better than I would today. I'm imposing a strike on responding to any f%#kstick directly today.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:04 amA question libs: How do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror? Or is it just for your own amusement? Who cares if we embolden the enemy and hinder the war effort as long as you can bash Bush, right?
Comment by MAF54
A better question might be how will the world know when you've won the war on terror? Is it when everyone likes the
USA? Is it when only USers are left standing? (or should I say, only USers are left killing other USers?)
How much more can anyone embolden an enemy that is willing to blow himself up (or his children) to fight for what they believe in? Besides, bashing bush is even easier than bashing regular right wing-nuts.
A small "b" bush.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:05 amProtest a president.
I see maf54 has a new assignment. kkkarl used to have him polluting the ComPost message boards now he is spreading manure, (RNC talking points) here.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:07 amFranks comment just makes it dumber!
Comment by PaulB — May 1, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Of course, this was reported in a right wing site. Also, it contradicts what the White House officially said (see above links)
So who lied?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:07 amThe White House?
or Tommy Boy?
PaulB,
so, are you claiming that France, Germany and Russia were not in bed with Hussein? hahahaha!!
oh my, I have never encountered such great ignorance. I mean it is a given, Liberals by their nature are ignorant, if not they wouldn't be Liberals, but PaulB wins the crown of immense ignorance.
I love it, PaulB, with each of your posts you show your ignorance. C'mon give me a mental challenge, your posts are boring and ill-informed. You sound like a child, like a whiny high school kid who was just told by his poorly informed high school teacher that Bush is bad.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:07 amAfter 9-11 Chimpy asked us all to sacrifice - I remember it well. "Go to Disneyworld" he said. Well I did, it was a sacrifice I managed to offset with some Disney stock...
May 1st, 2007 at 11:09 amIt is obvious that you got your talking points from places like thinkprogress.org.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Hey, Einstein, we're at Think Progress, not exactly something we're trying to hide. And yes, we get our talking points from Think Progress and posters here and the links they post.
You'd no doubt move across the street from a slaughter house and then complain that you hear pigs squealing all day. GET A CLUE!
May 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am#106 = proof of debunking. Nice job, PaulB
May 1st, 2007 at 11:11 amwhere to begin to refute your lies, half-truths and complete distortions?
1) You are a Liberal, by nature you are inclined to lie and believe anything that you are told against Conservatives and Republicans.
Comment by valiantthemasterdebater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:02 am
And proving valiant is the most awesome debater of opposing viewpoints, he posts a sentence filled with facts and links, and does not project as most trolls are inclined trolls to do.(sarcasm off)
thank you, valiant, as everytime you post, you show continued evidence of your effort to derail the thread, as well as your misinformed posts, whether it be by purpose, or by ignorance
May 1st, 2007 at 11:12 amKurds To Oppose Draft Oil Law TODAYS NEWS
In a surprise move, Kurdish lawmakers have announced that they plan to oppose Iraq’s controversial US-backed oil law.
Back in February, the Kurds had agreed to support the draft law, which has been heavily criticised as giving too much control to foreign oil companies.
Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani had predicted the draft law would be approved by parliament in April, but it has yet to be debated.
Kurds hold 58 of the 275 parliament seats _ not enough to defeat the measure on their own. But Kurdish objections could delay passage of the bill, whose ratification has been strongly urged by the White House.
But Kurdish spokesman Khalid Saleh has said: “We are not going to support†the provisions in the bill. Some Sunni legislators have also raised now objections, saying the oil law would give foreign oil companies too much power.
So the draft oil law could be in for a tough time before it becomes law. They will be sweating in Houston.
http://www.priceofoil.org/
If this is the news today then bushes benchmarks are a waste of American life therefore Bush should NOT Veto troop pullout
May 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am"where to begin to refute your lies, half-truths and complete distortions? "
LOL.... Again, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
"1) You are a Liberal, by nature you are inclined to lie and believe anything that you are told against Conservatives and Republicans."
Q.E.D., dear heart. Thanks for confirming my opinion of you so quickly.
"2) You are wrong, tax cut for the rich is a left wing talking point to get ill-informed indiviudals like you all riled up."
LOL.... Then it should be easy to prove me wrong, then, right, dear? Alas, cruel reality has a habit of intruding, which is why you are wholly unable to support your silly little assertions.
"3) Poor people in America don’t pay income taxes."
Dear heart, you said they didn't pay taxes, not that they didn't pay income taxes. You're still wrong, since many of them do, in fact, pay federal and/or state income taxes.
"As for property tax, talk to Democrats, they love property tax."
LOL... Whatever, dear.
"You will see how poorly informed you are."
LOL.... Oh, the irony....
"and the “mystical†tax cut with families for children….well, once again you show your poor education. Here a simple way to check it, why don’t you check an income tax form from the 1990s and its rules to one today and you will be amazed at how the tax cut for having children is greater today than in the 1990s under your god Clinton."
LOL.... That's "mythical," dear heart, and I was referring to that "mythical" family you were referring to, not the tax cuts. As for checking your silly little assertions, alas, I fear that the burden of proof is on you since you are the one making the silly claims.
"4) So, you claim that Americans are not willing to make sacrifices,"
LOL.... Dear heart, do you always have this much trouble with reading comprehension? Do try again once you've actually read what I said. Free clue: it wasn't this.
"As you have agreed, it is YOU liberals that aren’t willing to make sacrifices."
Dear heart, when did I ever "agree" to that? Do try to keep up, won't you?
"Your government has asked you to make sacrifices on your privacy to help the war effort against terrorists, why aren’t you willing to make this sacrifice?"
Dear heart, when you can show me that the infringement of my rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution actually has some positive effect on my security, I might take you a little more seriously. Alas, you are wholly unable to do so, which is why you have to resort to ill-informed ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs.
"5) Also, get a clue, ex-President Clinton didn’t balance the budget, you moron."
ROFL.... Whatever you say, dear.
"The power of the purse lies on Congress."
Dear heart, who submits the budget to Congress each year? And who has veto power over the final budget?
"and what party had control of Congress when the budget was balanced? that’s right “dear†Republicans."
Really, dear? The Republican Party passed "the largest tax increase in the history of America?" Imagine that!
"6) I would sugget, “dear†that you get an education and you try to open up a book once in a while."
ROFL.... Again, oh, the irony....
"7)finally remember, there is a reason why the military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. try to guess why?"
Since this has nothing to do with your claims above, forgive me if I don't take this any more seriously than I do your other "arguments."
What's hilarious about this post of yours is that you didn't refute a single thing I said! Do try again, dear, won't you? I need the laughs.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am"so, are you claiming that France, Germany and Russia were not in bed with Hussein? hahahaha!!"
ROFL.... Is this really the best you can do, dear? They were no more "in bed with Hussein" than was the United States, dear. Nor did their being "in bed with Hussein" have anything to do with their support, or the lack thereof, for this ill-advised war. Nor have you provided a single shred of evidence to support any of these assertions, but then that seems to be par for the course for you.
"oh my, I have never encountered such great ignorance."
ROFL.... Oh, the irony.....
"I love it, PaulB, with each of your posts you show your ignorance."
LOL... So you claim, dear; alas that you are wholly unable to support this claim, any more than you've been able to support any of your other silly little claims. Instead, you simply rant like a child and issue rather boring ad hominem attacks. Hilarious, of course, but really, dear, you're making my life too easy. It's no fun going against such a silly target.
"C’mon give me a mental challenge, your posts are boring and ill-informed. You sound like a child"
ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony....
May 1st, 2007 at 11:16 amVal we want to express our appreciation for persuading all the moderate voters who read your bile to vote Democratic next time. For every rabbid, bile-dropping neo-con who expresses their dishonesty, sexism, racism, and hatred is probably ten times that many votes for our side.
Thanks!
May 1st, 2007 at 11:16 amvaliantthehater sez:
Are you claiming that the U.S.A. wasn't?
Educate yourself.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:19 amAh yes. I forgot how you libs think: Defending the nation against a deadly threat is bad, but if it involves covering at least some of the costs (that is, making money) it’s just obscene. Money’s bad. Security is bad. Bringing justice to evil is bad.
Whatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law.
Comment by MAF54 — May 1, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Wow, are you having some kind of ACID FLASHBACK? Try some thorazine.
And as far as US emboldening the enemy; do you think the Iraqis, in between looking for food and water and ducking bombs, during the few hours a day they have electricity COME HERE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE SAYING?
Too funny.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:19 amCommemorate "Mission Accomplished" by looking back at four years of Republican talking points to sell the war and demonize Democrats:
May 1st, 2007 at 11:20 am"Mission Accomplished: 4 Years of GOP Iraq Talking Points."
"Whatever. Go ahead and surrender to the islmists. I hope you like living under the Sharia law."
Comment by MAF54 — May 1, 2007
And this would be different from living under government sponsored Christian Fundamentalism?
Do you even understand the factions involved in our own politics, much less Iraq's?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:21 amI love it, PaulB, with each of your posts you show your ignorance. C’mon give me a mental challenge, your posts are boring and ill-informed. You sound like a child, like a whiny high school kid who was just told by his poorly informed high school teacher that Bush is bad.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Sweet. High school teachers across the nation are now out to get
valientthehater.
Here you go, hater. See if you can pat your head
and rub your tummy at the same time. We'll throw in an extra treat
at snack time, ole boy.
mental challenge... heh.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am"So who lied? The White House? or Tommy Boy?"
It needn't be either, actually. Franks could well have come up with the idea for reasons of his own and the White House jumped on it as the political theater they knew it would be and for reasons of their own. Even charitably assuming that nobody is lying, it still doesn't change a thing -- the whole thing was monumentally idiotic. To be honest, when I first heard about Franks' comments, I was stunned that he would openly discuss having such a stupid idea.
Of course, the fact that the White House changed its story several times certainly leads to the conclusion that they lied, but the original impetus for this still may have come from Franks. What VT apparently still does not realize, though, is that that doesn't change a damn thing -- it was still a dumb thing to do and Bush is, correctly, going to continue getting excoriated for it.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:21 amYou and others have pointed out much better than I would today. I’m imposing a strike on responding to any f%#kstick directly today.
Thanks hellinab! True to form, just when it is abundantly clear the VV is totally at a loss for anything pertinent, here comes the kicker whine-fest!!!
I love it, PaulB, with each of your posts you show your ignorance. C’mon give me a mental challenge, your posts are boring and ill-informed. You sound like a child, like a whiny high school kid who was just told by his poorly informed high school teacher that Bush is bad.
What's the over under on the amount of time before she/he/it shows up trying to muddle another thread? I think she has done ALL she can here heheheh
May 1st, 2007 at 11:22 amWhen Bush baby declared "Mission Accomplished" about 4 years ago, then the troops should have been pulled out of Iraq. Dubya has caused a huge mess since then, so he must be impeached with Cheney.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:23 amPaulB,
Oh "dear", it never fails with you wacky Liberals. You beg and ask for links, and sources for the facts, yet you provide none. Don't ask for that which you aren't willing to give first.
tell you what, "dear", when every single liberal who begs, and cries for Conservatives who post here to give links and sources for their facts, give links and sources themselves, I will start doing it to. In the mean time I will tell you this, don't be the typical lazy liberal who wants a free education. Stop spewing left wing talking points and please try to sound smart. At least pretend that you are well educated, ok?
PaulB, I would suggest that you read the Constitution, "dear". You will be shocked to find out that the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, not the President. The President can send Congress all it wants, but it is up to the Congress to balance the budget, etc, etc. You are so poorly informed, that you actually believe you are right. You are funny kid with your "facts".
and you keep on crying about making sacrifices. I thought you Liberals were willing to sacrifices anything for your country, to keep it save from terrorists. So you are only willing to sacrifice what you think is worth sacrificing, right? idiot, this isn't sacrifice. Why aren't you willing to sacrifice your privacy for the safety of the United States, for the safety of your family?
PaulB, I'll give you one more chance. Try to sound smart, post something educated, ok? Try to bring up the IQ of the conversation instead of bringing it down as you have been doing so far. I warn you child, if you don't respond with some level of intelligence and education beyond 2nd grade, I will stop giving you the attention that you crave, ok? I don't want to hurt your feelings, but it looks like you are leaving me no choice.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:27 amBill Maher said it best - "We've lost the war, and it's NOT the troops fault."
May 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am"I’m imposing a strike on responding to any f%#kstick directly today."
It would probably be better for the discussion if everyone did but, let's face it, we all find ourselves compelled to respond to trolls since we cannot bring ourselves to believe that they really can be that stupid! In my own defense, I never make the mistake of taking people like that seriously. Instead, I mock them and make fun of them, counter-trolling, if you will. Depending on who the troll is, it can be a fairly effective tactic, particularly when they begin frothing at the mouth as dear little "valiant" is doing here. I'm too busy to play with this particular troll anymore today, though. TTFN.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:28 amalp3, did she say mental challenge or mentally challenged?
LMAO...ta ta Valiant! Asta luego! hahahaha, buh BYEEEEE
May 1st, 2007 at 11:30 amI've figured out the decoder key!
When wingnuts use the word "defeatism" they actually mean "reality".
How dare anyone demoralize the troops by spreading reality to their tender, carefully misinformed ears?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:31 amPaulB,
and you continue to beg for sources and links, yet you give none. Do you Liberals go to a Liberal school which teaches to ask for that which you are unwilling to give first?
sorry child, you haven't proven much yourself other than spewing left wing talking points that have been around long before you were born.
you are but the typical Liberal who only says, "Bush is bad....blah, blah, blah, blah......Iraq War bad....blah, blah, blah, blah.....Clinton is my god...blah, blah, blah....." Nothing you have said here hasn't been said by countless poorly informed fools. Try some level of originality and education.
and why aren't you willing to sacrifice your privacy for the good of this nation? you were crying about Bush not asking anyone to make sacrifices. He has asked all americans to give up some of their privacy to keep this nation safe. Why aren't you willing ot make this sacrifice? I take it you are running out of left wing talking points, eh?
Call Al franken, Michael Moore, Pelosi, Kerry, Murtha, I am sure they have fresh ones for you, ok?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:33 amOh “dearâ€, it never fails with you wacky Liberals. You beg and ask for links, and sources for the facts, yet you provide none. Don’t ask for that which you aren’t willing to give first.
Comment by valiantthefluffer — May 1, 2007 @ 11:27 am
And who supports defeatism?
Our own non debater, valiant von no truth, that's who!
TripMasterMonkey, tobeytall, and Your Consience all provided links to debunk you, so there goes that asinine comment.
'smatter? Afraid by clinking on the link, your head may explode from facts and truths, so obviously missing from ditto head intelligence!
May 1st, 2007 at 11:39 amPaulB so overwhelmingly has Vapid's number. The extra "dears" are burning in it's cranium. I'm all for the smack downs. I'm just tired of the circular stupidity. Troll throws out talking point a. All refute a. with facts, troll jumps to talking point b. Refuted again with facts. Insults insue then troll jumps to c, (forgetting it may go against b,g,l etc...). Once again refuted and debunked. Then troll jumps back to a.
I'm just thankful there are people here that keep posting the facts and past flip flops from this administration.
Why has everyone fallen for the "War". It's never been declared a war and we shouldn't be calling it one. The word gives the impression that it has resolve but this conflict has never elavated to that level. Only in the rhetoric did it come close.
Vapid's responses today have been factless but filled with venom. Very Michael Weiner Savage like.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:41 amand why aren’t you willing to sacrifice your privacy for the good of this nation? you were crying about Bush not asking anyone to make sacrifices. He has asked all americans to give up some of their privacy to keep this nation safe. Why aren’t you willing ot make this sacrifice? I take it you are running out of left wing talking points, eh?
This is rich! Valiant, how many foiled plots have their been because of monitoring American citizen's phone calls? Do you know the provisions of the FISA court and how rapid response can be achieved with everything being accountable at the end of the day? Your weak refute is just evidence that your talking points are so tired that you need to put words in other poster's mouths (Clinton is my god an ole fave eh?) just to have SOMETHING to type.
WOW
talk about boring and unsophisticated!
hahaha, go away already - you haven't done anything of note YET!
May 1st, 2007 at 11:43 amDRxJ
Valicunt can't admit defeat - it might embolden us.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:43 amValianthehater,
I am not willing to give up any of my civil liberties due to terrorist’s intentions. I am willing to pay higher taxes for better protection though. Are you?
It was this President that said something to the effect of; if we change the way we live, then the terrorists have won. I agreed with him on that. So no, I am not willing to allow any erosion of our basic constitutional freedoms. Nor do I think our founders would have been fond of that idea either.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am"and you continue to beg for sources and links, yet you give none."
Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that you're the one making the claims? Thus, it behooves you to back them up. You cannot do so, of course, which is why you have to resort to the silly little games you're playing.
"sorry child, you haven’t proven much yourself other than spewing left wing talking points that have been around long before you were born."
ROFL.... Oh, the irony....
"you are but the typical Liberal who only says"
Dear heart, since I haven't said any of those things, might I suggest you actually look at what I really did say? You might also want to take another look at your own comments, dear, since of the two of us, the one spewing the talking points is ... wait for it ... you.
"and why aren’t you willing to sacrifice your privacy for the good of this nation?"
LOL.... Dear heart, when you can show me that it really is "for the good of this nation," I'll consider it. Still waiting for that evidence. Oh, and have you actually read that silly little document, the Constitution, that actually guarantees these rights and privileges?
"you were crying about Bush not asking anyone to make sacrifices."
No, dear, just pointing out the obvious.
"He has asked all americans to give up some of their privacy to keep this nation safe. Why aren’t you willing ot make this sacrifice?"
Because the evidence to date is that the behavior is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it isn't "keeping this nation safe," dear. Is this too complicated for you?
Poor little thing... the arguments are getting lamer and lamer, aren't they?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am"The extra 'dears' are burning in it’s cranium"
LOL.... That's why I do it, of course.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:45 amfinally remember, there is a reason why the military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. try to guess why?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Because they are voting with absentee ballots and the administration removes the ballots voting for democrats.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:45 amyou continue to beg...
you Liberals...
you are but the typical Liberal...
you were crying about Bush...
Why aren’t you willing...
you are running out ...
parsed from Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007
My gramma had a saying - "When you point your finger at someone, there are at least three pointing back at you..."
Or maybe this one is more familiar, "Physician, heal thyself."
Or how bout this one.
Matthew 7: 3-5
Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the log in our own? How dare you say to your brother, "let me take the splinter out of your eye", when all the time there is a log in your own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearlly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.
Try discussing the facts posted instead of reactionary accusation. Its called a dialogue. Get used to it.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:47 amC’mon give me a mental challenge, your posts are boring and ill-informed. You sound like a child, like a whiny high school kid who was just told by his poorly informed high school teacher that Bush is bad.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:07 am
vapidtheater, great job. I believe you have irony down to a science here.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:49 amTry discussing the facts posted instead of reactionary accusation. Its called a dialogue. Get used to it.
Comment by Technodaoist — May 1, 2007 @ 11:47 am
and with Techno's great post, valiantthehater's head explodes (just like that dude in Scanners)
May 1st, 2007 at 11:50 amfinally remember, there is a reason why the military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. try to guess why?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Because they are property of the United States Government and do not have access to all of the informationa civilian might? They look to their leaders for guidance? Its a top-down, authoritarian system that stifles free, spontaneous expression?
None of these are critiques. I actually think they are necessary for a successful military organization...
But you will attack them as being 'anti-military', despite their basis in fact.
FACT.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:51 amPaulB,
I warned you child, I tried, and tried, and tried with you, but I guess we all need to know when to cut our losses, eh?
Please go play in the sandbox, your posts are immature and ill-informed. You have made a fool out of yourself. I will spare you any more embarrassment.
It has been fun to play with your simple, ill-informed mind, but child, I am embarrased for you. Just go play in the sandbox where you belong, ok? Adults are trying to have a conversation.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:53 amfinally remember, there is a reason why the military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. try to guess why?
not anymore I bet
May 1st, 2007 at 11:56 amPaulB,
I warned you child, I tried, and tried, and tried with you, but I guess we all need to know when to cut our losses, eh?
Please go play in the sandbox, your posts are immature and ill-informed. You have made a fool out of yourself. I will spare you any more embarrassment.
It has been fun to play with your simple, ill-informed mind, but child, I am embarrased for you. Just go play in the sandbox where you belong, ok? Adults are trying to have a conversation.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007
May 1st, 2007 at 11:58 amTranslation: Your arguments are beyond my capability to counter. I have nothing constructive to add, so I am now resorting to paragraphs of name-caling and hyperbole. I will soon become bored and take my sour grapes elsewhere...
I warned you child, I tried, and tried, and tried with you, but I guess we all need to know when to cut our losses, eh?
Comment by valianttheprojector — May 1, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Thank you valiant, for your truthfulness in admitting defeat. See, that wasn't so hard to admit you were wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:58 amYour welcome, and all is forgiven
Crump's Brother,
I truly don't get you Liberals. You cry about making sacrifices, that Americans haven't been called upon making sacrifices. When it is show to you that all Americans have been called to make some type of sacrifice all you can say is that you are unwilling to make this sacrifice? you can't have it both ways. and taxes? Every time the USA has gone to war it goes into a defeciet. It happened under Wilson, under FDR, under Lincoln, during Vietnam, Korean War.
If you pick and chose the sacrifice you are willing to make, this is not really a sacrifice, is it?
Furthermore, how has the Patriot Act affected you or me? honestly. So, the government can check, if it wants to, all the library books I check out. So what, they will only do this if they suspect I am a terrorist. What is so horrific about this? So, just like the Clinton administration did with mobsters, drug dealers, etc, the bush administration can tap the phones of terrorists, so what, what is so horrific about this?
crump's brother, I think this is the problem with liberals, you guys have selective sacrifice. You are only willing to sacrifce that which YOU believe is worth sacrificing. In all wars that the USA has been invovled, privacy has been sacrificed. This is not the first one that it happens and it won't be the last one.
During WWII FDR gave orders that all overseas mail be opened and read. During the planning of D-Day all mail was opened and read. During the civil war Lincoln jailed press corp members. FDR had a special task force in teh USA that monitored the media. Clinton had the Enchelon program going. I mean honestly, do you honestly believe that you have any privacy? You are aware the the IRS has more personal information about you than any other government agency, right? you do know this, correct?
and how many of you make purchases over the internet? how many of you have entered your Social Security on the internet? please, if you guys believe in privacy, you live in la-la land.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pm138
Valiant does not know of anything to do with science, since that would imply a general understanding of causality and critical thinking skills. Her irony is an art, and in that respect it indicates a certain idiot savant quality this troll possesses.
hahaha
good shots Techno!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pmROFLMAO…. Oh, the irony….
Comment by PaulB — May 1, 2007 @ 11:16 am
vapidtheater has become the "Queen of Irony".
Yesterday she was mocking posters for learning history from "teachers" while every day she rewrites history on this very site.
Damn, she's good.
But thank YOU for your patience in trying to keep her honest today. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:02 pmBecause they are property of the United States Government and do not have access to all of the informationa civilian might? They look to their leaders for guidance? Its a top-down, authoritarian system that stifles free, spontaneous expression?
None of these are critiques. I actually think they are necessary for a successful military organization…
But you will attack them as being ‘anti-military’, despite their basis in fact.
FACT.
Comment by Technodaoist — May 1, 2007 @ 11:51 am
If it helps you sleep at night to believe this, by all means, believe it. You, like a good Liberal, give little credence to our military personnels' intelligence.
and how about during the Clinton years, the military also voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, top down organization as you claim, they would have been voting Democrat, right?
looks like your little theory doesn't wash.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pmOK- even though nobody will probably read this- # 143 or so- Two criticisms-
May 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pm1- no listing on the chart for Iraqis killed!!!!
2- no total on number of "contractors"(mercs) in Iraq!!!!
WHY??????????????
It has been fun to play with your simple, ill-informed mind, but child, I am embarrased for you. Just go play in the sandbox where you belong, ok? Adults are trying to have a conversation.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:53 am
LMAOROFLLOLMAOLOOAKLHSDQKLJhBWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this for real?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pmWhat was the mission that was accomplished? so much has happened since I can't remember what was accomplished. For that matter what has been accomplished since?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pmThe Bush cultist wants you to know that the military supports republicans. Hmmm. Just go to the IAVA site to find out who members of the military think support the troops: http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
The Bush cultist adds this nugget: "and why aren’t you willing to sacrifice your privacy for the good of this nation?"
It might be worthwhile to ask NRA members this the next time someone suggests registering gun owners.
It's amazing to read some of the opinions of these Bush cultists. "The poor pay no taxes???!!!" Where does someone even get that idea? Hey stupid, people flipping hamburgers at the fast food joint pay 8 to 10% in payroll taxes. They don't count? A self-employed person on the edge of poverty pays 15% in payroll taxes. Evidently, the Bush cultist who believes that "poor people pay no taxes" has never drawn a paycheck.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm"You cry about making sacrifices, that Americans haven’t been called upon making sacrifices."
No, dear, we're simply pointing out the truth (and the obvious). The only "crying" going on here is exclusively from you.
"When it is show to you that all Americans have been called to make some type of sacrifice all you can say is that you are unwilling to make this sacrifice?"
Dear heart, the "sacrifice" has to have some reasonable connection with the actual cost of the war and it has to have some reasonable chance of having an impact on this cost. A sacrifice to actually pay for the war? We've never been asked, which means that the costs will be passed on to the next president and even to the next generation. A sacrifice to give up our guaranteed rights and privileges? Show me that this is both necessary and effective. You are, of course, wholly unable to do so.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:09 pmEvery time the USA has gone to war it goes into a defeciet. It happened under Wilson, under FDR, under Lincoln, during Vietnam, Korean War.
Deficeits not aided and abetted by CUTTING TAXES, were they?
In all wars that the USA has been invovled, privacy has been sacrificed. This is not the first one that it happens and it won’t be the last one.
Except that, arguably with the exception of Vietnam, those wars you mentioned had concrete goals and a well-defined picture of victory whereas this war has been designed to be indefinite. Nice try.
Hahahahaha
May 1st, 2007 at 12:09 pmHow many billions did Clinton throw into supplemental spending bills? And how much has GWB? How many of Clinton's admin. officials get indicted? And how many of GWB?
How many people did Gore shoot in the face? And how many did Cheney? Just had to add that.
I'm going to hunt this down now. If someone has these numbers that would be great to see.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pmIn case the Bush cultists are too lazy to go over to the IAVA site and see what members of the military really think, I'll provide some of their grades for the last congress:
Pelosi: B+; John Kerry: B; Ted Kennedy: B+
Denny Hastert: F; Rick Santorum: D-; Duncan Hunter; C; Norm Coleman: D
The veterans have graded the last congress on support of the troops. Go read the grades, cultists.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pm"I warned you child, I tried, and tried, and tried with you, but I guess we all need to know when to cut our losses, eh?"
ROFL... Dear heart, this is a lesson you clearly have yet to learn. You just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper. Do come back when you're actually ready to support your sillly little assertions, won't you?
"Please go play in the sandbox, your posts are immature and ill-informed. You have made a fool out of yourself."
ROFL..... Don't you just love the projection? The poor thing's arguments have been shredded and all she has left are silly games and ad hominem attacks.
"I will spare you any more embarrassment."
Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I'm enjoying myself immensely?
"It has been fun to play with your simple, ill-informed mind, but child, I am embarrased for you. Just go play in the sandbox where you belong, ok? Adults are trying to have a conversation."
Really, dear? Where? Dear heart, any time you want to try to support just one of your many assertions on this thread, we'll be right here.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pmYou beg and ask for links, and sources for the facts, yet you provide none.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Dear, dear venerealtheater, there are links all over this site. Do you not know how to use those links?
You on the other hand come up with new spin all the time without so much as a reference to any site or publication.
If by accident you were to post something factual nobody would notice with all the nonsense you post on a regular basis. I hope you are getting paid to post here because you certainly aren't making any converts to your side.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pmBluedog,
We know Valiant's games, and they can be infuriating, but this is one I think we can all have fun running with and completely trouncing her "FACTS" and assertions.
Maybe a real drubbing at the hand's of truth will knock something lose...
May 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pmI heard 170,000 troops in Iraq either today or yesterday on NPR. Where did your number come from?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:14 pmHow many times has our government cut taxes during war time before? Zero.
Are there any examples in the history of human civilization of a government cutting taxes during a war? No.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pm# 25 Comment by valiantthehater
Are you on drugs?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pm"Except that, arguably with the exception of Vietnam, those wars you mentioned had concrete goals and a well-defined picture of victory whereas this war has been designed to be indefinite."
True, not to mention that those temporary losses of rights and privileges that the dear one mentions are correctly seen as stains on our national honor -- unnecessary actions that provided no real benefit, just as is true of the Bush administration's actions today. Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pmand how about during the Clinton years, the military also voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, top down organization as you claim, they would have been voting Democrat, right?
looks like your little theory doesn’t wash.
Comment by valiantthehater —
Baloney. It's your theory that doesn't wash. Post a link that proves that military personnel voted overwhelmingly for republicans. You can't do it, because the data doesn't exist. The best you will find are polls, which can be inaccurate, because some soldiers will go along to get along - if their commanding officer is a repub, they'll say they are also. it has nothing to do with how they actually vote.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm"Is this for real?"
Yup. She's run out of talking points and she knows she can't support her silly assertions, so she has nothing left but to try to use my own game against me. Unfortunately for her, I've been playing it longer and I play it better.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pmPaulB
Equally vile are those who try and redefine histroy to support their own agenda. Like the guy in the Whitehouse!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pmBluedog49,
well my anti-Bush cult member. So are you claiminig that the military doesn't vote overwhelmingly for Republicans? wow!
and I agree, the NRA members should register themselves and not care to be on a list.
Here in Illinois our government registers anyone that buys cold medicines, puts them on a register list to help fight against meth. so, why are Democrats, like the governor of Illinois willing to do away with my privacy when it comes to buying medicine at Walgreens, but not willing to give up privacy when it comes to fighting terrorism?
and just like bluedog49 said, why are liberals willing to do away with the privacy of those that buy guns, but not willing to give up privacy when it comes to fighting terrorism?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmIf it helps you sleep at night to believe this, by all means, believe it. You, like a good Liberal, give little credence to our military personnels’ intelligence.
and how about during the Clinton years, the military also voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, top down organization as you claim, they would have been voting Democrat, right?
looks like your little theory doesn’t wash.
Comment by valiantthehater
Thank you for proving my point by attacking my statements rather than discussing them. You put words in others' mouths. I said nothing of their intelligence, yet you accuse me of doing so??? Perhaps you should study the pyschological condition known as "projection".
I spoke of the the environment they work in, and the organization to which they belong. All of these things are factors, yet you choose to sit on your talking point, lie, inveigle, and obsfucate. I have not said you are wrong, only there is more to it than you allow yourself to see.
These issues are more complex than you give credit. Your single, simple statements are nothing more rationalizing what you fear may be denial...
Your statements insult the troops' collective intelligence. They know why they are there better than you, and your armchair generalship does nothing to help them gain victory.
Sad, and I will pray for you as I meditate upon the nothingness of being.
/i can do it too
May 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmHow can the dumb as rocks war mongers still support this clown? Even if you have a hard on for war, Bush has f'ed up both the wars he's started. A pathetic excuse for a man, unqualified for even the lowliest government position. I hope all you dumbf&cks that voted for this ass enjoy the world he has helped put in the crapper.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pmValianthehater,
You said - “and taxes? Every time the USA has gone to war it goes into a defeciet.â€
I will concede that point, however, you talked of sacrifice. According to Pulitzer winner David Cay Johnston, this is the first time in the history of society that taxes have ever been cut during war time. So when we talk of sacrifice.
You said – “If you pick and chose the sacrifice you are willing to make, this is not really a sacrifice, is it?â€
Sure it is. There are certain principles that we should not let due to fear. Further, one must ask when looking at it from your perspective, who gets to decide what sacrifices are enough? Why not just declare martial law? Could one argue “that’s fine, it doesn’t bother me.†So of course we must pick and choose.
You said – “the bush administration can tap the phones of terroristsâ€
Yes they can. I they could have chosen to do it legally under the rules of FISA. But they decided not to do that. And once they got it shot down in the courts, they finally backed off realizing that they were going to lose that fight.
You said – “Furthermore, how has the Patriot Act affected you or me? honestly.â€
I don’t know. And that’s the problem. All I’m asking for is a little oversight. The administration wants no strings attached legislation which allows them to survey who they want without strings. That is the very definition of a police state. Further, I’m sure they are not surveying you. You are insignificant as am I. But political opponents are another story aren’t they. If there is no oversight to insure this isn’t happening, that is a problem. Surely you must see that.
You said – “You are only willing to sacrifce that which YOU believe is worth sacrificing.â€
This is ironical considering your doing the same thing. You’re fine with your privacy but not so fine with reversing Bush’s tax deferral.
And too your last two paragraphs…. I don’t think Lincoln was right in jailing any reporters if he did. If FDR had the American people’s mail opened illegally, I would have spoke out about that as well.
While you scoff at us for believing we have no privacy already, I scoff at you for being willing to die a as a man who doesn’t have the freedoms our founders died for. I’m not scared of death. I do fear tyranny, and the slippery slopes that lead to it. Germany didn’t give in to the Nazi’s overnight. It was a slow erosion of their rights that occurred over time. It can and does happen even in the most altruistic societies.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pmPaulB,
what? FDR having the government look at personal mail during the months leading to D-Day invasion is seen as a stain in our country? hahahaha!!!
FDR having the government looking over the shoulder of our media is seen as s stain in our government? wow!!! Liberals, does your ignorance have no end?!
you are funny kids, you truly are!
and if it is such a stain to our government to ask us to give up our privacy, why is it that more and more States like in Illinois, force people that buy over the counter cold medicine to register and be put on a list? According to our Democratic governor this will help Illinois fight meth labs. So Democrats are willing to give up privacy to fight meth labs, but not willing ot give up privacy to fight terrorism. Interesting.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pmIt has been fun to play with your simple, ill-informed mind, but child, I am embarrased for you. Just go play in the sandbox where you belong, ok? Adults are trying to have a conversation.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 11:53 am
This is a put on, right, vv. Tell us you're are not really this delusional that you don't know this is how we all feel about YOU and think PaulB is doing an excellent job. Don't you EVER get embarassed?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pmIf you don't then you are certifiably BIPOLAR and need some meds. Get help.
Every time there's an article that blatantly shows how clearly Bush has screwed things up, the trolls either stay in there cave or they lose it trying and come up with the most bombastic, over-the-top posts. Today we see Valiant doing the latter. He has really lost it.
I guess I would feel pretty bad too if I supported a policy that led to the loss of 3,351 of our soldiers.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pmTechnodaoist,
you do know that whether in the military or in the private sector, your vote is private, right? No commander is looking over your shoulder when you vote. Thus, your theory doesn't wash. I would agree if you had your commander looking over your shoulder when you vote.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pmThank you valiant, for your truthfulness in admitting defeat. See, that wasn’t so hard to admit you were wrong.
Your welcome, and all is forgiven
Comment by DRxJ — May 1, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Never, she's too delusional. She's just like my cat, hiding behind a corner waiting to pounce on an ant. And just as productinve.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pmand just like bluedog49 said, why are liberals willing to do away with the privacy of those that buy guns, but not willing to give up privacy when it comes to fighting terrorism?
Except he didn't say that, or intimate it even. The difference I can see between the two things here is this...there is a DIRECT corollary between guns and violence, crime, death etc.
There is no DIRECT between checking out "The Communist Manifesto" at your local library and being a terrorist.
NICE TRY! You're getting there...NOT!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pmApparently, minor combat operations are an outstanding success.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pmyou do know that whether in the military or in the private sector, your vote is private, right? No commander is looking over your shoulder when you vote. Thus, your theory doesn’t wash. I would agree if you had your commander looking over your shoulder when you vote.
How simple minded are you? I already explained why your assertion is bunk.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmValianthehater,
You said – “you do know that whether in the military or in the private sector, your vote is private, right?â€
How do we know? Maybe they are checking votes to see who “is with us or against us� See the point? I thought we didn’t really have privacy?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmCrump's Brother,
where in our Constitution are we guaranteed the right to privacy? Honest question.
Privacy is great, but if you think you have privacy, you are living in la-la land. The IRS has all the information that you believe is private. Social Security, bank routing numbers, how much you earned, your 401K earnings, etc, etc, etc. Whether you are married or not, how many children you have, if you take care of other people, what profession you are in, whether you are in college or not. Think about it, the IRS knows everything about you, everything! Why aren't Liberals rasing hell about the IRS collecting ALL of our private information?
As for the tax cuts, if these wouldn't have been put through, our economy would have been in the tanks. The tax cuts got out of the recession which started under Clinton in 2000.
Don't you think that you are using fear and the left has used fear by comparing the Patriot Act to Nazi legislation? c'mon now. You Liberals cry and scream about the right using fear, but my friend, all I see here is a bunch of Liberals that are scared, terrified that their privacy is being lost or has been lost. A fear which has been pushed on you by the left and those that don't like the Patriot Act.
another thing, most if not all the provisions in the Patriot Act have been around long before Bush took office, the one thing that the Bush administration did is grab all the laws that were floating around by themselves and put them together under one Act.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:33 pmYou can argue all you want about who supports the troops, but if you want to see who veterans think support the truth, go to http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
And, all this talk of "sacrifice." What exactly have the wealthy sacrificed? The wealthy have profited, not sacrificed.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:33 pmComment by RUCerious
Greetings, RU. Glad to have you back.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pmOK kids, it's time to play "who am I"!!
Clue #1: I pretend to support the troops while hating the military (in fact, I'm secretly proud of the way I mistreated the Vietnam vets when they returned)
Clue #2: The last thing I want is for us to accomplish our mission in Iraq as this might benefit the Republicans -- remember, it's party first, then country
Clue #3: I firmly believe that if we ignore the terrorists they will leave us alone; and then if they kill more of us I will ask what we did to them to make them hate us so much
Clue #4: I like to pass bills that tell the enemy exactly when we will be withdrawing so that they can use this information to their advantage
Yes, you guessed it! I'm a Democrat!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pmHow simple minded are you? I already explained why your assertion is bunk.
Comment by barfly — May 1, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
wow...I think the only simpleton here is you son. I dare you to go to a military personnel, say a NAVY Seal and tell them that they vote the way they do because they are mindless drones who only know how to obey orders. Let me know which limb he tears off, ok? good luck.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pmNo commander is looking over your shoulder when you vote. Thus, your theory doesn’t wash.
AHHHHHHHHHHNNN! WRONG AGAIN!
Techno did not say anything of the sort. He mentioned polling, where answers given could well be influenced by your CO's views if you would rather just go about your duty than get on the wrong side of your Commanding Officer. That is plausible.
He didn't say that actual voting records (which may or may not bear out your argument...links?) have anything to do with the "go along to get along" aspect of military life. You tried to make it appear that way, but as usual you failed!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pmRU Cerious is in da howse!!!
Glad to have you back! Hope all is well!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm"and if it is such a stain to our government to ask us to give up our privacy"
Still waiting for you to show that why giving up Constitutional rights and privileges is both effective and necessary, dear. Were you planning on providing some real evidence any time soon?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm"As for the tax cuts, if these wouldn’t have been put through, our economy would have been in the tanks."
Bullshit, dear. The economy was already recovering before the tax cuts were passed. Moreover, this recovery has been the most expensive, as well as the weakest, of any such recoveries in the past.
"The tax cuts got out of the recession which started under Clinton in 2000."
No, dear, they didn't, which is why you will not be able to provide any evidence to support this assertion, just like your other many silly assertions on this thread.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm"another thing, most if not all the provisions in the Patriot Act have been around long before Bush took office, the one thing that the Bush administration did is grab all the laws that were floating around by themselves and put them together under one Act."
ROFL.... And she has the sheer gall to call us ignorant and uninformed?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pmOkay kids, it's time to play, "who am I"
1) I pretend to support the troops, while having no empathy as I never served. I also cut much needed funding for simple stuff like armor, as well as decent medical coverage
2) The last thing I want is for us to accomplish our mission in Iraq, as that might not benefit my portfolio. Remember, it's my money first, f*ck everything else
3)I firmly believe that if we invade a soveriegn country which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, it will help us battle terrorism worldwide.
4) I like to pass bills which violates the constitution, and brings chaos to the American way of life, thus ensuring victory for the Terrorists. I like scaring the bejebus out of the American people, just to further my political cause.
Yep, you guessed it. I'm a Republican, and not very original, like Cynicon Implant
May 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pmPaulB,
Please point where in the Constitution Americans are guaranteed the right to privacy.
Article, paragraph, amendment. give me something child, besides left wing talking points.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:44 pmOK kids, it’s time to play “who am Iâ€!!
I don't care about the rule of law - it's an inconveinience.
I don't care about dead children, unless they're American.
I don't care about the troops, but I will use them in photo ops.
I don't care about deficits, as long as I can wave my flag.
I don't care about the environment, unless there are votes to be had.
I don't care about government's effectiveness -- I want to drag it into the bathroom, and drown it in the tub.
I don't care about minorities, unless they try to move next door.
Who am I?
A republican.
Thanks, Cinny, that was fun!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmPaulB,
tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock.....where in the Constitution are Americans guaranteed the right to privacy? did you find the Article, paragraph, sentence, amendment yet? c'mon child. the Constitution is not that long.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pmValiantthehater,
Please point where in the Constitution the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?
"Article, paragraph, amendment. give me something child."
Privacy is a found right, and a long established legal precedent. Don't be ridiculous.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pmEvidently, the Bush cultist who believes that “poor people pay no taxes†has never drawn a paycheck.
Comment by Bluedog49 — May 1, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
And they forget about the disproportionate amount of sales taxes paid by poor people. The sales tax at our business went up this year and I doubt our customers even realize it. And even poor people pay for property tax increases. The amount of money I pay for unemployment taxes for a small business has gone up about 300% in the last couple of years. And all these raises are made to offset the lack of federal funds coming to regional government offices. Tax cuts my ass.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm“The tax cuts got out of the recession which started under Clinton in 2000.â€
No, dear, they didn’t, which is why you will not be able to provide any evidence to support this assertion, just like your other many silly assertions on this thread.
Comment by PaulB — May 1, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
and you are so right that you couldn't provide evidence to the contrary, eh? hahaha!! you are sure good for one thing. to be pointed at and laughed at.
keep on posting, my ignorant friend, you make me laugh child.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmwow…I think the only simpleton here is you son. Condescending Comment by valiantthehater
As I thought: when challenged, you can't produce anything to back up your claim. Typical blowhard republican: can't be bothered with facts. I blew your talking point out of the water, and all you can do is blubber on about the troops.
Or can you post something - that is not a poll - to back up your ridiculous claim?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pmand you are so right that you couldn’t provide evidence to the contrary, eh? hahaha!! you are sure good for one thing. to be pointed at and laughed at.
keep on posting, my ignorant friend, you make me laugh child.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Sorry, but PaullB, wiped the floor up with your sorry *ss. The only *lame* think you came up with is the Constitution has no "Right to Privacy"? BAHAHAHA, what a dum bass!!
So once again venomoustheater, show us where our *sacrifices* are required to *win* the war? You do realize that half of the US economy was TAXED (not the budget the WHOLE GDP) for WWII! Are you ready for the INCREASED TAXES to fight such an important war - as you claim?
Sorry, CHILD, it's you that's unwilling to make any REAL sacrifices - to your MONEY, the ONLY THING you probably care about!! Jake*ss!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pmPrivacy is a found right, and a long established legal precedent. Don’t be ridiculous.
Comment by Crump's Brother — May 1, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Crump, that is not an answer. You all have been claiming that privacy is a Constitutional right, where in the Constitution can this right be found? please point out to it, Article, paragraph, amendment.
and while you are it, please point out to all the legal cases which have established this precedence. It should be a long, easily found list, right?
I would suggest that you don't be ridiculous and you liberal back up your assertion that privacy is a Constitutional right.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pmPaulB, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock…..where in the Constitution are Americans guaranteed the right to privacy? did you find the Article, paragraph, sentence, amendment yet? c’mon child. the Constitution is not that long. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Actually SON, there are SEVERAL constitutional rights to privacy that are spelled out explicitly, many more implicitly implied.
Here's a little blurb specifically that *explains* where our right to privacy comes from in the constitution. It's OK if you don't understand it, children as young as yourself usually don't understand complex adult matters.
I hope that helps you out CHILD, but you do seem awfully st*pid, so I doubt it will!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmOr can you post something - that is not a poll - to back up your ridiculous claim?
Comment by barfly — May 1, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
oh this is classic!! hahahahahaha!!!!! so are you claiming that polls are wrong? that polls don't tell the whole truth? hahahaha!!!
so why do you Liberals, why does the Liberal media rely on polls to tell us how unpopular Bush is and how Americans don't support this war?
barfly, you are funny! I hope that next time thinkprogress.org puts up a poll against Bush you are the first one to attack it, ok?
oh man, I am laughing at your stupidity barfly.
and crying about my condescending posts? please, you are the queen of being condescending, I see that like a good Liberal, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Typical of Liberal cowards.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmComment by RUCerious
This is a good day!!! Thank you for being back.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm#196 - Sorry to burst your bubble:
"In fact, there is no evidence that the economy was in recession when President Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2001. Yes, growth was slowing, and the longest expansion in American history was running out of steam. But the U.S. economy did not go into recession until Bush's presidency, according to both of the most accepted definitions.
One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.
According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew (albeit slowly) in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. GDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001. So Bush would have been accurate in saying that "when I was inaugurated, the economy was three weeks into the first of three consecutive quarters in which GDP declined.""
http://www.slate.com/id/2076134/
"The ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund claims the economy was already in a recession when Bush took office, but the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January. "
http://www.factcheck.org/pro-bush_puffery_on_economy_medicare.html
May 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pmTypical of Liberal cowards.
Comment by valiantthehater —
Can't back it up? As I thought. Typical blowhard republican, who can't back up what he says. And you're calling me a coward? Anytime, anyplace.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pmCrump's Brother,
furthermore, if Liberals care about privacy so much, why is it that Liberal governors, Democratic governors like the governor of Illinois passed a law that trumps privacy. It asks anyone and everyone that buys over the counter cold medicine to register every time you buy cold medicine. Where is the liberal outrage? I thought Democratic politicians cared about privacy?
and you didn't answer to the fact that the IRS has all of your private information, which you give very willingly every time you file your taxes.
If you truly cared about your privacy, if LIberals truly cared about privacy, they would be a huge uproar from the left against the governor of Illinois and against the IRS, but we all know that is NOT the case.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pmI would suggest that you don’t be ridiculous and you liberal back up your assertion that privacy is a Constitutional right.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Oh dear child, you aren't smart enough to wipe the *ss of a Constitutional Law expert.
See, you just don't understand the Constitution, CHILD, that's all.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmWell DRxJ, it is time for that post again. First I will respond to your last post, hmm, well it can't be Reid since he does not even pretend to support the troops. It can't be Kerry because we know he hates the troops, they are all stupid baby killers right? And it can't be Hillary since she does not pick a side. She just pretends to be on the side of whoever she talk in front of, heck, she even adopts their accents.
ROTFL
Here is the post again. I still never heard a response from you.
DRxJ asked for links that showing Clinton was soft on Terrorism. Now he keeps changing the topic and making disparaging remarks. So I think this should be posted so he cannot ignore the discussion. Clinton let terrorists go Yes Or No?
35 in Congress back resolution condemning Clinton FALN clemency
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/08/congress.faln/index.html
Clemency Offered to FALN Terrorists
http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/clinton_pardons/high_profile.html
Bill Clinton pardons controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
Clinton offers clemency to 11 Puerto Rican independence activists
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/clemency-faln.htm
JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY IN PARDONGATE: FEDERAL COURT RULES DOCUMENTS ON CLINTON PARDON OF PUERTO RICAN TERRORISTS ARE PUBLIC
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmDocuments Had Been Withheld for Over One Year by Clinton-Gore Administration
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_838.shtml
oh this is classic!! hahahahahaha!!!!! so are you claiming that polls are wrong? that polls don’t tell the whole truth? hahahaha!!!
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Actually the polls that were posted as links, show you were wrong. You only posted your *opinion* child. I can see how you wouldn't know what a POLL was, you probably thought it was that POLE you had st*ck up your wingNUT *ss.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmNo, it’s not. Proof here. Sorry, but when .2 of American households receive 53.5% of the tax cuts, those cuts benefit the rich.
And then there's this:
This has been another edition of “The Liberal Bias of Reality.†Join us next week when we discuss whether or not water is wet, and how heavy it is to carry.
.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pmOK kids, it’s time to play “who am Iâ€!!
Clue #1: I pretend to support the troops while hating the military (in fact, I’m secretly proud of the way I mistreated the Vietnam vets when they returned)
Like the way I used went AWOL during basic, and years later sent soldiers on extended tours of duty with inadequate equiptment!
Clue #2: The last thing I want is for us to accomplish our mission in Iraq as this might benefit the Republicans — remember, it’s party first, then country
Like the way I do not clearly define what our remaning mission is, no benchmakrs, no accountability from contractors, no accountability for Maliki...etc. and how I continue to prolong this conflict until I am well out of office
Clue #3: I firmly believe that if we ignore the terrorists they will leave us alone; and then if they kill more of us I will ask what we did to them to make them hate us so much
Like how I've basically abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban again, how Osama bin Laden is someone I no longer think about, and how I have won over zero "hearts and minds" to combat terrorism before is blooms!
Clue #4: I like to pass bills that tell the enemy exactly when we will be withdrawing so that they can use this information to their advantage
Explain how the terrorists would use that information to their advantage? Just once. Coherently.
Cmon Implant - that was weak. What is the advantage to the terrorists if we consolidate our security in our actual country?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pmGDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — May 1, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
I have one question for you, when was Bush's first budget passed by Congress? Clue, it was around October 2001.
So, the first three economic quarters that Bush was in power, our economy was running under whose budget? President Clinton's.
hate to burst your bubble.
as your numbers show, under the Clinton administration the economy already had had two consecutive slow downs in the economy, compared to previous economic growth. So guess what, you put up evidence to support the facts. The recession started under Clinton and IF it started under Bush, the recession was still ex-President Clinton's fault since Bush's first budget was not passed until October 2001.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pmPoor Happy Guy, your *smears* are really funny, considering everyone KNOWS that the troops are sick of you lying sacks of sh*t!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pmoh this is classic!! hahahahahaha!!!!! so are you claiming that polls are wrong? that polls don’t tell the whole truth? hahahaha!!!
I can see the sheen of flop-sweat on your forehead. Laugh harder, it only makes you look more desperate to deflect from my point, which is that you can't back up what you say with anythin but a poll - because the government doesn't compile that type of data.
But you just keep on laughing, and typing with lots of extra exlamation points, if it makes you feel better.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pmvaliantthehater,
here is the case. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
And since you didn't seem interested in finding a case for my question regarding jusicial review, which can't be found in the constitution, I will give it to you as well. Marbury v. Madison. Any other brain busters?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pmHey Happy dude, thanks for derailing the thread:
and for the third time, which you continually ignore, Clinton took alot of criticism for that pardon.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmNow I ask, for the third time, please provide terrorist attacks (place and date) that the Puerto Rico Independence Nationalists accomplished after their release.
I do need specific names, though.
Take your time in not responding, as usual
Liberals,
still waiting for where in the Constitution we find the clause, the article, the amendment, something, a word, a sentence, a paragraph that guarantees the so called right to privacy.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pmGreat ... we've now entered into the "CLINTON DID {INSERT ISSUE HERE}!!" part of the thread.
Surprisingly, it took nearly 200 replies. It usually shows up earlier ...
May 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pmJUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY IN PARDONGATE: FEDERAL COURT RULES DOCUMENTS ON CLINTON PARDON OF PUERTO RICAN TERRORISTS ARE PUBLIC
Documents Had Been Withheld for Over One Year by Clinton-Gore Administration
http://www.judicialwatch.org/ archive/ 2001/ printer_838.shtml
Comment by Happy Guy — May 1, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Wow, you ARE ST*PID CHILD!!! Judicial Watch is run by the Carthage and Scaife Foundations - the same lying, smearing, wingNUT operations that was behind every smear, lie, and attack on Clinton his whole term.
You've been duped, apparently willingly, but the BIGGEST BUNCH OF LIARS IN AMERICAN POLITICS!! ROTFL INDEED!
You're some st*pid little piece of lying sh*t!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pmComment by Happy Guy
From Wiki:
All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:08 pmValiantthehater,
a more recent case, decided by an obviously conservative court....
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
May 1st, 2007 at 1:08 pmValiant Venus loves Meth, Hates Freedom!
Why!?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:08 pmstill waiting for where in the Constitution we find the clause, the article, the amendment, something, a word, a sentence, a paragraph that guarantees the so called right to privacy.
Comment by valiantthehater —
As soon as you post the part detailing the powers of the unitary executive.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pmClinton let terrorists go Yes Or No?
Nice movement of the goal posts, as I never said that.
You've got nothing, never had anything, but you seem to take pride in your fantasy victory. You take your posts directly from the Drudge Report, and expect us to believe you researched this on your own.
Sad, really, to think you've won a "debate" from weeks ago, and still sport partial wood when I post.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pmbut hey, if makes you happy, and prevents you from going postal, I'm alright with it
furthermore, if Liberals care about privacy so much, why is it that Liberal governors, Democratic governors like the governor of Illinois passed a law that trumps privacy. It asks anyone and everyone that buys over the counter cold medicine to register every time you buy cold medicine. Where is the liberal outrage? I thought Democratic politicians cared about privacy? Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
It must be getting harder to cook up METH without that sudafed - eh Haggard? You also have to sign up every time you buy any CONTROLLED substance from a Pharmacy - what's your point? That's a PUBLIC transaction CHILD, not a PRIVATE one.
And who said what anyone's stance was here on the matter? You r*t*rded meth-head!
and you didn’t answer to the fact that the IRS has all of your private information, which you give very willingly every time you file your taxes. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
They have *ALL* of our private information? Dam, you're st*pid! All you need to put is your INCOME - Jake*ss, not your pornographic details!
If you truly cared about your privacy, if LIberals truly cared about privacy, they would be a huge uproar from the left against the governor of Illinois and against the IRS, but we all know that is NOT the case. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Whatever. You're an idiot.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pmstill waiting for where in the Constitution we find the clause, the article, the amendment, something, a word, a sentence, a paragraph that guarantees the so called right to privacy. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Already posted it twice, illiterate michael.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmValiant Venus loves Meth, Hates Freedom!
Why!? Comment by Tweedster — May 1, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Because s-he doesn't have the freedom to make meth anymore!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm215
Hey Valiant - do you remember the actual topic of this thread? You seem to have run away from that line of questioning!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...whatta ZERO!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pmStill waiting for your "proof," Valiant.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pmvaliantthehater,
"still waiting for where in the Constitution we find the clause, the article, the amendment, something, a word, a sentence, a paragraph that" give the spureme court the power of judicial review?
You can't have both ways.
But I'll give you the gist of what Justice Douglas wrote in the Majority opinion of Griswold.
The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
May 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pmAlthough the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections.
Crump's Brother,
So, are you now changing your tune? So, it is not a Constitutonal right that we have to privacy, but a right based on legal presedence, is this your new tune?
and you still haven't responded to the fact that the IRS has all of your private information. That in Illinois you have to give up your right to privacy if you buy cold medicine, thanks to a Democratic politician who claims to be a Liberal.
where is the outrage for these two things? I thought you Liberals cherished privacy?
crump's brother, the fact is that privacy is NOT a right that can be found anywhere in the Constitution, and it doesn't have a long legal presedence. It is a made up right which has been stuck into our modern culture.
The fact is that Liberals have selective privacy right issues. They demand it when they think that a Republican is taking away this so called right, but they don't care if this so called right is taken away by Liberals.
Once again, Liberals living in fear.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pmWow ... the knowledge some people have of the Constitution and it's history is stunning.
FYI -- the Constitution was created to set the rules for what the federal government could or could not do. For example, Amendments 9 & 10 state:
In other words, the Constitution clearly states that the government has no power to tell people what to do except when it is specifically authorized in the Constitution. Thus, there's is a right to privacy, as countless judges have decided since our nation's founding.
To claim that there is no right just because it's not stated in here directly shows nothing more than clinical stupidity about the Constitution.
.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pmWhy show vapid anything when it doesn't back it's own claims up. This is truely sad that side issues and egos would stand in the way of mounting debt and death with no coehsivie plan for success. Lack of planning put us where we are today and the one's still in power were the planners. The private sector (which they love) would have fired their asses long ago.
For all the trolls that still want to follow this disaster go ahead, but drop all the crap. It's been a failed policy. It's a failed presidency. It will tar the Republican party for years if not decades to come.
Don't care if you can't see that or don't like it. It is the truth.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmStill waiting, Valiant. Or you could admit that you were mistaken.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmSo, are you now changing your tune? So, it is not a Constitutonal right that we have to privacy, but a right based on legal presedence, is this your new tune? Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Actually the legal case was decided BASED on the constitution. St*pid Jake*ss.
and you still haven’t responded to the fact that the IRS has all of your private information. That in Illinois you have to give up your right to privacy if you buy cold medicine, thanks to a Democratic politician who claims to be a Liberal. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I told you before, stop attaching your personal pornography to your tax records! As for the cold medicine, the government is allowed to regulate commerce - or were you asleep in constitution law class the day they discussed that? Idiot.
where is the outrage for these two things? I thought you Liberals cherished privacy? Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Governments have the right to regulate commerce jake*ss. That has nothing to do with your *privacy*.
crump’s brother, the fact is that privacy is NOT a right that can be found anywhere in the Constitution, and it doesn’t have a long legal presedence. It is a made up right which has been stuck into our modern culture. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I already corrected you. Several rights to privacy are explicitly spelled out in the constitution. You're a liar, and an idiot.
The fact is that Liberals have selective privacy right issues. They demand it when they think that a Republican is taking away this so called right, but they don’t care if this so called right is taken away by Liberals. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I call b*llsh*t
Once again, Liberals living in fear.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Says the wingNUT living in fear of the bogeyman terrorists...
May 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pmI enjoyed the TP tags at the top: INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATION ------ BRAINDEAD
A very accurate and economical classification, but the growing list must be near-encyclopedic by now.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmLiberals love privacy so much that....
1) they want to create lists in which gun owners must be registered. This list must have full name, social security, home address, etc, etc, etc, etc.
2) they have created lists in different States that force individuals that buy cold medicine to register their name, address, phone number and social security on a State registrar. In Illinois, the governor claims it has been created to fight meth labs.
so, Liberals want to fight meth labs (rightly so), but they don't want to fight terrorism.
3) the IRS has and collects all of our private information. We give up this information willingly. The IRS is part of the current government. The IRS knows everything and anythign about us. Why aren't Liberals outraged at the IRS for having all of this private information?
4) Sh....t if you buy a car, the car company get all of your private information.
5) The school you attend has all of your private information.
Please stop with the self-rightous, privacy right crap.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmvaliantthehater,
I do expect the IRS to collect revenue. In order to that they need certain information. It is mandatory that this happens to live in a free society. It is not mandatory that the government have access to my phone calls or my library chek out patterns, or which porn sites I frequent. See the difference? This information does nothing to help to the government in executing its duties. If the IRS uses my information in someway that is illegal, or becomes authoritarian in a manner which angles towards a tyrannical use, I would speak up.
So you will then concede that there is no constititional power of Judicial Review? Please answer.... I answered you.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmOnce again, Liberals living in fear.
Comment by valiantthehater
And conservatives living in denial. Where's your proof that the military votes more for repubs than dems? Or will you admit you were mistaken?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmComment by valiantthehater
Will you admit you were wrong?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmWho here doesn't want to fight real terrorism? Who here wants to surrender? Who here would like to have the argument stick to the facts?
Who here is having their opinion swayed by being beaten down?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmCrump's Brother,
Yes, there is no Constitutional power for Judicial Review. The point was that Liberals were claiming that we have a Constitutional Right to privacy, which we don't.
and so....you have no problem with the IRS collecting all of your private information, which in fact it is the government. But you have an issue with another part of the government collecting your private information?
please point out to all the cases, and instances in which the Patriot Act has been abused. and real cases, not fringe, crazy, ,made up cases.
if you believe that the Patriot Act is wrong, then I can assume that the Enchelon program under Clinton was even worst, right?
don't you think you are living in fear?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmvaliantthehater,
do you really think that me conducting private business with a car company is the same thing as the government tapping my phones or my bank records without my knowledge? That's a stretch.
If you want to own a gun, you must register with your state. It's OPTIONAL!!! I'm I getting through to you on that one?
The IRS must have access to information in order collect revenue.
What you are arguing for valiantthehater, is for the government to be able to pass laws that say you can't kiss your wife on Sunday. Sounds ridiculous right. Well that is what you are angling for. Privacy rights aren't ridiculous. Without this 'found' right, women in Connecticut would not be allowed to buy birth control. Does not seem ridiculous to you. Should I not have the right to throw on a condom in the 'privacy' of my own home? Should the government be allowed to tell me that I can't? that is the essence of the privacy debate.
I understand that you are probably angling at abortion rights here. Which, I'll remind you Chief Justice Roberts said is the established law of the land and legal precedent. (Although I'm sure he'll change his mind as soon as he can) But that notwithstanding, I don't think it is the role of government to to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pmIf you want to see a more visual guide:
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmClick here:
http://www.presidentialportrait.com/FunnyPhotos.htm
“I warned you child, I tried, and tried, and tried with you, but I guess we all need to know when to cut our losses, eh?â€
Tell Bush this.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmIn Illinois, the governor claims it has been created to fight meth labs.
Comment by valiantthenonthinker — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
and the governor would be correct.
Here in SouthWest Michigan, methamphetamine production was out of control. Now, in order to buy the main ingredient, pseudophedrine, you must provide proof of identity, which is collected and monitored only for those who continuosly "pharmacy shop" for said med.
Production of meth has gone down nearly 60% here since the implement of identifaction required for purchase.
Sh….t if you buy a car, the car company get all of your private information.
that's because of the Patriot Act, you nimrod. so now you're bashing the same administration your were just moments ago polishing your bishop to, because they excite you so much
Seriously, stop the madness. You've got nothing but non factual opinions, and blatant attacks, yet you support the production and distribution of illegal, harmful substances.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm"tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock…..where in the Constitution are Americans guaranteed the right to privacy? did you find the Article, paragraph, sentence, amendment yet? c’mon child. the Constitution is not that long.
ROFL.... Dear heart, considering that you have not backed up a single claim of yours, despite repeated requests to do so, it's rather ludicrous for you to play silly games like this. Glass houses and all that...
But hey, I love playing silly games with you, so let's give you a choice of answers, shall we?
1. I never said that the Constitution did guarantee a right to privacy, so I'm afraid that, as usual, your question is just another strawman argument. I was, of course, referring to the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and to those rights and restrictions enshrined in law (e.g., FISA).
2. Other Constitutional scholars, much more knowledgeable than either you or I, have already addressed the question quite well, as has the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't take you seriously enough to point you to the research or to the court decisions, though, so I'll pass on trying to educate you.
Nice try, dear heart.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm"and you are so right that you couldn’t provide evidence to the contrary, eh?"
LOL... Dear heart, you made the claim; it's up to you to back it up. You can't, of course, but your attempts to wiggle out of backing up your assertions is proving endlessly amusing.
" hahaha!! you are sure good for one thing. to be pointed at and laughed at."
ROFL... Couldn't have said it better myself, dear.
"keep on posting, my ignorant friend, you make me laugh child."
I shall, dear, just so long as you keep amusing me.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pmLiberals love privacy so much that….
1) they want to create lists in which gun owners must be registered. This list must have full name, social security, home address, etc, etc, etc, etc. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Guns are commerce, same thing with your salary.
2) they have created lists in different States that force individuals that buy cold medicine to register their name, address, phone number and social security on a State registrar. In Illinois, the governor claims it has been created to fight meth labs.
Also, regulating commerce, and not a privacy issue.
so, Liberals want to fight meth labs (rightly so), but they don’t want to fight terrorism. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Who do you think plants those abortion clinic bombs? Strung out meth heads like yourself.
Actually do fight terrorism, including wanting the regulation of firearms (see hypocrite how that works?), and we also track explosives, and other commercial items (like fertilizer) that can be used to make explosives.
So your claim is a lie, as usual.
3) the IRS has and collects all of our private information. We give up this information willingly. The IRS is part of the current government. The IRS knows everything and anythign about us. Why aren’t Liberals outraged at the IRS for having all of this private information? Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
So don't do commerce, if you don't want it regulated - Jake*ss. Just go up like the Zodiac killer, and live in a cabin off the grid? OK, lunatic?
4) Sh….t if you buy a car, the car company get all of your private information. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Commerce, and what *private* information are you talking about? Your address? PUHLEASE! What are you running from anyway, child support?
5) The school you attend has all of your private information. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
No One has ALL of your private information - you r*t*rded meth head.
Please stop with the self-rightous, privacy right crap.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Funny, that's what I was about to say about you - hypocrite!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pmThe disconnect experienced by VV from reality must have been a pretty violent wrenching...considering how far adrift it is from the facts.
Phone-taps (with no paper trail to be accessed if anyone was ever accused of anything from said taps) do not equal lists of people who buy firearms or drugs.
Do you get it?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pmValiant, sorry to burst your "Pres. Clinton recession" bubble, bu tyou know that facts have a liberal bias. . . .
In fact, there is no evidence that the economy was in recession when President Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2001. Yes, growth was slowing, and the longest expansion in American history was running out of steam. But the U.S. economy did not go into recession until Bush's presidency, according to both of the most accepted definitions.
One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.
According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew (albeit slowly) in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. GDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001. So Bush would have been accurate in saying that "when I was inaugurated, the economy was three weeks into the first of three consecutive quarters in which GDP declined."
http://www.slate.com/id/2076134/
May 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pmplease point out to all the cases, and instances in which the Patriot Act has been abused. and real cases, not fringe, crazy, ,made up cases.
if you believe that the Patriot Act is wrong, then I can assume that the Enchelon program under Clinton was even worst, right?
don’t you think you are living in fear?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
What's wrong, haven't learned to use *the-google* yet?
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17564prs20050404.html
Lets not forget that the FBI apologized before congress for their abuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10fbi.html?ex=1331182800&en=847bc959c663dfbf&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You're an idiot.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm"do you remember the actual topic of this thread? You seem to have run away from that line of questioning!"
Yup. It's an old tactic and one that trolls employ all too effectively, alas. The best way to handle it is to go back on the attack and keep referencing the original topic at every opportunity.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pmHellinabucket -
SO, if this whole thing shakes down as it is predicted (the Bush veto yada yada), what recourse does Congress have that point to make sure that there is no more claim of "unitary executive privilege" to be had?
This will interesting...
May 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmCrump's Brother,
but if Liberals care so much about privacy right, why do they pass laws against this?
you haven't spoken about the fact that in many States, cities, etc controlled by Liberal, Democratic Politicians they have passed laws that force anyone that buys cold medicines to regiter their name, time of purchase, address, social security, driver's license number, etc, etc.
where is the left wing outrage on this?
and sorry, I don't believe that killing another human being (abortion) is a right, or deserves privacy. But this topic is for another thread.
My point is, crump's brother that Liberals hate privacy when it comes to Democratic politicians, and love privacy when it comes to Republican politicians.
i have yet to hear any Democratic politician complain about Illinois and other States making lists of people that buy cold medicine. Where is my privacy on this? where?
and sorry, the government already tells you what to do and what not to do in the privacy of your home. It regulates yoru heat, light, phone, cable, it regulates, in some States now, where you can and cannot smoke. the government regulates many things that you do in the privacy of your home.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmHahaha, PaulB I am almost feeling guilty about the absolute, irrefutable, whoopin all of us have laid on Valiant...I'm just kind of sad she stopped trying to goad me after a couple posts!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pmvaliantthehater,
so then you agree that it is ok for the court to possibly 'find' rights or not. Or do you think that the precedent set in MArbury (allowing judicial review) to be thrown out?
You said - "please point out to all the cases, and instances in which the Patriot Act has been abused. and real cases, not fringe, crazy, ,made up cases."
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was labeled an enemy combatant with no evidence needing to be shown in court, and thus far, no eviddence has been shown that he is guilty of anything. The President knew he was going to lose in this court so after nearly three years at gitmo, the President removed the enemy combatant label and charged him with a crime. Now that he has access to courts, he has been to messed up by the 'things' that go on at Gitmo to even stand trial.
And that's just one that I can think of.
As far as echelon goes, I'll submit to you this...
The Echelon Myth
Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.
The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:
During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.
The Bush administration has been data mining.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pm"Where is brave Sir Valiant?"
"I believe that's the back of his horse, there in the distance, Sire"
"Will he be back before the battle commences?"
"He mentioned something about checking the polls, m'lord."
"Well, he'd best be back soon; we wouldn't want it known that I'd knighted a poll-cat"
"Thats a good one, your majesty."
I guess he's like Jake: if you disprove his assertion, suddenly you're on an ignore list.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pmAnd just for VT, who insists that everyone answer her questions while valiantly ignoring all return requests:
Dear heart, when you can show us that any of this crap has made us any safer, we might take you seriously. Alas, you cannot, since the evidence to date is that our liberties have been infringed with no corresponding improvement in security. In any case, there’s this little thing called the Constitution. I suggest you take a look at it. You might also want to take a look at what Benjamin Franklin had to say about security.
Anytime you want to show us just how this is making us safer, we'll be right here, dear.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pmBut this topic is for another thread...
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
HOLY ASCAP! Valiant, that is the funniest thing you've said all day! It sums up your WHOLE ACT!!!
BWHAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA
May 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmvaliantthehater,
With the cold medicines already!!!!
I am agaisnt it actually. I think there are better ways to combat the meth problem. It takes more than just registering cold medicine buyers. It pisses me off when I go in to a market get my daugher something for her allergies or a cold, and everything is locked up. THen I have to give the checker all my info. Your right. It's wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pmWhy not register me when I buy concentrated orange juice. I could build a bomb with that substance.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pm"Hahaha, PaulB I am almost feeling guilty about the absolute, irrefutable, whoopin all of us have laid on Valiant…I’m just kind of sad she stopped trying to goad me after a couple posts!"
It is kind of pathetic, isn't it? What's amazing is that she hasn't been able to back up a single one of her many assertions. In fact, she hasn't even tried. Just jumps from one silly claim to another without stopping to actually think about what she's saying, much less considering whether it's accurate or even whether it makes any sense.
Of course, given the topic of this thread, such a disconnect from reality was inevitable. The only people who still think that "Mission Accomplished" moment was anything but tawdry political theater, now incredibly damaging to the Bush administration, are the idiots who are incapable of actually learning anything new.
The nice thing about that "Mission Accomplished" moment is that the effect was so shortlived and that it will haunt the Bush administration for the rest of his term in office. It was so bizarre, so disconnected from reality, that it really sums up his administration in one photo op.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pmTweedster,
That's the big question. What will congress do after the veto. I haven't heard he vetoed it yet and he could just let it lay without signing it. It would become law (I forget what length of time). He doesn't like it but it's not binding and it is flexible. This has been more posturing.
The republicans have to be looking for the days past this mistake. Unless they want to push their party to the brink of extinction I would think that even if Bush vetos this there will be a similar bill coming up soon.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm"That’s the big question. What will congress do after the veto."
My best guess is that they will give him just a couple of months worth of funding, forcing him to come back to them in a couple of months so that we can go through this again. It's sad, but until the Republican Party gets its nose thoroughly rubbed in this failure and its costs, not just to the American people and to our over-taxed military, but to them, this charade will continue.
"I haven’t heard he vetoed it yet and he could just let it lay without signing it."
He'll veto it. He's put himself out there too far to not do that. He's "the decider," remember? And absent a veto-proof majority opposed to it, he'll veto it.
"The republicans have to be looking for the days past this mistake."
Yup. They're crossing their fingers and praying wildly for "the surge" to show some positive signs that they can use to cover their asses.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pmvaliantthehater,
With the cold medicines already!!!!
I am agaisnt it actually. I think there are better ways to combat the meth problem. It takes more than just registering cold medicine buyers. It pisses me off when I go in to a market get my daugher something for her allergies or a cold, and everything is locked up. THen I have to give the checker all my info. Your right. It’s wrong.
Comment by Crump's Brother — May 1, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
so if you think it is wrong, why aren't you making a huge deal about it as with Bush's Patriot Act?
that's the problem with most Liberals, you may or may not be included on this, but this whole privacy thing is a farce. It is just another reason they have to attack Bush. But in Illinois the same Democratic politicians and pundits that attack Bush on privacy rights supposedly being violated by the Patriot Acts are the same Democtrats that whole heartly supported the laws to make lists and registrars for anyone and everyone that buys cold medicine.
You either hate both, or love both, you can't have it both ways.
Just look here on thinkprogress.org how Liberals have attacked Bush because of the Patriot Act and its supposed violations of privacy, but where are these same Liberals attacking Democratic Politicians that have passed laws that violate our privacy when we buy cold medicine?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pmPoor little VT. All she's got left is some whining about cold medicines now??? The mind boggles at just how desperate she's become. It's been hilarious, though, watching her melt down.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pmcrump's brother....
here is CBS on the Enchelon program....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml
it is obvious that Democratic politicians AND their voters have selective outrage when it comes to phone tabs, listening in to conversations, reading private e-mails, etc, etc.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pmvaliantthehater
"so if you think it is wrong, why aren’t you making a huge deal about it as with Bush’s Patriot Act?"
Well, that would be because it is a state matter here where I live. I have taken it up with my local elected officials. All of my federal elected officials voted against the patriot act. So that's about all I can do right?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm"A question libs: How do you think spreading defeatism like this is going to help us win the war on terror? Or is it just for your own amusement? Who cares if we embolden the enemy and hinder the war effort as long as you can bash Bush, right?"
Wow. That is the voice of ignorance. Hear Hear! Keep it up.
(Dumbass.)
May 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pmI voted for Bush. I don't like him. Perhaps if the Demacraps offered a better alternative I would not have voted for Bush. Yes the guy is a f'n moron, and yes he is an utter failure. The alternative was Kerry. He is a bigger f'n moron. Its sad that I have to vote for my president like I chose a phone company... its not who is the best, its WHO DOES NOT SUCK THE MOST.
I am definately going to have to vote republican again. So far all I see is the biggest bitch in the world and the clean articulate guy. Though Barak seems ok... I am nervous about his credentials.
We really need a VALID third party in this country. The two party system is really f'n everyone over.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:17 pmCrump's Brother,
Here is another way Democratic politicians could careless about privacy, in Illinois, along with other States, any student that enters medical school must have a criminal backgroudn check and their name registered with the State of Illinois.
this is how much Illinois Democratic control congress and governorship love privacy.
as you can see, this privacy issue is, but a farce when it comes to Liberals.
it is used by the left as a talking point to scare the crap out of you.
If they think it is so bad to violate your privacy, why don't sites like thinkprogress.org inform you about all the privacy violations bein committed by left wing politicians?
because they want you to live in fear of Republicans, of Bush.
thinkprogress.org and most sites like this don't have your best interest at heart. They only thing they care is to put left wing politicians in power.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:17 pmvaliantthehater,
You said - "it is obvious that Democratic politicians AND their voters have selective outrage when it comes to phone tabs, listening in to conversations, reading private e-mails, etc, etc."
Not to laugh, but this statement is wildly ironic considering what was said in the article you posted concerning Echelon.
"Rep. Porter Goss (R.-Fla), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which has oversight of the NSA, does acknowledge that the U.S. has the capability to pick up any phone call, and that even his own conversations could have been monitored.
But Goss says there are methods to prevent the abuse of that information. "I cannot stop the dust in the ether...but what I can make sure, is that...the capability is not abused," he tells Kroft."
Nice Work Valiant!!
May 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pmShouldn't the Iraqi civilian deaths be on the chart too?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pmYou either hate both, or love both, you can’t have it both ways.
Except they aren't the same thing.
Wrong.
Again.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm7)finally remember, there is a reason why the military votes overwhelmingly for Republicans. try to guess why?
-----
As a veteran myself, and getting ready for my second deployment I will say this: the majority of soldiers vote for Republicans because the more left-leaning soldiers get turned off by our superiors who are for the most part hardcore right-wingers. Young soldiers like myself get ridiculed when we show support for Democrats (as I did during my last tour for John Kerry) and it kills my morale. Us lefties don't stay in the military system long due to this bias in the chain of command.
I will say that the bias has never affected my promotions nor have I been given extra duty just because of my political ideas, however the pressure to lean to the right is enough to make me not re-enlist.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pmvaliantthehater,
you seem to be missing the point.
Asking a potential doctor (my wife went through this process, know have some knowledge of it) to undergo a criminal background check in order to practice in a particular state, is hardly the same as telling a woman that she can not use contraceptives if the state forbids it.
The potential for abuse of the policy in Illinois appears mild in comparisons to the potential for abuse of data mining everyone's lives through and through.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pmHere in Illinois our government registers anyone that buys cold medicines, puts them on a register list to help fight against meth. so, why are Democrats, like the governor of Illinois willing to do away with my privacy when it comes to buying medicine at Walgreens, but not willing to give up privacy when it comes to fighting terrorism? Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
"The Food and Drug Administration now requires pharmacies to keep medications with pseudoephedrine behind the counter and available only with photo ID and signature."
Ah, Mistress of Misinformation, I live in Illinois too but this is a federal regulation passed well before Democrats took control. And I don't remember pseudoephedrine being guaranteed in the Constitution.
That being said, it's not surprising that YOU would be willing to have illegal wiretaps but get put out over signing for your cold medicine. You could of course get the reformulated medicine that is in the aisle, but from the look of you, that wouldn't work.
You, you, you. As long as you're not inconvenienced it's all good. Isn't that it?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pmWhat dear little VT can't seem to get her silly little head wrapped around is quite simple:
- We're not opposed to all wars. We're opposed to stupid wars that have no clear goals, no exit strategy, enormous costs and risks, and few real benefits.
- We're not opposed to all infringements on our privacy nor to all government surveillance. We're opposed to surveillance that is illegal and unconstitutional and that offers few, if any, benefits.
- We're not opposed to a little appropriate "Mission Accomplished" cheerleading. We're opposed to lying about the motivation for such moments and for its wholly inappropriate use in this case, not to mention the complete disconnection from reality.
- We're not opposed to all tax cuts. We're opposed to enormously costly tax cuts that cause structural deficits, that place an enormous cost and burden on the next generation, and that offer little economic bang for the buck.
The nuance totally escapes poor little VT, which is why she ends up routinely getting her tail kicked here since what she's spewing is manifestly false.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pmcrump's brother,
what? how does this statement from a Republican make it any less worst, that Clinton was using the Enchelon program and abusing it?
and that Democrat pundits where not outraged as they are now by Bush's program?
and no, not that Clinton did it, so it is ok for Bush to do it. Rather, Clinton did it, Democrat politician and voters didn't care. Bush does the same thing that Clinton did and Democrat politicians and voters go crazy.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm"that Clinton was using the Enchelon program and abusing it?"
Dear heart, since you still haven't established that Clinton was "abusing" the "Enchelon" [sic] program, nor that what he did was illegal or unconstitutional, I'm afraid that, as usual, you don't have a point.
"and that Democrat pundits where not outraged as they are now by Bush’s program?"
See that little bit about "illegal or unconstitutional," dear? Do try to keep up, won't you?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pmcrump's brother,
are you saying that Democrats can collect private information about you because they won't do data mining, but Republicans can't collect the same private infomration because they will do data mining?
How many times do we hear in the news....
"bank loses computers with consumer private information database. Private information is now available to anyone."
or how many databases were lost during the Clinton administration with private information and top secret information?
the potential for data mining exists whether the data is collected locally, state or federally and whether it is collected by a private business or the government.
it just seems that Liberlas have selective outrage with this issue.
If they deem lists appropiate for their causes they don't care. If they deem data mining for their causes they don't care, but the second a Republican suggests or does the same thing, Democrats go bunkers.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pmyou do know that whether in the military or in the private sector, your vote is private, right? No commander is looking over your shoulder when you vote. Thus, your theory doesn’t wash. I would agree if you had your commander looking over your shoulder when you vote.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
That's good. And yet YOU claim to know how they voted. Is it private, then you don't know how they voted only how they polled. Or are you neocons as corrupt as we believe and Rove is spying on how people vote? Pick one.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm"it just seems that Liberlas have selective outrage with this issue."
No, dear, that's just projection on your part. Still waiting for you to tell us how Bush's violation of the law and of the Constitution have made us safer, dear. Were you planning to address that someday?
While you're at it, maybe you could actually write a post that had some relevance to the topic of this thread? You remember, dear: "Mission Accomplished?"
May 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pmCrump's Brother and I are having an intelligent debate. I suggest that Shane, PaulB and the children, go back to the sandbox and play with the other kids.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pmHow about posting references to your data so it can actually be credible... Thanks for your retardation
May 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pmyeah, great job...my 20 year old neighbor just came back from IRAQ and he is missing his left leg from above the knee down...it makes me cry every time i see him. Im sorry. No matter what anyone says, it is not worth losing my neighbor's leg. this is a boy who loved to run and was very atheletic. I tried to talk him out of going....or at least trying to get stationed here in the us, or europe....but he wanted to go see the action because he really felt that it was his obligation to "kill rag heads" for our goverment. (no kidding, that is what he told me before he went to boot camp)
is it worth the 3.50 a gallon gas is now? i say no.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:43 pmis it worth giving our children's children this debt? i say no.
is it worth scott's left leg? Hell no!
Once again, Liberals living in fear.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
But it's you chicken little neocons always crying, "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming."
May 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pmI think what I love most about our dear little VT is the total lack of self-awareness about the contradictions and projections in her comments. Above, for example, she chides the evil Clinton for passing "the largest tax increase in the history of America." In this very same thread, she praises the virtuous Republicans of the time for balancing the federal budget! All without a hint that she's aware of just how idiotic and contradictory those two juxtaposed statements are.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pmvaliantthehater,
I think the point I was making with Goss' statement was that Dems aren't the only ones worried about abuses of such programs. I have no problem with a program that has some judicial oversight. FISA allows for this very thing.
How in the hell did we get on this topic anyway. Wasn't this supposed to be about Mission Accomplished?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pmNot to mention little VT's mention of Clarks' statement about the "Mission Accomplished" moment. She trumpets forth that little anecdote without ever stopping to think that even if it's true (and it is, in fact, contradicted by the Bush administration's public statements), it just makes the Bush administration look dumber!
May 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pmYep.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pm"How in the hell did we get on this topic anyway."
VT other's talking points were destroyed. She had no choice but to retreat to the current incoherence.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pmDear little VT, just as cute as a button, shakes her widdle fist and whines: "Crump’s Brother and I are having an intelligent debate. I suggest that Shane, PaulB and the children, go back to the sandbox and play with the other kids."
ROFLMAO.... I'll be sure to take that suggestion just as seriously as I do everything else you write, dear. Ta-ta, snookums.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pmI suggest that Shane, PaulB and the children, go back to the sandbox and play with the other kids.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
I suggest you are in no position to tell anybody else what to do or say. And only Crump's Brother seems to be having an intelligent debate, you're barely staying afloat.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pmCompare the numbers to one day Sept. 17, 1862 at Antietam. It's staggering compared to these.
Take it one step further and measure it Vietnam.
Every loss of an American life in war is a tragic, though it's the sacrifices these men and women make that give us the ability to live the way we do.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pmComment by PaulB — May 1, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
You do see how when we pointed out her errors we are dismissed so she can discuss with Crump's Brother.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pmTell us venerealtheater, with all the backpedaling you do, how often to you run over your own ass?
Compare the numbers,
I wont argue that war doesn't come with cost. But what have we gotten for our costs this time?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm"You do see how when we pointed out her errors we are dismissed"
Of course. It's a rather transparent trick, particularly in light of the fact that while I am indeed mocking her and making fun of her, I'm also making serious points in the process, points that she is horribly uncomfortable about and completely incapable of dealing with. Since such tactics are indeed transparent, they don't require any additional comment on my part other than further mockery.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:12 pmThis survey left out one important piece of information
THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND:
MAY 2003 = O
TODAY = O
BUSH HAS OIL IN HIS VEINS AND BLOOD ON HIS HANDS!!
May 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm"my 20 year old neighbor just came back from IRAQ and he is missing his left leg from above the knee down"
While I'm having fun mocking dear little VT, this is a sobering reminder that there is far more at stake here than a silly blog debate or political gamesmanship in Washington. There are very real costs to the Bush administration's policies, and the human costs in the Middle East and in the U.S. are staggering indeed.
Unfortunately, a happy ending for the troops in Iraq is likely going to have to wait until the next president takes office. And a happy ending for the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East is going to have to wait even longer.
This was such a stupid, stupid war. And what's worse is that the costs and risks were both predictable and predicted. Unfortunately, Bush has driven us off the cliff and there's little we can do about it now. All we can do is try to pick the least miserable of the outcomes, both for ourselves and for the Iraqi people.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm#25 valiantthehater said:
Oops!
May 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm"Every loss of an American life in war is a tragic, though it’s the sacrifices these men and women make that give us the ability to live the way we do."
There's a counter side to that, though, and that is the promise to the members of the armed forces that we will look after them, as well -- that we will provide them with sufficient training, equipment, and rest, that we will look after their injuries and health problems, that we will take care of their families, that we will never send them into battle unprepared, that we will never ask them to fight an unwinnable war, with unclear goals, no exit strategy, and no end in sight.
One side of that contract has been broken. It is that failure, the failure of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, that we are criticizing, not the troops.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pmI am ASHAMED of my so called fellow Americans. I have de-friended my stalwart bushie ex-friends. I only communicate with them by sending them links to reality ... a reality they dont want to see or talk about anymore. I think they are ashamed of themselves also... and now they are sticking it out only as a defense mechanism against this shame... of caorse if they were REAL followers of Jesus they would swallow their pride... but like I said that is only if they were REAL followers of Jesus ...and REAL Americans that base their thought processes on REASON.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pmSomeone may have asked already (291 replies is a bit staggering...), but what about the Iraqi civilians killed? Was there ever any reliable stats on that, and if so does anybody know what the most recent count was compared with when the "mission (was) accomplished"?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pmCrump’s Brother and I are having an intelligent debate. I suggest that Shane, PaulB and the children, go back to the sandbox and play with the other kids. Comment by valiantthehater — May 1, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Oh Child, that's just your imagination and the METH talking. You aren't intelligent, so an intelligent conversation with you isn't possible.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pmThis is a great reference. Thanks for putting it together!
May 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm"Was there ever any reliable stats on that, and if so does anybody know what the most recent count was compared with when the 'mission (was) accomplished'?"
Unfortunately, no. There simply are no accurate numbers on the Iraqi wounded, dead, or fleeing. There are all sorts of estimates, using all sorts of techniques, but none that are universally agreed on. The floor for the count of the dead is the database maintained by the Iraq Body Count project, currently at around 68,000 or so, but even they will admit that they are woefully under-counting the true total.
I think it's safe to say that there are more than 100,000 Iraqi dead, several times that injured, and more than a million who have fled. The real tally is likely several times those figures.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:44 pm"While it can be legitimately argued that there have been some benefits ... "
Care to clue us in on what those benefits might be PLC?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pmthe french who have been in bed with Hussein since he first came into power
Oops!
Comment by nick — May 1, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Rumsfeld's French, who knew?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pmMission Accomplished? Maybe it was. Depends on what the mission was, doesn't it? If it was to shatter Iraq so that we could try to build a "Mini-Me" in Mess-o'-potamia out of the shards...a new "Fort Apache" which just happens to sit on the largest undeveloped light crude deposit known, then NOT accomplished. If it was to create chaos to allow billions of dollars in cash to disappear into the swirling dust, and give the Prezudunce the opportunity to be a "war prezudunce" and to enrich the war industries, then "MISSION most definitely ACCOMPLISHED.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pmAnd on the issue of Repudlickers balancing a budget, allow me to disabuse you of THAT idea. No Redudlicon administration has submitted a balanced budget in my lifetime, and that ain't small numbers. In fact, none has done it since WW2. Even when the Duds were in the minority, and their "shadow" budget proposals had a glacier's chance in the 21st century to be considered for anything except roundfiling, they couldn't bring themselves to submit a balanced budget. They are constitutionally incapable of fiscal responsibility.
The Clinton Administration oversaw an increase on the highest tax bracket of 10 percent....from 35% to 38.5% of the income over.....I think it was 120,000 dollars. People who were well off paid the bulk of the increase, along with sensible savings in the military budget, which allowed the budget deficit to be reduced by about 275 BILLION dollars every year of the Clinton Administration, culminating in two years of balanced budgets AND, for the first time since WW2, to PAY some of the accumulated national DEBT.
More than 70 percent of the national debt has been rung up by Redumblicon Admuddlestrations. And we got precious little for most of that insane spending.
I guess if you call building their power system "in bed", then yeah.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhich is why we can't fix it....we would have to buy the parts from France and we stamped our foot and said that since France and Germany didn't play on our team, we wouldn't let them have any of the goodies during the rebuilding.
BTW, the US was not only in bed, we were diddling him. We arranged the overthrow of Mossadegh and installed Saddam. We gave him the precursors of the chemical weapons he used to kill the Kurds.
100,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, eh? Yeah, I'd like PLC to clue us in on some of those "benefits" too...
May 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm#210 - Then by your logic, the first bombing of the WTC was due completely to Fmr. Pres. Bush, and had NOTHING to do with Fmr. Pres. Clinton!
Also, that means that the Surplus was totally due to Fmr. Pres. Clinton and had NOTHING to do with Fmr. Pres. Reagan or Fmr. Pres. Bush.
It's common knowledge that the slow-down started AFTER Pres. Bush was elected in November. Everyone was afraid that Pres. Bush would give tax breaks to the rich and ignore the middel class, which he did.
Now, go back and READ THE ARTICLE, don't just scan it. It hod information that you just don't want to hear.
"... according to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001, two months after the Bush presidency began. "The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began in March." So according to NBER, the most recent recession did not start during the Clinton administration. (Nor did the expansion begin under Clinton; rather, it launched during President Bush the Father's term.)"
May 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmActually, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was posted by the crew of the Abraham Lincoln with regard to their phase of the operation. So your numbers are a bit off -- you need to adjust them to May 1, 2003. You might want to read his speech, which says how much more needed to be done. Bush was saying anything but "Mission Accomplished" in his speech.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pmIraq is not Afganistan. (yes, they are different countries!)
AlQaeda it's from Afghanistan not Iraq
Osama Bin-Laden (remember him?) it's from Afghanistan not Iraq
AND
AlQaeda = Terrorists
Hussein = Dictatorship
Hussein is not part of AlQaeda
THEN
=> Iraq is not part of "the war of terror" but just an old plain genocide.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:01 pmCorrection.........Mossadegh was the Iranian precursor of our IRANIAN puppet....Shah Reza Pahlavi. We were busy in that area, weren't we?
May 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmI for one know I won't vote for George Bush again.
We would have been much better off if we had just carpet bombed the cities and got this thing over with quickly.
Of course, most of you asshats would be upset about that as well.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm"We would have been much better off if we had just carpet bombed the cities and got this thing over with quickly."
Well, sure, if you're a moron incapable of determining the likely consequences of such an action.
"Of course, most of you asshats would be upset about that as well."
No shit, Sherlock. Had you a brain, you might even be able to figure out why.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:15 pm"Actually, the “Mission Accomplished†banner was posted by the crew of the Abraham Lincoln with regard to their phase of the operation"
Actually, no it wasn't; that was just a cover story that the White House told for a few days, until the lie was exposed.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pmAbout this link that was put up by a couple of other people:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
This quote jumped out at me:
"Assigning responsibility elsewhere ... is not a typical move for the Bush administration and raised suspicions among critics."
There goes that liberal left wing elite media again.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmWith the money already spent on this asinine war, we could have installed solar panels on at least 15,000,000 US homes, providing clean energy to the homes, fueling plug-in hybrid vehicles, and contributing excess energy to the grid.
THAT is a strategy for anti-terrorism. Terrorism is predicated on economic disparity in the Middle East, hatred of the sheikdoms, and hatred of the presence of infidels in sacred lands. ALL OF THAT is fueled by the presence of, extraction of, and purchase of oil from the ME by industrialized countries.
You want to fix a disease, eliminate the cause. Or, ignore the cause, treat a symptom, and let the disease grow out of control. GWB has been madly covering a raging cancer with band-aids and first aid cream.
Oh, and a side bonus - the above program would make a positive impact on the human component global climate change as well.
How much longer will we continue to waste how much money for the sake of stupidity, stubborness, ignorance, and greed?
May 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pmThe banner was hung by Bush aides with help from crewmembers. The banner was printed in DC and brought by the Bush entourage.
Al Qaida wasn't just "in Afghanistan". The Taliban took control of most of Afghanistan and gave sanctuary to other radical Islamists, including Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Al Qaida is present in many nations, being a religious and political movement with members of many nations and ethnicities. Osama is a Yemeni raised in Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were allegedly Saudi, two from UAE, one a Lebanese, one Egyptian, if I recall correctly.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pmWhat would the point of "carpet bombing" be?
unclesmrgol -
"Actually, the “Mission Accomplished†banner was posted by the crew of the Abraham Lincoln with regard to their phase of the operation. "
Well, that's just well documented as being false, and has already been replaced as a talking point a couple of times. The current talking point is that it was a clever bit of psychological trickery aimed at convincing cowardly countries like Germany and France to join the coalition now that the hard work was done.
"You might want to read his speech, which says how much more needed to be done. Bush was saying anything but “Mission Accomplished†in his speech."
I've read it, and listened to it, and read it again. The tone was most defnitely Mission Accomplished.
Let's see:
"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
The "battle of Iraq" does NOT refer to the mission of the boat, but the entire military mission in Iraq. The only remaining work is to secure and reconstruct, in Bush's view.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before."
You see, he is talking about the ENTIRE OPERATION: Operating Iraqi Freedom, and he is talking about it in the past tense: "was carried out" and "the enemy did not expect". I'd enjoy seeing how that can be reconciled with the notion that the speech was about the ship's mission.
"From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history."
We see again, he's talking about all operations, not just this ship. People stationed at bases, Marines and soldiers charging into Baghdad, the swift advance of heavy arms. NOT only, or even predominantly, the mission of this boat.
"This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause."
ALL the participants, not just the sailors on this boat.
"We thank the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country."
Even the work of other forces from other countries, even the efforts of Iraqi people are being praised in the accomplishment of the mission.
"When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will. "
I'm guessing no Iraqi looked a sailor on this boat in the face.
"We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated."
Well, we know how that went, don't we?
"That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America."
And so we switch to 911, which had nothing to do with Iraq in any way, shape, or form.
"From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers."
The military job is all but done in Iraq, so now we can continue to hunt down Al Qaida that didn't really exist in Iraq, elsewhere.
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
A complete, bald-faced lie. Iraq was no ally of Al Qaida.
"And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."
Oh, and also because they didn't have any to give.
"With those [911] attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."
But of course when it is convenient, we will also claim that we are not trying to connect Iraq to 911. Er, I'm confused.
"After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war, after 100,000 miles on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound."
Finally, after lots of bromides, he says something about this particular boat.
"Bush was saying anything but “Mission Accomplished†in his speech."
Dude, I don't know what speech you are reading, or what rose-colored glasses you wear to hide the truth from your visual receptors.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:51 pmabout who was in bed with who
http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg
May 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pmlol just out of curiosity...all the liberals, or whatever you want to call yourselves...would you even refer to the bush administration as a "regime" if you didn't hear it on the now bankrupt, ahem...i repeat, bankrupt air america? bringing our troops home would not empower the terrorists...but it would take away the only bitch the liberals seem to have with the bush administration...oh wait, they would just dream something up over night for tomorrow, should our troops come home today. creativeness and artistically inclined...if we can't be right, let's make the other side appear more wrong than we are. what saddens me, a former sailor, ex of a career sailor, and continuing friend and supporter of many still in the navy and marines, and one in the army, is not the fact we are still in iraq...is not the fact we have lost a few thousand soldiers...sad, but in comparison to ww1 or ww2...the loss is definitely minimal--it's the fact this country is so torn. put aside your political views. forget what you are being fed by the media, on both sides...forget what you think you civilians know about something you truthfully know nothing about, again, except for what the media feeds you........answer me this: besides living here, being born here, working here, and all the obvious outward signs.......what makes you an american? i think many people in this country have lost hold on this concept. you want to get back to roots? you want to show your pride regardless of what side you come out on? you want to show your support of troops, whether it's to support the fight or to support their coming home.....start with yourself. stop throwing stones and answer the most basic question, truthfully, honestly, whole-heartedly...then go from there. i guarantee your attitudes will be much more different, and your plan of attack might actually succeed. until we stop bickering and pull together, it doesn't matter what either side wants...neither side will achieve it's goal!
May 1st, 2007 at 6:16 pmOh, goody, another moron enters the ring. Let's play with him, shall we?
"lol just out of curiosity…all the liberals, or whatever you want to call yourselves…"
Personally, I call myself "Paul."
"would you even refer to the bush administration as a 'regime' if you didn’t hear it on the now bankrupt, ahem…i repeat, bankrupt air america?"
Dear heart, in 312 messages on this thread, there is precisely one, count them, one, reference to the Bush administration as a "regime." Moreover, since one of the standard definitions of this word is, "a government in power," it is a technically accurate description of the Bush administration. Did you have a point to make, dear?
"bringing our troops home would not empower the terrorists…"
Precisely.
"but it would take away the only bitch the liberals seem to have with the bush administration…"
You haven't been paying attention, have you, dear? There are no end of problems we have with the current administration, all documented in excruciating detail on this and other sites. I suggest a course in remedial reading, dear.
"if we can’t be right, let’s make the other side appear more wrong than we are."
Dear heart, since we were, in fact, right about Iraq, forgive me if I fail to follow the point you think you are making.
"what saddens me, a former sailor, ex of a career sailor, and continuing friend and supporter of many still in the navy and marines, and one in the army, is not the fact we are still in iraq…is not the fact we have lost a few thousand soldiers…sad, but in comparison to ww1 or ww2…the loss is definitely minimal–it’s the fact this country is so torn."
It's been torn for years, dear, aided and abetted by the "uniter" in the White House. You have to go back to Newt Gingrich and the Republican vendetta against Clinton to see the genesis for the current extreme fault lines.
"put aside your political views."
Why? Show me that they are wrong and I will put them aside. Putting them aside solely for the sake of putting them aside is rather silly.
"forget what you are being fed by the media, on both sides…"
When you can show me that it's inaccurate, I'll forget it. Until then, I'll continue to weigh the available evidence, adding and subtracting information as it becomes available or as it is replaced by more accurate information.
"forget what you think you civilians know about something you truthfully know nothing about"
LOL.... Sorry, dear, but I'm not going to take your word for, well, anything. I haven't been that stupid for decades.
"what makes you an american?"
Well, the fact that I was born and raised here might have something to do with it, dear. And yes, I know the point you are trying to make. It's an idiotic point, which is why I'm responding as I do.
"i think many people in this country have lost hold on this concept."
Oh, you mean like the people who want the freedom to torture innocent people? Who believe in an imperial presidency? Who think that international treaties are "quaint" and can be ignored? Who want the ability to lock people up permanently on a whim? Who want to be completely free of oversight, scrutiny, and consequences? Which concepts did you have in mind, dear?
"you want to get back to roots?"
Dear heart, I never left mine.
"you want to show your pride regardless of what side you come out on?"
Actually, no, dear. Thankfully, I'm free of that particular hubris.
"you want to show your support of troops, whether it’s to support the fight or to support their coming home…..start with yourself."
LOL.... Sorry, dear, I'd rather start with the people who are actually affected by these policies.
"stop throwing stones"
When you can show us that we're throwing them inaccurately or inappropriately, we'll do so, dear. Until then, forgive us if we decline your oh-so-heartfelt invitation.
"and answer the most basic question, truthfully, honestly, whole-heartedly…then go from there."
Well, right now, the most basic question I have in mind is: are you a moron or a troll? Do you really believe this shit or are you giggling as you write it? Alas, I fear that I am unable to answer that.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pm# 322
"Oh, goody, another moron enters the ring. Let’s play with him, shall we?'
Great to be back in the gym enjoying the boxers masterful music on the punching bag
Listen to the music, cxm, if you can hear it through the sound of your head banging against the ceiling.
Blappity, blappity, blippity, blap. Whoooeee sweet music baby!
May 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pmThat was a long-winded bit of idiocy. Pull together? Why? How? To what purpose? There is no reason, NOT ONE, to yoke yourself to an idiot who doesn't share the same basic understanding or appreciation of the nation and it's very reason for existence and then try pulling to get to the same place....not when we are pulling in exactly opposite directions.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:57 pmThe basic question about being an American is: What is the government for? What is it supposed to do and what means may it employ to do it? What relationship do the governed have with the governors? What are the responsibilities for each? What is important? How should government be altered to accommodate new realities and change? Answers to those questions are matters of great import and are the grist of debate, elections, and politics.
Being bankrupt isn't a sin or a moral failing, it's a temporary (hopefully) economic reality. And it doesn't go to the viability of any argument here....plus, there are plenty of other venues for liberal radio....Jones, Clearchannel, etc.
And then there are blogs.....heheheheeeeee
Thanks Paul. BTW, I'm Chrissy and you failed to leave out the exact point of my blog, whether I wrote it in such a way as to your liking or not...until we can come together, it doesn't matter what either side wants. We are too divided, as a nation, to get anything done, especially the right way, if there is such a thing. As far as Newt, last time I checked, I can't go back into the past and change things, so why not turn a new leaf and move forward? Let Newt go and move on. And no, I am not a moron, nor a troll. I was not indicating you should put aside your political views and walk away from them forever, nor was I insinuating to not take good evidence and weigh it heavily...but the media does not exactly put things out in a balanced light, whether it is CNN or FOX, both have their agendas. And the % of Americans you would dare label as NOT being spoon-fed by the media? If you are not in the majority, then kudos to you. But I strongly suggest, if you have points to make, try making them without name calling like moron and troll, etc. Yes, I made comments like liberal...but that's a valid comment. Liberal, progressive, republican, independent...those are titles people admit to wearing...wait. I know, you will have a problem with my choice of wording...those are valid titles of political parties people readily associate themselves with. Better?
May 1st, 2007 at 7:09 pm#32 Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
“what saddens me, … is not the fact we have lost a few thousand soldiers…sad, but in comparison to ww1 or ww2…the loss is definitely minimal–it’s the fact this country is so torn.â€
Paul in #322 has been so nice to you when he says:
"Do you really believe this shit or are you giggling as you write it? Alas, I fear that I am unable to answer that.", should be thankful, (even though your head hurts from all that banging.) To me there is no question involved.
Stating the above makes you out to be an unthinking, unfeeling, lack of compassion piece of shit. Try telling your quote to someone who just lost that "minimal" loss. Asshole! Crawl back into the cave where you came from until you learn the value of human life.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:13 pmThanks Paul. BTW, I’m Chrissy and you failed to leave out the exact point of my blog, whether I wrote it in such a way as to your liking or not…until we can come together, it doesn’t matter what either side wants. We are too divided, as a nation, to get anything done, especially the right way, if there is such a thing. Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
No were not. You wingNUTs are down to 1/3 of Americans, and the MAJORITY of Americans want progressive politicians, policies and values.
Sorry, but this is just the same old b*llsh*t. America WAS divided, until the UNITER Bush, united the country AGAINST conservatives. Thanks Bushie!
May 1st, 2007 at 7:16 pmbut the media does not exactly put things out in a balanced light, whether it is CNN or FOX, both have their agendas. Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
I hate to inform you of this, but CNN is right of center - as are pretty much every major media and corporate institution. Don't be so clueless.
And the % of Americans you would dare label as NOT being spoon-fed by the media? Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Lucky for the country, most Americans aren't as st*pid as you are.
If you are not in the majority, then kudos to you. Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Democrats have trended strongly in the last 5 years to the point that the party is a clear majority - as the last election showed the much saddened wingNUT delusional crowd. Your time is over, you're just too st*pid to know it.
But I strongly suggest, if you have points to make, try making them without name calling like moron and troll, etc. Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Why, so the trolls like you won't feel BAD about yourself? How PC of you.
Yes, I made comments like liberal…but that’s a valid comment. Liberal, progressive, republican, independent…those are titles people admit to wearing…wait. I know, you will have a problem with my choice of wording…those are valid titles of political parties people readily associate themselves with. Better? Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
F*ck off. The majority of Americans trend liberal on basically every point. You're a dead movement.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pmI haven't yet read all the comments here, but I think it is important to note that there are neary 100,000 government contractors in Iraq.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Well, this will be my last post because obviously, I am not welcome here. First of all, my not liking to be called a troll or a moron has nothing to do with being PC....I am neither. Plain and simple. As far as saying my movement, and calling me a bushie...all I can say in response to those comments is one should never ASSUME...but I will make a leap of faith and assume you know why. I'm really glad to see I initially stopped to try and blog with such open-minded and tolerant people as yourself, Valiant...thanks for the strong signs of confidence in a hope for change. Obviously, it won't come until Bush is out of office...and now I am even more convinced, unfortunately, better change won't come from the likes of you, either. Hopefully you are in the minority...and I am not making reference to political affiliation...just type of persons in general.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pmChrissy,
About #329
A beautiful Good Bye Cruel World (GBCW) speech. Bravo! Sorry we won't have you around anymore at the gym. Now if you would take Ve3nus, Patrick 1, and the rest to keep you company that would be appreciated.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pmObviously things are getting much better...
...good grief.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pmThis is my first visit and second comment here. I am libertarian and have opposed the Iraq war from the start so obviously I agree with a great number of people here. I wish to comment on how kind the liberals have been throughout the discussion. If would be very happy to discuss issues with almost everyone of you; it is nice to see there is still politeness in the area of debate.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:06 pmI like how everyone approved the war right after 9/11...now they blame Bush for going there. Also, I never received anything to vote on approval ratings. Those ratings are gueses and bullshit.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pmValiant…thanks for the strong signs of confidence in a hope for change. Obviously, it won’t come until Bush is out of office…and now I am even more convinced, unfortunately, better change won’t come from the likes of you, either. Hopefully you are in the minority…and I am not making reference to political affiliation…just type of persons in general.
Comment by cxm — May 1, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Whatever. You made st*pid observations, I responded with a facts based response, and pointed out that your posts were st*pid. Things are getting better, and will continue to do so, because Americans are smarter than you give them credit for being - that's why I call you a troll. Trolls always underestimate the power, and nature of democracy and the will of the people. It's why the tyranny doesn't last.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:19 pm#333
May 1st, 2007 at 8:23 pmEverybody did not approve the Iraq war. LP press release dated August 9, 2002.
You people...both lib and conservatives have problems getting underneath all the double talk, framed language and useless facts. Like Plato said: "If Philosophers were to be kings, all our problems would be mere academics thought would rule the day." Let’s bring aristocracy back, and place the philosophers firmly in charge.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm#333 Comment by LMAO — May 1, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
"I like how everyone approved the war right after 9/11…now they blame Bush for going there."
Don't speak out of your ass in glittering generalities. There were a whole lot of us who could see the insanity of this invasion well before it started. And we were right!
"Also, I never received anything to vote on approval ratings. Those ratings are gueses and bullshit."
In your dreams, asshole. The American people are speaking loud and clear. Now get out of the way of reality and progress or you'll get flattened.
"LAMO" hmmm, interesting moniker. You any relation to the hyenas of laughing fame?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pm#336 Comment by Bill — May 1, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
"Let’s bring aristocracy back, and place the philosophers firmly in charge."
What a thoroughly ignorant thing to say! What the hell do you think the neo-con plan is? It is their philosophical view based on Machiavellian principles that got us where we are today.
We have an aristocracy now in the Bush Dynasty. Wake up and do your homework.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pm"I like how everyone approved the war right after 9/11…now they blame Bush for going there."
Not everyone. I thought it was stupid from the get go, and I wasn't shy about sharing the opinion. It's not because I'm a "lib'rul" because I'm not. (Well, compared to some of the idjits who troll here, I guess I am a flaming liberal, but once the irrational sect is removed from the discussion, I trend more libertarian).
It was OBVIOUS from the beginning that the war was a trumped up facade that would most likely lead to many years of consequences, some potentially very bad. Remember that Dubya's dad had declined to pursue Saddam into Baghdad. NOTHING changed that logic over the intervening decade. He wasn't nearly as stupid and reckless as his son.
You make a valid point underneath, however. MANY of today's Democrats were and still are spineless about the war. MANY acquiesced when they should have exercised some logic and reason. MANY Americans got caught up in post-911 nationalist fever and went along for the ride. The Rove administration played these emotions like an impresario, riding the faith of the masses like one of the Horsemen of the Apocolypse.
It is to the enduring shame of the nation that so many could be duped so deeply and for so long. The nation is now awakening from that nightmare, but it will take years if not decades to undo the damage done by the neo-religi-cons, as it took years for Germany to recover from its dance with the devil.
Rove ... Goebbels ... is there really a difference?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pmWell, Bush is no Philosopher...I'm talking about the great thinkers of the world. The ones lift the Vail in attempts to understand root causes. Question everything...be a skeptic...Learn, teach and so fourth.
I guess you didn't study any western, or even eastern philosophy for that matter? All I'm saying is, wise learned men should be in charge.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm"and you failed to leave out the exact point of my blog,"
I failed to leave it out? Ah, I see.... Somehow, I don't think words are your strong point. I know the point of what you wrote (free clue, it was a "post," not a "blog"). But it was an idiotic bit of jingoistic drivel wrapped up in ad hominem attacks, so I didn't bother to address it. Considering the context of your remarks, including such whimsies as:
Can you really blame us that your remarks are being treated with the contempt that they deserve? You wrote an idiotic bit of drivel, surrounded it with insults, and then expected to be taken seriously? Yeah, right... pull the other one....
"until we can come together, it doesn’t matter what either side wants."
Actually, that's not even remotely true, as the events of the past 6 years have revealed.
"so why not turn a new leaf and move forward?"
Because at this time I see no reason to do so.
"Let Newt go and move on."
Dear heart, I used Newt as an example of divisiveness, not someone I'm fixating on. I have countless current examples, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Rush Limbaugh, and literally dozens of others. When the air waves and political atmosphere are no longer polluted by their divisive rhetoric, I'll ease up.
"And no, I am not a moron, nor a troll."
Your posts here indicate otherwise.
"But I strongly suggest, if you have points to make, try making them without name calling like moron and troll, etc."
ROFL.... Considering that your entry in this thread consisted of name-calling, forgive me if I don't take this advice seriously. Dear heart, I take legitimate commenters seriously and behave accordingly. I see no reason to extend such courtesy and respect to trolls and idiots, nor will I. If this offends you, the appropriate thing to do is ignore me.
"Yes, I made comments like liberal…but that’s a valid comment."
No, dear, it wasn't; not the way you phrased it and not coupled with the rest of your comments.
You're still making a fundamental error, by the way, in assuming that anyone here cares one whit what you write or what you think.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:01 pm"You people…both lib and conservatives have problems getting underneath all the double talk, framed language and useless facts."
LOL... And your evidence for this assertion is ... what, exactly?
Sheesh... can we get some smarter monkeys, please?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pm"Well, this will be my last post because obviously, I am not welcome here."
No shit, Sherlock. What did you expect? You wrote an idiotic post laden with insults and you got exactly the response you deserved (and probably wanted). Now you're going all drama queen on us? LMAO!
"First of all, my not liking to be called a troll or a moron has nothing to do with being PC….I am neither. Plain and simple."
Dear heart, out here in the blogosphere, you are judged solely on what you write. Until you write something that erases that initial opinion, you will continue to be judged a troll or moron.
"I’m really glad to see I initially stopped to try and blog with such open-minded and tolerant people as yourself, Valiant"
ROFLMAO... I just love drama queens, don't you? Man, this type is as old as the hills. We used to get them on Usenet all the time.
"and now I am even more convinced, unfortunately, better change won’t come from the likes of you, either."
Dear heart, this is a blog, nothing more. For the most part, we're not politicians, we're not pundits or opinion-makers, we aren't writing op-eds in our local newspapers or getting interviewed on local or national television. We're unabashed liberals, partisans, Democrats, progressives, libertarians, even conservatives and Republicans. "The likes of" us is nothing more than your neighbors down the street, your co-workers, your relatives.
"Hopefully you are in the minority…and I am not making reference to political affiliation…just type of persons in general."
Since we're all types, alas, I fear that your hopes are in vain. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, dear.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:09 pmAnd another moron.
I like how everyone approved the war right after 9/11…"
No, actually, they didn't, as even a brief search would reveal.
"now they blame Bush for going there."
No shit, Sherlock. Gee, I dunno ... why should we blame the President for the war? Maybe because he started it?
"Also, I never received anything to vote on approval ratings."
And again, no shit, Sherlock.
"Those ratings are gueses and bullshit."
LOL... And wrong once again. Congratulations! A fact-free rant. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pmAND, it's only gonna get worse. The U.S. will never abandon all of that sweet, light crude and shrub will never admit to defeat. Another thing to consider is that the U.S. has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars and has to show a return on it's "investment," and there's also the consideration that if the U.S. pulls out the Chinese will (help) pull the plug on the dollar. Yup, dumbya really did it, he's created a great, big catch-22...
May 1st, 2007 at 9:16 pmShorter Chrissy: "Man, you guys are really loony and ignorant and you take your talking points from Air America (did I mention it was bankrupt?). But hey, I think we should all pull together and stop being so divisive!"
May 1st, 2007 at 9:18 pmComment by Bill — May 1, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
All I’m saying is, wise learned men should be in charge.
"Wise and learned" is helpful. But put philosophers in charge?? No way! We need pragmatic leaders based in reality, not a bunch of guys sitting around puffing their philosophical pipes and discussing what to do. That is what the Senate is all about and why there is an executive branch. And to even think of Bush and philosophy in the same breath is silly. Bush is just the dumb puppet (with delusions of grandeur) front for the current gang of neocon philosophers and their enforcers. The Strausians like the Kristols, Ledeen, and "thinkers at the AEI" are the philosphers. Not Bush. I, for one have had enough of this corrupt philosophy!
May 1st, 2007 at 9:18 pm“Well, this will be my last post because obviously, I am not welcome here.â€
Wanna take bets that she crawls back under a different screen name?
“Hopefully you are in the minority…and I am not making reference to political affiliation…just type of persons in general.â€
Political affiliation is irrelevant. Even different ideologies can be discussed with respect. I think all most of us would ask is for participants in the discussion to not be STUPID and DISRESPECTFUL.
I don't agree with everything on Air America, by a long shot (although seemingly more each day), but I'd take a country run by lib'ruls any day over one run by the neo-relig-faschists pigs that are currently in charge. That's a no-brainer. Pretty much all politicians are slime - that's to be expected - but none of us should be tolerant of the destruction of our Constitution and the blatant propaganda and mind-numbing double-speak practiced by these goons.
As to Air America being in bankruptcy reorg... what's your point? Dubya has bankrupted or otherwise wrecked every business he has run. From that perspective, the USA is just another business for him, and he's doing his best to drive it to financial, political, and ethical bankruptcy.
'Course I guess you don't have the guts to stick around, read this, and respond to it.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pmJust had to add this comment to clear the jingoism from the thread. From Senator Carl Schurz: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." [Emphasis added]
All too many people stop with the fifth word of that quote. The true patriots, including most of us here, keep going. We're working on the last part of that quote today.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pmSchurz later expanded on these comments:
I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'
May 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pmThe server said I posted this but I don't see it. I apologize for the double post if it seen by you twice.
#333 Comment by LMAO — May 1, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
"I like how everyone approved the war right after 9/11…now they blame Bush for going there."
Don't speak out of your ass in glittering generalities. There were a whole lot of us who could see the insanity of this invasion well before it started. And we were right!
"Also, I never received anything to vote on approval ratings. Those ratings are gueses and bullshit."
In your dreams, asshole. The American people are speaking loud and clear. Now get out of the way of reality and progress or you'll get flattened.
"LAMO" hmmm, interesting moniker. You any relation to the hyenas of laughing fame?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:28 pm#347 Comment by gorn by any other name — May 1, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
“Well, this will be my last post because obviously, I am not welcome here.â€
Wanna take bets that she crawls back under a different screen name?
Nope, you'd win. Of course, there are so many here that she-it probably is already. Sort of like roaches. They all look alike and they are never ending.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pmIf you are referring to the likes of people like Carl Marx, when you say "neo-con", then that’s not whom I would consider a "great thinker". Influential- maybe, but overall not realistic in his views. I mean thinkers like Kant, Hume, Hegel and maybe even Nietzsche. Maybe bring back an Aristocracy is a bit much, but we definitely need some deeper thinkers in up in Washington. I’m also not completely in favor of democracy as best choice in government. I’m pretty sure most people are too ignorant of the facts (including me) to make wise decisions when it comes to policy or even voting. On the flip side we need wise men that can make these decisions. I happen to think philosophers would make outstanding government officials.
Have a good night :)
May 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pmHere's an idea. Politicians should have other hobbies there passionate about that doesn't include hunting, gambling, or f$cking up our country\world. It might include however: Jazz music, painting, maybe even studying quantum physics, or astronomy might humble these people.
Considering how much vacation GW took in the beginning of his presidency (probably still) I don't think politics is that terribly time demanding that you couldn't have an introspective hobby. Your thoughts?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pmActually, Bush was correct on May 1, 2003, when he said that the major combat operations ended. Since then, the terrorists have been spreading out, hiding among the civilian population, starting small skirmishes, suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. The enemy realized that they had no chance against us in straight-up major battles. That has been the downfall of the war. How do you have major combat operations when you don't know where the enemy is?
As far as "mission accomplished", if you understood the meaning of the word "mission", you would understand that war is comprised of many missions. Advancing our troops into Iraq's capitol and setting up a base there was a major mission, which is what Bush was speaking of that day. Another example of a mission, for those of you who still don't understand the word, was the hunt for Saddam Hussein.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pmHands down, the WORST PR stunt in United States presidential history!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pmRE 353....."That has been the downfall of the war. How do you have major combat operations when you don’t know where the enemy is?"
Or even who the enemy is. They still can't tell you. "Terraists", which are apparently anybody who attacks US troops. And now that it's a civil war, the only way to "win" is to either choose one side and help them "win", or simply be the conquerer and seize the country for ourselves. What are our choices? We side with the Sunni minority who have more political acumen and are the closest to an aristocracy Iraq has and are more "sophisticated"....but Al Qaida is nominally Sunni and that would ally us with Osama and the left over Baathists, sort of. Or we can side with the Shia who are tight with Iran and tend to be downtrodden peasants. And so we get tight with Ahmadinejad if we team up with the Shia. What to do?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:51 pmDeclare victory and leave.
Try this......does anyone remember what the first "reason" for invading Iraq was, according to Dumbya? I know it's a long time ago, but give it a shot.
Now, as for elevating philosophers to kingship, I would heartily argue against it. I would rather that people with a great and broad background of being successful, possessing practical living skills and boasting profound accomplishments who can also articulate the lessons learned take up the burden of governance. I figure an erudite mechanic would be ideal.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:58 pmI just love how the white house first maintained it was all about WMD and terrorism and that we need to "strike them before they strike us". Hmm... wasn't that also the justification for attacking Pearl Harbor? And funny thing... they made such a big spash in the media with their MOAB bomb. Kinda sorta ounds like a weapon of mass destruction doesn't it? And the very idea of "shock and awe" means the MOAB shit was absolutely meant to terrorize.
Then the "mission" in mission accomplished became all about getting Hussain... HE was the reason we went to war. Nope, it wasn't a regime change out of necessity... it was all about HIM. He personified terrorism itself. After all... he's a bad guy... tortures people and stuff. Hmm... so what does our government now feel it's justified to do? Torture people. Oh but this is sooo very different. This is done in the name of being "right" of course. Hussain was bad and wrong to do it... it's just a damn good thing that our dear king george knows the difference.
Then finally... when they couldn't ferret Hussain out of a "spider hole"... then the goal suddenly became "oh we're here to FREE the Iraqi people". Because ya know... they so freakin' wanted to be freed by their invaders. Oh I'm sorry... "liberators". Figure when you're so damn appreciative of being "freed" that you're willing to strap C4 to your gut... well that's when you know you've really accomplished your mission. Hmm... but at this point I suppose we better start referring to them as "the enemy" again.
Who are the true terrorists here?
This war wasn't about terrorism... it wasn't about WMD... it isn't about oil... it isn't about defense contracts. The latter two were just lucrative perks... hey if you're gonna dupe the American public might as well rape their wallets while you're at it too.
The reason we went to war with Iraq and to get Hussains head on a stick is exactly as king george professed from the start: "he tried to kill my daddy".
The End.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 am"Actually, Bush was correct on May 1, 2003, when he said that the major combat operations ended."
Um, no, and even less correct in what he said about "mission accomplished."
"Since then, the terrorists have been spreading out"
Which terrorists are those, precisely? Has it really escaped your notice that we aren't fighting al Qaida much in Iraq but are stuck in the middle of a civil war?
"hiding among the civilian population"
They are the civilian population, many of whom think it's perfectly acceptable to kill our troops.
"The enemy realized that they had no chance against us in straight-up major battles."
And which enemy is that, precisely?
"How do you have major combat operations when you don’t know where the enemy is?"
A predictable and predicted outcome. Too bad Bush didn't listen.
"As far as 'mission accomplished', if you understood the meaning of the word 'mission', you would understand that war is comprised of many missions."
Sigh... And another idiot presuming to lecture us on stuff we already know. If that had been how Bush used the word, you might have a point. It isn't, so you don't.
"Advancing our troops into Iraq’s capitol and setting up a base there was a major mission, which is what Bush was speaking of that day."
Really? You read his mind? See, and all I had to go by was his speech. No wonder you're so willing and able to lecture us!
"Another example of a mission, for those of you who still don’t understand the word, was the hunt for Saddam Hussein"
ROFL... Was there some point to this post, other than displaying both arrogance and ignorance?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 amBush SER g0t Qwned here, served and still in sh0ck ab0ut it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 amI see the number of Iraqis killed isn't worth a mention.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 am# 354
whereas I understand your PoV, I have to disagree with your assessment of this as the WORST PR stunt in United States presidential history!
Arguably the worst PR stunt was the Bush "bring it on" comment in mid 03
according to the stats above the turrists have duly "brought it on" fully 3000+ and partially 24,000+ times since this moronic invitation..
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 am#63 Hey valiantmadhatter, don't leave us obsequious ozzies out of the profiting from the oil for food program! We can't bear to be left out of anything just because we're half a world away.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 amThe reason we went to war with Iraq and to get Hussains head on a stick is exactly as king george professed from the start: “he tried to kill my daddyâ€.
That was the reason george bush went to iraq once , only to spit in Saddams face ......... the secret
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 amDoes anyone wanna see my horsefaced girlfriend eating china buffet???
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 ammmmm....
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 am"I see the number of Iraqis killed isn’t worth a mention."
Probably because there is no accurate data on the number of Iraqis killed, which is sad in and of itself.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 amHow can Bushies throw around terms like "defeatist" and "losing the war" when they never defined "victory?"
The Iraq occupation is an open-ended black hole for American resources (fiscal & human) so the current regime and their pals can continue milking the cash cow.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:28 amHow can the fear-mongering Bushies use terms like "defeatist" and "embolden the enemy" when they never defined "victory" nor identified "the enemy?"
The Iraq occupation is an open-ended cash cow for the current regime and their buddies to milk. With a goal as vague as "fighting evil," you'll never reach the end.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 amCUI BONO ? that should be the question we should ask ourselves !.
It is pretty obvious that the people who are benefitting from this, i.e. the free oil Israel is getting from the Haifa pipeline, the myriad of contractors who are selling bullets for 10x the real price, and the art dealers still collecting Sumeria souvenirs from the lobotomized US soldiers "raids" on the defenseles eye-rabs, to later sell them at Christie's for gazillions, are the real benefactors. Needless to say a white house that's making america into the world's second most hated country, can hardly be benefitting, however, these people think they are immune from prosecution, and guess what, they hold all the keys to all the nukes.
so, we are USC (up sh.t creek), and there's little we can do, ......
EXCEPT TO STOP PAYING TAXES IMMEDIATELY !
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 amTo say nothing of the standing of the US in international grass roots public opinion and the long term socio-economic effect this factor alone will have for coming generations.
It will take more than your waving bye-bye to Bush to recover, the secret is out, the world now understands what was meant by those who had accused America of Imperialism.
Bush is your leader and, sink or swim, he represents your nation. He is just not as cunning as his predecessors at disguising how America has operated ever since the days of the wild west.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pmSupport U.S. Troops and let them die in Iraq instead at their home town in
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmU.S. Our president "J. Bush is a jack ass". Those who support the war and
that jack ass are also fool and bigger jack ass than Bush.
Clinton lied about sex and the republicans tried to impeach him.
Bush lied to get us into this war, killing countless number of human beings. What should the punishment be? Impeachment is clearly not enough in this case.
I want my country back
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pmThis guy's not a jean pierre
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pmMan, Valiant, I love you're style. You know your stuff, andf you dont take no BS from these liberals YOu just tell it strait. I thgink you, me and MAF 54 need to be on this bored to keep the FACTS strait. I think Geaorge Bush is the best president EVER!!!! He aint afraid to kill moslims beforee they kill us. And if it wasnt for him we'd be livin in a communist State just like in europe. And I think that he gives tax cuts to stipulate the econnomy. I'm taking courses at a GOD-fearing Bible college (no liberal BS) and when I'm a millionaire, I don't want to pay no taxes, neither. But you know how top talk Valiant. I read your messages to my friends, and we know your a genius. We want you to be president next. Keep up the good work
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pmYou forgot one stat:
Number of US buildings brought down by terrorists before March 1, 2003: 2
Number brought down after: 0
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pmToo bad you left the most important statistic of them all out of the table:
The numbers of Iraqui's killed and wounded and even displaced from their homes (even if estimated)
You fellows in the US have to learn to stop thinking as if "only what matters to you is important." The biggest crime is not how many on your side suffered or how much money you spent on the adventure, after all you are the "bank robbers" and if you bungled it was your fault for not being capable to evaluate as "we the people" inside your country or take corrective actions when you did evaluate it, pretty late though.
The real drama and new Holocaust the US created bears on somebody else.
Even down in the boodocks in third world people beat you at realizing this was a scam from the start.
Humble down folks, You need to live with the World not in spite of it.
PLEASE POST THIS AS AN ARTICLE IF YOU MAY, AND DO NOT LOSE IT IN THE COMMENTS.
Gabriel
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pmmission accomplished, impeach bush
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pmmission accomplished, impeach bush
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pmYup, this should prove that Dubya and the neo-crats really are as clueless as has been stated over and over.....ooops did I say clueless?? criminal is more like it. And by the way,does the outing of a CIA operative not fall into "aiding the enimy" and as a provision in the patriot act ??
What sick dysfunctional people these are!!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmSHOCK AND AWE BABY , shock and awe .... islamic style
BRING IT ON BABY... THE INSURGENCY HAS BEEN IGNITED AND WILL NOT LET DOWN UNTILL IT LIBERATE JERUSALEM ......
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 pmCondescending tone aside, Gabriel is dead on. 100,000+ Iraqi CIVILIANS killed. Not soldiers, but folks at home trying to live and work. No one in America seems want to talk about that. And don't preach to me about how 5,000 American civilians died at 9/11, because this war never was about terrorism. And don't bother mentioning that many were killed by insurgents because even allowing for the initial US invasion, if it had been handled appropriately, realistically, and with respect for the abilities of Iraqis as a sovereign people we probably still wouldn't be there anyway - but addmittedly that's simple speculation... The point still stands though, that this was a war without any factual provoclation and an egregious violation of UN charter that has resulted in countless unnecessary deaths.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 pmSmells like stupid - Because it is. The 100,000+ number of Iraqi civilian dead has been so thoroughly debunked that your use of it has caused you to lose all your cool points.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 pmPvt Snuffy, yes your "debunked" claim smells like stupid.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm"The 100,000+ number of Iraqi civilian dead has been so thoroughly debunked that your use of it has caused you to lose all your cool points"
LOL.... And another moron who hasn't done his homework. Dear heart, what you think was "thoroughly debunked" was the claim that as many as 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, either directly on indirectly, as a result of the war. Not only has that Lancet study not been "thoroughly debunked," that isn't what SLS wrote. The 100,000 civilian deaths that he refers to is a perfectly acceptable minimum number that even most war supporters accept.
When you consider that fully documented civilian deaths are at 68,000 or so, and that those who maintain that list of fully documented deaths admit that they are missing the full tally ("It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media"), it is not even remotely unreasonable to claim 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:56 pmWell, the numbers don't lie. I love how the Democrats bypassed President Bunnypants' veto yesterday...Awsome!
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pmFellows I did not mean to be condescending. This is pure tragedy. So keep on counting....
100.000 official ...650.000 from reputable organizations not by the Iraqui's
Do you want to average? Say 300.000? fine
Now qualifiy those dead with a tremendously high percetage of children and women.
Add to that what Madeleine Albright admitted that 500.000 dead children due to the 10 year embargo and she said that "it was worth it" !!!
and add to that about 1 or 2 million people displaced from their homes
Do you have any dobts that World History will place you as the perpetrators of a HOLOCAUST?
You do not have to break the 6 million record, or whatever it was, to qualify
So please if you as individuals want to be fair always include the real victims when you mention statistics, and apologize. We from the outside may see that as repentment, a good sign. Otherwise you may be interpreted as singing "America Umber Alis" as the Nazis use to sing refering to Deutschland in WWII...
It is not only your actual leaders, but all of you are being considered as guilty outside of the US. I personally think you are not guilty a a people, but that you were too busy looking somewhere else when it was done in your name. Shall we say irresponsible? As the Germans then?
I hope you understand the point..I hope all of you do something really active to fix it, and that may improve on how the World will look at you. Hope you care.
Gabriel
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 pmSorry for the typo's
Got flustered and did not proof read the previous comment
Gabriel
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm... shut the hell up Gabriel. Gosh, quit your diatribe. We all regret the war. We have just as much contempt for our President as the rest of the world. Just shut your mouth, you're like an old nagging woman.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 pmThese numbers of today report ... too late to talk about them but ... what about tomorrow !!! what's gonna happen with these number???
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 amAs an arab man I just want to say that before the the war on terror by Mr Bush, americans were loved by all of us and respected. Now it is not the same eventhough there are so many americans who are against this war that had lots of innocent victims from both sides. Americans today dont have the same respect they had before which is a sad thing. I hope that americans can stand for their image in the world and stop the loss of their love, people, and money.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 amforget impeachment, i think he needs to be killed.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 amYou forget that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others never thought to put aside a budget for the medical care for the men wounded in the war! Nor did they put aside a budget to increase protection for American citizens! Haliburton being moved to an Arab country? Does that make sense? Is there something Cheney is hiding? Iraqi/Afganistian war vets are returning home damaged, with high rate of divorces, domestic violence, PTS, deplete uranium sickness, etc., and does Bush care about them or the American citizens, despite the fact he claims to be a Christian? Now Bush is threatening to veto an important bill to protect Americans (hate crimes) because he didn't get what he wanted for Iraq? Is he a Christian? Today is prayer's day. I wonder what he prayed for? Think about that!
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 pmIn addition to my comments earlier, suicides are rising among our soldiers, and Arabs are fighting amongst each other. Bush must be held responsible for all the sloppy decisions he's made, destroying the economy. Don't be fooled by the stock market, it doesn't tell the whole story. The billions he sends overseas and our country is going down the toilet!
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 pmgringos weones...... su presidente es un pobre imbecil de mierda... es mas estupido que un bebe....
ustedes los estado unidenses son todos unos idiotas hijos de puta...
ojala les callera una bomba atomica!
weones imbeciles!
mueranse!
May 4th, 2007 at 12:35 am'07 May 5
The evil done by our administration (causing much death, injury, destruction) has been and still is horrible! The real motivation is oil. One of the world's well known problems this century is energy shortage. Instead of cooperating with other countries, our government is selfishly trying to rob Iraq's oil, even murdering many to do so!
May 5th, 2007 at 4:12 pmVietnam take 2. Is it possible to compare stats with those of 40 years ago?
May 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pmThe parallels are striking, so bear with me for a moment while I give the youngsters a brief history lesson ....
January 20, 1965 - Lyndon B. Johnson takes the oath as president and declares, "We can never again stand aside, prideful in isolation. Terrific dangers and troubles that we once called "foreign" now constantly live among us..."
March 2, 1965 - Operation Rolling Thunder begins as over 100 American fighter-bombers attack targets in North Vietnam. Scheduled to last eight weeks, Rolling Thunder will instead go on for three years.
March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam as 3500 Marines land at China Beach to defend the American air base at Da Nang. They join 23,000 American military advisors already in Vietnam.
By year's end, 1966, U.S. troop levels reached 389,000 with 5008 combat deaths and 30,093 wounded. Over half of the American causalities are caused by snipers and small-arms fire during Viet Cong ambushes, along with handmade booby traps and mines planted everywhere in the countryside by Viet Cong.
By year's end, 1967, U.S. troop levels had reached 463,000 with 16,000 combat deaths to date.
If history is repeating itself, expect moves to re-introduce the draft. Heck, why wait for the call up, take to the streets now. Dubya managed to avoid service in Vietnam .... he'll understand the message?
May 5th, 2007 at 6:01 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2_dD4SMcuY
May 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWhat unbelievable BS I see here, Bush did not say the "mission was accomplished" only major combat at the time. Can't you people read or hear?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:38 amAnyone old enough to remember Viet Nam? We were losing 300-400 KIA a week there. Oh, so you say when we cut and ran nothing happened. Well ask the 5 million that were killed after we left. Oh by the way they had no intentions of coming over here like our current enemy does.
And I still can't believe you reelected the bastard...
Unbelievable...
May 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pmRolling eyes... Could it get better? No!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:17 amAnyone old enough to remember Viet Nam? We were losing 300-400 KIA a week there. I remember and, as I was saying, by year end 1968 there had been 30,000 combat deaths, now at a rate of over a thousand a month. Some weeks may well have seen 300-400 KIA. The point being, next year, will the Iraqi War be providing us with similar statistics?
As for the 5 million that were killed after we cut and run, that's a valid point. But these things need to be viewed in the round, we are not entirely blameless in this cycle of hate and violence.
We supported Saddam in his war against Iran, provided him with the technology for 'WOMD' and then, after the Kuwaiti War, were obliged to impose sanctions and a bombing campaign to have them removed. Millions have already died and unless we learn from these events will history have to repeat itself yet again?
May 9th, 2007 at 4:09 amThe most sickening figure for me in the chart is 75% of us supported Bush's handling of the war in 2003. How could we be so blind and dumb and ill informed. Who is to blame? the media or the politicians. If we are the only super power in the world then we need to know more about the world before using our might to destroy it.
Let us re-collect what we didnt know then and just assumed because Bush said so;
1/ Iraq had nothing to do with 9 /11, nor did Syria or Iran. We assumed otherwise.
2/ Saddams party (Bath) had an Arab Nationalist / Secular ideology in sharp contrast to Al-Qaeda's version of Islamic fundamentalism. We assumed otherwise and now Al-Qaeda has a foothold in Iraq.
3/ US was the post popular country in the Middle East, particularly among the youth. We assumed that they all hate us.
Certain other facts to note, Al-Qaeda was then an obscure organization born out of the turmoil in Afghanistan, financed by an extremely rich and crazy zealot. It had no country then, it has none now, it was sort of like Kuo Klux Klan but thousand times more dangerous. After 9/11 all the governments in the region wanted to to get rid of it and fight it to the end in Afghanistan. Even Iran offered help. Many of us might not know but Iran and Al-Qaeda are sworn enemies.
However, what we did and 75% of us supported is mind boggling. We set aside our mission which had international support i.e. destroying Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, capturing / killing Osama, the man behind 9/11.
We nearly did it but then we attacked Iraq and brought death and destruction to a country that meant us no harm. I wonder who is responsible Bush or us? Will any time in future we as a nation start making decisions on facts rather than assumptions? Will we pressure our media to inform us about the world rather then the OJ trial or cat & dog stories? Believe it or not people in the 3rd world countries are more informed than us, ironically we are the ones driving the information age.
to conclude, the greatest threat to a Nations security or for that matter anybody's security is not knowing who your enemy is and who your friends are.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:07 pmWho says we are not a nation divided? In general what I can observe there are those who want to pull out of Iraq and those who claim we need to stay the course. Those who claim to stay the course seem to be struggling with justification for the state of things and effectively defining what victory would really mean, in other words to show any light at the end of the tunnel.
On the other side of the fence are those who claim we need to pull out and that this is not anti-patriotic at all but just the most logical thing to do to stop the bleeding. The weakness here is how do you just pull out without admitting defeat, and what will be the consequences of such action?
I feel this has been a huge error, however, we can not just pull the plug. We made the mess and we can not just wash our hands of the matter. At the same time our current course of action does not seem to lead anywhere and the more we go down this path the worse things seem to get. Here are my thoughts on a possible path that can lead to overall success.
The goal - establish stability in the region. Provide hope and well being to the people of the region. Assure that the peoples in this region recognize the sacrifices that the US has made to truly grant them a better future.
How - First of we need to admit our error. We need to show the world that we admit that invading another country without the consensus of the UN and most of the world is something that is wrong and should not repeat itself. We need to admit that hundreds of thousands have died and most of these innocent people due to these errors. We should not pull out but make a commitment to help the country rebuild but not only the US other countries should actively pitch in. Our only scope should be peace keeping, education and rebuilding. This can not really be accomplished without admitting our errors. To do this I believe the following needs to happen:
1. The American People must demand the resignation and removal from power of all who have been involved with making these errors. Starting with the president himself.
2. The rest of the world should demand that trials be held against those responsible for these errors and the death of hundreds and thousands of people!!!
3. A new administration needs to be put in place with a mandate to make amends and establish amicable relations with not only the Iraq government but the people of Iraq and the region.
4. The Iraq government needs to take full ownership of the mess that remains. Plus the UN needs to monitory actions there to assure that atrocities are not committed by the government.
5. The UN needs to establish a global capacity to try and even execute anyone who commits crimes against humanity. This should not only be for the deeds of the likes of Saddam Hussein but of Drug Lords and those who illegally deal in arms sales etc. Political corruption should also be considered a crime against humanity in my opinion.
Of course what I have stated is utopia, however, pulling out is not the correct thing to do, and trying to stay the current course is also invalid. Other alternatives need to be considered based on a very exact mission statement, that the entire world can buy into.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:37 amYour graph proports to show us how things have gone since 2003. Same old crap. Its a war, you idoits. So where are the numers for the other side of the equation? It is not important to any of you morons to know how many of the jihadist thugs we have killed, how many wounded, how many prisoners of war (you clowns call them "detainee" ) we have in custody. How many schools have we rebuilt? How much more electricity is in the country? How many Iraq citizens have voted in the three elections, so far? And how does that percentage compare to those who vote in this country? Under what Presidency was the destruction of the Towers planned -- hint, it wasn't Bush. The only reason any of you think we have not already won the war is due to the fact that we cannot stop a bunch of punks from slicing and dicing their own. We loose more people in our inner cities each year than the number of troops killed in Iraq in total. News flash -- the war is over. We won and we won big time. It is a police action now and we must finish the job. Now, while you are all caughing up blood remember this, we lost over 50,000 personel in Japan during the first 12 years following the war. You all would not have done so, preferring the coward/traitor's way out. By the way , here are some numbers for your chart: 19, 000 prisoners of war to date; over 200,000 jihadist killed; 200 percent more electricity in the country than before we came; 1600 new schools. And 70% of the 1.2 million U.S. solders involved in the war action want to finish the job. jd
May 14th, 2007 at 12:35 amYou make some excellent points. It is unfortunately it appears you have qualified everyone who does not quite see things the way you do as an Idiot. Your bitterness divides and weakens your arguments.
In the end we all need to take the emotion out and truly try and see each sides view points. I guess I am just one of the idiots but this a real tough problem and unless we can show some maturity we will never make any progress. And while we are so entrenched in our arguments. The Chineese Communists, Arabs and others have diverted enough attention to have played on this as a true weakness and driven our nation to bankrupcy. Brilliant!!!
May 14th, 2007 at 8:49 amWould like to respond to #412. Let me start by saying according to your definition I am a coward, traitor and an Idiot going by Mr. Smithson definition of course (which by the way would probably include folks like Albert Einstein, Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc.) Of course I am certain in contrast you must repute that Mr. Bush (the guy who got us here) on the other hand is truly a brilliant statesman, not to mention extremely knowledgeable and a great orator. With such qualifications his wisdom and vision should not be disputed!
So as a qualified idiot let me take your 200K number. This is good news. But from the other numbers shown above we can observe that attacks have increased exponentially!! So (as an idiot of course) I would assume to say that there are a lot more out there. To dispute if these are the effect of our intervention or not is futile but we can not deny that there are much more out there now!! So lets say there are maybe 2-400K more! does that mean the we have another 4-8 years left before the situation is truly under control? Will it really every end though.. their are 1B Arabs out there and not withstanding these efforts the population will grow very rapidly!!
You mention 9/11 will we ever really know the truth behind what happened? By the time it will be revealed nobody will care anymore because other real problems would put that at the bottom of any list, like shortage of water supply and perhaps the effects of global warming. But of course these are only fairy tales that will never happen.
The good news if such things do occur the folks with the big guns will be well prepared to eliminate the weak cowardice/traitor idiots who were wining in the year 2007.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:34 amTo Billy V I say: point taken.
to PD Johnson (#414) responce:
Pres Bush DID NOT act alone in the Iraqi circumstance. Such a claim would be down right silly if it were not for the fact that so many present this statement as "truth."
Not even close and for the following reasons:
Bush was told by Clinton that Saddam was a threat and that he had WMDs. So who is yealling at Clinton? And why did he have Sandy Berger steal documents about 9/11 from sequestered files? Let's talk cover-up, shall we? And let's call it what it is -- criminal cover-up. But, heh, it is so much more fun to blame Bush.
Clinton's CIA Director told Bush that Saddam had WMDs and was a very dangerous threat to the region and to the U.S. That is why, no doubt, Bush kept Clinton's CIA Director on board after he took office. Have you never wondered why he did that -- kept the Director? Apparently not. Well, what other reason than the fact that it was the Clinton administration who claimed this danger. So serious a porposition that Bush, of course, would keep those in place who knew more about the problem than anyone else.
All of the world's intellignece agencies told Bush that Saddam had WMDs and was a real danger to the world.
Saddam pretended to have WMDs and Bush gave him 14 months to admit that he did not have them and let the UN verify this notion. Saddam did not. His own generals have told us that they thought the military had them, as well.
Saddam plotted the assasination of both Bush 41 and Pres Clinton -- acts of war in their own rite and serious acts of war, at that.
Nearly all of the Democrat leadership thought Saddam had WMDs and said so, at the time. They should have never opened their mouths if they did not know what they were talking about -- something they now claim to be true (that they did not know what they talking about) , but it was all Bush's fault. and why would we want such a bunch of fools in office, anyway. Its not my fault, I only said what they wanted me to say, I didn't have time to check it out for myself, and so on.
The 9/11 governmental conspiracy theory is utterly silly and speaks to the credibility of its authors. Absolutely asinine
And to your opinion that we are at war with 1 billion Arabs - again, sadly misinformed. But we cannot cut and run as do the cowards of this world. I cannot defend "WMDs." But who was to know, especially when Saddam himself was pretending to still -- key on that word "still" -- have them in his military?
And how do you get out of Iraqi without the massacre of the last 20 or 30 thousand troops? It might not matter to you, but it does to me and THAT is part of the source of my angst about all this. absolutely no one in the left of left cares about the troops. 70% of the troops still -- key on that word "still" -- wants to stay and finish the job. Why? BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN FINISH IT. Because they see people everyday thanking them for being there. I have heard their (the soldiers) testimony on this countless times.
You cannot guarantee to get the troops home safely under a cut and run as cowards do scenario. That last 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 thjousand troops -- are they dead men because of the Democrats? Time will and if they are -- the days of being "Mr mice Guy" will end for this 62 year old father of 3 boys.
John Smithson
May 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pmbart(h)andtheboyz.blogspot.com
Nice numbers.... except the most important figures are missing: the number of innocent Iraqi's that got killed.
Interesting to see that many Americans only look at their own losses.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pmRe: #416
This is what is so frustrating with the anti-anything crowd ..... their memories (assuming they are honest folk) do not really work them.
Your statement, the "most important figures are missing" simply is not true.
First , go to your chart on this site -- BAM, there they are !! But where oh where are the enimies casalties? Nowhere to be found. Again, 19,000 prisoners taken, 200,00 killed and they have been defeated in every single political effort they have tried. Blowing up bombs is not a "political effort" by the way ... neither is taking 10 minutes to cut someone's head off, saving the throat-cut until the last so you can hear him/her scream during the ordeal. They are not "freedom fighters." They are Nazi style perverts with a blood lust.
Secondly, the innocent dead are more the result of Muslim jihadist than anything we have done. Let's not forget that. It is THE reason the people of Iraq are not demonstrating by the tens of thousands for us to leave -- because they know who is doing the killing.
Thirdly, why are the dead more important than the living? Tell me that.
This last Iraqi election was the most populated of the three - something close to `12 million adults took their lives into harms way not from us but from the Muslim punkish hords, and voted -- that was nearly 80% voting. If we are cramming democracy down their throats, why in the world are they voting in record numbers??? So tell me why that is not a positive "poll " for what we are attempting to do in that country ?
There isn't anyone who wants us to stay forever ---- including President Bush. But there are precious few (in Iraq) who want us to leave right now. You cry for the Iraqi people when they do not want us to cut and run. You cry for the poor old soldier when they do not want your tears.
Right now, this very minute, the new Democrat congress has an approval rating of 29% according to Thurs. Gallop Poll - less than the Pres and sinking !! So while all you Anti's want no responsibility for the deafeated of this world , comparatively few Americans agree.
John Smithson
May 19th, 2007 at 11:25 pmhttp://barthandtheboyz.blospot.com
Re: #416
This is what is so frustrating with the anti-anything crowd ..... their memories (assuming they are honest folk) do not really work them.
Your statement, the "most important figures are missing" simply is not true.
First , go to your chart on this site -- BAM, there they are !! But where oh where are the enimies casalties? Nowhere to be found. Again, 19,000 prisoners taken, 200,00 killed and they have been defeated in every single political effort they have tried. Blowing up bombs is not a "political effort" by the way ... neither is taking 10 minutes to cut someone's head off, saving the throat-cut until the last so you can hear him/her scream during the ordeal. They are not "freedom fighters." They are Nazi style perverts with a blood lust.
Secondly, the innocent dead are more the result of Muslim jihadist than anything we have done. Let's not forget that. It is THE reason the people of Iraq are not demonstrating by the tens of thousands for us to leave -- because they know who is doing the killing.
Thirdly, why are the dead more important than the living? Tell me that.
This last Iraqi election was the most populated of the three - something close to `12 million adults took their lives into harms way not from us but from the Muslim punkish hords, and voted -- that was nearly 80% voting. If we are cramming democracy down their throats, why in the world are they voting in record numbers??? So tell me why that is not a positive "poll " for what we are attempting to do in that country ?
There isn't anyone who wants us to stay forever ---- including President Bush. But there are precious few (in Iraq) who want us to leave right now. You cry for the Iraqi people when they do not want us to cut and run. You cry for the poor old soldier when they do not want your tears.
Right now, this very minute, the new Democrat congress has an approval rating of 29% according to Thurs. Gallop Poll - less than the Pres and sinking !! So while all you Anti's want no responsibility for the deafeated of this world , comparatively few Americans agree.
John Smithson
May 19th, 2007 at 11:29 pmhttp://barthandtheboyz.blogspot.com
Sorry John, still cant find the Iraqi death toll in the chart ....
May 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pmbooms , you are absolutely correct. My mistake. But I will tell you one thing that will prove to be correct with regard to the numbers: you will find the Iraqi death numbers (of the innocent) long before you will find the totals for prisoners of war sequestered within Iraq and the total number of dead jihadists. I took a couple of hours a few days ago and could not even find a mention.
With regard to the innocent killed -- consider this fact, 12 million of their relatives voted in the third election. That "poll" tells us in no uncertain terms just how the Iraqi's feel about their own dead. They need our support, not a show of cowardly withdrawal.
And why are there no sustained and large anti-US demonstrations in Iraq? Why? Because the only people who want us to go home right now, before the Iraqi's can serve themselves are some in this country.
Peolpe are not hating us over there, the general public.
Absolutely not. All you have is a traitorist newwork news media distorting the facts, day after day, without a pause ---- never, absolutely never, giving both sides of the story. Outrageous. During Viet Nam, we often heard news about the enemy's casualties. But it is my generation that is in power, now -- many of them ex-hippies --- and that is reflected in the anti-war (actually anti everything) stance of the curren media players.
The "war" has been over for quite some time. It is now a police action. I personally believe Bin Laden is dead --- he has not made a "public" appearance or a video that can be positively identified as including himself in nealry 4 years.
John Smithson
May 21st, 2007 at 8:28 pmhttp://barthandtheboyz.blogspot.com