As I said before, facts are things the leftie newsie MSMers like to invent. Their continued assertions simply mimic Hitler & Stalin’s BIG LIE thesis that if you say something often enuf, empty-headed people [i.e., lazy & leftie ninnies] will accept the assertion as a “fact.”

Rave on, even Chris Matthews is having second thoughts [or make that first thoughts, since he went with the anti-war leftie agitprop MINDLESSLY].

None and that’s a fact.

Comment by hellinabucket — July 30, 2007 @ 2:52 pm

Facts are rendered quaint, like the Geneva Convention or the Constitution, in the mind of the Right Wing Authoritarian. They cannot accept the horrible truth behind the policies they support. It’s the worst kind of cognitive dissonance.

Comment by CT Scantoncity

You take that back my righty fascists have been supporting terrorists for years, Who do you think owns Haliburton or Bechtel anyway?

Some lefty?

Idiot.

It was rightys who decided to jump start the Muslims by giving them 8 billion in cash!!

And it was us Righties that wanted to free those terrorists from their oppressive dictator, which never made no sense to me, but anyway us Righties wanted to free them hated muslims from their brutal dictator!!

Moron.

His posts are choked full of cutdowns, slams and falsehoods. Topped with neocon sprinkles.

What he doesn’t understand (I’m sure this isn’t even scraping the surface) is that Saddam feared his own people more than any US invasion. He purposely kept the truth of his WMD stockpiles a secret. The truth was the stockpiles were eradicated thru the UN mandates from the Gulf War.

It has been proven daveinboca. Time and time again that there were no stockpiles, no operational links between Saddam and AQ, no links between Iraq and the attacks on the US in 2001.

None and that’s a fact.

I know that’s way too complex for a Hobbit-mind, but get used to not understanding the ways of Saddam & his clever friends in the region. Way above your skill set.

And facts are outside the purview of the lefty ideologues on this thread.

One of those Dem candidates might bring up the opposite point of view and a real debate would ensue, not just the “I was against the war before you were” sort of silly twaddle the Dems specialize in.

They need our aid because they are hungry, sick and have no clean drinking water. Unlike you, I can back up this claim with proof:

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28727320070730

O. bigfoot – care to link to any proof of this. Or is it true because you said it?

That’s what I love about your neoCON trolls. You throw shit out there and then when you are asked to prove it, you can’t.

It’s the Democratic Party mantra.

Our hero….

Comment by Zooey —
I have it on good authority that Yellowstone is going to have a mega eruption before Jan 09, just sayin…

And, more importantly, why haven’t our military and government leaders tried anything along these lines?

One would think that a reduction, or cessation, of offensive operations would accomplish the following.

1) It would give our soldiers some “down time”.
2) It would mitigate the impression that our military is victimizing Iraqis in general.
3) It would provide an opportunity for Iraqi security forces to assess their capabilities and identify areas in need of improvement.
4) It would lend credence to claims that we are there, only, to support the new Iraqi government.
5) It would allow the more rational elements of the anti-American movement an opportunity to persuade their countrymen that the U.S. is not pursuing a policy of terror against the Iraqi population.
6) It would free U.S. troops to interdict outside terrorist infiltration.
7) It would allow U.S. forces to respond, with overwhelming force, to threats identified by Iraqi security forces.

There are many others but, those are the big ones. Unfortunately, our military, and civilian, leadership claims that reducing offensive operations by U.S. forces will “embolden our enemies” and “allow the terrorists to regroup”. Not to mention the premise that “if we stop offensive operations we surrender”.

Well, our enemies are pretty bold already, legitimate terrorist threats are “grouping” at an unheard of rate and I humbly submit that our leaders need to learn the meaning of the word “surrender” before they bandy it about.

For “real” trolls, the questions raised by this premise are moot. Their goal of “killing anyone who isn’t us” is perfectly clear. While we may despise such a goal it is easily understood. But, rational people need to ask, and keep asking, why we refuse to try letting the Iraqis protect their own interests.

The obvious answer is that the Iraqi’s interests are not the same as our leaders’.

We need to remove ourselves from instigating the hate and attempt to assist from outside their borders. If we must stay in Iraq, then we should tear down all of the GIANT permanent bases and have local outposts that are not intrusive into the daily lives of Iraqis. In either case, we are trying not to “feed” the cause and prevent more and more people from feeling justified in attacking us. NIE after NIE that comes out cites the Iraq war as the biggest factor and a DIRECT CAUSE of the increase in world wide terrorism. These are the experts.

You carry a good debate, Mr. Bucket. Much kudos to your sportsmanship.

Slowly you have begun to make some sense. I still disagree with your conclusions, but applaud you for at least attempting to address the topic with something other than insults. Intelligent people can disagree. Idiots only throw stones.

Comment by funky p — July 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm”

I thank you for your kind words. I wholeheartedly agree that we can disagree without the name calling and foul language. In some cases, I have responded in kind to what I have read here, and perhaps that hasn’t always set the best example, but I have always attempted to maintain a certain level of decorum.

Good, raucous debate is one thing, but mere name calling is not an example of good, raucous debate.

*sigh* Ok, 8 glasses it is….

When you come over to check my water consumption, would you mind painting my bathroom? It would be something to do between glasses…. :)

Comment by gummitch

Coors Light is actually closer to water than beer so maybe we should refer this one to Sarge.

I will drink Coors Light right after one of my ice hockey games — other than that I’m sticking with Bud or Sam Adams.

And no volcanoes have erupted on our soil during Bush’s tenure.

Our hero….

Comment by RUCerious

1. 10-12 gallons
2. Dissipation

Ok, really. I step out for 5 minutes and now I have water expert competition? My ego can’t process this.