Pentagon may deploy 7,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Pentagon may deploy 7,000 troops to Afghanistan.
The New York Times reports today that the Pentagon is “considering sending as many as 7,000 more American troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies.” One official referred to it as the “re-Americanization” of the war:
They said the step would push the number of American forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began more than six years ago, and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.
The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, last month.
In February, when lobbying NATO countries to pledge more forces to Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, “Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
140 Responses to “Pentagon may deploy 7,000 troops to Afghanistan.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Comments
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm"The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops"
Unwilling - no other country has political leaders that are as stupid as ours.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 pmWell it's nice to know that Nato leaders are not drinking from the same punch bowl. I'm glad to see that their collective IQ's have not dropped sharply in light of all the propoganda they have heard.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pmWhy NATO nations are not providing more support is because they have no input on the conduct of the operation. Canada is a prime example of how a country can be hung out to dry due to the mismanagement of the whole operation. This is starting to look like the Soviet occupation all over again and we all know how that turned out.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:40 pmI wonder if I'll get recalled to active duty. Hell, I'm only 69 and retired a mere 25 years ago.
I'll go if Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Addington and the rest of the neocons who diverted our troops from Afghanistan and Bin Laden to Iraq, are willing to join me.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pmPentagon is “considering sending as many as 7,000 more American troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies.
And just where are we going to get these 7,000 additional troops?? Oh! pull them from Iraq. Did someone forget about the GREEN ZONE? You know the place, we house our diplomats there, the one with a big X over it that says TARGET. (Bomb and Mortar Fire at will) What about Baghdad or this great Surge?
Let's just trim down the troops and make them even more ineffective. Which leads to more deaths and more serious injuries. That is not my idea of good planning.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pmNow Hillary, Bush, Cheney, or McCain can invade and bomb Iran. Hell, why not Russia and China while we are at it?
The USA has become a foaming-at-the-mouth Conquering Empire, and most likely will go the way of Britain, Spain, Rome, France, Egypt, and Nazi Germany.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pmBush's beligerant dictum.."you're either with us, or you're against us" , rings hollow in light of Pakistan's unwillingness to remove Al Qaeda's safe haven . Now that Musharraf is out, this task will be even more difficult. Pakistan has 150 Million people and Nuclear Weapons to go with it's unstable government.
As long as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a safe haven over the barely existant Border...7000 more troops will Not Solve the Problem. This is the same sorry situation we found ourselves in 40 years ago in Viet Nam.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm"“Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq..."
Ya think?
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmLet's all go sign up!
Because pre-emptively killing them over there before we fail to act on intelligence to prevent their planned attack here is WAY better.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pmWonderful idea of sending more troops in order to harass and terrorize the Afghan people. That will really win the hearts and minds of the Afghanis, now won't it?
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pmGee, browbeating NATO didn't work? Who woulda guessed?
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pmAnd that worked out so well for Russia because......
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pmCapturing Usama bin Laden is obviously not a priority, as confirmed by George W. Bush on March 13, 2002, when he stated, "So I don't know where he [Osama bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." -- White House press conference
Afghanistan's opium poppy crop continues to set new records from one year to the next.
So, to apply Cindy Sheehan's yet unanswered question to Afghanistan, "What is the noble cause there?"
Remember that the official story regarding 9/11 was that the 19 hijackers came from the following countries: Saudi Arabia -- 15, United Arab Emirates -- 2, Egypt - 1 and Lebanon - 1.
Anyone care to provide an answer?
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pmAin't the beast starved yet?
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pmDon't look for any of those who support the war to join the US Military. Look like Bush and McCain will have to keep sending the same soldiers and get more jail birds to serve. As we kick the immigrants out the Supreme Court will have to repeal the Civil Right Bill and get minorities back in the fields. If we run short of soldiers we can always pay Blackwater security at 250,000 dollars a soldier. We're the USA we have money to burn just don't open the draft.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 pmAnyone, anyone? Didn't think so.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 pmNATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops....despite public pledges...
Do they want to waste billions upon billions of dollars on a lost cause? I think not. Only our Idiot in Chief is willing to waste OUR money on his EGO.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pmSecretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, “Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan.”
Translation - NATO doesn't want to hold my beer while I beat my girl with 2 hands
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pmGates said he recently told Congress that the United States was attacked on Sept. 11 and is at war today in Afghanistan “in no small measure because we mistakenly turned our backs on Afghanistan after the Soviet troops left in the late 1980s.”
“We made a strategic mistake in the end game of that war,” he said. “If we get the end game wrong in Iraq, I told the Congress, the consequences will be far worse.”
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pmAnd there it is.............
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 pmAnd whom exactly were the major funders of the Taliban (or the "resistance" in quante terms?
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pmYou dont know trix?
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pmFor everyone here that wants to blame Bush for Afghanistan. Feel free. But, keep in mind that the effort in Afghanistan has had wide bipartisan support. And alot of armchair support from the international community.
You should also tell Barack Obama what you think, because if you support him, you're supporting the war in Afghanistan (and maybe spreading it to Pakistan,too). Remember how you hold Iraq war supporters responsible for the deaths in Iraq? That begins to apply to you, if you support Barack and he maintains his support for the efforts in Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan).
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 pmHere's a sample of what Obama has planned for Pakistan:
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
He will say??
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pmAre you a messiah backup and can tell the future? When you post such things as 'he will say' you lose cred.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 pmAnymore Tillman's out there? Anyone out there that wants to be a poster boy for the big lie? I find it amazing how we allow a tiny few group of people ruin this planet for the rest of us. And nothing is being done to stop it. Nothing.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pmDear backup (AKA shameless apologist for the Bush Administration); um, if we were after OBL, why didn't we STAY in Afghanistan rather than invading and occupying Iraq?
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 pmI find illusionary and ficticious modifiers, such as 'he will say' to be dishonest debate and you would do well to refrain from such childish means backup, for when they are discovered, quite easily, you lost more possible followers than you could ever hope to gain.
Word.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:00 amWith news like this on a Saturday night, perhaps a good bit of comedy is welcome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLeCu63HCA&feature=bz302
May 4th, 2008 at 12:24 amXisithrus.
The 'he will say' was just a cut and paste from the CNN article.
Click on the link and see for yourself.
I don't think the wording was that great either, but it's CNN, not me.
While I've got you here, what's your take? Do you support Obama's refocus on Afghanistan and possibly engaging Pakistan? Or do you think retaliating against al Qaeda isn't worth more dead soldiers and innocent civilian causualties?
May 4th, 2008 at 1:18 amFor those not interested in watching Kilo attack three-hour-old posts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSH3xtygvbA&feature=bz302
The new Hulk 2 trailer is out... and the Hulk looks like CG crap! (in my opinion)
May 4th, 2008 at 1:20 amDo you support Obama’s refocus on Afghanistan and possibly engaging Pakistan? Or do you think retaliating against al Qaeda isn’t worth more dead soldiers and innocent civilian causualties?
Since Afghanistan's al Qaeda were the ones who actually attacked us (instead of the Iraqi terrorists who later took their name) why wouldn't it be widely accepted as the most prudent course? Unless one were only interested in making partisan political points by asking such questions - questions, that any small amount of common sense could answer - if one had such a valuable commodity, that is.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:27 ambarfly. I watched your 'Hulk' trailer. The guy that plays non-pissed off hulk, is a really good actor. And I've got a thing for Liv Tyler. I'm on board with this movie. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm getting an Oscar vibe.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:31 amThe one thing those 19 foreign citizens had in common was all 19 trained in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a failed state that provided a safe haven for such elements.
Yet, Afghanistan doesn't have the same ethnic/tribal mixes, (and rich history of internal warfare) as Iraq, so to correlate what happened in Afghanistan to what has (and yet may) occurred in Iraq, is simplistic thinking, simply put.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:37 ambackup Says:
But the Hulk looks unreal; cartoonish. Such movies require the willing suspension of disbelief. I just don't buy that CG Hulk...
May 4th, 2008 at 1:40 ambarfly. I support the effort in Afghanistan. (I also think it should have been the main focus, not Iraq) But, I'm seeing more and more posts about difficulties there.
To be honest, I don't think progressives are all on the same page, when it comes to Afghanistan. I also think there is some agenda behind the more frequent threads about bad things happening in Afghanistan.
I understand the argument that Iraq was unjust. But, what I'm concerned about, is that we may becoming divided in our resolve in Afghanistan.
I don't care if progressives don't support Iraq. It's pretty much over. But, I do understand if we're divided on Afghanistan, it's going to make it more difficult.
If we are going to do Afghanistan, let's do it right.
There are some progressives that object. If you are going to support Obama's position; if you're going to support the effort in Afghanistan - support it. Loud and clear.
The last thing we need is, half of us for it and half against it.
People will die in Afghanistan for what we both believe is important there.
If we really support the troops, let's sell the importance of the mission, when these posts come up.
When bad news comes up about Afghanistan, it's not enough to lament how bad George Bush sucks.
If you really support the effort, you have to stand up for it and try to get those that don't support it to understand why it's important.
Otherwise, the same division that we saw in Iraq, will happen in Afghanistan. The effort will be more difficult. And the ones paying for our division, will be our soldiers.
I don't want to bum you out, but I think on Afghanistan, we're on the same team.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:46 amFor one thing, Kilo, the trade unionists of Iraq are just itching for us to leave, so they can start bargaining for a slice of their old pie. And not just Baathists. I saw a recent documentary that interviewed severan Iraqi union members who said the US was hampering efforts by unionists to make deals to set up trade networks, and return some level of normalcy to the country.
And, backup: We were on the same team when we went into Afghanistan. Glad to see that some on the right are starting to recover from the overwhelming fear of swarthy foreigners.
If you really support the effort, you have to stand up for it and try to get those that don’t support it to understand why it’s important.
Please post these comments, so I'll know who to address. I've seen almost no comments that don't support the effort in Afghanistan, so I'd be interested to see them.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:52 amI'll try to find some, give me 15 minutes.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:54 amLMAO. Let’s see you stick to it from here on in chump.
Since Kilo hasn't posted for twenty minutes, I'm sure that reply to my comment must be a real doozy.
ZZZZZZZ...
May 4th, 2008 at 1:58 amAnd the death and destruction goes on and on.
There's lots of money in death. The MIC will ensure that we continue to kill people, come up with new and better (worse) ways to kill people, so they can drain every cent from the treasury, along with every cent that can be borrowed.
Until we are completely bankrupt, a complete economic collapse.
Hell, we're already owned by China and many countries in Europe.
And the beat goes on....
May 4th, 2008 at 1:58 ambarfly.
Here's one from Chocolate Jesus suggesting that progressives are 'unmonolithic' and not necessarily on the same page:
Chocolate Jesus Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I was unsure if most were anti-war
> or mainly just anti Iraq
> war.
you’re going to get both dude…left wing people are very unmonolithic and often have very complex, nuanced views…my personal opinion is that war is essentially a business, one i find extremely distasteful, and one which a majority of the world should be intelligent enough to avoid whenever possible. i do not pretend to be wise enough to know exactly how one defines a “just war” but I know an unjust one when i see it..
There are better examples, I'll try to find them.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:03 amNot only is war a distasteful business, but it is one which is rapidly approaching termination level. Preemptive nuclear war. Nuclear fallout which will travel for thousands and thousands of miles. Another fallout is complete stoppage of oil from the Middle East (perhaps Saudi Arabia will allow us to continue to get something...where we can then pay $50 bucks a gallon).
It's the most insane concept. Nuking a nation which did not attack you.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:08 amMs Joanne: Hell, we’re already owned by China and many countries in Europe...
"What the hell is Lederhosen, and why do I gotta' wear'em to the G-Damn 'cumpny Christmas party, anyway?"
Kilo:
BTW, Afghanistan doesn’t have rich history of internal warfare ?
What I said was "Yet, Afghanistan doesn’t have the same ethnic/tribal mixes, (and rich history of internal warfare...)."
Try to keep up... "chump," wasn't it?
I accused you of simplistic thinking - and the example of you dumbing-down the question, is a prime example of that... chump.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:10 amHere's Moonbat from the post where Bush was saying there was progress in Afghanistan:
MOONBAT Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why we are fighting in Afghanistan. The Russians tried to do something but had their asses handed to them. We didn’t listen. When we went into S. Viet Nam, the French warned us not to do it after they got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu. We didn’t listen. Bush the elder warned Chimpy not to go into Baghdad because we would own it. We didn’t listen. Osama warned us about intruding into Arab countries. We didn’t listen.
When will we listen?
April 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Nobody responds and suggests that Afghanistan is worth it.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:12 amHere's another one:
Bartolo Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remind me again why we are in Afghanistan. Way back, it was to get ol’ Osama, but we seem to have given that one up. Are we staying there to stand amidst yet another civil war?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:15 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
May 4th, 2008 at 2:13 amHere's missmolly (who I really dig):
misshusseinmolly Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, now we know the pattern. On EVEN days, we catapult the propaganda that Al Qaeda is stronger and we must be afraid, very afraid. On ODD days, we claim we’re winning to prop up whatever pathetic support we still have remaining for our “war on terror”.
This pattern will repeat indefinitely until the American people refuse to be fooled anymore and demand that we focus on getting Osama bin Laden and quit pouring our resources into battles having nothing to do with 9/11.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:51 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
May 4th, 2008 at 2:15 amWay back, it was to get ol’ Osama, but we seem to have given that one up.
A very good point. Conceptually, I can say why I think we should be there...but I don't understand the point of it now. There is no point (well, there is; oil. The pipeline that is so heavily protected in Iraq goes into a corner of Afghanistan.)
There was a justification to go into Afghanistan. There was never justification for going into Iraq. Any thinking person knew that before we dropped bomb one.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:16 amI find it exteremly curious that a person that doesn't live in the US, or pay the taxes we do, seems to think his opinions about how we conduct our foreign affairs, has any weight, or validity. We've "paid the freight" on this country, while the Kilo's of the world sat back, and applauded, whilerisking virtually nothing. When's the last time your country mounted any serious effort in the war on terrorism, Kilo? Or offered to pay some of the costs? We're waiting for a reply.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:18 amI could find more examples, but the point is this:
Afghanistan had/has biparitan support. Yes, bad things will happen there. But, if we are going to commit to it, we should stand up for it when the posts come up. On this, we need unity.
To sit in silence, because you think others may think war is unpopular; only makes it more difficult.
When it's more difficult, it's more difficult for our troops.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:21 ambackup, quoting missmolly went too far. None of these posts shows what you claim, and active disavowal of our efforts in Afghanistan. The most damning merely posits that we have lost focus, and went chasing ponies in Iraq. Really, is this the best you can offer?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:23 amAnd Kilo, we'll not hold you to trying to show your country considers the War on Terror to be as serious a threat to freedom as America (given their anemic response), so don't go away all in a huff...
May 4th, 2008 at 2:26 ambarfly. Let me try this:
Ms. Joanne, if your listening, do you think we should increase our focus on finding terrorists in Afghanistan? Do you agree with Barack Obama, that if Pakistani leadership won't help us find bin Laden that we should go into Pakistan and get him ourselves?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:27 amDo you agree with Barack Obama, that if Pakistani leadership won’t help us find bin Laden that we should go into Pakistan and get him ourselves?
And you, backup?
Isn't pre-emptive invasion now enshrined in American foreign policy? Why all the rhetorical handwringing?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:31 ambarfly.
Here's Ms. Joanne half an hour ago:
And you don't think progressives are divided?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:32 amDo I think we should increase focus on finding terrorists in Afghanistan? No. A terrorist could be anyone. We need to increase intelligence and use that avenue. Military action makes absolutely no sense unless you know of a specific place, like a training camp. Then, I think you should work with the heads of state.
As for Pakistan...this is a stupid conversation because it would be completely dependent upon the situation. Hypotheticals are stupid and I won't engage.
As for Obama and Pakistan, I agree with him. But Obama is not one to wage war - which is why I agree with him. If Bush had said it, I would be against it because Bush wouldn't talk to anyone, he would just wage war. Detante is a better approach no matter what.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:34 amAnd you don’t think progressives are divided?
Ambivalence isn't disapproval, is it? Equating the two seems... dishonest.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:35 amI think any thinking people are divided. If they are not divided THEY ARE NOT THINKING! They are group-thinking which is not like thinking at all.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:36 ambarfly. I'm not the one having the problem with it. There is a disconnect that you aren't seeing.
Obama is the one saying we should increase our efforts in Afghanistan (more effort means more troops and the possibility for more troop and civilian casualties).
I am seeing some progressives that support the war in Afghanistan and some that don't see the point.
I am seeing a repeat of the situation in Iraq of a divided nation. Divided we fall (fail).
I support the effort in Afghanistan. I support Obama's position. But, I understand, for us to be successful, we need to be on the same page.
With all the recent posts about problems in Afghanistan, are progressives changing their minds?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:39 ambarfly. At this point, if you support the effort in Afghanistan, it becomes you responsibility to explain it to Ms. Joanne.
I respect her opinion, but if you don't address it, the division makes our effort in Afghanistan more difficult and our chances for success more precarious.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:42 amAfghnistan is Hillary's war.
Michael Moore endorsed Mike Gravel on Larry King last night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l9pTCkuNc
May 4th, 2008 at 2:43 amWhile it's not an endorsement, what would you do if Ron Paul backed Obama?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:47 amSince Kilo's in such a pissy mood, I think asking him: When’s the last time your country mounted any serious effort in the war on terrorism, Kilo? Or offered to pay some of the costs? Are now good questions. How about it?
How much does your country value America's struggle? When can we expect the first checks to arrive?
And Kilo: Yes you did. You said Afghanistan doesn’t have a rich history of internal warfare.
Not what I said. I said the mix was not the same.
Then I pointed out how ignorant that statement was along with how it had no relevance to any discussion.
Except it wasn't an ignorant statement - just your simplified version, that censored out the ... doesn’t have the same ethnic/tribal mixes, (and rich history of internal warfare) as Iraq...
Dumbing down questions shows a limited mentality.
You are now repeating this as though you cannot understand what has just taken place while suggesting it’s me who cannot keep up.
More dumbing-down, to mask your own cognitive deficiencies...
May 4th, 2008 at 2:48 amBackup, I haven't read all of the above, but I take no issue with Afghanistan - now. We need to get the hell out of Iraq. THAT is the key issue. We totally screwed up that country and they need us to leave to be able to start to heal.
If we had a clear mission in Afghanistan, I would support it. Hell, I might even have supported Iraq had they ever been able to show any kind of non moving line. If I was wrong about WMD's (which, I wasn't), I am one who would gladly say I was wrong.
But I want information to be able to base those decisions upon. And information is one thing this administration does not give out gladly...if at all.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:50 ambarfly. At this point, if you support the effort in Afghanistan, it becomes you responsibility to explain it to Ms. Joanne.
Um, no it isn't, and here's why: you cannot conflate Ms Joanne's As for Pakistan…this is a stupid conversation because it would be completely dependent upon the situation. Hypotheticals are stupid and I won’t engage as being categorically against immediate action if the situation was such that no other options existed. This is a variation of the ticking time bomb justification, that permits few variables - which isn't how real life works.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:56 amMs. Joanne. I've supported Iraq and still do. But, it is obvious to me that effort has been mismanaged. I don't believe that Bush lied us into war, but it hasn't been handled well.
I also support the effort in Afghanistan, but I would like to make sure our soldiers fighting there aren't conflicted by divisions at home.
I'm sure it's hard enough to fight when everybody's supporting you. I can't imagine risking your life, when people at home can't even agree if it's worth it or not.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:57 amYou don't think Bush lied us into war? After all that has come out? How can you seriously say that?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:59 amI don’t believe that Bush lied us into war, but it hasn’t been handled well.
Here's a question for you: which failed, conservatives, or conservatism?
May 4th, 2008 at 3:02 ambarfly. Here's a hypothetical you may be willing to consider:
If Obama becomes our next president, he's going to increase our efforts in Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan) to address those responsible for 9/11. That's what he's said.
If we agree that is our common goal, we should support it.
This is America. People can disagree. But, if you want to help ensure success, there is an obligation to actively promote the initiative.
If you exercise ambivalence, because you don't want to offend anyone, you're not really supporting the effort or the troops.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:04 amThis is America. People can disagree. But, if you want to help ensure success, there is an obligation to actively promote the initiative.
Bullshit! Dissent IS patriotism! You don't blindly support anything or support it for the wrong reason (like Bush getting elected on his false moral values). That will be and is the downfall of our country.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:08 amPresumably you’ll not being doing this on the grounds that you’ll struggle to suggest why anyone should consider the War on Terror to be “as serious a threat to freedom as America”.
A little slow, eh? I decided to ask you anyway, if you bothered to check...
Speaking of checks, when's some that freedom dividend going to get paid back, o, grateful Aussie? We could use some help paying off that three trillion in debt, mate.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:09 ambarfly and Ms. Joanne.
I don't believe Bush lied us into war. I know we disagree. That's okay. Tonight seems beyond the scope to hash it out, but let me suffice it to say, I'll believe he lied, when the Democratically controlled Congress proves it with an impeachment.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:09 amThe dems suck as bad as the goopers. I posted such on my blog today. Republicans aren't the only ones who suck.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:11 amIf Obama becomes our next president, he’s going to increase our efforts in Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan) to address those responsible for 9/11. That’s what he’s said.
So? What is wrong with that?
If we agree that is our common goal, we should support it.
So far, hypothetically...
This is America. People can disagree. But, if you want to help ensure success, there is an obligation to actively promote the initiative.
Which? Invading Pakistan? I don't hear any ticking time bombs...
If you exercise ambivalence, because you don’t want to offend anyone, you’re not really supporting the effort or the troops.
And if you suggest that as a reason, without offering a reasonable alternative reason, you just sound partisan.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:14 amMs. Joanne, I agree with you on this, but, you do understand that it is not a black and white issue.
Do you understand the value of propaganda in a war. Do you you understand the meaning of the phrase 'United We Stand'.
I get the importance of free speech. It's one of my main things. But, I also understand, that if we are going to commit to something as a country (regardless of which parties policy it is) we need to be on the same page.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:14 amMs. Joanne. I checked out your blog. Looks pretty cool.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:18 amPropaganda aimed at the American people? No. Not for one second and not one iota.
Bush had support originally for Iraq because of 9/11 and lies. Fear does that to a populace.
It's funny, in an ironic sort of way, I always felt that we should support out government even if we didn't vote for them. And, in the past, I always have.
But I cannot support this administration for it's complete incompetence, ineptitude, cronyism, lawlessness, secrecy, shredding of what is the founding document of our country and how our country is to be run, torture, preemptive war because of lies, lies, lies and more lies.
No, I no longer believe that we should be united. We should never unite for tyranny, which is where we are now.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:19 amBut, I also understand, that if we are going to commit to something as a country (regardless of which parties policy it is) we need to be on the same page.
A great concept - except when national unity has been hijacked for partisan purposes, as recent history has shown.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:19 amIraq and Afghanistan are night and day comparisons.
People cheered (rightfully) when we bombed Afghanistan. That was where the "terror camps" were supposed to have been.
Iraq was a dog from the start, again from anyone who has the capacity to think critically and connect the dots - or dots that aren't there. There was never a cause for Iraq and that has deeply divided this country. And rightfully so. It was the tip of the lies that this administration has inflicted upon us and the world.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:23 amKilo. I'm interested in your take.
Iraq? Afghanistan?
Imagine me asking this in a good way - 'What's your major beef?'
BTW, I dig Austrailia.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:23 amMs. Joanne.
People were scared after 9/11, but it was from Jihadists, not George Bush. And you can say that he lied, but if he was following mistaken intelligence, was it a lie or was it a mistake?
When we start criminalizing mistakes, I'm afraid people will stop signing up.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:30 amStill waiting for that forst check, Kilo. When the money starts rolling in, we'll know you mates are really serious...
To answer backup:
National unity was poisoned, by Purple Heart bandaids, Dixie Chick cd bonfires, and rubberstamp republicans.
I see both of the two conservatives on the board have ducked my question about conservatives and conservatism, so I'll dumb it down: Did conservatives just fail to be conservative - or was conservatism itself a failure when put to it's most strenuous test?
My take is: conservatism was, and is, a scam for the easily frightened.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:30 ambarfly. I think I see you point about the Dixie Chicks, but I didn't want to say anything, but I don't get what you're driving at with the conservative/conservatism failure comment. Dumb it down some more (hey, it's me you're dealing with) and I'll try to answer.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:34 amAs far as singing Kumbaya over Afghanistan, it seems that some think they can just pop up and act ignorant of all the well-poisoning that republicans have done to national unity by rubberstamping every "unconservative" bit of legislation that Bush demanded over the last eight years. We need some serious mea culpas first, before we'll take "conservatives" seriously.
What backup has offered so far, is thin gruel indeed.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:35 amBackup, you're right that we weren't initially afraid of Bush, nor did I intend that as my meaning. That said, I fear him and this administration greatly, now.
I am sorry, he willingly and knowningly lied. Are you not familiar with PNAC? This was their goal long ago. This was planned long before 9/11 happened but they needed their "new Pearl Harbor" which came in the guise of 9/11.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:36 amDid conservatism, when put to the test, fail to produce what it had for years promised? Or did conservatives, in their exhuberance, just ignore their ideology, because they were now in power? I would argue it's the former, not the latter.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:39 amI agree, barfly.
Supply side, voo-doo economics, taking but not returning to the communities; conservatism is a failure. This admin just made things that much worse by taking the worst of conservatism coupling that with the worst possible economic policies, including greed and everything for business attitude extraordinaire. Let's add borrow and spend to an exponential level and there is a triple whammy of ruination.
But honestly, I think that was their goal from the start.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:43 amMs. Joanne. I understand your 'I fear him now sentiment'. I don't agree, but I understand what you're saying.
Again, with the PNAC reference; you need to tell your progressive congressperson that they need to impeach Bush. Say this to them, "Conservatives are chapping my ash on how your failure to impeach Bush, is refuting all my claims about his criminality."
Ms. Joanne, you could be right. But, until the Democratically controlled congress addresses it and impeaches Bush, it's just going to sound like conspiracy theory.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:43 amJust now, looking at my comment, I was struck by my unconscious choice of the word "exhuberance" to describe republicans. Ironically, the word's root, "huber" is also found in "hubris" - exactly what republicans displayed for the last eight years.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:44 amGermany has half a million active and reserve soldiers and I’m here answering questions about why Australia (40000) has only committed 1/3 of the troops Germany has. WTF. Either have NATO or don’t, but if you’re in it you need to pony the fk up already.
I'll dumb it down even further:
When can we expect to see Aussies offering the US money to offset the war in Iraq spending?
[chirp, chirp...]
May 4th, 2008 at 3:47 amAs a matter of fact, I called Durbin just yesterday.
I called Durbin to b!tch1about KBR making almost $100 mil in profits and drifted off to many of my other b!tches, including impeachment.
The staffer told me impeachment would derail important legislation. I asked him what could possibly be more important that restoring the rule of law and accountability to our country; our country to the basis of what we are - THE CONSTITUTION.
He told me some FAA legislation pending, which was perfect for me. I told him that I am a Platinum flier on one airline, and have varying statuses on other airlines, I spend much of my life on airplanes, and I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE FAA legislation. Our country is by far more important.
I told him that there could not possibly be ANY legislation that is more important than law and accountability.
I will be adding yet another letter from Mr. Durbin shortly.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:48 amConservatism today is Charlie Brown looking at his kite as it spins, hooked on a treelimb... He doesn't know how to get it down, and he's too scared to climb out on a limb, and possibly look foolish - so he stands there, looking foolish, as the kite is slowly reduced to a wad of trash...
May 4th, 2008 at 3:52 amKilo. I think I'm onboard with what you're saying. But, I don't understand it all.
Here's what I believe: Even if our reasoning for going into Iraq was faulty, we're there. We have a responsibility to secure the country so it can self govern. And when they can handle the governing and maintain the stability, we should be gone.
I also think that, in Afghanistan (and maybe Pakistan) those responsible for 9/11 are hold up. We should neutralize those elements, not as a retaliation for the U.S., but for the future security of the world. Obviously, we should do a better job (militarily and diplomatically) than we did in Iraq.
And although I have supported Bush policy, I am optimistic that a fresh face in the Oval Office will improve our chances for better cooperation with the rest of the world.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:55 amWhat money you gimp ? Out NATO dues ?
First a chump, and now a gimp - you really prefer the "mp" endings, eh? Ironic, coming from a symp...
Nato dues? Chicken feed, you piker. I mean some real boolah - we're three trillion in debt, and you're talking about union dues?
May 4th, 2008 at 3:56 amAnd when they can handle the governing and maintain the stability, we should be gone.
And with that false premise, the Iraq merry go round returns to it's original, bloody stasis.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:59 ambarfly. You're responses are very colorful and animated, but they are obfuscatory.
You may not realize it, but that makes it seem like you are avoiding the questions.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:01 amHere's a good idea for the Austrailian government, to show their solidarity in the war on terrorism: offer free college educations to the children of slain US servicemen.
How about it Kilo?
May 4th, 2008 at 4:03 amYou may not realize it, but that makes it seem like you are avoiding the questions.
And the questions seem phrased to elicit expected responses. You really want to play the concern game?
May 4th, 2008 at 4:05 amWould that be for the 'justly' slain servicemen of Afghanistan or the 'unjustly' slain servicemen of Iraq?
May 4th, 2008 at 4:08 amYour response is……. what ?
Quite anemic, considering our sacrifice. So, when will the first memorial scholarships be give out to US servicemen's children?
And the irony of comparing Austrailia's contribution with that of Saudi Arabia's must surely not be lost on you. Didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers come from there?
May 4th, 2008 at 4:13 ambarfly. I've got to go to bed, but nice job trying to respond to both of us.
Kilo. nice talking with you. One question before I turn in. How's Rudd doing so far?
May 4th, 2008 at 4:14 amReally lay out the nexus between these soldier’s deaths and Australian responsibility for that.
Go.
So much for honoring the lives lost in this supposedly generational struggle. Yup, we can feel the love from here.
And calling me a chump now makes much more sense, given your disdain for america's sacrifices. You think we're all chumps, for doing the work you blokes won't risk a hangnail over.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:18 amYou don't take your own politics seriously but you do American politics? Why does that defy logic?
May 4th, 2008 at 4:18 amMs Joanne. that is a good point.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:21 ambarfly. I appreciate whatever support we get in the war on terror.
My belief is that if Americans could speak with one voice on terrorism, the rest of the world would be more likely to hear us.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:23 amYou were suggesting Australia has to commit some amount of money to show it’s commitment to the war on terror.
I ask again, what money ?
What fund is this supposed to be paid into ?
Do you have any point here that you are able to explain ?
The point, is your country's commitment is anemic at best, and you guys don't honor our sacrifice. That you come here day in and out and complain about what American liberals are saying about our business - not yours - shows you like our money, and troops, just not our opinions. When your country is willing to make a similar commitment, your words will ring less hollow.
And g'night, backup.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:25 amG'night backup.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:28 amsee ya. don't stay up too late.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:28 amAnd g'night, Ms Joanne.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:30 amAnd to you.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:32 amAfghanistan will never see those troops. We stopped looking for the real terrorists some time ago and have been continually moving in the path set by the Neocons to this day. A little Neocon history:
Because of President Jimmy Carter's egalitarian views, inattention to military imperatives, less tolerant policies to Israel's expansion and close reliance on international organizations disengaged the more conservative Democrats and many began to drift from the Democratic Party.
Ronald Reagan's presidential victory gave the Neocons a new home. They welcomed Reagan's strong stance against the Soviet Union, overjoyed at the collapse of the Communist state, supported the Iran-Contra affair and pushed Reagan to aggressively support the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and increase support for Israel. The Neocons became more expressive, more vocal and more self-assured.
Their policies of achieving global stability by eliminating from the world the governments they consider alien to their concept of liberal democracy, began to bear fruit with George Bush's invasion of Panama and the Persian Gulf war.
The Neocons delighted when the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton's leadership moved to the center of the political spectrum. Max Shactman, who had shifted his allegiance from Trortskyism to Socialism and finally to neoconservatism, had stated: "The AFL-CIO is the only legitimate representative of the American working class, and the Democratic Party must become a more legitimate social democratic/labor party by 'moving to the center." Hence the DNC.
The bombings of Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, America's incursion into Somalia and NATO"s attack on Yugoslavia (to bring peace and freedom to the Balkans) during Clinton's administration, were in the Neoconservative agenda. The selection of neoconservative Senator Joseph Lieberman as Al Gore's running mate demonstrated that the Neoconservative movement was not burrowing in but was being accepted from within, or at least by the Clinton regime.
By the time George W. Bush arrived to the presidency of the United States, the Neocons were on a roll to power. An intellectually weak Bush and the 9/11 terrorist attack catapulted the militarist Neocons into the highest echelons of government, media and "think tanks." On 9/12/2001, the Neocons had arrived. On 3/19/ 2003, the Neocons proudly observed the "day of deliverance," the culmination of their cleverly arranged scheme for the invasion of Iraq. They didn't realize that the invasion initiated their "swan song." Within one year, they were disgraced.
Again they are back with at least two of the candidates running, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. McCain has brought in Podhoretz as his top advisor and Hillary is getting backing by Rupert Murdoch and John M. Olin Foundation and the banking and oil money of The Scaife Foundations of Pittsburgh. All top supporters of the Neoconservative cause.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:43 amBackup said
I get the importance of free speech. It’s one of my main things. But, I also understand, that if we are going to commit to something as a country (regardless of which parties policy it is) we need to be on the same page.
But what must really happen is not that we the citizens should blindly "be on the same page", we must be convinced by our leadership. That is there job if they expect to use our tax dollars to fight a war. The war must be for the good of the nation, and Iraq in not. Afghanistan is marginal.
As I said in another thread, Bush could have killed or captured OBL and most of his key people before they went into Pakistan if he had wanted to do so. Bush needs his demon to help justify his war.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:15 am"Forever" is a long time to be in Afghanistan, Bush never studies history nor takes advice, he failed to see the example of the Russians. Bush is blinded to reality in Afghanistan and certainly in his debacle of an Occupation of Iraq.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:27 amKilo Says:@@@@%%%%%******(((((__+++++%%%%@@@@@ I AM RIGHT
Can't you ever reply without it turning into a college thesis?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:32 amBush never studies history ...., he failed to see the example of the Russians.
Bush never did... But Bin Laden sure did.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:39 amI am taking bets as to how soon before November 04, 2008 they trot out bin Laden? Just in time to give ol' McSame a nice boost.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:12 amProps to NATO for flipping a great big fat middle finger at Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the asshat members of PNAC.
Hell, even McCain (despite his stumbling, failed attempt to reverse himself) stated the real reason behind this illegal war....OIL.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:13 amHigh Plains. You're right. I think this was a failure on the Bush adminitration. If he really believed in the policy (which I believe he does), it was his job as our leader to answer his critics and promote the effort.
I've posted it before, but Hillary Clinton made a much more coherent defense of going to war with Saddam than Bush has ever done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg&feature=related
Not being able to communicate the message and winning the public relations battle, made the effort more difficult. And more costly.
I'm worried that our next President (whoever it is) may fall into the same trap.
If we're going to be in Afghanistan (and most definitely if we are contemplating opening up Pakistan) we not only need a better formed plan, but a public that is going to see it through. If we can't agree there is a reasonable plan or don't have the will to support it, we should cut or loses early. This is the ideal time to nail it down - when we're about to change leadership. Otherwise, disillusioned people will be claiming 2 years from now, that we were lied to.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:22 ambackup Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we must be convinced by our leadership.
High Plains. You’re right. I think this was a failure on the Bush adminitration.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Which is a complete shock , seeing as how many unadulterated successes he's been responsible for................
May 4th, 2008 at 11:38 amNow, while you can’t criticise any specific troop or funding commitment from Australia as being lacking in that regard, you would like to criticise the general “vibe” of our non-appreciation for US troop deaths in it’s own invasions, as evidenced by our not erecting statues to fallen US dead in wars Australians have lost lives supporting.
I suggested Australia showing solidarity by offering fallen US soldiers' children free college educations, and Kilo thinks this is some sort of monument? He sure loves those strawmen arguments.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:46 amHigh Plains. You say it yourself, Afghanistan is marginal.
Imagine that we are experiencing a paradigm shift, in which progressives transition from being critics of an oppositional past President, to supporters of a future President and his policies.
Barack is saying that he wants more focus on Afghanistan (and maybe wants to address terrorists, he thinks are in Pakistan)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/
We are about to choose our next President. I have heard from people here that our President works for us. Listen to us. But, on the question of Afghanistan, progressives seem to be united in their dismay over Bush policy, but have no interest in examining Obama policy.
Is the hope that when Obama becomes president, he'll just do the right thing? Or, maybe progressivs thin that he's so articulate, he can't really serious about it? He's 'our guy' so we can trust him? (or worse yet, he's our guy, so it doesn't matter).
If progressives are really serious about the President being 'of the people', anti-war progressives should insist he clarify and justify his position on Afghanistan. Before we give him the job.
Otherwise, we're going to role from one divided, disillusioned era, into another.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:48 amYou're the only one trying to be confusing and you are suceeding. We can trust Obama and we don't trust bush. That's it. Why do you trust bush, he has failed miserably in Afganistan. Obama's intentions and ingegrity are so superior to bush that it amazes me that you want to make it an issue.
Please don't compare Obama to bush anymore they are polar opposites.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:56 ambackup Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Plains. You say it yourself, Afghanistan is marginal.
Imagine that we are experiencing a paradigm shift, in which progressives transition from being critics of an oppositional past President, to supporters of a future President and his policies.
Barack is saying that he wants more focus on Afghanistan (and maybe wants to address terrorists, he thinks are in Pakistan)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ 2007/ 08/ 01/ obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/
We are about to choose our next President. I have heard from people here that our President works for us. Listen to us. But, on the question of Afghanistan, progressives seem to be united in their dismay over Bush policy, but have no interest in examining Obama policy.
Is the hope that when Obama becomes president, he’ll just do the right thing? Or, maybe progressivs thin that he’s so articulate, he can’t really serious about it? He’s ‘our guy’ so we can trust him? (or worse yet, he’s our guy, so it doesn’t matter).
If progressives are really serious about the President being ‘of the people’, anti-war progressives should insist he clarify and justify his position on Afghanistan. Before we give him the job.
Otherwise, we’re going to role from one divided, disillusioned era, into another.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Which we don't have to worry about with the "Straight-Jacket Express" ; we know that wrinkled old moron wants to immediately invade Iran and then move on to the rest of the world.
BTW
The condescending tone you're exhibiting that Obama should just be 'trusted' is another in a long list of hypocritical stances you have taken ; are you going to claim the Chimpy administration , as well as your moronic self , have never claimed that they should just be trusted with no questions asked ?
May 4th, 2008 at 11:56 amIf progressives are really serious about the President being ‘of the people’, anti-war progressives should insist he clarify and justify his position on Afghanistan. Before we give him the job.
Otherwise, we’re going to role from one divided, disillusioned era, into another.
That would be three disillusioned eras - or did you forget the non-stop Clinton attacks?
Combine the over-the-top Clinton chasing, with an appointed president, and a war started for bogus reasons, and you get a fractured electorate, incapable of unity for very long, no matter what the cause. Conservatives poisoned that well.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:58 amHe says he's going to expand the war on terror in Afghanistan. And if Pakistani leadership isn't compliant, he's says we'll go into Pakistan on our own.
Progressives have been criticising Bush supporters for being sheep for years.
Now, you're telling me that you not going to question Obama, because you just trust him?
I'll be happy for you when Obama becomes president, but, with that kind of sentiment, have we really learned anything from the past 8 years?
May 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pmThis is exactly what you have been doing with bush for 7 years.....when do you ever lose faith?
We are looking for people to guide us out of the darkness created by your guy and mccain will just continue it so he aint it.
backup you suck at this.....please try harder or go away.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pmbarfly. You're right. The Clinton impeachment was a mistake. Conservatives went over the top.
The desire for retalitation is warranted, but pick a cliche; eye for an eye... ; or two wrongs...
Somebody's got to show some leadership on the destructive partisanship. Maybe it's progressives.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pmbackup we elected bush. He was trusted with forign policy....he failed. The next president will be trusted with forign policy.....what is the problem?
I tire of you ankle biters with no teeth. You have become like Tracy2 and kilo. You can't even break the skin but you keep biting.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pmMCMetal. You're right my stance could be hypocritical.
I may be hypocritical when I say we should question Obama. Progressives may be hypocritical, when they say, we shouldn't.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI’ll be happy for you when Obama becomes president, but, with that kind of sentiment, have we really learned anything from the past 8 years?
I'm sorry but this isn't good enough. If you want progressives to get on the same page, major league mea culpas from the Right are required. You guys rolled us through the mud for eight years, and now, when you're about to lose power, you've suddenly realized how important bipartisanship is?
Let's have some pennance. You can start with the way your team regarded dissent as treason...
May 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pmbackup Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can trust Obama and we don’t trust bush. That’s it. Why do you trust bush, he has failed miserably in Afganistan. Obama’s intentions and ingegrity are so superior to bush that it amazes me that you want to make it an issue.
He says he’s going to expand the war on terror in Afghanistan. And if Pakistani leadership isn’t compliant, he’s says we’ll go into Pakistan on our own.
Progressives have been criticising Bush supporters for being sheep for years.
Now, you’re telling me that you not going to question Obama, because you just trust him?
I’ll be happy for you when Obama becomes president, but, with that kind of sentiment, have we really learned anything from the past 8 years?
May 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Yes
We've learned that the only time someone should be questioned in your eyes , is when it isn't a horseshit GOP politician ; nice of you to claim that "we" haven't "learned" anything in 8 years.
How come you are now quizzical and are adamant to know what each candidate has on their mind , and never thought to question a life-long failure who is a habitual liar and empty-headed fool ?
May 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pmbackup Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCMetal. You’re right my stance could be hypocritical.
I may be hypocritical when I say we should question Obama. Progressives may be hypocritical, when they say, we shouldn’t.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I can live with any perceived hypocrisy on my part , by believing in someone who came out of nowhere and who himself is responsible for putting himself through school to become a US Senator and future president of the US over the born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-stupid-mouth , life-long moronic coward and failure you have chosen to continually apologize/excuse-make for , backup.................
May 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pmAnd we shouldn't have to drag them out of you. You should, from here on in, preface all calls to unity with "I know my party has acted perfidiously in the past, and acted as if democrats weren't real americans, and insisted that we not hold Bush accountable for his acts, but..." You can fill in the rest.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pmbarfly. I see your point. But, if you were in my shoes (I spend my political time here), you would find it funny that others think you've been rolling them through the mud.
It's been a two way street. (I'm not complaining, I'm just making the point). I've pretty much been called every name in the book and recently been told that I should think of myself covered in the 'warm, sticky blood' of all the innocent Iraq dead, every night before I go to bed; because I have supported Bush policy. I try not to respond in kind.
There is a need to end the destructive partisanship. Waiting for the other side to do it, may seem fair, but it's probably not going to happen.
I've got to split (stupid job), but thanks for the discussion.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pmbackup Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barfly. I see your point. But, if you were in my shoes (I spend my political time here), you would find it funny that others think you’ve been rolling them through the mud.
It’s been a two way street. (I’m not complaining, I’m just making the point). I’ve pretty much been called every name in the book and recently been told that I should think of myself covered in the ‘warm, sticky blood’ of all the innocent Iraq dead, every night before I go to bed; because I have supported Bush policy. I try not to respond in kind.
There is a need to end the destructive partisanship. Waiting for the other side to do it, may seem fair, but it’s probably not going to happen.
I’ve got to split (stupid job), but thanks for the discussion.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
You believe a "2-way street" is when you are called out for your blind and stupid support of actual events and the ramifications brought upon by the policies of those whom you have stubbornly and ignorantly followed without question for over 7 years ; and that is the equivalent of being called "anti-American , terrorist supporters/sympathizers , American jihadists" and any other of a number of colorful names by the GOP and those like yourself who follow them without cause or concern or question , simply because we show dissension because we realize bullshit and stupid decisions when we are confronted with them ?
Good call , you mental furball.............
May 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pmbarfly. I thought about you mea culpa comment.
Let me start with this. It was/is bullsh*t for conservatives to question the patriotism of progressives for questioning the war after 9/11.
If I ever personally did that, I'm sorry.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pmbackup Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barfly. I thought about you mea culpa comment.
Let me start with this. It was/is bullsh*t for conservatives to question the patriotism of progressives for questioning the war after 9/11.
If I ever personally did that, I’m sorry.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Fu(k off
I'll get over pukes like yourself referring to me as anti-American , terrorist supporter/sympathizer ; go apologize to the millions of Iraqis and the lives your retarded simian deity has ruined and/or ended with his illegal , idiotic and outright asinine invasion and occupation of their nation , and your blind and stupid never-ending support of that colossally moronic decision ...................I hope they all tell you to take a flying fu(k on the moon.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pmIf backup's still here, it's a meager start. But you have over a decade of animus to overcome, largely caused because republicans and conservatives decided that power was more important than principal, and that they would have a permanent majority. It seems a little opportunistic, coming here and trying to act like now, we have to come together to solve america's problems, when before, conservatives were content with strong-arm politics. You have a large hill to climb, to reach Accomodationville.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pmbarfly. First, I challenge you to go back and find comments I've posted questioning anyones patriotism (backup or CaptainMantastic).
I also think it's a little selective to believe that one camp has been accomadating to the other. Since when?
It was an effort - yes, a very small one. And you have a right to be angry at Bush policy.
But, believe it our not, their are people unhappy with some liberal policy.
Your response is honest and I respect it. But, you may be convincing me that it is easier just to oppose you and your beliefs that are inconsistent with mine.
I'm not blaming liberals, but it seems the road to reconcilliation may have a bridge washed out.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm