At Press Conference, Bush Stays the Course

George W. Bush keeps trying to rally popular support for his war in Iraq. But he has little to offer other than stay-the course-ism. He cannot point to progress in Iraq. Nor can he point to a plan that would seem promising. Thus, he is left only with rhetoric--the same rhetoric.

That was on display during a presidential press conference at the White House on Monday. Here's a selective run-down.

One reporter asked,

More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month, the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?

Bush replied,

No, I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of.

He could not bring himself to say he is disappointed by the government's inability to curb the sectarian violence? That was an odd way to defend his actions in Iraq. Bush did go on to say,

And, therefore, we have a plan to help them--"them," the Iraqis--achieve their objectives. Part of the plan is political; that is the help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community. The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they need to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes a very robust security plan for Baghdad.

A question: when would it be fair to judge the plan's success? The plan has supposedly already been implemented. Yet the death count is rising in Iraq. A sharp-eyed (or sharp-eared) reporter should have asked, "If the death count goes up next month, will that mean the plan is a failure? And how should Americans (and Iraqis) evaluate whether the plan is working?" Or as Donald Rumsfeld might say, what are the operative metrics?

Bush repeatedly said that it would be disastrous for the United States to disengage from Iraq. He claimed,

It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.

Regarding the "reformers"--and Bush noted this included reformers throughout the region--the US invasion of Iraq and the recent (and partially still ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah) has undercut the reformers of the Middle East, or so say many such reformers. These reformers report they are on thinner ice because of US policies. Bush's actions, according to the grunts of Middle East reform, have not emboldened them. As for turning Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists, Bush has already accomplished that. An American journalist who had recently returned from Baghdad told me a few weeks ago that neighborhoods within a mile or so of the Green Zone in Baghdad are totally under the control of insurgents. Whole swaths of Iraq are beyond the authority of the Iraqi government. These areas can be safe havens for all sorts of miscreants. And it's fear-mongering to suggest that if the United States were to withdraw that anti-American jihadists will control the state and be enriched by oil revenues. Last time I checked, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all had an interest in Iraq. These groups are unlikely to turn the nation over to the few jihadist terrorists operating within Iraq.

One exchange did not inspire confidence. A reporter asked,

Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?

Bush responded,

You've covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.

The reporter--who was not asking about tactics--interrupted:

I'm talking about strategy.

Bush then said:

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.

Actually, that's not a strategy. That's a goal. A commander in chief should know the difference. A strategy is how one goes about--in a general way--accomplishing goals. Tactics are how one implements the strategy. After Bush talked about giving military commanders in Iraq the "flexibility" to "change tactics on the ground," this interesting back-and-forth occurred:

Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.

Q: You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.

THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work.

Seems as if Bush was saying that his commanders are in charge of the strategy. But isn't that his job?

Later on came this exchange:

Q: But are you frustrated, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country.

To recap: he is not "disappointed" (see above), but he is occasionally "frustrated." Yet hardly "surprised." Wait a moment. Does that mean he invaded Iraq realizing that the war there would turn into an ugly sectarian conflict that would bog down US troops for over three years? If so, why didn't he say something before the invasion about this? Or, better yet, why didn't he and the Pentagon prepare for such an eventuality? Citizens should hope he was damn surprised by what has happened in Iraq--even though that would not make him any less culpable.

Bush repeatedly acknowledged there is a legitimate debate whether the United States should disengage from Iraq. He noted,

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me.

This statement is--how should we put it?--not as accurate as it could be. Campaigning for congressional Republicans in 2002 Bush said that Senate Democrats were "more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." That certainly is not how one would describe a patriot. More recently, Bush's own Republican Party accused the Democrats of plotting to weaken the country. After a federal judge ruled that Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, the GOP sent out an email headlined, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security." Accusing someone of having a gameplan to "weaken national security" is indeed questioning their patriotism. Has Bush decried this Republican National Committee tactic? Not in public.

The press conference allowed for a brief exploration of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. One journalist inquired,

A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out [such as chaos in Iraq, terrorist running amok, etc.] seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

Bush fired back:

I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Well, as both Charles Duelfer and David Kay--administration-appointed WMD hunters--reported, Saddam did not have any serious capacity to produce WMDs. None. He had no weapons and no serious production capability. So, yes, one would have to "imagine" such a threat. As for Saddam's relations with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (now deceased), there is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with him before the war. As Colin Powell noted in his disastrous UN speech, Zarqawi at the time was operating out of northern Iraq, which was territory not under Baghdad's control. Once more, a healthy dose of imagination is required to follow Bush's argument.

The president continued:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

That led to this point-counterpoint:

Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize....Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Not exactly. Dick Cheney and other hawks in the administration repeatedly said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, citing an unconfirmed, single-source intelligence report that 9/11 ringleader Mohamad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the attack. Yet the FBI and the CIA (and later the 9/11 Commission) had concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate this report and that the meeting likely did not happen. True, Bush officials did not claim that Saddam had "ordered" the attack, but they did suggest that Baghdad had participated in the attack--even when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

So over three years after Bush ordered US troops into Iraq, he is still claiming that Saddam was something of a WMD threat and he is refusing to acknowledge that his administration did attempt to link Saddam to the 9/11 attack--all while professing he has a strategy (or is it a set of tactics?) to win in Iraq. This is not the sort of stuff that will hearten a nation. Bush remains lost in Iraq, with the rest of the country (and the world) held hostage by the mistakes and miscalculations he will not concede.

Comments (669)

1. I watched the press conference and thought he did well.

   Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2006 @ 3:43pm

2. The Iraq War is a failure...I think maybe even Bush knows it now.

   But the political element remains the same-

   1. Pull-out calls by the Dems can be spun as "cut & running".

   2. The recent attempt to oust a "pro-war Dem" (Lieberman) is failing as Lamont the "anti-war Dem" still trails by double-digits.

   3. Republicans can't seem to oppose the war, unless they're Hagel making his 2008 bid, but they can't fully support it without getting dragged into Bush and the War's bad poll numbers.

   So...Bush's ego or blind faith won't let him call for a pull-out....The Administration says "stay the course"...the Republicans remain silently supportive...the Democrats remain silently opposed...the anti-war movement has dried up or shown its electoral unimportance (until Lamont pulls ahead)...

   so....the war rages on.

   Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 3:57pm

3. The condensed Conservative manifesto: Success = failure; Failure = success

   Posted by LiberalPride at 08/21/2006 @ 4:10pm

4. Speaking of predictions and off-topic slightly, I really should refine one about David Corn blog posts...

   It's always ZERO with "three in a row" of his hits...and then we'll get a few hours of the rest of us....then (out on a limb here), I'm betting around midnight we see RESE and PLUNGER pop up. (probably with something NOT EVEN CLOSE to the topic...like how Chandra Levy was killed by Dick Cheney or how Meyer Lansky and the Mob founded Israel).

   Just a guess, but it always seems like Mr Corn's articles attract 'em.

   Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 4:36pm

5. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/21/2006 @ 3:43pm: I watched the press conference and thought he did well.

   Gee, Mr. Maasch. I am frustrated, but not surprised.

   You would think he did well if he barfed on the press corps, gave them the finger, and groped Martha Raddatz on the way out.

   Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 4:54pm

6. Orwell,

   Maasch actually thinks he is in touch with the electorate, whereas in fact, he's even less in touch with the electorate than the President himself (and that is saying an awful lot).

   Posted by freedomplease at 08/21/2006 @ 4:58pm

7. Posted by ZERO 08/21/2006 @ 4:18pm: Bush's approval number keeps climbing, even as the disaster gets worse.

   Bush's approval ratings are not climbing. Although slightly higher than they were in the depths of May, they have been relatively stable for the past 2 months (pollingreport.com [pollingreport.com]). Why do you think they are rising?

   Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 4:58pm

8. We know W is a liar, so we know the whole "we never said that" is a lie about their lying. And we know He is out of touch with reality, so it is nice to see him get a glimpes of the real world, even if he fades in and out. "Rarely suprised". Hmm. I kind of think the whole insurgency thing was a suprise to him. I guess He also saw the useless government coming, and the failure to rebuild major infrastructure was forseen, as well as the rampant corruption. Finally, the Chimp in Chief does not know the difference between tactics and strategery. Just like his knowledge of the deffering sects of Islam. I am rarely suprised.

   ORWELL, grope Radditz? eww. I would think he would ask Soledad to be brought around to the back gate. He would like to shoot Radditz, maybe.

   FRANK. Most people don't know about Neils escapades, so chimpy wins on PR alone. Pretty good when going up against a brother that accepted Chinese guvt whores.

   Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2006 @ 4:59pm

9. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/21/2006 @ 4:57pm

   Fast and furious around here, can't keep up. That was funny!!

   Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2006 @ 5:00pm

10. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/21/2006 @ 4:58pm

    The only thing Maasch is in touch with is himself (in a purely unisexual kinda way).

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:01pm

11. Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2006 @ 4:59pm: ORWELL, grope Radditz? eww.

    Have you seen the Chancellor of Germany? Clearly the man is not too discriminating.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:06pm

12. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/21/2006 @ 4:56pm |

    Maybe Bush is trying to "take a page" from Democrats, and "Vietnam Revisionism".

    The "new history" of the Vietnam War is...that Johnson had "little to do with it", it was all "Nixon, Cambodia, secret plans".

    Maybe Bush/Rove/Cheney hope the Hillary becomes Prez....Iraq goes REALLY lousy, she's forced to do the pull-out, and they get to make it "Hillary's War", as the Democrats have revised Vietnam into "Nixon's War", not Johnson's?

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 5:08pm

13. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/21/2006 @ 5:06pm

    There was that guy from CT too. you're right, I give him too much credit.

    BTW, I love your intros when dealing with Luvvy and RIO!! That is straight talk, from the hip.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2006 @ 5:15pm

14. What ever happpened to 'when in doubt, pull out'?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/21/2006 @ 5:12pm

    Was that part of Nancy's "Just Say No" program? When you can't say no...

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2006 @ 5:16pm

15. But righties are happier, just ask them. They will tell you "WE ARE HAPPIER THAN YOU!" Recent studies have proven it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2006 @ 5:23pm

16. A friends son just got sent back to Quagmirepotamia for his 5th tour. I fear his luck may soon run low. I do hope there is a change in tactics, or strategery, or something soon. Maybe if we quit making fun of Dickie (Sht, duck again!) and crew Al-Qaida will give up.

    I am reading Jill Carrolls mini-series. I missed the wingnuts calling her "Hanoi Jill" when it happened. Saying she staged the whole thing. Sick fcks! The insurgent scum kept her in a house within eyesight of a US barracks for a while. Know thine enemy, they know us better than chimpy knows them, that is for sure.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2006 @ 5:28pm

17. Walking around with blinders on does make some people happy. I used to work at a mental hospital and some of the most delusional people were the happiest. This could account for the happiness of some on this site........Rio, LL, Maasch.

    Orwell,

    Maasch actually thinks he is in touch with the electorate, whereas in fact, he's even less in touch with the electorate than the President himself (and that is saying an awful lot).

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/21/2006 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person

    The electorate that Maasch is in touch with reside in Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas......which makes sense if you read his narrow minded posts which lack any form of abstract thought. The only thing Maasch is really in touch with is his penis during long masturbation sessions.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/21/2006 @ 5:34pm

18. Liberty,

    You are right (along with Bush) to say that Iran is fanning the flames in the region by attempting to instigate and provoke violence.........and supplying money and weapons to anyone willing to fight our interests. Can you blame them........how would you feel if China invaded Canada and set up permanent military bases there.......and then started to put the pinch on the United States. While this is a poor analogy, I think you get the point.......why is it surprising that there are factions fighting against our control of the region. We are attempting to take over/control vast areas of the middle east, and our presence there makes many in the region nervous. What's to stop us from moving into their country next? Terrorism didnt take us to Iraq.........GWB and the neocons did..........and they did it for economic interests, not for democracy. Stop reading the bible and praying so much and you might gain a better understanding of the region yourself. That way when you critisize the lefties on this site, you wont be such easy prey for their attacks. You sound like a long winded, cut and paste idiot much of the time and I'm starting to get concerned about your image as a blogger at The Nation. I'll start thinking about a way we might be able to spin this to make you look less idiotic.......I'll get back to you soon.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/21/2006 @ 5:45pm

19. I notice some odd trends at Polling Report - CNN's polls show a steady climb, as do others, likewise, CBS shows flat polls down there in the "we hate him" area, as do others. It seems the pollsters ar divided. CNN's latest poll shows Bush 6% more popular than does CBS' latest poll.

    Posted by ZERO 08/21/2006 @ 5:40pm

    Hell, Zero, who cares how popular he is? We'll be stuck with him until 20 January 2009 -- or until Armageddon, whichever comes first -- and there isn't a goddamn thing any popularity poll is going to do to change that. Bush knows this, of course, which is why he's quite happy giving blatantly bullshit answers to deadly serious questions at press conferences.

    I'm currently working for a national newspaper here in Amsterdam. We saw the transcript of the press conference come in this afternoon, but decided we had more interesting things to fill our columns with than the usual White House five o'clock follies on Iraq.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:51pm

20. Posted by ZERO 08/21/2006 @ 5:40pm

    CNN has him at 42% (not 47%) which is up 2 points from the prior poll. But:

    CBS: No change

    Pew: +1

    Gallop: -3

    Fox: No change

    AP: -3

    ABC: +2

    It's hard to extrapolate any kind of trend upwards from these number. Overall, if you look at aggregate poll numbers over the last two months, they have been pretty stable.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:55pm

21. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 5:31pm

    You might be eating too much DU again, thanks BTW, er, but only cited one group in Iran on U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations and it's nowhere near the top:

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

    Iran didn't even make the top ten list on this one:

    http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:aC_A8rvMpaAJ: www.securitymanagement.com/library/iJET_Travel0204.pdf +list+nations+with+most+terrorist&hl=en& gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

    Can you even pronounce propaganda?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 6:17pm

22. bush is intellectually incapable of handling a press conference on his own, unless the subject matter is food. the number of different reasons the administration has given for the invasion and occupation of iraq grew to 23 last year, and has dwindled back down to 13 (10 different reasons have been rebuked by various members of the administration in the last year).

    as it turns out, saddam is probably the best possible scenario in iraq. in retrospect, it is obvious that he was acting as a secular bulwark.

    anyone else think we should put him back in power? under the condition that he behaves better?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 6:20pm

23. Or,

    "You would think he did well if he barfed on the press corps, gave them the finger, and groped Martha Raddatz on the way out.'

    No, I would think he just barfed, flipped them off and tried to be Bill Clinton, in the hopes of gettting a break from the rest of the loons and twits...he should know better.

    JPolston,

    Your wit and intellect , as your way with words is breath taking. You mommy must be so proud you have turned out so well. Peace.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2006 @ 6:26pm

24. as president, shouldn't one be able to critically defend one's policies?

    doesn't it bother conservatives that bush can't do so?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 6:31pm

25. i mean, look, he just said on live television that iraq had "nothing" to do with 9.11.

    and then said, "nobody has suggested" that iraq had anything to do with 9.11.

    note that he said "suggested". suggest = imply. bush has implied over and over again since 9.11 that iraq did indeed have a connection to 9.11.

    bush is simply put: PATHETIC

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 6:33pm

26. how would one characterize the violence in iraq as "islamic terrorism", as rio has? what does this statement mean?

    after all, there are multiple strands of islam; and terrorism is simply a military tactic.

    so what does "islamic terrorism" mean in the larger so-called "war on terror"? and how does supervising, and even contributing to, this so-called "islamic terrorism" help us in the so-called "war on terror"?

    i should also note that some "terrorists" (never mind their political or religious affiliation, according to many conservative pundits) aren't even "islamic". some pundits have even suggested that this is a war against "fascism", yet there isn't a single fascist government in the middle east.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 6:47pm

27. is anyone else getting the idea in their heads that many pro-war, conservative intellectuals have no idea what they're talking about AND have no experience in middle eastern political history and geography?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 6:49pm

28. (providing the left extremists "collaborators" are unsucessful in ending current evolving surveillance efforts)

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/21/2006 @ 6:23pm

    Oh far barrier, (RioBravo pronounced backwards), that wasn't why hsuB allowed 9/11 to happen-- apart from his record breaking vacation taking, it was ultimately his incompetence. You can buy the worst carpenter the best tools in the world and he'll still end up building you a crappy house. Just admit it-- it's not the tools-- it's the incompetent fool hsuB and his incompetent admin.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 6:56pm

29. not only is bush incompetent, he doesn't really care, as evidence by his refusal to work hard.

    he also has no.......uh......intellectual fucking curiousity....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 7:00pm

30. If one were to get any kind of work out of hsuB, even easy work-- to him it's hard work, hard, really really hard work:

    http://www.simsadler.net/HWG2.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 7:08pm

31. Ye'fart'p, 'fart' he wo'fark'rks real h'fart'ard:

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/ whispers/articles/060820/28whisplead.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 7:20pm

32. Maasch -

    Not sure you could have been watching the same press conference. I only read the transcript, but apart from the substance of what he said, I was embarrased that Bush's tone was that of someone doing stand-up given the serious issues on the agenda. Agree or disagree on the issues, I think the president should exhibit a certain modicum of seriousness when giving a press conference concerning events that have cost so many their lives. He should not be cracking jokes and acting like he is trying to be witty with freshman girls at a frat party. I am not sure if one of his handlers has advised him to "lighten up" at these things, but if I had someone close to me that had either died, had been injured or was in harm's way over there, I'd be pretty offended. Not to mention how his attitude comes off to people in Iraq and other parts of the region.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 7:21pm

33. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 5:31pm

    Liberty -

    How do you dare continue to show your lying face here after so clearly "cutting and running" (coward) from our last exchange? Seems you and the prep-school cowboy with the big arsenal and the small balls are still trying to sow fear and dischord at every opportunity amongst the almost 70% of the country who think you and yours are full of shit, including myself and the other sane people who routinely call out your bullshit for what it is, without a lot of success stories to back it up.

    This will be the fourth (fifth?) board I have seen you post on since you "cut and run" from our last exchange, you lying fake of a minister of God, not to mention "you wuss-ass coward".

    I will be more than happy to refresh your (self-admitted-Alzheimer's) memory if you try to claim you don't know what conversation you cut out on, including the potential excuses I predicted you would offer (I was out helping the needy, I forgot, too many boards to keep track of, I don't live on these boards, etc., etc., ad nausaum), if you'd like to play dumb.

    For starters, explain to this entire board how anyone can ever take you seriously again if you claim to have heard actual voices from God or Jesus the Christ since you have lived on this earth. I've always wondered, is He a baritone or a tenor?

    If you say you haven't had two-way communication with your deity, then you blew smoke up the whole board's ass the last time we chatted, and you can't be trusted by anyone here, because you lie. And I'll find your post to prove it.

    If you say you have, you blew smoke up the whole board's ass the last time we chatted, and you can't be trusted by anyone here, because you are delusional and hear voices.

    There's more, much more, and I'll be happy to dredge it up, but let's start there - put up or shut up. Or, by all means, chicken out again and pleasepleaseplease put me on your iggy list.

    And by the by, if you read Zero's posts of the last year, you'd know damned well that he absolutely has "the slightest understanding of the middle east", and more. You just don't agree with his conclusions. Hell, I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'd rather debate him with reasoned argument than offer the tripe you spew and call debate.

    Before your beloved Leader came to power, and before elected Republican officials indoctrinated the party in the doublespeak of demonizing all things Democratic and liberal; and before Rove, Murdoch, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter et al, not-so-subtly manipulated the American populace into us's and them's in every possible way - Red/Blue, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, patriot/terrorist - we, the people would talk about things amongst ourselves and come to impasses, then compromises (between parties, dimwit, not good and evil, or America and terrorists - shove your cries of "appeaser" up your ass), then solutions best for the good of all involved (and screw your cries of communists and Chavez while we're at it) and call it "political discourse".

    I have no clue what your kind would call it now.

    "Blind Bush-hate?"

    "Partisanship?"

    "Traitorous activities that undermine the President's leadership, embolden terrorists, and undermine the United States of America (unAmerican scum, should be tortured, hah, grumble, grumble, go fuck yourself...)"?

    "A signal post of the lost and doomed - pity their poor, tarnished souls"?

    I hate you, Liberty.

    And, by the way... You should be ashamed to even adopt that moniker.

    Liberty is defined as:

    the "quality or state of being free", the "power to do as one pleases", "freedom from physical restraint", "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control", "the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges", and "the power of choice".

    You, you hateful, judgmental old man, are the antithesis of the above in all things. You and Dick Cheney, blaspheming all you supposedly hold dear, should fall in gay love and marry in Massachusetts and never, ever reproduce any American boys and girls to ship off to die for dubious causes.

    I am done with you, Liberty. Pfah. A pox on your eternal soul.

    (Big ups to Merriam-Webster Online for the preferred definitions of "Liberty", and yes, all of those definitions fell under #1)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/21/2006 @ 7:24pm

34. "George W. Bush keeps trying to rally popular support for his war in Iraq."

    freiheit--- a number of journalists with sources very close to the administration have repeatedly suggested that this is, in fact, bush's war.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 7:28pm

35. HMAN,

    I've seen clips on the news. I think John is responding to the fact that between the unfinished sentences and awkward pauses are bursts of energetic English, tied together with a reasonable mastery of basic grammatical rules, delivered with a not too subtle grin--as if we are watching a spelling bee and the word "cat" is offered to the 3rd grader. It takes precious little to soothe any rising doubt in the mind of Bushophiles.

    As I type, I listen to a well-spoken man on The News Hour ascribing no blame on our part to the current mess in the Middle East. This is an example of the "common sense" that appeases such as Maasch, that ol' "those people have not ever grasped contemporary ideas of civilization, so you can't blame us for their problems" clears us of anything we might do. Gone. Done. No responsibility.

    He continues, presenting "our" arguments as a blame of the US and Israel exclusively. Uh-huh. Exactly what are we supposed to be responsible to but our own actions and to the people and countries impacted by them? How does recognizing indigenous problems absolve us of responsiblity?

    This form of thinking allows us to blame the poor people of New Orleans for poor disaster planning, to blame those who have been forced into low-wage jobs as our economy changes in so many disastrous ways for labor, to blame victims of crimes for choosing to live in dangerous neighborhoods. And they get to wash their hands.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 7:32pm

36. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:29pm

    Freiheit, I don't even think he was half-serious in his little dog and pony show. Were he, he would have at least put a little thought into his distortions of reality to bend them around a consistent misreading of the situation instead of a thousand unbelievable bits of nonsense.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 7:35pm

37. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:29pm

    I bet I know who's making more profit than anyone you just cited.

    Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/ Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 7:39pm

38. anyone else think we should put him back in power? under the condition that he behaves better?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/21/2006 @ 6:20pm

    No fucking way! Are you nuts??? Saddam is a war criminal and human rights abuser. You want the US to put him back in power??

    Please tell me it was a joke.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 7:46pm

39. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:40pm

    Er, there's a big 'IF' there and hsuB, the 'decider', decided to remove the inspectors, non sequitur (icksnay on the WMD'snay)-- thus it's hsuB's war, our unfortunate occupation.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 7:48pm

40. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:48pm

    No, you're the idiot.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 7:50pm

41. Rio:

    You made a comment earlier on Iranian support of terror organizations. I wouldn't worry too much. In fact I'm not worried at all. The Bush administration is on top of this and the strategy to minimize the threat is capsulized as follows:

    "Secondly, the tactics of our--as you know, we don't have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's--ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions--you can't--we're out of sanctions."--Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

    Brilliant foreign policy...just brilliant.

    Posted by doumer at 08/21/2006 @ 7:51pm

42. I heard part of Bush's press conference on NPR. As usual, he seemed dazed and confused. Perhaps he was in Cheney's office beforehand and got a contact high.

    All joking aside, it amazes me that 51% of americans view him as a strong leader. He seemed as lost as a 3rd grader in a university-level quantum mechanics class.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 7:55pm

43. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:54pm

    The one you're wearing already? But you don't know how to share...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 7:56pm

44. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/21/2006 @ 7:55pm

    No, no. Remember: he just has a problem with language. He's very smart in most areas; in the one, he is specially abled.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:04pm

45. liberty,

    the US has been spreading more money, more arms,in the middle east than anyone else in the world.they also have created more terrorists with their anti muslim policies than anyone e;se in the world

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:06pm

46. TJB posted Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/21/2006 @ 8:04pm

    I hope that was tongue in cheek...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 8:06pm

47. Polston, must you be so rude? and jejeune?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:07pm

48. The one you're wearing already? But you don't know how to share...

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/21/2006 @ 7:56pm

    Or...

    ...well there has to be something useful one can do with The Weekly Standard.

    Or...

    ...better a paper hat than your rubber undies.

    Or...

    ...Oh, what are you one of those trying to eliminate funding for the arts? Look, my creativity, my freedom of expression is what those boys and gals are fighting for in Iraq. So make fun of my paper hats all you want, big man, but I'm a blessed member of the American citizenry and nothing you can fling at me will diminish that proudest of memberships.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:08pm

49. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/21/2006 @ 8:06pm

    Quite so.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:08pm

50. Rio, Are new Demoncrat voter prospects that important, because that is what has driven the virtual open door immigration from the 1990's until today!

    you're blaming dems for the increase in immigration? not the repub bosses who like the cheap labor? (or dem bosses for that matter)

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:11pm

51. Looks like even the repubs are starting to break the chains that bind:

    CBS News Poll. Aug. 11-13, 2006. N=974 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

    ____________Approve______Disapprove_____Unsure

    ALL adults______30____________66____________4

    Republicans_____57____________37____________6

    Democrats______10____________87____________3

    Independents____28____________68____________4

    Trend:

    7/21-25/06______32____________62____________6

    6/10-11/06______33____________61____________6

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 8:12pm

52. Freiheit, I suppose you're right, it's Cheny's war, Bush is merely the mouthpiece and an ineloquent one to be sure.

    so what's yer point? should we call it Al Gore or John Kerry's war instead?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:16pm

53. And so it goes.

    Posted by MCHureaux at 08/21/2006 @ 8:18pm

54. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

    Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

    It is not Bush's war, Darladoon, it is the United States' war and we are not in it alone. Imagine if the effort succeeds! Won't be Bush's war then in your mind, will it?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:40pm | ignore this person

    Nice quote Freiheit. That may work on your average village idiot, not here..not in 55-60% of the american populace.

    The UN proved it, Ritter and Company proved it. Hussein himself produced a two thousand page document itemizing what he had for armaments.The veracity of that document has never been opposed. It still, stands. In short, it said "we have no wmd's"

    Bush went out of his way time and time again to hammer home his own agenda. The intelligence estimates presented to congress before the vote were outright distortions. They were lies and he should be impeached for this alone.

    This is bush's war and he alone will live with it's shame and infamy.

    Posted by doumer at 08/21/2006 @ 8:23pm

55. Frei, half your posts are attacks on others, please dispense with those. to respond to your points: it is well known that Bush and Co. were planning an Iraq war from before he took office. by the time the war started Bush AND his party had the presidency AND control of congress. they also had the important Bully pulpit, which they used to spread fear of a nuclear attack from a country that had neither a functioning nuclear program, nor any means of delivering a bomb against the US.that was just one lie they used. to say that this is the United States war is true but meaningless and worse. three years of war, and a populace that is against its continuation makes this definitely Bush's war, and that is how it will go down in history, despite all your and others' obfuscation

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:29pm

56. Frei, are you claiming that the security of the US was and is at stake in Iraq?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:30pm

57. oh and don't take refuge in sarcasm and irony, as is your wont, Freiheit. a shoddy rhetorical trick

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:32pm

58. Frei: Imagine if the effort succeeds!

    hahahahahah. has it shown any signs of doing so lately?

    you should sing that song "imagine if the effort succeeds" here at Strawberry Fields with the Lennonists. along with:"imagine no possessions..." hahahahaha

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 8:34pm

59. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:29pm

    First, I was referring solely to Bush's demeanor, which is why I said "apart from the substance of what he said." So, if the comments of the people on your list were made in a similar jocular manner, I am similarly embarassed. But, I don't recall Murtha, Kerry or Reid cracking jokes while expressing their point of view.

    Second, Bush is the president. Not a film director or peace protestor. I could care less if he wants to act cute with reporters while discussing taxes, but when he is addressing situations involving military conflict, I expect some professionalism - sorry, if those standards are too high for the job. If he wanted to crack jokes while addressing rough topics he should have been a plumber.

    Third, you seem to be heading down the "calling for withdrawal will embolden the terrorists" line, so maybe you can answer me a few related questions that nobdoy on your side of the aisle has done yet:

    Did pulling our troops and bases out of Suadi Arabia in 2003 embolden the terrorists given that our bases there was one of the principle reasons Osama bin Laden gave for carrying out attacks against the U.S.? Because it seems to me that doing something al Qaeda wants you to do AFTER they attack you is more emboldening than Murtha or Kerry's view.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:35pm

60. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:07pm

    Had to step out, but yes I already know about the pilfering of our tax dollars and the lousy food Halliburton provides...and your point was that profiteering is a a great thing to do per the old repub 'new con' way-- to suck the US dry. Right got it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 8:42pm

61. MSNBC talking about Bush's rise in (some) polls. And noting that a big push in that are his marks on terrorism.

    Think Chertoff's elbowing in on a British intelligence success hasn't helped the hapless? 55% approve of his handling of terrorism based on what sudden shift...beyond a separate incident helped not a bit by our fight on whomever the hell we are fighting in Iraq? A few more foiled plots by other countries and Bush will be on top of the world again.

    Bring it on!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:45pm

62. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:28pm

    No prob man. Take out the impeachment piece and what are we left with? Still more of the same. From day one, lies, fluff, distortion, spin, rhetoric, epitaphs, slogans...... and topped off with more lies. Nothing changes with these people. The most unfortunate part of all, is that people like you LL, Maasch, Rio etc so easily and eagerly swallow the jism. I just don't get it.

    Take a good long look at bush. Dear Leader of the most potent military and economy this world has known. Idi Amin at least had better mental skills.

    This is bush's (and your) war. Noboby else.

    Posted by doumer at 08/21/2006 @ 8:48pm

63. ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2006. has it at 47 approval and 50 disapproval-- coming down from 6/22-25/06--51 approval and 47 disapproval. Down further from 5/11-15/06, 53 approval-- 43 disapproval...

    The CBS News Poll seems to be kinda in between the ABC and the Newsweek Poll numbers. So I wouldn't they're going up. Another month of GOP lying may cause a little more movement.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 8:56pm

64. Posted by ZERO 08/21/2006 @ 6:14pm: We are apparently in agreement.

    Sorry. I guess I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that the general trend was upward, based on the CNN poll.

    My bad.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:59pm

65. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/21/2006 @ 6:23pm

    Pity the Scared Little Boy.

    Still scared.

    Still soiling his pants on a regular basis.

    You should wear the dark stains of shit emanating from your underwear as a badge of pride, Scared Little Boy. For you are a true patriot.

    Praise the Lord!

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:03pm

66. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/21/2006 @ 8:56pm

    Those are hsuB's poll numbers for his job on the 'war' on terror ism. I'm sure he'll trying to scare us. I don't know it may work if he gets much dumber...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 9:04pm

67. I'm afraid Frei is right about the possession of the war. The problem isn't whose it is--it is ours unfortunately. The problem is that those running it in our name haven't the slightest clue what to do.

    Frei asked JR what he wanted out of Iraq. I'm guessing JR wants what any normal human wants, for the Iraqis to experience peace, prosperity, personal freedoms, etc. But this isn't the issue. What JR wants or Frei wants or I want means nothing because those making the decisions refuse to address the very real obstacles to the goal, choosing instead to offer cheap thoughtless excuses and defenses for guiding principles or coherent strategies.

    Ask them, Frei. It's our war, but it's their move.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:05pm

68. Freiheit it is you naivete that provokes mirth. again true to form, very little answer to another's points, or challenges to your points.same old same old.

    unlike you I have been voluminous in reporting my stance on Iraq. first is acknowledgement of the error. two withdraw the occupation. ask for and work for a cease fire.this should be possible in connection with withdrawal.this Iraq problem cannot be solved by military means. that leaves diplomacy. pardon Saddam in return for his representing the Baath in the negotiations. (this is optional) get the powers of the region involved in negotiations. the Saudis, Iran etc have far more than the US at stake. by the way, you constantly accuse the dems of politicizing the war. that is shameful given that the entire rationale for the war was political, to show Bush as the war pres and get him elected the second time around.this is going to be a difficult negotiation, but rememember Israel made peace with its most powerful adversary Egypt, after numerous wars, which solved NOTHING. so here mon cher ami, here are some real ideas, as opposed to what? c'mon out of your sarcastic shell and discuss.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 9:15pm

69. c'mon Orwell, let's raise the tone of this a bit higher than a high school boy's room. you can help.I'm far more interested in your posts of substance, of which there have been many.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 9:17pm

70. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:40pm: The Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

    But Frei, as your post shows, Dear Leader was only authorized to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weaponse of mass destruction.

    But he did give up his WMD.

    So Dear Leader was not authorized.

    He just did it anyway.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:26pm

71. Ain't buyin in Freiheit. Not my war at all. All yours pal...for your children and grandchildren to look at you sideways, in perpetuity, wondering what in hell you were ever thinking about. This legacy is going down pretty much the same way as VietNam, except that this is all about oil...big money...continuity of the american way of life...SUV's and hemi's ...keeping people in the extra-extra large stretch pants...the mickey dee appetites and gonzo size theater seats.

    Hey, here's the perfect solution. Your mantra (since the WMD thing didn't work so well)is the glorious spead of democracy...is it not? I say, let's do the right thing and show the populace of Iraq what democracy and freedom is all about. Hell ya. I say, get the ships and planes over there and ship every one of those 26 million Iraqis over here..to live and thrive...under democracy...in a neiborhood near you. Hell, why not right across the street from you..ever thought of leasing out that spare room? here's your chance. It's the patriotic thing to do. Hell, if we can't show them a LITTLE BIT OF THE ELUSIVE DEMOCRACY OVER THERE, LETS DO IT HERE.

    Ya think?

    Posted by doumer at 08/21/2006 @ 9:27pm

72. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:54pm: what is going to be the sole focus of your life once you aren't consumed by your self destructive hatred for Bush?

    Celebrating!

    But Frei, what is going to be the sole focus of your life once you aren't consumed by your self destructive hatred for America?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:29pm

73. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:29pm: Because americans only enjoy monday morning quarterbacking when the security of the nation isn't at stake.

    Are you claiming that the security of the nation is at stake in Iraq? How so, Frei?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:32pm

74. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:59pm: Sorry DOUMER, no sale. It is our war.

    Great. If it is our war, we want to end it. What's the next step? Is there some sort of paper we need to sign?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:36pm

75. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:59pm: if what you say is indeed true and can be proved in a court of law I will sit shoulder to shoulder with you as Bush and Co are impeached and imprisoned.

    Frei, how would it get to a court of law? The President can not be charged while in office. He can only be impeached, removed from office, and then charged, convicted, and imprisoned.

    Given that you want to see the charges argued in a court of law, are you now favoring impeachment?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:38pm

76. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/21/2006 @ 9:17pm: c'mon Orwell, let's raise the tone of this a bit higher than a high school boy's room

    There can't be substance when arguing with those that inhabit a alternate reality.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:41pm

77. I think perhaps Freheit does like the idea of sharing democacy with those not so inclined to accept its violent underpinnings? American style..of course.

    Posted by doumer at 08/21/2006 @ 9:46pm

78. Posted by ZERO 08/21/2006 @ 9:43pm: I think you give them too much credit when you refer, generously, to their idiocy as an "alternate reality".

    Again, my bad.

    I'll go with TJ's description of Scared Little Boy (tm)'s reality as "viagra-induced hallucinations".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:55pm

79. FrankG...you out there buddy. This one's for you!

    picture this if you will: "Dirty Dick" Cheney - a scowling pirate, a rogue - blasting the face of anyone who gives him a cross-wise glance with his flintlock scatter gun. On his shoulder, a tattered parrot with a chimp-like smirk called GW sits preening his feathers and crapping down Dick's back. His first mate "Rummy" stands close at hand...and somewhere on deck skulks flinty-eyed Chertoff.

    DD: Arrrrgh. What say ye Rummy? Shall we stay the course with these here Muslim swine or cut'em loose to the winds?"

    Rummy: Well Cap'n sir...the Muslim hordes aren't near glad to see ye as we'd hoped. Positively ungrateful lot. Black gold still ain't turnin up, your armies have raped all the virgins...and the camels too for that matter.

    GW: Awwwk! Stay the course. Stay the course. Awwwwk! Wheeeee-hew.

    DD: Shut up ya blasted bird....! Haven't been able able to keep a lid on the damned thing since 9/11.

    GW: Awwwk! Stay the course. 9/11. Awwwwk!

    DD: SHUT UP DAMN YE!

    Rummy: Maybe we should drag a few spies up fer ya sir. A bit of torture always makes ya feel better.

    DD: There be truth in that ya know. And all perfectly legal mind ye! Rules of war dontcha know. Executuve privileges and all that.

    GW: Awwwk! Perfectly legal. Rules of war. Executive privilege, Awwwwk! Wheeeee-hew.

    DD: Bloody hell...where's my pistol?

    Rummy: Chertoff..the Cap'n wants some spies to question. Be a good fellow and bring us up a few...

    Chertoff skulks over, gleefully rubbing his hands together...

    Chertoff: Yes master. Cherty gets the Cap' good spies...yes he does. Chertie's the Capn's favorite he is.....

    The painfully leand and wild-eyed Chertoff scampers down the hatch like some pale shaved monkey.....his pointed teeth gnashing at nothing

    DD: Now Rummy, when we puts into port we can't let on with the peasants about the war ye know. Bad fer the morale and all. Besides, and long as we keeps'em scared, they'll mind us well enough....

    GW Awwwk! Stay the course. 9/11! Stay the course. Awwwwk! Wheeeee-hew.

    DD: Now the damed bird wises up....guess I won't shoot him today!

    Chertoff scampers up out of the hatchway, dragging three chains. On their ends are three young shackled mideastern men, blinking in the unaccustomed light of the sun

    Rummy: Now bring'em here Chertie....don't keep the Cap'n waiting!

    DD: turns to the first man You there.....spy! What do you know about these terrorist plots?

    Man 1: Nothing sir...I work at a 7/11....I am innocent

    DD: 7/11 huh? Sounds a lot like 9/11 to me. Damned terrorist spy! pulls his scatter gun out and BAM! blows his face off Damned if don't feel better already! Chertie....good lad. You can play with the others now...

    GW Awwwk! 9/11. Stay the course. Terrorist spy. Awwwwk!

    Chertie promptly leaps up and rips the second mans thorat out with his teeth. The third man soils himself and passes out.

    Chertoff: Chertie likes spies he does. So sweet and tender....Chertie thanks the Cap'n, yes he does.

    DD: Fucking cannibal...Rummy, remind me to kill him later.

    Rummy: Very good sir. Remember, Osama is down in your cabin Captain. Brought ye another cabin boy. Fine strappin lad...ought to last ye at least a week or so.

    GW Awwwk! Stay the course. Osama. 9/11 Awwwwk! Wheeeee-hew.

    DD: Scowls a smile or sorts Arrrrgh! Well blow me down....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/21/2006 @ 9:56pm

80. being a woman, i can say, with a relatively high level of certainty, that bush's body language, for lack of a better description, spoke with far more clarity than his words. i mean, there's actually nothing in his words. they are a mere distraction. journalists, who live in reality, have discovered that bush can't respond to intelligent questions. they get upset, and he immediately retorts with that grin only a man, who has lied to a woman, could sport.

    i have met men like george, they are either liars and/or they lack imagination.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:00pm

81. i'm pretty much with zero on this one.....these guys, in their collective body, are so incredibly destructive. it's somewhat like the fraternities that plagued my campus in grad school. you know, the occasional ghb-fueled orgy, the homo-lynching, the militaristic bar-b-que...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:03pm

82. hey, i got it. i might be onto something here.

    bush was an alcoholic, right? he "rehabilitated" by finding jesus, right? i wouldn't imagine his reading of christianity to be overtly pluralistic; he probably possesses a non-critical understanding of the bible, even of reality. he's a linear, guy, right? one simple explanation for everything. sancho panza, from quijote, a simpleton.

    his personality, his folksiness, would suggest that life's problems require simple solutions. when in reality, they don't. iraq is not just one of "life's problems." it is probably one of the most difficult problems that anyone has ever faced in the history of mankind. alexander the great couldn't even solve it. and he was soooooo cute, and muscular, and gay. so if he couldn't do it, WE KNOW bush couldn't do it.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:13pm

83. "Note to readers: how would you feel if the US was invaded by a foreign power, after an election, that kidnapped and imprisoned abroad the portions of your elected officeholders that the foreign power did not like to see getting elected, a foreign power which continued to preach to you about how you need "democracy?"

    i can answer that one! i would f*ck sh*t up!

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:16pm

84. zero, i would question those statistics.

    their relevance to this discussion is marginal, anyway.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:18pm

85. i can answer that one! i would f*ck sh*t up!

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/21/2006 @ 10:16pm

    evangelic conservatives however would immediately coddle up to the invader

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:19pm

86. because that's what you are supposed to do when you are invaded

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:20pm

87. right luvvy, maasch, rio...

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:21pm

88. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

    Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

    It is not Bush's war, Darladoon, it is the United States' war and we are not in it alone. Imagine if the effort succeeds! Won't be Bush's war then in your mind, will it?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 7:40pm

    Only in the mind of Bush can 156 opposing votes out of 435 congressmen be considered "one voice".

    And rightwingers think highly of this idiot. Go figure...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 10:27pm

89. I think we should give arab leadership (oxymoron?) at least a little credit for creating an environment conducive to "terrorism."

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:09pm

    This is one of the many problems with so many rightwingers - they don't understand the simplest things about the mideast.

    ARAB LEADERSHIP IS NOT MONOLITHIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 10:30pm

90. Because i don't think we are different in wanting iraq and iraqis to enjoy a lifestyle similar to the one we enjoy. what do you find so funny here ultimately, because I'm not sharing in the laughter.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/21/2006 @ 8:53pm

    Oh, so now it is about "lifestyle"???

    First, it was WMD. Then it was links to Al Qaeda. Then it was about democracy. Now it is about "lifestyle".

    Maybe we should get Martha Stewart and Hugh Hefner to run Iraq.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 10:35pm

91. frankgrits, i totally empathize with that statement. at the heart of the GOP's policy is a fundamental contempt for people of little means, dark skin and no voice. they are a fundamentally racist party, and yet they don't realize it.

    zero, well then talk about arab leadership, don't cite abstract statistics.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:35pm

92. ARAB LEADERSHIP IS NOT MONOLITHIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/21/2006 @ 10:30pm

    you mean all those fellers ains't workin for that evil tirent osammer bin laiden

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:35pm

93. people in the middle east will never be able to enjoy the sort of lifestyle that we enjoy. there are few trees, little water, and too many people. there is only oil. some agriculture. that's it.

    the high tech classes that are living in saudi arabia, yemen, kuwait and what not, are merely info and service-oriented. they are not living off the land.

    the entire region is fucked.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:37pm

94. Maybe we should get Martha Stewart and Hugh Hefner to run Iraq.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/21/2006 @ 10:35pm

    the only way the hamsters could give the iraqi people a lifestyle like ours would be for them to forment civil war in our own streets.

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:38pm

95. Posted by DARLADOON 08/21/2006 @ 10:13pm: iraq ... is probably one of the most difficult problems that anyone has ever faced in the history of mankind.

    I think you are overstating things, Darla. The problem, from the US point of view, is not overly complex at all. Our presence there is making things worse and we have no business being there in the first place. We should leave.

    Simple, eh?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 10:43pm

96. the only way the hamsters could give the iraqi people a lifestyle like ours would be for them to forment civil war in our own streets.

    Posted by WILL C. 08/21/2006 @ 10:38pm

    Of course that would be the reverse - giving americans a lifestyle like Iraqis.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 10:45pm

97. orwell,

    not so simple. we need to keep troops in the region, and that is the core problem. our presence in the region, and our undying support for israel.

    what do you think the middle east would like if we left the region? do you think israel would be in a permanent state of war? do you think iran really wants to destroy israel? or is it just a bluff?

    do governments just want us to leave, israel to stay within its borders, and all will be well?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/21/2006 @ 10:46pm

98. Of course that would be the reverse - giving americans a lifestyle like Iraqis.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/21/2006 @ 10:45pm

    and ultimately more doable

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:48pm

99. the republcians excellent at tearing shit down.

    they aren't so good at bulding back up

    (or even cleaning up their mess)

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:49pm

100. do governments just want us to leave, israel to stay within its borders, and all will be well?

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/21/2006 @ 10:46pm

     No. You need to take them (Iran and Hezbollah, e.g.) at their word. They say they want to wipe out Israel - they do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

     However, this is beside the point when it comes to the war in Iraq. That is just a monumental blunder by an incompetent administration.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/21/2006 @ 10:53pm

101. Posted by DARLADOON 08/21/2006 @ 10:35pm: they are a fundamentally racist party, and yet they don't realize it.

     I don't think they are a fundamentally racist party. They don't care all that much more about poor white people than they do about poor black and brown people. They are fundamentally about averice and aristocracy. It's about money. (It's always about money.)

     Their policies are designed to increase and solidify the power of the aristocracy. They merely use racism as a means to political power. Just like they use nationalism, warmongering, and fear.

     (In this respect, the war on islamo-fascists is a brilliant marketing creation, combining racism, nationalism, warmongering, and fear into one nice neat little bumper-sticker-sized package. If nothing else, these guys are certainly talented at propaganda.)

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 10:56pm

102. Posted by WILL C. 08/21/2006 @ 10:38pm: the only way the hamsters could give the iraqi people a lifestyle like ours would be for them to forment civil war in our own streets

     Which they may well be doing...

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 10:58pm

103. Posted by RESE 08/21/2006 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person

     I'm betting around midnight we see RESE and PLUNGER pop up. (probably with something NOT EVEN CLOSE to the topic...like how Chandra Levy was killed by Dick Cheney or how Meyer Lansky and the Mob founded Israel).

     Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

     Okay, I was off a few hours....but it WAS a good one...Flight 93 never crashed in Pennsylvania. Where it went and how NOBODY saw it on a hundred radar stations across the Atlantic Seaboard...only Chandra Levy knows for certain and she's with Lansky in Tel Aviv!

     Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 11:01pm

104. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/21/2006 @ 10:43pm

     I think it's all about business.

     Posted by WILL C. 08/21/2006 @ 10:49pm

     Somebody's making the blood money.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 11:02pm

105. it's only good if your right mask

     if you're wrong... you suck

     Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 11:04pm

106. Posted by DARLADOON 08/21/2006 @ 10:46pm: not so simple. we need to keep troops in the region

     I guess we start from different basic principles. I disagree.

     and that is the core problem. our presence in the region

     Right. So we should remove our troops from the region. Core problem solved.

     and our undying support for israel.

     Our undying support for Israel does not require US troops in the region. The fundamental aspect of any direct US military intervention on behalf of Israel would certainly not be US troops fighting Arab soldiers on the ground. Our defense of Israel is predicated on overwhelming air superiority; air superiority that could reduce any city in the Middle East to rubble in short order should Israel ever be invaded. Israel does not need our troops on the ground.

     And, if they did, and we really wanted to have troops in the Middle East. Then we should put them in Israel.

     what do you think the middle east would like if we left the region?

     Less violent. But that's just my guess.

     What is certainly true, is that no more US sons and daughters will be killed because our policy makers are unable to solve the difficult conundrum of the US military presence in the region. The US military presence in the region is deeply resented by the overwhelming majority of the region. Keeping our troops in the region merely breeds increased resentment, anti-Americanism, and violence.

     do you think israel would be in a permanent state of war?

     Not unless Israel wanted to be in a permanent state of war. Why would the removal of US troops from the region engender a permanent state of Israeli war?

     do you think iran really wants to destroy israel?

     Iran is a country of 70 million people. I don't think it has monolithic desires (other than sex, food, and sleep).

     Do you think Israel really wants to destroy Iran?

     or is it just a bluff?

     Is what a bluff? I do not believe that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. When have they made such a threat?

     And, in any event, the Iranians are not capable of destroying Israel. And the United States, presumably given our staunch support for Israel, would destroy Iran before Iran could possibly succeed.

     do governments just want us to leave, israel to stay within its borders, and all will be well?

     I don't understand the question.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 11:19pm

107. Lied into Iraq, vacationed to 9/11, negligence(d) through Katrina. Just caught part of Spike's When the Levees Break. Sad what money can buy the 'new cons'. Time. But I won't waste my spittle when they're burning in hell.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 11:25pm

108. FrankG

     left you a li'l sumthin upthread. WILLC oughta get a yuck as well....

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/21/2006 @ 9:56pm

     N-joy

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/21/2006 @ 11:28pm

109. Zero, been taking lessons from Redbird? your litany on explosive attacks is absurd. consider the source. people have been blowing up folks for as long as there have been explosives. would this be a good time to mention the numerous progroms the arabs visited upon jews many years before '48.

     Orwell, if you've had enough of arguing with Tories ignore them or try silence. heaping immature insults on them is very tedious. remember this thread is read by many people who might agree with you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/21/2006 @ 11:30pm

110. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/21/2006 @ 11:30pm: Orwell, if you've had enough of arguing with Tories

     They are not, in any reasonable sense, arguments. Rational arguments require participants to share some basic principles.

     ignore them or try silence. heaping immature insults on them is very tedious.

     I am sorry if you find my posts to be tedious. I find those posts to which I heap immature insults to be tedious (among other things).

     In any event, you can certainly take your own advice and ignore me, if you prefer.

     remember this thread is read by many people who might agree with you.

     Everyone is free to ignore me. For all I know, they already do. Hell, everyone ignores Rese and s/he still posts.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 11:46pm

111. Time for a thenation.com sabbatical for me. Recent threads have been a bunch of childish tripe. I just don't know how to interact (if that's the right word) with most of what has been posted and so this will be my last waste of space for a good while.

     Don't these highstrung rants depress you the way they depress me? What's the purpose for any of this? I used to convince myself that I was learning something beyond the ability to see through a cheap argument. I don't see much educational value any more.

     Stay well. I do care.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/22/2006 @ 12:01am

112. FG

     Good to hear your boy is coming to visit....my daughter's already back

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2006 @ 12:19am

113. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/22/2006 @ 12:01am

     All true, and unfortunate.

     Come back soon.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 12:26am

114. TJ, by all means go, AND come back. one bit of advice, don't keep reading here.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 12:30am

115. Orwell, I find you tedious when all you do is hurl immature insults. you know other blogs have a feature where you FLAG abusive posts, and then they are dealt with. here we have a more "mature" selfpolicing system. So again people, grow up.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 12:33am

116. whatsamatta Frei? no answer to me?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 12:34am

117. Rio, didn't you used to tell us how irrelevant polls are?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 12:41am

118. zero,

     have you ever read genet's 'prisoner of love'?

     if not, you should, and immediately.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:42am

119. "I think this explains the particularly venomous postingss we find here tonight. Nothing like disappointment to bring out the "best" in the lack of charactor posts put up by leftwingers!!!!"

     oh sure, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that bush inexorably offends even the most mediocre of intellects. it must have to do with bush's extraordinary rise in the polls!

     my god rio bravo, you singularly have to be the most undesirable of human beings....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:46am

120. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/22/2006 @ 12:34am

     Not:

     http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

     Also campared to other polling trends CNN looks out of step:

     http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 12:51am

121. Frei, the thing with Saddam wasn't my only point. you have nothing to offer. you go on imagining the Iraq war to turn out a success. that says everything about you right there.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 12:56am

122. incidentally Frei, I said nothing about returning Saddam to power, you made that up.pathetic.

     I of course offer this up to anyone out there. why would that be such a bad idea, if it would help to bring this disaster to an end. the US had no problem with Saddam 20 years ago when the killings happened, nor seemed to care when he slaughtered Shias, who rose up under the exhortations of Bush Sr., qwhy should we play grand inquisitor now, when we have as much blood on our hands.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 01:01am

123. Zero, you are correct above. what is lacking in most Tories understanding is context. example: that Fidel Castro is a bad dictator.context: Cuba was run by american gangsters and by a dictator far worse than Castro. that's why the cubans rose up against him, and they have not rebelled against Castro.

     another example: those wicked Iranians captured our embassy. context: the US installed "Shah"(not of any persian royal family) was a cruel despot. the embassy was a nest of spies, maybe all embassies are.

     last example: aren't you glad that the evil Saddam is not in power any longer. context: 100,000 Iraqi lives lost, 2600 american soldiers lost, who runs Iraq now? Moloch runs Iraq now, and for the future as far as the eye can see.before this is done the body count may well double, and the destruction of Iraq will be complete.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 01:13am

124. Frei, Do you think american militarism offers the region a better future?!

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 01:17am

125. "this Iraq problem cannot be solved by military means. --oh really? seems to be working for the 'insurgents" or are those market square and police station bombs not military means?!!"

     you do realize, frei, that you just said the iraq problem is being solved by the insurgent's bombs, don't you?

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 01:24am

126. cute frei, but if you could just read what you wrote one more time please.

     you said the insurgents are solving the iraq problem with bombs.

     i do not know what the insurgents would consider a solution. it would probably depend on which insurgent you asked. and obviously you do not know what the insurgents would consider a solution.

     why don't you just admit that you said the iraq problem was being solved by the insurgent's bombs?

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 01:39am

127. good night, freiheit

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 02:02am

128. This president is so incompetent its not funny anymore. He is also very dangerous for tha nation since he does not know what the heck he is doing and may be pushed other misadventures by the neocons who want to conquor the world. When this is a rubber stamp congress in the GOP composed of scam artists and criminals...things get really worse for the country.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 08/22/2006 @ 02:25am

129. Who said it? (Iraq)

     I just finished reading a very well-informed book on Iraq called "Understanding Iraq" by William Polk.

     I found the following quote in the book:

     "Week after week and month after month for a long time to come we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic warfare, marked from time to time certainly by minor disasters and cutting off of troops and agents, and very possibly attended by some very grave occurrence......It is an extraordiary thing that the.....civil administration should have succeeded in such a short time in alienating the whole country to such an extent that the Arabs have laid aside the blood feuds they have nursed for centuries and that both Sunnis and Shiites are also working together."

     Then the book states:

     What is particularly sobering about this statement is that it was written eighty-five years ago, on August 31, 1920, by Winston Churchill to then British prime minister David Lloyd George. He found it such a grim prediction that he did not send it. What message would he have sent today? To this question I turn by asking. Whose country will Iraq be?

     My own two cents:

     The book is a 'must read'. It covers the history of Iraq from the time of Mesapotamia, Ghenghis Khan, Lawrence of Arabia etc. almost right to the 21st century. The author is a professor of Middle East studies in the US and lived in Iraq in the early 1950's and has been back there many times since. He's truly an expert on the region and its nuances.

     As prescient as Churchill was, I doubt he would have guessed that Britian would be bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq for 34 years (1920-1954) Lewis Libby, right-hand man of Dick Cheney and now indicted in the Valerie Plame scandal was quoted as saying that in going into Iraq, Bush was very much like Churchill. But if either Libby or Bush bothered to read or even had the faintest interest in or knowledge of history, they would know that they were not on the same page philosophically as Churchill.

     So when it comes to understanding Iraq and by extension Churchill, Bush, Libby, Cheney, Rumsfelt et al come up short. No surprise there. This is the book on Iraq the power structure in Washington (Congress, White House et al) should have read before embarking on this fool's errand.

     Posted by MILESD at 08/22/2006 @ 07:05am

130. "Stay the course"...That's about all this administration can say without admitting the invasion a complete failure. All the Dems and even some Repubs, along with the American people want from this administration is a plan for Iraq. That's all..Anyone who has been part of program management knows, that a "plan is not a plan without a schedule." Schedule being the time frame to start pulling out of Iraq..This is not unpatriotic..Iraq is in such a disarray that we can't pull out now anyway... What super power that topples another country from false intelligence and now over 3 years of occupancy, that country is in far worse condition before this super power invaded it ?....This is a complete failure, nothing less, nothing more...Incompetence at the highest level of this country and the American people should feel embarrassed. Plain and simple people..."Mission Accomplished" showed just how much this admistration didn't have a clue...."Here's your sign". You've heard of that verse haven't you ? Take a look at an another example right here at home...Katrina !!! Another failure of this administration.....Read the 9/11 commisioner's report people...9/11 should have never happened...Your country has failed you..

     Posted by djmarch at 08/22/2006 @ 07:10am

131. "Straining the psyche"? Must be the concussion from the bombs when Bush's helmet and brain trauma funding was cut in half. Oh, I forgot his third ipod feeds him lines like these!

     Posted by Vic Anderson at 08/22/2006 @ 07:43am

132. .

     Connecting The Dots - Zionists & 911

     Saturday, July 08th, 2006 @ 13:53:43 MST by Douglas Herman

     http://www.rense.com/general72/conect.htm

     "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservatives, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."

     -Ari Shavit Ha'aretz News Service (Israel) April 5, 2003

     Masterful Plan Or Masterful Crime?

     Was it only a coincidence that so many rich and powerful Jewish Americans played a pivotal role, or performed a supporting role in the alleged "terrorist attack" on September 11, 2001 and the "War on Terror" that followed? Likewise, under closer scrutiny, why do we find so many Israelis, in the exact same locations as the alleged Islamic plotters and terrorists? Curious coincidence or clever design?

     For nearly five years we have been permitted a piecemeal glimpse, partial views of 9-11, but without seeing the bigger picture. Is there a Big Picture, you ask? This essay will attempt to connect the dots, identify some of the curious players, individuals and groups who, quite often, seemed to serve a dual loyalty. The peculiar irony was the principle loyalty seemed to be to Israel.

     Let us begin with what we know. Later we shall speculate. Still later we shall draw logical conclusions.

     What does the masterful motto,

     "By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War,"

     mean to the average American? Surprisingly, most Americans have never heard of the Mossad motto.

     It means a war within a war,

     enclosed by a greater deceptive war.

     If you understand the clever goals and can comprehend the tactics, one then might begin to grasp the bigger picture. We might then begin to understand 9-11 and all that happened since and continues to happen.

     The clues abound; the players still enjoy the spotlight; many have enriched themselves; others have been awarded honors, medals and lofty positions. Almost all those lofty positions and awards were awarded by other like themselves. Those awards and accolades were paid for with the blood, sweat, toil and tears of others.

     By Way of Deception

     Wealthy Zionist Larry Silverstein built World Trade Center Building 7 in 1985. The building was part of the WTC complex, owned by the New York Port Authority. WTC-7, ostensibly a US government building, housed offices of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Secret Service, CIA and Security & Exchange Commission (SEC). Late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 Larry Silverstein, for all intents and purposes, had WTC-7 demolished.

     Only months before, well-connected Zionist Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the New York Port Authority, which owned the WTC, leased the complex for 99 years to fellow Zionist Silverstein. How or why that transaction took place was never discussed. At the time, the WTC was considered, by many, as an architectural white elephant and less than desirable piece of real estate.

     Meanwhile, well-connected Zionists had attained top positions of power throughout the Bush administration, and within the three branches of the US government. Many had signed a sort of Globalist Declaration of Independence. The document mirrored an earlier Israeli manifesto. The signers slowly consolidated power in America, unbeknownst to most Americans.

     The PNAC-Project for The New American Century---was first written by Zionists in Israel as an Israeli policy papers, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," before becoming an important blueprint for foreign policy here. Many of the same authors contributed to both papers. On the surface both papers seem pragmatic, almost admirable, filled with diplomatic language. Yet if we understand the motives and comprehend the methods-By Way of Deception---we may discern the Big Picture.

     Douglas Feith ascended to power at the Pentagon, as did fellow Zionists Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim and Richard Perle.

     Most, if not all, of these top military strategists curiously possessed dual passports: Israeli and US passports.

     Most, if not all, of these top military strategists curiously possessed dual passports: Israeli and US passports.

     Most, if not all, of these top military strategists curiously possessed dual passports: Israeli and US passports.

     "He served Likud interests," said Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski of her superior, Douglas Feith, head of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP). "I don't think those are the same as Israel's interests, but instead those of a faction within Israel. He engineered Likud (Right wing Israeli party) outlined and desired actions by the US and, in Feith's mind, I think he did it for Israel. I just don't have any countervailing information that would suggest he has ever done anything for America."

     Likewise what role did Wolfowitz play? And Perle? And Zakheim? All Pentagon top officials.

     ZAKHEIM?

     He owns the technology required to fly commercial aircraft into tall buildings without a pilot:

     http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

     ZAKHIEM was also the Pentagon's Comptroller when Rumsfeld announced just one day prior to 9/11 that $2.3 Trillion had gone missing:

     http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

     Posted by plunger at 08/22/2006 @ 08:38am

133. Continues...

     How does one hold a foreign passport---Israeli---while holding Top Secret US security clearances? Does anyone see a conflict of interests here?

     How does one hold a foreign passport---Israeli---while holding Top Secret US security clearances? Does anyone see a conflict of interests here?

     How does one hold a foreign passport---Israeli---while holding Top Secret US security clearances? Does anyone see a conflict of interests here?

     One could argue these men were great patriots---but for which country? Philosophically they all shared the same goal: Strengthen Israel; weaken the tyrannical Islamic states; hasten US hegemony of scarce resources for key global players and multinationals.

     And they all worked at the Pentagon. If America was ever to be attacked---perhaps by a team of Islamic fanatics---what better symbolic target than the Pentagon? Curiously, only a year before, the Pentagon had war-gamed just such an attack. You would have thought someone would have been prepared.

     The Underlings

     The alleged Israeli art students?

     THE official DEA report:

     http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

     The alleged Israeli art students in Hollywood, Florida (They sold cheap Chinese art) lived on the EXACT same street, only blocks from the alleged Islamic hijackers (who flunked flight school). What were the odds of that happening?

     The alleged Israeli art students in Hollywood, Florida (They sold cheap Chinese art) lived on the EXACT same street, only blocks from the alleged Islamic hijackers (who flunked flight school). What were the odds of that happening?

     The alleged Israeli art students in Hollywood, Florida (They sold cheap Chinese art) lived on the EXACT same street, only blocks from the alleged Islamic hijackers (who flunked flight school). What were the odds of that happening?

     Was there a shared connection, a common link, a series of dots perhaps (strip clubs)? Or was it simply a massive coincidence that a team of possible Mossad double agents posing as art students, lived blocks away from alleged Islamic fanatics who just happened to train next to US military bases?

     What about those dancing Israeli furniture movers?

     What about those dancing Israeli furniture movers?

     What about those dancing Israeli furniture movers?

     http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

     http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

     http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

     What about those dancing Israeli furniture movers in Liberty State Park? They filmed the event from atop their white van, while celebrating the successful attack. Later, two other vans were stopped in key access points to Manhattan. The FBI kept these Israelis for weeks before eventually releasing them. In the horrific days following 9-11, other vans were stopped. Other Israelis were arrested. Dogs detected traces of explosives in the vans. If not for the vigilance of local law enforcement officers in several states (unlike the FBI), how many other targets in America would have been destroyed?

     The US media actually performed quite well for 24 hours following the attack. Unbelievably, even Fox News.

     The US media actually performed quite well for 24 hours following the attack. Unbelievably, even Fox News.

     The US media actually performed quite well for 24 hours following the attack. Unbelievably, even Fox News.

     Carl Cameron's Report:

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

     "What is striking about Fox News Reporter Carl Cameron's portrait of Israel's spy network in the U.S. is the sheer vastness of his subject," wrote Justin Raimondo, in The Terror Enigma: Israel and the September 11 Connection, "In the months leading up to 9/11, Cameron claimed Israel was waging a covert war against its principal ally and benefactor, the United States."

     But aside from smaller newspaper, like the Bergen Record, few reports of these obvious false flag-black operations by Israeli double agents appeared anywhere on cable news giants CNN, MSNBC or Fox in subsequent weeks. Nor did the appear in the mainstream newspapers. Why didn't they?

     A quick glance at the masthead of any daily New York newspaper reveals a preponderance of Jewish editors and publishers. What was most revealing, after 9-11, was not so much editorial reluctance but an overwhelming self-censorship, a stony silence, by all the New York City newspapers. They refused to mention---EVER---the probable connection of Israel to the 9-11 attack. Even though seven prominent NYC steel scrapers were demolished under exceedingly suspicious circumstances, not ONE Judeo-centric newspaper launched even a semblance of an investigation. Given the fact that Israel possessed the greater motive, means and opportunity to carry out the 9-11 attack, one had to wonder about the criminal complicity of the big New York dailies.

     Other NYC periodicals went out of their way to debunk any attempt to get at the truth.

     Periodicals like Popular Mechanics, edited by a cousin of US Homeland Security head, Michael Chertoff, mouthed the official (Zionist) version of events.

     Periodicals like Popular Mechanics, edited by a cousin of US Homeland Security head, Michael Chertoff, mouthed the official (Zionist) version of events.

     Periodicals like Popular Mechanics, edited by a cousin of US Homeland Security head, Michael Chertoff, mouthed the official (Zionist) version of events.

     Popular Mechanics:

     http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989

     According to every New York periodical, Islamic terrorists hijacked the planes. How they attained the means, not to mention the opportunity to attack, was rarely broached.

     Compromise security and you can conquer a city, state or nation. The Trojan Horse being a good example; America being another.

     If indeed hijackers somehow got past airport security cameras and avoided normal flight check in procedures, wouldn't the suspicion fall on the Israeli-owned security company at Logan airport in Boston?

     If indeed hijackers somehow got past airport security cameras and avoided normal flight check in procedures, wouldn't the suspicion fall on the Israeli-owned security company at Logan airport in Boston?

     If indeed hijackers somehow got past airport security cameras and avoided normal flight check in procedures, wouldn't the suspicion fall on the Israeli-owned security company at Logan airport in Boston?

     [During the 1970s Olmert had worked in the law firm owned by another Atzmon, Uzi Atzmon.

     Menahem Atzmon, convicted in Israel, went on to become the founder and head of International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), the parent company of Huntleigh USA, the airport security firm that ran passenger screening operations at the airports of Boston and Newark on 9/11.]

     http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=89761

     How would hijackers have access to gates and terminals otherwise? No Mainstream news reports indicated hijackers got past airline employees working flight check-in counters. Somehow this remains a minor detail to the US media.

     Even more suspicious, regarding security, how exactly did Islamic terrorists manage to gain access to the interior structure of WTC-7, in order to place obvious demolition charges? Wealthy real estate mogul and Zionist Larry Silverstein, the new lessee of the entire WTC complex, would have had final say in any security, wouldn't he? Additionally, the WTC-7 was, for all intents and purposes, a US government building. How could an enormous building, housing offices of the CIA, Secret Service and the SEC be left unsecured---unless the new landlord chose the "security" outfit.

     Even more strange, flaming debris somehow scattered across a city block from the collapsing Twin Towers and set afire the 11th floor of WTC-7, where the SEC was located. Why this floor? What was located there?

     "Odds are the SEC records in WTC 7 that were fortuitously destroyed when that building was 'pulled' included this.bogus Brady Bond deal," wrote Karl Schwarz.

     "Our sources have informed us that there was a group of ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence] working in this part of the Pentagon (that was destroyed) that were investigating the $120 billion Brady Bond scam I have reported on recently."

     A masterful crime or a diabolical yet masterful spy operation? Probably both.

     Instead of a terrorist attack, the crime begins to look like a huge scam with billions in profits and thousands dead.

     Instead of a terrorist attack, the crime begins to look like a huge scam with billions in profits and thousands dead.

     Instead of a terrorist attack, the crime begins to look like a huge scam with billions in profits and thousands dead.

     If one were to examine this enormous evil iceberg further, and not just the tip, one might discover a monumental mass of icy Intelligence-connected players below the surface. Very likely, the entire WTC operation was a combination insurance scam (Benefiting one wealthy Zionist), false flag "terrorist" op (benefiting one Zionist nation), and billion dollar gold heist (Benefiting various operatives from many branches of intelligence possibly).

     Difficult to believe the CIA and Secret Service---not to mention Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management--- had NO prior knowledge of the impending destruction of their offices.

     According to the London Times: "The Comex metals trading division of the New York Mercantile Exchange kept 3,800 gold bars - weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million (£70 million) - in vaults in the building's basement. Comex also held almost 800,000 ounces of gold there on behalf of others, with a value of about $220 million (worth more than $560,000,000 today). It also held more than 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million (Worth $1.5 billion today). The Bank of Nova Scotia, which kept gold in the Comex vault, reported $200 million of gold lost in the wreckage (Lost-!). Comex also held precious metals for Chase Manhattan Bank, the Bank of New York and Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking."

     Not surprisingly, one massive gold-filled truck was discovered, crushed, in the tunnels below the WTC complex. Perhaps, in the eight hours, between 9 AM and 5 PM, when WTC-7 was demolished and Americans were glued to televisions, horrified, masterful planners heisted hundreds of millions in gold bullion. Before Silverstein finally "pulled" the US government building, that is.

     Which leaves us only THREE final questions:

     Who leased the building only months before? Who hired security at Logan and the WTC?

     Who covered up the subsequent crime in the US media, not only in New York City but the nation?

     Still not convinced that key, dual-citizenship "Zionists" played a pivotal part? Perhaps THE pivotal part?

     The final footnote, indicating overwhelming involvement in the 9-11 attack, and the subsequent power to cover up any involvement, occurred 18 months later. That signature event was the War with Iraq, launched with whole-hearted White House, US Media and Congressional support on March 18, 2003.

     On Purim, a significant Jewish holiday, a day signifying destruction of Israel's enemies.

     Masterful.

     NOW ADD THIS TO THE MIX:

     COMVERSE:

     Israeli Company Provides U.S. Wiretaps

     One company reported to be under investigation is Comverse Infosys, a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm. Comverse provides almost all the wiretapping equipment and software for U.S. law enforcement.

     Custom computers and software made by Comverse are tied into the U.S. phone network in order to intercept, record and store wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.

     The penetration of Comverse reportedly allowed criminals to wiretap law enforcement communications in reverse and foil authorized wiretaps with advance warning. One major drug bust operation planned by the Los Angeles police was foiled by what now appear to be reverse wiretaps placed on law enforcement phones by the criminal spy ring.

     http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/18/224826.shtml

     After enabling Israeli / Mossad wiretaps and blackmail of top US Officials including Dick Cheney...

     COMVERSE CEO FLEES TO ISRAEL:

     http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/10/business/options.php

     In late July, he wired $57 million to an account in Israel, according to court filings from the Justice Department. Millions more are believed to remain in his accounts in the United States, which prosecutors have asked to be frozen.

     HOW DOES ONE GET AWAY WITH WIRING $57 MILLION TO ISRAEL AND FLEEING THE COUNTRY?

     C O N N E C T

     T H E

     D A M N

     D O T S ! ! ! !

     .

     THE ARMAGEDDONISTS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.

     GREATER ISRAEL - MORE TERRITORY BEING ACQUIRED DAILY

     http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/greater-israel-maps. htm

     READ AND LEARN:

     http://dublin.craigslist.org/pol/192560711.html

     http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/greaterisrael.htm

     Today, in 2006, it is the in hardliners of the Likud, and ideological factions in Israel, like Bead Artzein,

     http://utenti.lycos.it/Delenda_Carthago/israel_010904.html

     and the [Rabbi] Kook faction - the "Greater Israel," tradition within the Orthodox,

     http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/gush_underground.html

     WHO ARE WE FIGHTING FOR IN IRAQ?

     READ THIS CAREFULLY...

     Bead Artzein

     Bead Artzein

     Bead Artzein

     On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."

     http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/greater-israel-maps. htm

     In 1994, Daniel Pipes wrote: "No Israeli political party today (not even Meir Kahane's Kach) aspires to Israeli rule over all Eretz Yisrael." That is no longer true. Avrom Shmulevic's "Bead Artzein" aspires precisely to a Nile-to-Euphrates Israel--see for example

     READ EVERY WORD:

     http://utenti.lycos.it/Delenda_Carthago/israel_010904.html

     .

     Posted by plunger at 08/22/2006 @ 08:39am

134. . PRESIDENT BUSH ADMITS THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ.

     PRESIDENT BUSH ADMITS IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

     FBI ADMITS BIN LADEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

     Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

     PRESIDENT BUSH ADMITS THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ.

     PRESIDENT BUSH ADMITS IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

     FBI ADMITS BIN LADEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

     .

     Posted by plunger at 08/22/2006 @ 08:46am

135. cool

     luvvy has been regulated to posting at 3 am

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 08:50am

136. and it's not America's fault. Never has been. Never will be.

     It's clearly the fault of evangelic conservatism.

     STAY THE QUAGMIRE BABY!!

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 08:52am

137. PLUNGER, isn't a little scary that if "I" can predict you, the "evil world-spanning Cabal that wants to stop people like you from getting the TRUTH out" can too?

     Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 08:53am

138. if "I" can predict you,

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 08:53am

     what's he going to say next?

     specifically

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 09:02am

139. THE PLAN:

     in the beginning was The plan

     and then came the assumptions

     and the assumptions were without form

     and the plan was completely without substance

     and the darkness was on the face of the workers

     and they spoke unto their supervisors saying "it is a crock of shit and it stinketh"

     and the supervisors went unto their dept heads and sayeth " it is a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof

     and the dept heads went unto the safety coordinators and sayeth unto them " it's a contianer of excrement and it is very srtong, such that none may abide by it"

     and the safety coordinators went unto their Director and sayeth to him "It is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide by it's strength"

     And the Director went to the Vice President and sayeth " it contains that which makes plants grow and it is very strong"

     and the VP went unto the president and sayeth unto him " It promotes growth and is very powerful"

     And the President went to the Executive Council and sayeth unto them " This new powerful new plan will actively promote the growth and efficiency of the world and in this area in particular"

     And the executive Committee looked upon The Plan and saw that it was good.

     and the Plan became policy.

     and that is how shit happens.

     And the darkness was again upon the face of the workers, except those that drank the Kool-Aid given unto them by the Executive committee, those did comment that it was "cool and refreshing". --Anny Nomous

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2006 @ 09:07am

140. Frei, thank you for allowing e the courtesy of addressing my points. so let's see, you don't believe in negotiations, you think the militarism in Iraq has been a great success, or will turn into one any day now, you think there is a comparison to be made with american relations with Japan and germany, and that Saddam was a threat to the US. that covers it, yes?

     that Sadat was killed is not relevant is it? King was killed but his work and his ideas freed a people. your post about Giving Iraqis "our lifestyle, that was the height of absurdity. you might read a bit more, on the region and the western powers' relation to it, because your understanding is skin deep. still I'm glad to see your views spelled out, and pretty fact free they are.

     Saddam WAS NOT a threat, what "won" WW2 was the Marshall plan, and the peace between Egypt, Jordan and Israel has held.

     now picture the socalled pres going before congress and saying: I wanna invade Iraq, because Saddam is a bad tyrant and I want the Iraqis to have the same lifestyle as we do. and that's where mirth takes over. hahahahah ypu are a joke.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 09:13am

141. Will:luvvy has been regulated to posting at 3 am

     I think you mean relegated.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 09:15am

142. Luvvy, he hears voices, the islamists hear voices, chimpy hears voices. All these voices come from the B.C. These voices thought the stars were points of light, disease was caused by some gods furor at something the people did wrong, or mysterious vapors. The did not know thermal dynamics, gravity, chemistry, democracy. they thought mental ilness (hearing voices) was caused by demons and devils. they burned weeds to keep them away . They could not cure simple infections, create an internal combustion engine or figure out a good calender.

     BUT, they have the fundamental Mystery of the Universe figured out. Including the morality that says it is ok to kill, except were it says "thou shalt not kill".

     I hear voices, they tell me Luvvy and the Islamists are vessels of fertilizer such that none should abide by it's strength. But it makes them grow and prosper, and kill.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2006 @ 09:19am

143. Libery, hell, you are preaching again aren't you.

     negotiations are not "making nice"

     the Iranian president is not at the levers of power, and his overheated rhetoric is a bit like Krushchev's "we will bury you" speech.don't let their rhetoric define the political landscape for you. even Osamas tapes are taken as guideposts by this misadministration, which is shameful.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 09:20am

144. .

     K A R L

     R O V E

     T H E

     T E R R O R I S T

     T H E

     C O N

     G A M E

     Despite his prior illegal actions, Karl Rove still retains his security clearance, and knew for WEEKS prior to London's latest fake terror alert what was coming. The odds that Rove himself advised London precisely what time to make this announcement are approximately 100%.

     This gave Rove the time necessary to plan a full frontal assault on the minds of the American People.

     Bill O'Reilly revealed Classified information in his recent live interview with Mossad Agent Michael Chertoff. While Chertoff wouldn't confirm or deny it, O'Reilly revealed that the FISA PROCESS was utilized to obtain warrants prior to placing wiretaps on some suspects in the US. While none of the suspects in the US was deemed to have been involved, this example was clear proof that the FISA Court WORKS – to the chagrin of Gonzales.

     http://progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1235

     Neo-Con Madmen Strike Again - The London Fear Frenzy

     Well before Wednesday the administration was aware of Britain's plans to launch a raid against a possible terror plot.

     With the knowledge of a terror-scare coming soon, all day Wednesday the entire Neo-Conservative Republican political apparatus had been busy assailing their political enemy's supposed unwillingness to fight terrorism. On Thursday the Neo-Con assault intensified and finally peaked when news of the British scheme was made public. Then, in the most vile and unbecoming manner possible, Republicans accused Democrats of having forgotten the attacks of 9/11. Some Republicans were even gleeful enough to remind reporters that with the anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching their attack on Democrats, coupled with the London conspiracy would do wonders for their lagging poll numbers:

     "Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," one White House official said.

     P L A Y

     B I G ? ? ?

     T E R R O R

     I S

     A

     G A M E ? ? ?

     For Karl Rove, terror is THE GAME.

     The timing of the release of this information was not coincidental. Let's take a look at how many other circumstances coincided with this fake terror scare…

     Lieberman was not the Democratic Party candidate - he was quite literally the Israeli candidate.

     AIPAC lost to Lamont, cracking the door open for an anti-AIPAC rebellion at the polls.

     Less than 36 hours later...

     "TERROR IN THE SKIES" was the headline on all news programming in the United States - and CNN would have you believe that the entire world changed that day (again).

     The world didn't change - but CNN's fear-mongering role in it on behalf of Israel has been clearly exposed.

     All of the President's NeoCons have made it known since Lieberman's loss to Lamont, just how important Lieberman has been to their agenda - the Zionist Agenda.

     They knew that Lieberman would lose, and Rove planned a full frontal attack for the aftermath – which by necessity always leads with a terror scare. Rove even called Lieberman directly to offer his help.

     As part of the game – a CNN talking head asks the question…

     "Lamont is the Al Qaeda Candidate???"

     KARL ROVE WROTE THAT TALKING POINT.

     CNN READ IT ON AIR.

     "When did you stop beating your wife?"

     Equally loaded questions.

     CNN's behavior is not coincidental.

     They're owned by Timer Warner, a company run and owned predominantly by Jews. That's not a racist remark - it is a fact. Just ask Ted Turner his opinion about CNN's propaganda slant toward Israel.

     T H E

     N E W

     I R A E L I

     E S P I O N A G E

     S C A N D A L

     At approximately 11:48 a.m. August 9th, CNN reported that Ariel Weinmann - a US Sailor - had been arrested for espionage committed on behalf of Russia. CNN intentionally lied. They know precisely that Weinmann had spied for Israel, as does the Jewish Media:

     Report: US sailor spied for Israel David Keyes, THE JERUSALEM POST

     Aug. 9, 2006

     CNN created a false anonymous source, and claimed that an American Jew was spying for Russia.

     THE CNN LIE:

     From Barbara Starr CNN Washington Bureau Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Posted: 1:57 p.m. EDT (17:57 GMT)

     WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A sailor facing espionage and desertion charges has been held at a Norfolk, Virginia, brig since March, the U.S. Navy said Wednesday.

     Ariel Weinmann, 21, is suspected of having worked on behalf of Russia, said military sources close to the case.

     http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/09/sailor.charge/index.html

     C N N ‘ S

     B A R B A R A

     S T A R

     I S

     A

     C I A

     D I S I N F O M A T I O N

     A S S E T

     Barbara Starr was CNN's correspondent at the Pentagon. The Pentagon is being run in concert with Israel. During the lead up to the Iraqi invasion – Karen Kwiatkowski confirmed that Israeli Generals were free to come and go at will – and NEVER recorded their visits.

     Israeli Mole Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon – inside Rumsfeld's Office Of Special Plans.

     Franklin was arrested for spying in concert with AIPAC – for Israel.

     Israel calls the editorial shots at CNN.

     This Weinmann spy case is HUGE! As big as the Jonathan Pollard case.

     Notice it is NOT IN THE HEADLINES?

     Yet another story pertaining to Israeli spying was released into the ether during the fake terror hype.

     T H E

     A I P A C

     S P Y

     S C A N D A L

     The Israeli Connection

     http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25108&l=i&size=1&hd=0

     On the morning of February 12th, 2003, a small group of FBI eavesdroppers were listening intently for evidence of a treacherous crime. At the very moment that American forces were massing for an invasion of Iraq, there were indications that a rogue group of senior Pentagon officials were already conspiring to push the United States into another war--this time with Iran.

     A few miles away, FBI agents watched as Larry Franklin, an Iran expert and career employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, drove up to the Ritz-Carlton hotel across the Potomac from Washington.

     T H I S

     H E A D L I N E

     W A S

     B U R I E D

     A M I D

     T H E

     F A K E

     T E R R O R

     S C A R E

     Judge denies motion to toss pro-Israel spy case

     Friday, August 11, 2006; Posted: 10:06 a.m. EDT

     The indictment against Steven Rosen of Silver Spring, Maryland, and Keith Weissman of Bethesda, Maryland, alleges that they conspired to obtain classified reports on issues relevant to American policy, including the al-Qaida terror network; the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel; and U.S. policy in Iran.

     Rosen and Weissman, former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are accused of sharing the information with reporters and foreign diplomats. No trial date has been set.

     K H O B A R

     T O W E R S ? ? ?

     Why was Israel so keen to have Classified information relative to the Khobar Towers incident? Did they want to see if the US Intelligence officials had figured out that Mossad did it?

     S O…

     Are you a Coincidence Theorist?

     Pakistan's Intelligence Service purportedly uncovers a massive terror cell - and the news just happens to hit right on the heels of the biggest AIPAC loss in a decade.

     It couldn't very well have been "revealed" by Mossad" - as that would have been too obvious - so they credit Pakistan's ISI for uncovering the purported plot.

     Sure...you bet.

     9/11

     Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center... CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.

     This was clearly an inside job.

     Karl Rove had advance knowledge of EVERY TERROR ALERT since Bush took office in 2000.

     Because he creates them.

     "T H E

     A R C H I T E C T"

     O F

     T E R R O R

     I S

     K A R L

     R O V E

     .

     Posted by plunger at 08/22/2006 @ 09:21am

145. Luv Liberty AKA IRONYMAN, I prefer Bishop Spong's interpretation of scripture over yours. he is enlightened, you are not. He does not hear voices, yet he is a Christian that can accept Christ's love. You seem to have a problem with that love.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2006 @ 09:22am

146. .

     Expect a helter-skelter media day today.

     So far the mainstream media headlines on TV include:

     "IRAN AGAINST THE WORLD" Iranian leader refuses to hault nuclear program...

     and this...

     "RUSSIAN PASSENGER JET WITH 170 ON BOARD MISSING FROM RADAR"

     How long will it take for the Government Media Outlets to blame IRAN?

     Expect two or three more of these today.

     .

     Posted by plunger at 08/22/2006 @ 09:22am

147. TJ, you will be missed.

     JR, if you ever find yourself in Mid MICH there is a place for you here. Tom Waites over Dylan, but you will find your other needs met.

     Peace.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2006 @ 09:25am

148. Posted by WILL C. 08/22/2006 @ 09:02am

     He's not THAT easy, WILL.

     Now YOU on the other hand....next 5 posts?

     Atleast one use of the term "hamster"!

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 09:35am

149. .

     Looks like Muzzies just blew up a Russian Christian plane.

     Russian Plane Carrying 170 People Crashes in Ukraine

     By: ddh on August 22, 2006 at 09:22am

     ZIONIST TROLL ALERT

     HERE COME THE DISINFORMANTS...

     BATTLE STATIONS.

     F A K E

     N E W S

     "You can't tell any more the difference between what's propaganda and what's news."

     FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein 15 August, 2006

     .

     Posted by plunger at 08/22/2006 @ 09:36am

150. IRONYMAN, you are welcome too. The Jehovah's Witnesses come on Tuesday, usually around 10:00. They have been welcomed into my shop for years now. I would love to listen to the two versions of reality. They have never called me a traitor, though. Even when i tell them that they are full of sht, nicely of course.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2006 @ 09:39am

151. Seriously, anybody got an answer?

     Why is it that our local Conspiracy Theorists "lock in" on any new David Corn post...more than others?

     Does Mr Corn somehow "feed" the theories?

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 09:39am

152. "... In order for the UN to be effective, there must be consequences for those who thumb their nose at the UN ..."

     When will Israel face consequences for ignoring the UN for 58 years?

     multiple choice:

     a) Never.

     b) When hell freezes over.

     c) When pigs fly.

     d) After the sun becomes a black hole.

     Posted by tokugawa at 08/22/2006 @ 09:54am

153. "is anyone else getting the idea in their heads that many pro-war, conservative intellectuals ....Posted by DARLADOON"

     WAIT a minute... did you just admit that there are "conservative intellectuals"???

     Wow.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 10:00am

154. d) After the sun becomes a black hole.

     Posted by TOKUGAWA 08/22/2006 @ 09:54am

     Actually, it'll become a "planetary nebula"....and then a giant diamond.

     hehe

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 10:05am

155. I'm beginning to think that I need to start a group therapy organization called PBAA (President Bush Apologist's Annonymous). These people have very deep seated problems. No matter what President Bush does to our system of rule of Law, our deficit, our world diplomatic standing, the integrity of the office of the President or even the Constitution, these people still thinks he's a lovable cute little teddy bear.

     It's like the wife that takes a beating then when her husband brings home flowers and says he's sorry they think everything will be OK next time. Except, Bush doesn't bring these apologists flowers and doesn't say sorry!

     I'm not kidding about this, there is something severely wrong with these Apologists and perhaps they need our help not our ridiculing.

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/22/2006 @ 10:44am

156. It's all about racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia- that's the glue that binds the bush diehards. No reality, however harsh, can pierce that fog...

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 08/22/2006 @ 11:15am

157. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 12:33am: Orwell, I find you tedious when all you do is hurl immature insults.

     So, is it ok to hurl mature insults, JR? Who decides this line between maturity and immaturity?

     you know other blogs have a feature where you FLAG abusive posts, and then they are dealt with.

     If you find my posts to be offensive, you can email the site operators. Perhaps they will block me from accessing the site.

     Or, you can ignore me.

     here we have a more "mature" selfpolicing system

     It is not "selfpolicing" when you order people to modify their posts. It is "jrpolicing".

     So again people, grow up.

     Yes boss.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 11:22am

158. Awwk. Stay the course. 9/11. Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. Awwwwk. Dumbya wants a cracker. Awwwwk.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2006 @ 11:28am

159. To me it seems like the prez is his own worst enemy. If this administration wasn't so greety we wouldn't be in the predicament that we are in, in Iraq. By the way what happened to all the money that was found over there? Where is the weapons of mass destruction? Why aren't the contractor's over there that has belked the US taxpayers out of billons of dollars?

     Oh well you have to have a prez that is smarter than a box of rocks.

     Posted by kdonahoe at 08/22/2006 @ 11:48am

160. "No matter what President Bush does to our system of rule of Law, our deficit, our world diplomatic standing, the integrity of the office of the President or even the Constitution, these people still thinks he's a lovable cute little teddy bear.

     I'm not kidding about this, there is something severely wrong with these Apologists and perhaps they need our help not our ridiculing.

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE "

     Or perhaps you simply need to open your mind to the fact that others do not agree with your perception of how things should be.

     1) rule of Law - while I personally do not care if he targets phones calls from countries that sponsor terrorism to individuals in the US... I also do not see why they could not have retroactively gotten the warrants.

     2) our deficit... 1960... the last year the "leaders" in DC actually lowered our national debt year-over-year. They have actually convinced the majority of the public that cutting the deficit in half is a good thing.... when in reality not having a deficit or paying down our debt is what we should be aiming for. Bush and the Rep Congress should be ashamed for the damage they have done here, as should every other President since Eisenhower and each member of Congress from the past 45 years.

     3) our world diplomatic standing... here is where I disagree with your views the most as I cannot stand the suck up to Europe mentality of the far left either. The majority of Europe has shown time and again that they are willing to look the other way at growing problems right up until the point that it bites them in the ass.

     4) the integrity of the office of the President... that was lost when a President took an oath to tell the American people the truth and then lied right to our faces.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 11:50am

161. F-PLEASE makes some trenchant commentaries and concludes:

     there is something severely wrong with these Apologists and perhaps they need our help not our ridiculing. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/22/2006

     F-PLEASE is of course monolithically and indivisably correct to say that there is "something severely wrong" with the hardcore mutant alien freaks from Planet Cheney who walk among us.

     While I agree on the diagnosis, F-PLEASE, I have to depart from you on the prognosis: The Planet Cheney aliens require and demand more than our mere ridicule but they must be defeated and humiliated in the most demoralizing way. I think that F-PLEASE forgets that the victim (in the case, any old right wing freak who is a victim of participating in his or her own brain-washing) can also become a potential victimizer. The mutant freaks from Planet Cheney have been bred and re-education camped into believing that they are deputized with plastic sherrif's stars (made in PRC) to be victimizers themselves, to enforce the doctrines that they accept as mindlessly as a colony of ants. This is why they are so on-the-rag hysterical in trying to dictate the terms of other people's lives (sexual preference, selective bouts of utterly blind obedience as it suits them).

     One of the "thought leaders" of their ant-like community once posited a "cultural war" in America. We did not want it being tolerant liberals willing to live with pluralism; but pluralism does not square with the mutant freaks' lunatic agenda. So let's prosecute the cultural war for freedom against them with extreme prejudice until they sue for peace. We normal people kick their asses until they renounce their freakism and behave like normal people --- or move to a backward-assed medievalist conservative theocracy like Saudi Arabia where they can "thrive" among the like-minded.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 11:56am

162. Drunk and dizzy on right-wing relativism, JOHN B ralphs this one up:

     Or perhaps you simply need to open your mind to the fact that others do not agree with your perception of how things should be.

     Dude, there are facts and there are arguments and there are principles to guide us toward what is right. It's not always easy to do this but I am beyond tired of this touchy-feely right-wing relativistic bullshit whining about how external reality is determined (and not on occasion conditioned) by a point-of-view. There is a Truth, it is external to our corporeal beings, and it is knowable through rigorous intorogation of reality. Sometimes this occurs under the rubric of Science --- another bane of the faith based community, which gets all panzy and metrosexual when anyone tries to cancel out their little itty, utterly stupid bitty feelings with a strong does of reality and evidence.

     3) our world diplomatic standing... here is where I disagree with your views the most as I cannot stand the suck up to Europe mentality of the far left either. The majority of Europe has shown time and again that they are willing to look the other way at growing problems right up until the point that it bites them in the ass.

     Don't look now but the Maximum Leader is publicly pleading with France to mop-up the mess in Lebanon for which the US supplied the ordnance.

     The bigger point: JOHN B has shat out party line, doctrinaire puppy-shit so reflexively he barely even thought about the words he was using to ape his big-mouthed right-wing heros' way of loudly saying ... absoulutely nothing.

     JOHN B, if Europe is "looking away" from imminent problems "time and again", why don't you name a couple of those problems from, say, the last 25 years (a quarter century, a generation). Surely, if this happens ... "time and again", as you say ... you will have no trouble at all assembling a robust list.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:18pm

163. That's "strong dose of reality and evidence" (above) and not "does" ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:20pm

164. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/22/2006 @ 11:56am

     Congratulations, that had to be the single most idiotic post I have seen on here.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:22pm

165. "Dude, there are facts and there are arguments and there are principles to guide us toward what is right."

     What you fail to grasp Glenn is that the arguments/principles to guide you are not the same arguments/principles that guide others. I cannot believe you actually wrote that the right is the party that is getting touchy/feely.

     I also love the fact that idiots like you seem to think that anyone who dares voice a dissenting point of view must therefore be a right winger. You see it IS perception that determines how you see the world.... as you are so far to the left that those who disagree with you are indeed right... from YOUR perspective.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:27pm

166. "JOHN B, if Europe is "looking away" from imminent problems "time and again", why don't you name a couple of those problems from, say, the last 25 years (a quarter century, a generation). Surely, if this happens ... "time and again", as you say ... you will have no trouble at all assembling a robust list. "

     Rwanda, Sudan... there. Two from the past 13 years. Didn't even need a second to come up with those.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:29pm

167. Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 12:27am

     "You're either with us, or against us!", JOHN.

     For all the legitimate attacks on Bush for using that idea...many on the Left live by it!

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 12:31pm

168. "There is a Truth, it is external to our corporeal beings, and it is knowable through rigorous intorogation of reality. Sometimes this occurs under the rubric of Science --- another bane of the faith based community, which gets all panzy and metrosexual when anyone tries to cancel out their little itty, utterly stupid bitty feelings with a strong does of reality and evidence."

     Talk about saying absolutely nothing. You forget that the left very casually ignores Science when it goes against their views as well.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:32pm

169. Thanks for the clarification JOHN B --- it was that other JOHN B who composes posts under your name, such as above, about the warrantless wire-taps among other topics.

     With such clear-eyed vision, who needs a fog machines ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:34pm

170. For all the legitimate attacks on Bush for using that idea...many on the Left live by it!

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006

     Make that far left instead of left and I agree with you. They rail against Bush (rightfully so) for doing exactly what some on this site do to anyone who even partially disagrees with them.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:35pm

171. Thanks for the clarification JOHN B --- it was that other JOHN B who composes posts under your name, such as above, about the warrantless wire-taps among other topics.

     With such clear-eyed vision, who needs a fog machines ...

     Posted by GLENN LEMON

     I think you are right Glenn... I must be in a fog, because I am completely blind as to what your post above is trying to say.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:37pm

172. You forget that the left very casually ignores Science when it goes against their views as well. Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 12:32am

     Oh yeah, JOHN B, I (how do you say it) "forgot". So you are hereby deputized to go ahead and remind me of what --- in particular --- you are passing wind about here.

     You are also invited to check out the Union for Concerned Scientists' webpage to see how rightwingers have trashed science over the past 6 years. They have compiled reports on rightwing abuses of science pertaining to global warming, product safety, abstinence education, appointments to government-administered science committees that give gransts and fashion regulations. The scientists argue there has been unprecedented interventions by Bush's admin to privilege ideology over evidence with much of the damning testimony coming from people from Nixon's and Ford's admins. Look it over and report back ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:45pm

173. JOHNB,

     GLEN HAS BEEN BREATHING HIS OWN FOG FOR SOME TIME NOW...JUST READ HIM AND MOVE ON...ANYTHING ELSE IS WASTING ELECTRONS...BIOLOGICAL OR MECHANICAL.

     Posted by john maasch at 08/22/2006 @ 12:52pm

174. Rwanda, Sudan... there. Two from the past 13 years. Didn't even need a second to come up with those. Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 12:29am

     JOHN B, you refered to situations that were "going to until the point that it bites them in the ass"; those are your words. The obvious implication of what you said --- and I'll spell it out so it is clear even to you --- is that these situations were necessarily self-defeating for the Europeans, instances of auto-implosion by people who don't even know their own interests or whow to protecxt them (hence, why should the US heed them --- that is your claim).

     So, sagacious one, those are your big evidentiary exhibits. Now please sketch out how Rwanda and Sudan --- horrific situations as they are --- also "bites them in the ass" in Europe.

     Take all the space you need to explain ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 12:52pm

175. John B,

     Whether or not "you personally don't care" about a specific law being broken by our President is hardly germaine to whether or not our President is actually upholding the very fabric of law, which in turn is the very fabric of our society.

     So, even though laws were not made to be picked and chosen among as to which ones are convenient and which ones are not convenient lets look at a few of the other transgressions of our much apologized on behalf of Administration. What say you on the laws (and even international treaties in this case) governing torture? What say you on those laws involving the outing of career CIA spys? What say you on the Presidential signing statements of now OVER 800 different bills?

     Even if you don't care about one law, surely someone not suffering from "apologist" disease can see a pattern of complete disregard of the law and further apology on behalf of such pathological dementia can only be UNPATRIOTIC!

     In other words, if I have "to open your mind to the fact that others do not agree with your perception of how things should be", then I have to open my mind to notions like Law doesn't matter, deficits don't matter and the Constitution doesn't matter.....I'm sorry John B., I'm just not capable of being that open minded.

     But perhaps I could learn to be if i joined a 12 step PBAA program!

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/22/2006 @ 12:53pm

176. LVL,

     While I appreciate your own faith, most here try to use it against you...perhaps your should let your faith pass in posting and see if anything changes regarding their responmes ..

     Posted by john maasch at 08/22/2006 @ 12:55pm

177. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/22/2006

     Glenn, no need to go there, I agree with the assessment that the right trys to ignore science and also trys to bend it to its beliefs.

     Now without starting a debate on whether abortion is right or wrong morally, the SCIENCE of the matter should be clear. It is on this topic that the left trys to ignore science. Again, I am not saying abortion is right or wrong. I am saying the arguments that many on the left use are wrong. The argument should be whether or not to extend basic human rights to an unborn child. The argument should not be whether or not it IS a child.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 12:55pm

178. Congratulations, that had to be the single most idiotic post I have seen on here.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 12:22am

     Hardly, John. Clearly, you're still new and tend to "look away" "time and again" from the LL's, Rio's, Barry's, etc.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 12:56pm

179. You forget that the left very casually ignores Science when it goes against their views as well.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 12:32am

     Such as?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 12:57pm

180. What I don't understand, (and please people, help put me on the same level), Bush's comments regarding "Leaving Iraq would be a disaster"....Uhhhhh....What is it already GW ??? Can it be any worse if we did ?..Is George that ignorant or does he believe the American people are that ignorant ?

     Posted by djmarch at 08/22/2006 @ 12:58pm

181. Glenn, no need to go there, I agree with the assessment that the right trys to ignore science and also trys to bend it to its beliefs.

     JOHN B, that's fair enough.

     I would nevertheless recommend going there if you are serious enough and want to be conversant on the topic. Once one knows the details, this and many other cases often turn out to be even more scandelous than one had just casually assumed ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 1:01pm

182. The argument should not be whether or not it IS a child.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 12:55am

     But that is the argument. Just because you don't agree with that outlook, doesn't make it not the argument, nor does it mean that the left is denying science (and certainly not like many on the right do).

     Your argument thus far is quite weak.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:05pm

183. Freedom... I understand your point in your first paragraph, but the question is whether or not the President does have the power in a time of war. Currently Taylor has decided that he does not, that determination is under a voluntary stay (meaning the plantiff agreed) until Taylor decides whether to grant a stay through the appeals process.

     1) What say you on the laws (and even international treaties in this case) governing torture?

     I say we need to define what is and what is not torture as the definition is continually changing. Because if sleep deprivation is torture, then I tortured myself and my friends constantly in college. If a dog barking at someone is torture, then my neighbors dog tortures me every day that it sees me.

     2) What say you on those laws involving the outing of career CIA spys?

     I think it is wrong. Just as I think it is wrong for everyone involvled in leaking classified information. Yet I do note that many on the left don't seem as worked up about it when it is someone opposed to the President doing the leaking.

     3) What say you on the Presidential signing statements of now OVER 800 different bills?

     Honestly I am not familiar with the vast majority of his signing statments with regards to their content and thus cannot comment intelligently on this. If you have info/link as to what the signing statements entail then I would be happy to educate myself more on this topic. I would also be curious to know how the 800 number compares to past Presidents, so if anyone has that info, I would appreciate it.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 1:06pm

184. Meaning John B. no disrespect.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:06pm

185. Hardly, John. Clearly, you're still new and tend to "look away" "time and again" from the LL's, Rio's, Barry's, etc.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     Don't really "look away". Just have most of them on the ignore list... so I should have clarified my statement a bit. I am not sure who LL is??

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 1:08pm

186. Holy shit, are you serious? You don't know who LoatheLiberty is?

     You want deranged and delusional, tune in to our resident fake preacher. Definitely the winner of the "most idiotic post" contest "time and time again"...

     :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:09pm

187. one of the key ingrediants of the bush think psyche is his often referral to what others 'think'. It's like his 'think'what he would want them to 'think', and it is revealing in other ways like: "....revenues from oil sales"..being a goal of terorists.

     Oil revenues is and was the mob goal --remember his admonition to 'prewar' Iraqi to "Not hurt oil wells!", no concern for anything else, just oil. The bush goal to privatize, to his pals, the OIL, not Operation Iraqi Liberation---OIL, front and center in bush think.

     Posted by cole at 08/22/2006 @ 1:10pm

188. I would nevertheless recommend going there if you are serious enough and want to be conversant on the topic. Once one knows the details, this and many other cases often turn out to be even more scandelous than one had just casually assumed ...

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/22/2006

     Fair enough. I will take a look at it, as I do tend to dismiss too readily those that disagree with Science. Whereas, I should be paying attention to what they are saying and doing to make sure they are not causing trouble.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 1:10pm

189. Another good post above, F-PLEASE. Sorry if I was a little ruff on you JOHN B, it's my delinquent way of saying "howdy".

     Have done enough service to the greater good here for today, over & out ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/22/2006 @ 1:18pm

190. "They look for opportunities to vent their hatred of Christ"

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/22/2006 @ 1:19pm |

     LVLIB, isn't that a BIT disengenuousness?

     It's "hatred of Christ" if someone is agnostic or even discounts YOUR version of Christianity?

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 1:22pm

191. But that is the argument. Just because you don't agree with that outlook, doesn't make it not the argument, nor does it mean that the left is denying science (and certainly not like many on the right do).

     Your argument thus far is quite weak.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     New Dawn... THAT is exactly my point. It should not be. Science clearly dictates that the joining of a human egg cell and a human sperm cell (1)can be nothing other than human (2) creates the formation of a unique being (DNA coding is unique)

     It also shows that it is either alive (the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and grows/develops) or dead (the fertilized egg does not implant and is passed)

     Thus the argument is whether or not the unborn child should have rights. Obviously that would create those that believe the unborn child should not have rights until it develops enough to have conscious thought/develops enough etc... and those that believe that the child should be granted rights immediately.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 1:40pm

192. "They look for opportunities to vent their hatred of Christ (while feigning to have genuine respect)."

     No hatred of Christ here, just like there's no Bush-hatred without reason.

     You shame the Christ worse than anyone here ever has, Liberty.

     I hate you and Bush for the same reasons - because you both lie and pretend to something greater.

     And Mask -

     To Liberty and his kind, ANYONE who does not bow and scrape to Christ as Lord is going directly to hell for eternal damnation and torment (might explain why Lib is so wishy-washy on torture - he supports it in God's name), including those adhering to Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Agnosticism, and Atheism (among others).

     Liberty also "cut and run" from this line of questioning when we last chatted, but disingenuousness is his best plan of attack and defense. Hardly a shocker.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:45pm

193. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 1:45pm |

     Well, NEW...you remember what the great Bill Hicks once noted...

     "If you look at what the Christians are actually saying, it's 'eternal torture awaits all who don't believe in God's INFINITE love!'"

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 1:47pm

194. Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 1:40pm

     Interesting as always, and thank you as always for the reasoned clarification.

     But to me (and millions of others), whether genetically "human" or not, a cluster of cells the size of the head of a pin is NOT a "child".

     Wuld you call that outlook a refutation of science?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:47pm

195. Well, NEW...you remember what the great Bill Hicks once noted...

     "If you look at what the Christians are actually saying, it's 'eternal torture awaits all who don't believe in God's INFINITE love!'"

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 1:47pm

     That is really very funny in a sick sick sick sick way.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:48pm

196. John B. -

     "Bush signing statements" makes for a fascinating Google search, both for and (mostly) against.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 1:51pm

197. If he hadn't done such damage to our civic and political society, and created such a dangerous mess in the world, Bush would be seen as a pathetic and pitiable character, lost among the delusions he has propagated. But then, had this man an ounce of honesty and civic responsability, he would never have presumed to run for president.

     Posted by Dvmx at 08/22/2006 @ 1:55pm

198. John B.

     Search "signing statements" on wikipedia.org. It provides links to give you the data you seek.

     http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm

     provides a list of every signing statement by Bush and what he wrote.

     The tally:

     Prior to Reagan - 75

     Reagan – 71

     G. H.W. Bush I – 146

     Clinton – 105

     G. W. Bush – as of 2006 over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 1:57pm

199. And an interesting take on those signing statements from FindLaw:

     http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:02pm

200. It was Jesus who said that "whoever is not with me is against me"

     OH MY GOD - HOW MUCH DOES THAT EXPLAIN ABOUT TODAY'S WHITE HOUSE?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:03pm

201. Does the cowboy think he's Christ?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:06pm

202. Wuld you call that outlook a refutation of science?

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     Yes, I would. Because you and I are also clusters of cells. : )

     So it really is a question of whether the cluster of cells should be granted human rights. I really don't think your position changes that much, in that you do not believe the cluster of cells should be granted human rights prior to having the ability of conscious thought (or until it reaches a certain developmental stage). THAT is a valid case.

     But when it comes to the science of the issue, that should remain consistent, regardless of the rest of an individuals position on the rights. Remember... there is NO magic baby fairy that comes along at the childs first conscious thought and turns it human. :)

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:08pm

203. I say we need to define what is and what is not torture as the definition is continually changing. Because if sleep deprivation is torture, then I tortured myself and my friends constantly in college. If a dog barking at someone is torture, then my neighbors dog tortures me every day that it sees me.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 1:06pm

     You cannot be serious with this. One obvious missing fact from what you endure or dished out is the element of confinement. As far as your neighbor's dog, unless he has chained you naked to a post and he has the dog leashed about four inches from your balls, I am not sure this is a useful comparison. An easy example: If the chef in a restaurant refused to cook you a meal, it might be rude, but it is obviously not torture - you can go somewhere else or even home to eat. But if you are a prisoner confined against your will, being refused food brings up the possibility of starvation along with any physiological effects of food deprivation. Under these circumstances, this treatment obviously IS torture.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 2:12pm

204. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/22/2006 @ 2:00pm

     Well, LL....like most things "Jesus said", he didn't.

     He was QUOTED by his friends as "saying them".

     But your "logic" is impeccable....if God is Jesus, and if Jesus' friends were infallible, and if your understanding of what Jesus' friends said is infallible...

     then by logical extension, you ARE granted the authority to "speak for God".

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 2:15pm

205. Agree with David Corn, but he has a facility for stating or re-stating the obvious.

     Posted by matamg at 08/22/2006 @ 2:15pm

206. Sorry, John B.

     Not good enough.

     What I said was "whether genetically "human" or not, a cluster of cells the size of the head of a pin is NOT a "child". Would you call that outlook a refutation of science?"

     You replied, "Yes, I would. Because you and I are also clusters of cells."

     Don't falsely equate my statement about a cluster of cells the size of the head of a pin to you and I. Not the same, and that tiny cluster of cells is still not a "child".

     And as far as the "human rights" question, we enter slippery slope territory when we bother to recall that the mother is also a human with rights to her own body.

     Let's not go down this road today - it's wildly off-topic, and I don't have the energy to debate it - what a can of worms this argument is.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:15pm

207. Hman & New Dawn, thanks for the info on the signing statements, I will check it out later when I have a bit more time.

     Hman... Honestly, I do not see the dog barking at me as torture, whether I am in a cell or not. In your analogy, if the dog is restrained four inches from contact, then I know it can do nothing other than bark/growl/snap etc... Now if a prisoner is held and the dog is allowed to bite the prisoner, then I agree it is torture.

     The starvation example is true, you starve someone that is torture. But I do not agree that force feeding someone to prevent them from starving is torture.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:21pm

208. "Don't falsely equate my statement about a cluster of cells the size of the head of a pin to you and I. Not the same, and that tiny cluster of cells is still not a "child". "

     I did not state that the two clusters of cells were EQUAL. We obviously are developed to the point that we have conscious thought etc... that does not change the fact that we are indeed a cluster of cells.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:23pm

209. "And as far as the "human rights" question, we enter slippery slope territory when we bother to recall that the mother is also a human with rights to her own body. "

     True, a very slippery slope, but no matter what side of the argument you are on, it still doesn't change the science.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:25pm

210. "if the dog is restrained four inches from contact, then I know it can do nothing other than bark/growl/snap etc..."

     And what if, John, you do not "know"? What if your inquisitors threaten to let the dog bite you, what if they promse you that they are going to do just that, for days on end? How do you "know"?

     You don't, and that is torture, psychological or otherwise.

     Let's call a spade a spade here. C'mon.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:25pm

211. ND

     I guess: Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/22/2006 @ 2:00pm means that this is true?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2006 @ 2:26pm

212. John -

     "True, a very slippery slope, but no matter what side of the argument you are on, it still doesn't change the science."

     You never showed that I refuted the science.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:26pm

213. "Don't falsely equate my statement about a cluster of cells the size of the head of a pin to you and I. Not the same, and that tiny cluster of cells is still not a "child". "

     I did not state that the two clusters of cells were EQUAL. We obviously are developed to the point that we have conscious thought etc... that does not change the fact that we are indeed a cluster of cells.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 2:23pm

     You're being disingenuous here, John. Your first "cluster" response was intended to imply that because I called a pin-sized cluster of cells "not a child" that I was refuting science.

     Please stop.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:31pm

214. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/22/2006 @ 2:26pm

     hee hee hee

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:32pm

215. Amen.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:37pm

216. "brans" was all right, Frank.

     Bush hasn't much fiber...

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:40pm

217. You're being disingenuous here, John. Your first "cluster" response was intended to imply that because I called a pin-sized cluster of cells "not a child" that I was refuting science.

     Please stop.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     If it is human AND alive... it is a human child (genetically). Period. Whether you call it a cluster of cells or not does not change this. To act as if it is not, is to dispute the science.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:42pm

218. And what if, John, you do not "know"? What if your inquisitors threaten to let the dog bite you, what if they promse you that they are going to do just that, for days on end? How do you "know"?

     You don't, and that is torture"

     Valid point on not knowing. That does give the psychological fear.

     But I guess it simply comes down to the fact that I do not see messing with someones mind in this manner as torture.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

219. I asked you nicely if we could abandon this line of discussion, John, but you seem determined to label me as refuting science and also seem determined to have the last word. You're starting to irritate me.

     I do not agree that a pin-sized cluster of cells is a "child".

     It is, however, scientifically, a developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception, and known during that time as an embryo.

     My disputing at what point it becomes a "child" is no refutation of science, it is a matter of word choice and nothing more.

     Again, please stop.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:49pm

220. How did you get the wingers going on the stem cell thing again?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     My fault.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:50pm

221. But I guess it simply comes down to the fact that I do not see messing with someones mind in this manner as torture.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

     I have the strong feeling you would change your mind if someone detained and did it to you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:51pm

222. Again, please stop.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     My bad. I posted the last prior to seeing that. Consider it done.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:51pm

223. Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 2:51pm

     Thank you, sir.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:53pm

224. I have the strong feeling you would change your mind if someone detained and did it to you.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     While it is impossible to "know" unless having gone through it, I do not think I would change my mind. Even if I were to break down sobbing like a child, I do not see being broken mentally as torture. Now obviously my stance goes against what others believe and I accept that. I also accept that if I am in the minority on this opinion, then I have to either live with it or change the minds of those in the majority.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 2:55pm

225. Posted by JOHN B 08/22/2006 @ 2:55pm

     Frankgrits -

     It is posts like the one above that keep me from classing John B. as one of the fringe wingers that come here to fling their own shit and chatter like monkeys.

     John is intelligent and rational and even when we disagree, he remains civil and open to listening to others' points.

     I can't help but like the guy.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 2:57pm

226. Thank you, sir.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     No worries. I was really secretly torturing you. ;)

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 3:00pm

227. Or he could be just jerking you around. I don't trust anybody who supports George Bush.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     Please don't mistake supporting a position of Bush's to supporting him on the whole.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 3:01pm

228. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/22/2006 @ 2:57pm

     My own Catholic upbringing had much to do with my disenchantment with organized religion, but having studied a dozen other religions in the 30 years since has convinced me:

     Organized religion is most often a crutch for frightened or weak-minded individuals desparate for an answer to the question of the meaning of life, and unable to find it for themselves.

     It also often preys upon the fears and ignorance of its adherents, and is ultimately unnecessary to those who see the work of the creator as beyond our limited human comprehension.

     I have nothing against those who choose to organize and worship - there is also joy and love and hope to be had in religion - but I don't believe that any religion's dogma should be the basis of law or governance. Especially not in my country.

     Who wants to live in a theocracy? Can't imagine why anyone would - anyone care to point out a theocracy anywhere in the world that actually works?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 3:04pm

229. Or he could be just jerking you around. I don't trust anybody who supports George Bush.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/22/2006 @ 2:59pm

     That would make him the sucker, not me, Frank.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 3:06pm

230. Frank -

     My best friend, who now lives in Racistville, Idaho, is a huge Bush supporter. Obviously, we have had many "spirited discussions", some almost coming to blows (like when he said in my living room during conversation that women who have abortions should get infected by rusty hangars and die - my fiancee was sitting next to me, and has had an abortion - I almost threw him out of my house and down my front stairs).

     But I would trust him with my lady, my child, and my life. Go figure.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 3:09pm

231. Lunchtime.

     See you all later.

     John B. -

     Be good to Frankgrits while I'm gone. He is a good man with a good heart.

     He also has his reasons to be wary of those who support Bush, and the fact that Frank's son is in Iraq right now isn't the only one, but it's a good one.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 3:12pm

232. anyone care to point out a theocracy anywhere in the world that actually works?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person

     Not advocating, but for historical notation....yes....pre-Chinese occupied Tibet, I believe might qualify.

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 3:15pm

233. most of you people are incredible idiots! do you really think the fascists are gonna let go of their power? do two stolen elections not mean anything to you? democracy is but a relic in the US. hillary as was bill clincunt are part of the entire scheme. did billy lubricated cigar clincunt not aprove NAFTA? only nader is an outsider and a true democratist, the rest are part of the "game" you Aholes! man, you cats are d e n s e! wanna pledge allegiance? -put your right hand....

     the only way out of this, that i can see, is armed insurrection dudes! they are not gonna let go of their enourmous power and runaway wealth taking. WE are the NAZIS NOW! either fight or live like THX. thank God i'm checking out soon. Ta-tas, Cheerio, Toodle-oo and Pip-pip.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 3:23pm

234. OK john, here's your big chance to go on record. What do you not agree with Bush on?

     1) Do not agree with tax cuts if there is not a corresponding cut in spending. The spending of the Rep Congress and Bush is truly pathetic.

     2) The timing of Iraq. While I thought it would eventually happen, he jumped the gun without a coherent plan. He did have the beginning planned... but I don't think he got beyond "bomb the hell out them" part before he began the war.

     3) Gay Marriage. The whole issue of trying to get an amendment is ridiculous and our "leaders" should not be wasting time on something of this nature. My stance on this issue is this.... the government should not be invovled in marriage at all. It is a religious ceremony... leave it to the religions. However, if the government is going to give benefits to married couples (inheritance, visitation, etc...) then they have to have an equivalent break for couples who either choose not to be married or are not allowed to be married by the religious organizations. What really baffles me on this issue... why do members of the gay community who also believe in a God/deity etc... not start their own church??? Anyway I digress....

     Those are three off the top of my head, I have to jet in about ten minutes, but will certainly come up with more for you tomorrow.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 3:33pm

235. thank God i'm checking out soon.

     Posted by TOM PAINE 08/22/2006 @ 3:23pm

     What does THAT mean, Tom?

     Posted by Mask at 08/22/2006 @ 3:34pm

236. On the same subject, do you think that if politics is discusses in a religious service that that institution should have to start paying taxes?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     If it is discussing issues... no. If they are discussing particular politicians... yes.

     Posted by John B at 08/22/2006 @ 3:35pm

237. Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 3:34pm

     I think it has the same meaning as yelling - "MADE IT, MA!!!!! TOP OF THE WORLD!!!"

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 3:45pm

238. your nosy MASK! Cancer thats what it means.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 3:47pm

239. It was Jesus who said that "whoever is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30)

     It was Jesus who said "whoever denies me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven" Matthew 10:33

     It was Jesus who said "And he who does not deny himself and take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:38).

     It was Jesus who said that "if you do not believe that I AM the I AM, you will die in your sins (John 8:24)

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/22/2006 @ 2:00pm

     LL, your jesus sounds totally delusional. I want no part of your nightmare.

     Posted by doumer at 08/22/2006 @ 3:51pm

240. Holy shit!

     Jesus was an utter asshole!

     Thanks for clarifying that for me LL!

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/22/2006 @ 3:54pm

241. jesus!!! l-l-liberty!

     and it was me who said "give me liberty or give me death!"

     (they were not two chickies from hooters, i mind you!)

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 3:55pm

242. TOM PAINE 08/22/2006 @ 3:47pm

     That sucks.

     And should it come to that, there's more to Jesus than what Love Liberty tells us here.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 08/22/2006 @ 3:57pm

243. I AM--bic pentameter

     and who said, I AM SAM! Now that is wisdom!

     "I stink, therefore I am!" -BO

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 3:58pm

244. "I dont believe in zimmerman, I dont believe in beatles, just" Jokers and me...

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:01pm

245. you are

     then you are not

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:11pm

246. Why? it happens to everyone, it goes along with living, that's the contract we are on.

     live as if you're dying, only then you will truly live. aint that a bithch! but true.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:16pm

247. if you mean "sorry, because i dont beleieve in an afterlife"? then i could say sorry because you are just kidding yourself and dying believing a lie.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:20pm

248. the cutting tool of ideology has two edges....

     always.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:22pm

249. I have no answers to the big questions...hoo nos?

     I have however gained an insight & a perspective on how to live.

     Live as if youre dying. simple.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:36pm

250. because I have never been dead before i have nothing to contribute in that area.

     about life; i can tell you plaenty maan...

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:38pm

251. It's not "philosophy" it's life itself. Loving and being loved is the only true wealth we can gain. Excessive material wealth only makes your life poorer.

     Thank you for your good wishes- I wish you that you learn to live as if you're dying, because after all, you are.

     When we "kid" ourselves about our mortality, we cheat ourselves out of a full life. Out of a true life.

     When we live with mortality ever present we make the right decisions in life, it is only then we truly live.

     Everything then flows naturally. there are no vacillations. I am blessed to live this way.

     Just BE You cannot be if you are "trying" to be.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 4:51pm

252. Orwell, you're defending your immature foul mouth? does you mom know you use language like that?

     and now to those who say "removing" Saddam was worth it. would you have given your first born son to remove Saddam? would you give 2500 american sons? would you give 100 000 Iraqi sons, daughters, fathers and mothers? how about more, as more will surely die. when does it stop being worth it? 5000 american sons, and daughters? 200 000 Iraqis, is it still worth it? how about destroying the country of Iraq, is that worth it? ah but you say, it's Iraqis killing Iraqis. but were they slaughtering each other before we invaded? did the invasion and occupation unleash the civil war? you betcha.

     Saddam was the cork in the bottle, holding the violence in check, while admittedly practicing violence himself. also remember who ruled Iraq. not just Saddam, but the Baathist party, so even "removing Saddam does not work, if Baathists return to power, and I believe they will, perhaps even with US consent. or in spite of the US. remember friends, this is going to turn out just like Vietnam. cut and run is the best option, or rather cut, run and negotiate.

     you know that nice song"to the shores of Tripoli" how did that end? well for one thing they never got to Tripoli. they mounted an offensive, a 500km march through the desert. and on a paralell track they negotiated, and it was this negotiation which carried the day. the soldiers, a handful marines, the rest mercenaries were sent home.I think it is beginning to Dawn on Bush, and the american people the terrible price we are paying for this military adventure. Bush lacks the imagination to change, but the american people don't. this coming election will be a referendum on the war. the repubs will pay, not enough, but perhaps enough for change.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 4:56pm

253. Tom Paine, what's this bullshit on the meaning of life? who died and left you to philosophize? D R I V E L.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 4:58pm

254. Apologies for the length of this posting, but the substance of it - pulled from a current thread at www.wizbangblog.com - was too good not to share with the smarter folks here.

     This first poster makes the mistake of reminding these vindictive neocons about the context of Bush's recent press conference:

     "Forget Plame for a moment, though this is certainly related.From the White House Press conference of 08/21/2006:

     Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

     THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

     Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

     THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

     Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

     THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

     You read-correctly, the Bush administration is finally admitting there was NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq, none. Wonder when we'll ever read this in the press?

     http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

     Posted by: Matt Janovic at August 22, 2006 01:03 PM

     ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     How exactly do you read: "Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq." and interpret it as: "the Bush administration is finally admitting there was NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq, none."??

     That's some powerful wishing there...little wooden boy into flesh wishing...tinkerbell alive wishing...

     Posted by: Falze at August 22, 2006 01:44 PM

     ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     Hey Matt,

     Spare us the rhetoic! You're an idiot.

     Posted by: J.R. at August 22, 2006 01:46 PM

     I think if I read another report where the information was given on condition of anonymity I will puke. What rock is the source of all these anonymous stories hiding under and does he have a list of tid bits to relaese every day.

     What ever happened to a source being vetted and the truthfulness of the story being verified? I could tell a NYT reporter I just saw Nancy Pelosi screwing a goat and he would believe it, it wouldn't get into print because she is a democrat, but he would believe it. If on the other hand I told the same story to the same reporter about Elizabet Dole the headline would be 2 pages wide. Chuck

     Posted by: Charles Bannerman at August 22, 2006 02:05 PM

     ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     Hey, Matt, you're kinda slow on the uptake, huh?

     Bush has NEVER said there was a tie between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. NEVER. Nor has any of his administration.

     There is evidence -- substantial, but not conclusive -- of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but only idiots ever speculated about that cooperation extending to an operational level, especially on the 9/11 attacks. For one thing, it would be sheerly stupid -- Saddam had no "need to know" from Al Qaeda's perspective, and that info could have been a very useful bartering chip to get him out from under the sanctions.

     It's only the idiots who keep saying Bush made that connection over and over and over again, to now it seems that they are actually believing their own bullshit.

     And, apparently, so are you.

     J.

     Posted by: Jay Tea at August 22, 2006 02:34 PM

     ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     Matt, I can understand why you would want to change the subject, but Bush has made the same statement before, just not in those exact same words. Chris Matthews just about pops a vein everytime anyone brings up the subject.

     I have never claimed that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks or even played any direct part in them, but there are some really strange things that make it at least reasonable to wonder what he might have known. Read the "bombshell revelation" section of this post I did a while back and follow the links. Lest you denounce it as some Republican trick, the information was put into the congressinal record by Democrat Fritz Hollings.

     Posted by: Lorie Byrd at August 22, 2006 02:41 PM

     ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     The point I have always made about how Iraq was connected to 9/11 is that it had less to do with 9/11/2001 and more to do with the next 9/11. We did not connect the dots before the attacks of 9/11 and were determined never to ignore threats again. A key piece of info that I think was very persuasive in support of invading Iraq when we did, is the revelation by Putin that he had informed Bush after 9/11 that his intelligence sources had information that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad. Whether or not Putin's info was correct, it was something that could not be ignored when brought to the attention of the President in the shadow of 9/11.

     That is one of those inconvenient pieces of the puzzle that those on the left choose to ignore completely and it received incredibly little media coverage. I would guess that it would be difficult to find anyone, but a diehard news junkie, who had ever heard about it.

     Posted by: Lorie Byrd at August 22, 2006 02:51 PM

     ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     All:

     We are letting the Matts of the world off lightly. They have repeated this lie so often we have bought into defending the statement. Don't get caught up debating the straw man.

     Bush has said all along the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Matt has suggested. Remember the term "The Bush Doctrine"? It was used to criticize Bush for pre-emptively attacking Iraq when the Bush administration readily admitted no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine was to attack while the storm was gathering rather than wait for another 9/11.

     Matt you are wrong. Go back and do your research and if you continue to repeat this bullcrap... you are simply a liar.

     Posted by: scotty at August 22, 2006 03:03 PM ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________

     Someone please go over there and respond to these delusional dolts who feel the need to parse words and downplay a treasoness event.

     Posted by varg at 08/22/2006 @ 5:01pm

255. answer: our mortality is the great gift God has given us. but you must live in awareness of it.

     it's not philosophy. it's just the way.

     I kid you not my maine man, Johaneesswoof I wish you death.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 5:04pm

256. Wow, Johanne - that was crude and totally uncalled for. The man said he has terminal cancer - he's qualified to offer his views on life and death, as are we all - doesn't mean we have to agree, but...

     What's the matter with you today? Someone run over your cat, bro?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 5:12pm

257. its a NEWDAWN its a new day"

     nice screen name!

     thanks, for coming to my defense, but Johann is just working things out on his head like the kids say "it's all good!"

     first you must debunk the ideas that you are reluctantly attracted to. Johann my man is gonna be AOK!!

     he wll transcend to...well; a NEWDAWN!! Ha!

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 5:18pm

258. to wax colloquially...

     Johann my man he be plugging in to the REAL life force, and he be getting charged up...yep, uhhu!

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 5:22pm

259. now, now... of COURSE Mr. Bush has a strategery. It's more "hard work". "You see, we're workin' hard on this; it's hard work. We'll even work through lunch and stay after 5:00 if we have to... have lunch catered in." with apologies to SNL's Will Forte....

     Posted by pcp at 08/22/2006 @ 5:23pm

260. Jay tea,

     does this sound familiar?

     Before the US invaded Iraq, President Bush said he had intelligence evidence that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." Vice President Cheney said Iraq was the heart of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." They repeatedly advanced the idea that Saddam could one day furnish nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to al Qaeda or other terrorists.

     In other words, they said it without saying it explicitly. Otherwise, why the repeated emphasis on a "collaborative" relationship and "numerous contacts" between secularist Saddam and religious fanatics al-Queda?

     Posted by pcp at 08/22/2006 @ 5:30pm

261. PCP: there is no 'strategy' it's all about how long they can get away with it without armed dissent from the people. This is why they lie, it's easier if people are confused and thinking that the/a "solution" is just around the corner. meanwhile they are just doing whatever it takes to make more wealth. Yes, killing is part of it...duh!

     and that's why the kids have been given their computer game-drugs and the ghettos have...well, drugs and the bling bling and the hispanics have their being afraid of being deported. (Eventually those fear tactics will be employed among those that wear the "white' cloak as well)

     as long as middle class and poor people think they are part of the ruling elite because they have a similar skin complexion they are doomed.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 5:32pm

262. Paine, I wish you bluebirds in the spring... by the way your wish will be granted, someday, until then it is my task to call to task phonies.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 5:32pm

263. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 4:56pm: Orwell, you're defending your immature foul mouth?

     I don't believe my mouth is foul or immature. And I don't believe that you are the speech enforcer for this board. Perhaps the few words of "welcome back" you received have gone to your head?

     does you mom know you use language like that?

     My mom is dead. But thanks for asking.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 5:34pm

264. Orwell, if you have the right to use foul language here, I have the right to call you on it. we've lost some smart people here by this gutter dwelling. I post on a few other boards and I seldom see this kind of childish attacks.

     I didn't see the part about Paine and terminal cancer, but I am suspicious. those who are about to die have no more to offer in the way of philosophy than anyone else. and very few trumpet this to strangers.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 5:39pm

265. johannesrolf, i'm going to have to disagree with you on orwell.

     orwell, i like your posts.

     and i like that the nation pretty much leaves the posts alone.

     one of tom paine's earlier posts was pretty repugnant. but i'd rather read whatever everyone wants to say than have any kind of censoring.

     john b., just so you know, i think you are repulsive. you make my skin crawl. and it is my hope that all men like you and the one woman like you, ann coulter, drop dead immediately.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 5:40pm

266. Paine, I don't believe this is is the place for this.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 5:41pm

267. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 5:39pm: Orwell, if you have the right to use foul language here, I have the right to call you on it.

     Absolutely. You can call me on it all you want. But, you don't run this board. And I don't have to abide by your orders. So it becomes a silly discourse. If you don't like what I'm writing, ignore me.

     I didn't see the part about Paine and terminal cancer, but I am suspicious.

     See, now I find that offensive. What are you suspicious of?

     those who are about to die have no more to offer in the way of philosophy than anyone else.

     How would you know? Are you on the edge of death? The edge of death can give one perspective.

     and very few trumpet this to strangers.

     He did not trumpet; he was asked. And you are sounding more and more like someone who's ego is wedging itself further and further up your... (oops, I almost used some of your banned speech.)

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 5:45pm

268. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 5:41pm: Paine, I don't believe this is is the place for this.

     So ignore it.

     But please, stop telling other people what they can and can't write about. It is, to use your word, tedious.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 5:47pm

269. Wow, since railing against profanity is becoming all the rage here, I should get the fucking fuck outtahere right quick... ;)

     They're words, kids... And I'd like to think that most of us, even the ones each of us hate on either side, offer more than just that - not always, but usually...

     And I am also pleased that the only censoring that usually goes on around here is our own - that's what ignore lists are for...

     Maybe the reason Paine's claim of cancer hit me hard is that I am waiting on a doctor's diagnosis right now for that very thing - makes it hard to really hate on anyone but Liberty right this second...

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 5:47pm

270. "Still soiling his pants on a regular basis."

     "You should wear the dark stains of shit emanating from your underwear as a badge of pride, Scared Little Boy. For you are a true patriot."

     Orwell, this is what I was talking about. and you're defending this?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 5:48pm

271. chimi's posts get pretty raunchy. but i love his personality and i miss his posts.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 5:49pm

272. wow, newdawn, that's harsh. i sincerely wish you the best!

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 5:52pm

273. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 5:48pm: Orwell, this is what I was talking about. and you're defending this?

     Absolutely. Totally appropriate, given who I was responding to.

     I am sorry that you are so offended by the concept of soiling one's pants, but this conversation will lead nowhere. I am not bound by your dictates. You are not bound by my sense of taste. Can we just drop it?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 5:54pm

274. loveloki, I want to thank you for recommending "the gift". I passed the idea on to my spouse and partner and she is enjoying reading this.

     and here's one for you New Dawn, may all your tumors be benign.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 5:57pm

275. johannesrolf, you are very welcome!

     :)

     that book is based on a truly beautiful idea. i hope they pass it on.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 6:00pm

276. NEW DAWN i will pray that there is nothing malignant in you. If all her do the same it will help. There is scientific evidence that parayer works.

     I strongly defend Johnne's right to use any word he sees fit. It's the First Ammendment, that's wahat the bushits want to destroy (among other Contitutional precepts)

     Lysander Spooner is their inspiration for this crap.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 6:03pm

277. Thanks to all.

     Now, back to what we're here to discuss..

     (hint - it ain't me)

     ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 6:09pm

278. earlier, someone referred to democrats revising history to make vietnam "Nixon's War" and not "Johnson's". i am not aware of any such revision. clearly, johnson bears a major load of the responsibility, as does Nixon, with some blame for jfk an eisenhower.

     Posted by pretzel at 08/22/2006 @ 6:12pm

279. Thanks, Frank.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 6:17pm

280. right on PRETZ, but...LBJ escalated the war, the bombing, he was ousted because of all the assasinations & the war, and Nixon because of Watergate, but his superhawk and anti-dissent stance makes him seem more like bushit junta we have today. Ike bears a large load I am afraid. But no one mentions McNamara, it was he who came up with the higly creative WMD-like; "domino theory" what a bunch of crock!! hey see, I didnt say bullshit!!!

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 6:19pm

281. I would urge you all to check some other blogs, and their commentary sections. Huffington for instance. I don't see foulmouthed rhetoric there.

     a few days ago I saw somebody posting here once, then he read over the content and decided he did not wish to hang with us. I don't blame him, but there was a voice lost. who knows how many others have felt like this.

     putting someone on ignore does not address this problem.I was revolted by the bestiality jock humor that was going around a while ago, and I don't condone childish attacks about masturbation on my friend Maasch. that is just puerile.

     Orwell, you are by no means alone in these abuses. most of your posts reveal an intelligent caring individual. that is why this is unbecoming of you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 6:43pm

282. as far as Vietnam goes, both Johnson and Nixon had about five years at the helm of this ship of fools, and can therefore share the guilt. trouble is Johnson realized it, and honorably fell on his sword politically. Nixon never realized his folly. and many, many americans died, for NOTHING. just like now.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 6:46pm

283. Orwell: please, stop telling other people what they can and can't write about.

     er, like you?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 6:49pm

284. "There is scientific evidence that parayer works."

     no, there isn't

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 6:50pm

285. i too have checked out other blog sites, many other sites. so far, this is not only my favorite but the only one i like.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 6:54pm

286. Dawn, when you get to a certain age there are scary medical tests.we all go through that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 6:58pm

287. Well, Johanne, I couldn't disagree with you more. Fight fire with fire, I say.

     Profanity is a fine way to deal with the profane - and if you think that the loss of "one voice" on a blog is consequential, I think you're mistaken there, too, and ascribing far too much importance to what that one voice might do to combat the patently profane rhetoric of the Liberty's, Rio's, Todd's, Barry's, etc. We regularly dispute these laughable characters en masse - have you seen one of them concede to calm and genteel reason?

     I also looked at some of the blogs over at HuffPo, and saw neither the volume of posts that we have here, nor the kind of inflammatory a-holes worthy only of profanity that we seem to attract here.

     These are blogs, and I often wonder what the hell we're doing here anyway besides venting. We preach to the choir of those who agree with us and tilt at the windmills who don't, even though we will never change their opinions. Whether we come at them with honey and milk (which would actually give credence to their cries of "appeaser") or with a hearty "fuck you, you deranged scumbag" (though we should include exactly what made us so upset as to resort to that avenue of communication), it usually results in futile frustration on both sides.

     By the way, your "friend Maasch" implied that he was having sex with another poster's wife and discussing that poster's inadequacies with her - I never saw you call him on that. Where was your outrage then?

     You are a curious fellow, Johannes.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 6:58pm

288. Dawn, when you get to a certain age there are scary medical tests.we all go through that.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 6:58pm

     I am only 36, and this is not a random test - I have symptoms.

     Thanks for marginalizing my experience with your assumptions.

     You're a different man since you came back, Johanne, and to be perfectly frank, I'm not sure I care for the new you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 7:00pm

289. ".LBJ escalated the war, the bombing, he was ousted because of all the assasinations & the war,"

     LBJ was not ousted. he chose not to stand for election of the office he held.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 7:00pm

290. Dawn, you misunderstood my post. it was one of solidarity.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 7:01pm

291. By the way, your "friend Maasch" implied that he was having sex with another poster's wife and discussing that poster's inadequacies with her - I never saw you call him on that. Where was your outrage then?

     I did not see that post, and it was during a time when I was not posting here.

     while I am gratified at the many good things that have been said about me here, that is not why I come here, and that is not the reason I write. I am the same I have always been, mistakes and all.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 7:06pm

292. Johanne -

     I appreciate that, but it felt dismissive when I read it.

     Mayhaps it's my own perception - I'm obviously quite sensitive right now. Almost threw a fellow out of the bar into traffic yesterday (quite literally) for questioning my morals...

     sigh...

     Anyone who posts here just for attention or praise is pathetic (see Barry and Rio). I've never thought that about you, Jo.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 7:10pm

293. newdawn, i found your last post interesting. i don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind here either.

     i like to go out twice per month and drink whiskey and find real live republicans instead of these computer republicans. these exchanges always end badly. but i have vented. and i have tried to convince a bush supporter of their error. everytime i end it with, thanks for ruining our country asshole. because with many of these people, you have to keep it simple. very simple.

     unfortunately i stumbled unexpectedly on a republican in a friend of 20 years last time i went out. i really should have known he was a republican since he is probably the largest land owner around butte. the argument started over the dynasty tax during which he whined his greedy little whine. the argument then continued to many aspects of politics. i tried for hours to convince him in even a small way to see things differently. i patiently and persistently tried.

     needless to say, i will never speak to the worm again.

     and, the bestiality thing started with the rooster using the phrase, "screaming like a raped chicken."

     for some inexplicable reason, i found that phrase far more offensive than the ensuing pages and pages of sophomoric and sometimes hilarious humor.

     go figure.

     we all have different senses of humor.

     and we are all aware of what is going on politically in this country. probably more aware than others. that can make you crack up if you let it.

     i will pray for you too, in my pagan way.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 7:24pm

294. i guess it wasn't your last post, newdawn, it was this one:

     Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 6:58pm | ignore this person

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 7:26pm

295. Wow, I really enjoyed reading through the series of discussions on the last two pages. It's perhaps a little light on the political side but heavy on the reasoning, ethics and conflict resolution. Especially admire the requests to politely stop a stream of thought that was toxic. Very adult and wise. Hope it sticks. (Speaking of me here.) So why can't people get along out there similarly! Sad. I also had a couple of other observations.

     One that LuvLying and JohnB have the similar affliction of projecting their bias onto a subject, fact, or quote, and seeing it as its own skin, unable to separate their imposed layers piled in between, become unmovable learning-wise with simply logic. We all have that affliction to a certain extent, but when it breeds arrogance and erring on the side that will cause the most immediate harm, to me, that sends up a red flag--says not playing with a full deck-- in the heart department. To acquiesce to corporate vultures standing over our dead, profiting, is evil, but those lobbying for more to fatten it is worse.

     And then I read something about how many dead and fools... A projection below. If hsuB is determined to stay, the evil will want a lot more soon.

     War Death (est.)

     Year ___Vietnam US dead _______Year __Iraq US dead

     1961-65____1864_______________2003-06____2965

     1966_______6053________________2007____14,829

     1967______11,058_______________2008____27,731

     1968______16,511_______________2009____42,983

     1969______11,527_______________2010____30,088

     1970_______6065________________2011____15,645

     1971_______2348________________2012_____5476

     1972________561________________2013_____1314

     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

     TOTALS

     KIA_____58,191_______________________141,031

     WIA___153,303_______________________375,142

     MIA_____2338___________________________5641

     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

     South Vietnamese _____________________Iraqis

     KIA___230,000_______________________611,800

     WIA__300,000_______________________798,000

     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

     North Vietnamese __________________ Insurgency

     KIA__1,100,000______________________2.926,000

     WIA__600,000_______________________1,596,000

     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

     Total Civilians Killed

     2-4,000,000______________________5-10,000,000

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 7:38pm

296. frank, don't ask them where they heard it anymore, tell them where they heard it. it scares them.

     say, "listen moron, in reality land, nobody questions the idiocy of rush and fox. so quit throwing that garbage in my face.."

     and you're right, there are many positive aspects to this blog.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 7:43pm

297. I like this board - trolls and all. I often try to imagine what the usual cast of characters here look like. For some I have a vivid pitcure. I wonder how accurate it is.

     Sometimes, I learn something new, whether it is from a useful link or a book recommendation. Sometimes I laugh out loud at one of Will C.'s jabs (I miss Bloppy, he was always good for a chuckle). Sometimes I like to sharpen my advocacy skills and even play debunker. Sometimes I post something inappropriate or rude or (gasp!) wrong. Sometimes I try to be witty and it ends up looking terrible in writing. I welcome the wackjobs, extremists, and people I strongly disagree with. I probably won't change too many minds here, but that is ok. For all of our country's faults, at least we are only trying to one-up each other with words rather than with a gun or bomb.

     I have sometimes become frustrated here and vowed to "take a sabatical." But, "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 7:53pm

298. I think you mean relegated.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 09:15am

     :)

     sure I mean relegated... it's just that luvvy hates regulations

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 8:16pm

299. Atleast one use of the term "hamster"!

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 09:35am

     2

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 8:17pm

300. Atleast one use of the term "hamster"!

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 09:35am

     3

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 8:18pm

301. Atleast one use of the term "hamster"!

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 09:35am

     4

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 8:18pm

302. Yep, definitely a habit blogging. I have learned a lot reading here when I get the time. Missed my jogging time 3 times already going back to read just a little bit more.

     Sorry to hear when anyone gets bad news. I hear of unfortunate circumstances at my job a lot so I'm easy to empathize even if I can't post'em, good thoughts are there.

     I think the conflicts come down to intent most of the time. Progressives and the 'new cons' have naturally conflicting intentions. One's geared for the individual's liberty to share ideas, info, hardships, wealth, any kind of growth as equally as possible, help each other out, lift all boats. The other is more of a gang rape of who or whatever there is to exploit and in the convincing others to participate to create ligitimacy via consensis, join in or get trickle down crumbs. Arragance ensues... Fun.

     Just some quick thoughts. Now I do have go jog... later.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 8:19pm

303. Atleast one use of the term "hamster"!

     Posted by MASK 08/22/2006 @ 09:35am

     5

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 8:19pm

304. mask... you a stupid hamster

     Posted by Will C. at 08/22/2006 @ 8:19pm

305. check tomgram's "seven things you don't know about Iraq"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 8:52pm

306. tomdispatch.com

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 8:53pm

307. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 6:43pm: I would urge you all to check some other blogs, and their commentary sections. Huffington for instance. I don't see foulmouthed rhetoric there.

     So? This is not huffington.

     a few days ago I saw somebody posting here once, then he read over the content and decided he did not wish to hang with us. I don't blame him, but there was a voice lost. who knows how many others have felt like this.

     JR, that is somewhat misleading. That poster didn't want to "hang with us" because of what s/he saw as the lunatic leftist commentary.

     putting someone on ignore does not address this problem

     Your original complaint was that my posts were tedious. Ignore certainly solves that problem.

     I was revolted by the bestiality jock humor that was going around a while ago, and I don't condone childish attacks about masturbation on my friend Maasch. that is just puerile.

     OK. Don't condone it. But, your friend Maasch is still an enabling idiot.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 8:56pm

308. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 6:58pm: These are blogs, and I often wonder what the hell we're doing here anyway besides venting.

     Why New Dawn, you stupid MF'ing sh*thead. :)

     I couldn't agree more.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 8:58pm

309. JR, that is somewhat misleading. That poster didn't want to "hang with us" because of what s/he saw as the lunatic leftist commentary.

     no, that is not what he said.

     look Orwell, if this is how you wish to define yourself.

     we draw a selfportrait when we post. you are coming across loud and clear, Bub

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 9:09pm

310. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 9:09pm: no, that is not what he said.

     That's what I recall him saying. What do you recall?

     look Orwell, if this is how you wish to define yourself.

     What is "this"?

     In any event, I am not trying to define myself by my posts. Perhaps you are.

     we draw a selfportrait when we post. you are coming across loud and clear, Bub

     "Bub" is a bit confrontational for polite discourse, don't you think JR?

     But, I am glad to hear that I am coming across clearly. And, you have made yourself clear. Can we drop this now? It seems to be a bit tedious.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 9:26pm

311. hman, you are too critical of yourself. your posts are always well thought out and filled with actual verifiable facts.

     i am terribly curious about your imaginary pictures of us. will you share a few?

     hsubfools, i agree with your opinion of john. my abhorrence is based in his grotesque hubris in having strong opinions on how the creative process of women's bodies should be dealt with. couple that with his minimalization of the horrific torture that is occuring in our names by our gov.t and well.....

     i assume he is a totally self-swallowed bdsm freak who can't realize other people are not like him and do not get off on torture.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:29pm

312. i miss oustbush too. are you out there reading, oustbush? probably gone fly-fishing.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:31pm

313. Orwell, I agree. the point was made.

     the person I was referring to gave no further reason, leaving the interpretation to us, each for how we saw it.

     as far as Maasch goes, I don't care for his opinions, but that does not extend to his person. and that goes for everyone, if I should attack you, it is a rhetorical attack, aimed at your views, not your person.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/22/2006 @ 9:32pm

314. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 6:58pm: These are blogs, and I often wonder what the hell we're doing here anyway besides venting.

     Why New Dawn, you stupid MF'ing sh*thead. :)

     I couldn't agree more.

     Posted by ORWELL2005 08/22/2006 @ 8:58pm

     Orwell - Go fuck yourself, you retard. :)

     God, I love you, man. Don't ever stop.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:34pm

315. No, that would be me.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:37pm

316. We just walked in from work, and I brought in the mail - in it is the latest "Cooking Light" magazine that my lady uses to concoct bland, healthy foods for the two of us...

     She saw the mag and exclaimed "You didn't tell me I got food porn!"

     I love that woman.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:38pm

317. I say the same thing!!! Bring on the cholesterol bombs!

     But she doesn't listen...

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:41pm

318. Just got done reading page nine----What a bunch of crap. You guys sitting around slapping each other on the back thinking that some how what you type has some sort of importance. You aren't influencing anyone. Just a mutual circle jerk society. You take your nice little ideas to a board that is sponsored by one of the most liberal magazines in America. Here you can be around people whose politics are nothing but a clone. Here you can get a false sense of what the real world thinks. Start visiting other web sites. Web sites where your point of view is in the minority. Maybe then you will understand that this place is on the fringe of the American political tapestry.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 9:41pm

319. Sounds like the good woman wants to keep you around for awhile. Count your blessings

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/22/2006 @ 9:42pm

     That's the impression I'm getting.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/22/2006 @ 9:41pm

     Then fuck right off and die, Len. I'm sick of you and your "blind hatred" for all things left. You're an asshole and definitely in the minority in your supporting all things Bush.

     No one really welcomes you here, anyway, but you're a glutton for abuse and punishment.

     Fucking idiot.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:44pm

320. Johanne -

     Explain to me how that asshole deserves anything less than profanity.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:45pm

321. wow, len, you didn't brag about your money or your power or the augusta golf course even once in that post. what's going on? did someone boost your confidence today? did they put a few patches on what's left of your self-esteem?

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:46pm

322. Boo-hoo.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:47pm

323. len's going to be asking us all out to lunch any second now with the admonition that we'll tremble when we see his amazing physique.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:49pm

324. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/22/2006 @ 7:26pm

     I got you, dear lady. I'd miss you if you left. :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:50pm

325. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 9:32pm: the person I was referring to gave no further reason, leaving the interpretation to us, each for how we saw it.

     Perhaps we are speaking of different posters. The one I recall claimed that after reading the posts, s/he didn't want anything more to do with us, as we were all crazy bush haters.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 9:51pm

326. i'm not going anywhere. i would miss you as well.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:51pm

327. Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:54pm

328. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/22/2006 @ 9:41pm: Web sites where your point of view is in the minority.

     Actually, Len Dear, our point of view is in the majority on most blogs, as it is the majority in the country. Get used to it.

     And those blogs where our point of view is in the majority don't allow comments. Why is that, Len Dear?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 9:54pm

329. Did everyone else hear that 'pop'?

     That was Little Lennie's last brain cell bursting. I'd bet a finger he is nearly apoplectic with impotent rage about right now.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 9:54pm

330. sorry, i guess my 2 year old daughter wanted to contribute. i wonder what she said....

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 9:55pm

331. And those blogs where our point of view is in the majority

     => And those blogs where our point of view is in the minority

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 9:56pm

332. the Cheney/Bush PNAC junta will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing neocon mis-adventures and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National Guard troops in a national emergency. They use Lysander Spooner as their ideological mentor.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 9:57pm

333. remember what the Cheney/Bush junta, the 'Mob at the Gates' that they truly fear is not terrorists but, instead, the American people demanding their rights and Constitution back.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 9:59pm

334. New Dawn----Kiss my ass you ignorant piece of shit---You want a piece of me----You want some of this --Got to be said with a New York accent :)

     Just kidding New Dawn---Didn't mean anything above seriously. I just find your insults amusing. But I must have hit a nerve since I got called a "F-cking idiot"---an "asshole"---and told to "f-ck off and die" ---all in the same post. That might be a new record---One I am very proud of by the way considering from whom the insults came. You can often judge a person (or country) by who their enemies are----I feel flatered.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 10:00pm

335. Wonder how many times now Little Lenny has started typing a response and had to go back and edit, so furious is he that his spelling, grammar, and content have flown out the window...

     Just post it, Little Lenny. We'll all laugh at you anyway.

     Better yet, why don't you go over to one of your "real-world" sites (that's distinctly in the minority in every poll - even John McCain came out against Bush's handling of Iraq today) and spew?

     You won't be missed here, and if you are, we'll all just reload and take another shot at the riduclously simple and easy target that is...

     you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:01pm

336. Lenny -

     You? My enemy?

     You are a punk - it would take a far more worthy man than you to qualify as my enemy. Get over yourself.

     Everyone is laughing at you, Len. Especially me.

     Oh, and for the record, you are a "fucking idiot" and an "asshole".

     But the board never needed me to tell them that.

     You already did it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:03pm

337. a similar timeline is in the latest issue of mother jones, frank. it is infuriating.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 10:05pm

338. What makes people who watch Faux News think that they are being told the truth when it is so clearly evident that they are not. What's the point of being a dittohead only means that you are being made a fool of. This is really quite sickening.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/22/2006 @ 7:16pm

     Frank, I think it's a little more complicated than that. The Joes and Janes, our friends, neighbours, relatives etc have been conditioned to think and act as they do. There is no secret in this. I recall the general panic after the markets lost 40% of value in 2000-2001. Granted, not everyone invests and consequently, not everyone lost value. However, the overall flow-down effects of the market blowout led to a lot of market changes, which have enabled very serious repercussions in today's America. The target for quick and easy (albeit short term recovery) was, and is Middle America.

     First and foremost was the action of the Fed. Greenspan gave the green light to financial institutions to open the money taps. Wide open. First came no-fault mortgages of every shape and denomination. Every big ticket manufacturer followed suit and made credit easily available to anyone (and everyone). Take it the next step and look at those financial corps stepping all over each other in hopes of enticing all of us to buy furniture, appliances...hell…...even groceries….on credit. You can buy phone sex, if that's your bag….on credit. Order a ‘bride" from Russia….on credit…no problem. Credit cards to buy out other credit cards.…no problem.

     Ok, there was good movement in capital (real estate) appreciation up to last year. How many people do you know who refinanced their homes in the last 3-4 years? How many of those spam letters have you all received from refi "specialists" guaranteeing immediate cash of $75,000....$100,000? And how many people do you know who have cashed out and refinanced? Who now owe more than their entire equity? It's only going to get worse.

     How many people do you know who "had" to go out and buy the big $4000 plasma TV? "Had" to trade their 2 year old SUV in every two years? "Had" to have their week at Disneyland every year? You know what I'm saying.

     It's all about lifestyle…American lifestyle. A massive consumer society. A negative savings society…a debt society. A large, fat society, with enormous appetite for every piece of shit plastic object made in asia, whether it's needed or not. A "just gotta have it" society?

     Bush and his massagers know this. The breaking point is in the near term. They will just not bother to tell you…that you are going down. The Fed has been dancing around for over two years hoping that somebody bails us out. Watch the action from China and Russia and how they are buying/selling $US. Watch the gold indices. Who is buying $USD and why…..and for how long?

     To answer your question; "What makes people who watch Faux News think that they are being told the truth when it is so clearly evident that they are not".

     Because Fox provides that comfort zone that people described above want to hear. Kinda like:

     "The economy is strong and growing" "xxxxx jobs were created in the last quarter" "Inflation holding"…never mind that Fed inflation numbers don't include anything other than food and consumables. "Democracy is on the rise in the middle east" "Capitalism equates to progress for you and the world" "Improvements in Iraq" "More tax cuts for the middle class….."

     You get the drift. Jingoism to calm the debtor masses. Keep them buying….on credit. But…keep them a little scared. Keep them thinking we are defeating those bastards abroad so that you can keep buying cheap shit from Asia. Keep them pissed that they have to pay $3 for gas due to those despicable Arabs. Keep the hope alive that ‘democracy" in the middle east will ensure our opulent lifestyle. After all, those bastids only envy our freedom.

     I am Canadian. I live in AZ. I see this great country destroying itself. I see so much arrogance; so much complacency and even greater amounts of imperial "god bless America" crap. It's a "lost white girl in Aruba", "murdered white beauty queen in Colorado", "who's the next American idol"?

     Other than being a Canuck, I am also a trader. One of my best longs is a company developing energy resource in western Canada. I also regularly browse and contribute to investor message boards. One overriding sentiment from Americans is "energy resource from western Canada should, and has to flow, south". Says who? Take it for what's it's worth, even the Saudis are starting to bid in that sector. No less the Chinese and Indians and now even the S. Koreans. Hey, you promote capitalism right? What arrogance! Canada should undercut itself just because America stands on the southern border. NOT.

     I think that science has proven quite clearly that the universe DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The American empire is quickly and easily being surpassed, and will eventually be gobbled up by our neighbors to the east.

     I must apologize for getting a little off tangent here. Hypocrisy does bother me.

     Middle America is being held ransom and people like Maasch, CPT, LL, Rio et al continue to expand on the virtues of a complete and utter waste of humanity, neo cons and their loose sphinctered worshippers.. (Yeah Johann, Inspector of the Inspectorate of Foul Epitaphs League) of I said "sphincter"…relax)

     Debt = complacency = jingoistic acceptance = typical american voter

     Posted by doumer at 08/22/2006 @ 10:07pm

339. Little Lenny -

     Your first post today on this board was a blanket condemnation of everyone here, with zero regard for the other eight pages that came before yours (which clearly dispute your insipid accusation that we all think we're changing the world), and you are so supremely important to believe that we should all realize that yours is the simply last word on everything and shut up?

     And you chuckle about "touching a nerve"? Is that what gets you off? Hitting twenty people at a time on an internet blog and then acting like you're better than all of them, even though you're in the minority?

     You're lower on the shit-scale than I thought. The stupid-scale, too.

     You got a lotta internet bravado, asshole. Not much else, though.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:09pm

340. Probing the power of prayer

     By Catherine Rauch

     (WebMD) -- When Dionee Warwick sang the words "I say a little prayer for you" in the hit 1960s song, she probably didn't imagine that the soulful pledge would become the stuff of serious science. But increasingly, scientists are studying the power of prayer, and in particular its role in healing people who are sick.

     Most research in the field looks at how people who are sick are affected by their own spiritual beliefs and practices. In general, these studies have suggested that people who are religious seem to heal faster or cope with illness more effectively than do the nondevout.

     But a few scientists have taken a further step: They're trying to find out if you can help strangers by praying for them without their knowledge.

     A recent, controversial study of cardiac patients conducted at St. Luke's Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, concludes that this type of prayer -- known as intercessory prayer -- may indeed make a difference. "Prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care," says cardiac researcher William Harris, Ph.D., who headed the St. Luke's study. The study was published in the October 25, 1999 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

     Harris and team examined the health outcomes of nearly 1,000 newly admitted heart patients at St. Luke's. The patients, who all had serious cardiac conditions, were randomly assigned to two groups. Half received daily prayer for four weeks from five volunteers who believed in God and in the healing power of prayer. The other half received no prayer in conjunction with the study.

     The volunteers were all Christians. The participants were not told they were in a study. The people praying were given only the first names of their patients and never visited the hospital. They were instructed to pray for the patients daily "for a speedy recovery with no complications."

     Measuring marvels

     Using a lengthy list of events that could happen to cardiac patients -- such as chest pains, pneumonia, infection, and death -- Harris concluded that the group receiving prayers fared 11 percent better than the group that didn't, a number considered statistically significant.

     Harris originally embarked on his study to see if he could replicate a similar 1988 study of intercessory prayer conducted at San Francisco General Hospital. That study -- one of the only published studies of its kind -- also found that prayer benefited patients, but by a different measure: The patients were able to go home from the hospital sooner. In Harris' study, the length of the hospital stay and the time spent in the cardiac unit were no different for the two groups.

     Still, Harris says, his study bolsters the evidence that prayer works. "To me it almost argues for another intelligence, to have to redirect this very vague information."

     At the very least, he says, his results validate the need for more research. "It strengthens the field. The more studies done in independent, different places, the closer you are to the truth," he says.

     Fans and critics

     The Harris study, like its predecessor, has attracted both fans and critics, and plenty of each. Some critics say that adding up health events to judge a patient's outcome is subjective, open to bias, and therefore scientifically invalid. Others say not informing people they were in a study is unethical and disrespects personal religious preferences.

     "This was a reasonably well conducted study, [but] I think they made some mistakes," says Richard Sloan, Ph.D., a cardiovascular researcher at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York who closely follows research on spirituality and healing.

     Sloan has trouble with several aspects of the Harris study. The prayers were for a "speedy recovery" but there were no measurable differences in hospital stays for the two groups, he says. "Half of their predictions failed at the offset."

     But supporters say the work is careful. "They're not claiming they are identifying how this occurred; they're just saying maybe we should take a closer look," says Harold Koenig, M.D., a doctor and professor of medicine and psychiatry at Duke University who has written about prayer and healing.

     The percent of difference in the outcomes of the two groups was small, Koenig says, but the Harris study used sound methodology and produced intriguing results. "Many, many people pray. Many people would like to know if their prayers are being heard."

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 10:09pm

341. Paine -

     I went Googling "scientific proof of the power of prayer" earlier today when one poster (no need to name names) also discounted that power.

     I did not find what you posted. Interesting, and thank you for taking the time to look it up and post it.

     (Hey, Liberty - I dug that article)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:12pm

342. New Dawn----Ok I'll play

     You are a piece of shit----You are a f-cking idiot---You are pond scum-----You suck----you're an asshole-----and you can kiss my ass shit for brains.

     I guess we could do this all night from behind a monitor.

     Big Brave New Dawn---my monitor is shaking-----what a joke you are ----I call my wife up here everytime you get on----she laughs her ass off----I take copies of your post to my friends---they think your hilarious. You are nothing more than cyber trash--always have been always will be.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 10:14pm

343. DOUMER,

     Do you think that the US junta will attempt to control CANADA the same way it is doing with MEXICO?

     Do you think, that they are worried that when they tighen the screws ntened and people flee north and south that insurrection will come back from those channels?

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 10:17pm

344. Perhaps we are speaking of different posters. The one I recall claimed that after reading the posts, s/he didn't want anything more to do with us, as we were all crazy bush haters.

     Posted by ORWELL2005 08/22/2006 @ 9:51pm

     I remember that guy.

     Buh-bye.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:20pm

345. Just got done reading page nine----What a bunch of crap. You guys sitting around slapping each other on the back thinking that some how what you type has some sort of importance. You aren't influencing anyone. Just a mutual circle jerk society. You take your nice little ideas to a board that is sponsored by one of the most liberal magazines in America. Here you can be around people whose politics are nothing but a clone. Here you can get a false sense of what the real world thinks. Start visiting other web sites. Web sites where your point of view is in the minority. Maybe then you will understand that this place is on the fringe of the American political tapestry.

     ---New Dawn----While hard hitting --there was not a single personal insult in that post----no one was called an asshole---no one was called a f-cking idiot.

     The post questioned the influence this blog has. The post also questioned the ability of anyone changing the opinions of others when almost everyone on this blog already thinks the same way.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 10:22pm

346. sorry NEWDAWN, just trying to help. there is more material out there, both on the web and in libraries. tell me what kind of research would make you think seriously about the possibility. it's bithch, but if you try you'll find that it works, power of positive thinking stuff, does work, try it, what have you got to loose. no one will know. I am mr. skeptic, skepticism is a large part of my principles, yet i tried it, as a test.

     by the way i am not a believer in messiahs.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 10:24pm

347. Keep laughing, Little Lennie, from the relative safety of cyberspace.

     You've talked shit since I got here about what a big man you are and how you so badly want to meet everyone face-to-face, while it took almost a year of posting to drag out of me that I can and have for years actually backed up everything I do.

     That clearly makes me the bigger man.

     I got tired of people like you years ago, men who use their size to intimidate, to make up for how small they are in every other way. You've shown this board your spirit since I've been here, and I would never call a man as callous and cold as you "friend". So what do I care what you, your wife, and your "friends" think of me?

     I say again, get over yourself. No one here, especially me, cares about you or yours.

     And the difference between me and you, Len, is that I wouldn't bother bothering my friends with the likes of you.

     I'd rather let you step up and volunteer for ridicule, like you do here every time you post.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:29pm

348. newdawn,

     if you haven't already, check out the book, love, medicine and miracles by bernie siegel. he taught (or teaches?) at yale and practices surgery. the book is about his exceptional cancer patients and what he found different about their approach to healing. i have had a lot of experience with cancer (not me but dear family members and dear friends) and that book helped us through some tough times.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 10:32pm

349. Posted by TOM PAINE 08/22/2006 @ 10:24pm

     Nonono, you misinterpret me!

     I even work for an esoteric organization that has a council of people putting forth positivity for others daily (some might call it praying, but I don't). I actually do believe in the power of positive thought, I just can't take it to the level of a dogma.

     I sincerely appreciated what you posted, and it offered some small comfort.

     Thank you, really.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:32pm

350. yep bushit hater here. I go along way trying to expose the heinous US government policies, back to the sixties.

     perhaps no one is going to be influenced one way or another.

     perhaps this little blog does not matter

     perhaps this information is seen by someone who will make a positive difference....no one knows, no one can know.

     you put it out there and that's all you can do

     you go to the market and say "Im tired of these bastards and I'm not going to put up with this crap anymore!"

     may not make a difference, or it may make a difference.

     you boycott Walmart and Sams and Hewlet Packard, a lone person expressing their dissent, perhaps....then perhaps not...no one knows.

     but you must do it just in the off chance that it will matter and make things better.

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 10:33pm

351. Posted by DOUMER 08/22/2006 @ 10:07pm

     I think you hit it right on the head. Good thinking.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/22/2006 @ 10:29pm | ignore this person

     i agree as well, doumer. excellent post!

     Posted by loveloki at 08/22/2006 @ 10:33pm

352. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/22/2006 @ 10:32pm

     Wow, dig this irony - my lady is a cancer survior -We may even have that book already! (I'll look tonight)

     Honestly, to all of the decent people... I thank you for your kind wishes, and I adore some of you - but now I wish I had never mentioned my thing.

     (I hate attention)

     ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:35pm

353. you boycott Walmart and Sams and Hewlet Packard, a lone person expressing their dissent, perhaps....then perhaps not...no one knows.

     but you must do it just in the off chance that it will matter and make things better.

     Posted by TOM PAINE 08/22/2006 @ 10:33pm

     Paine -

     I would go one further and posit that one lone man's stand makes him bigger.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:39pm

354. The rest is...

     sigh...

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:39pm

355. I'd rather let you step up and volunteer for ridicule, like you do here every time you post

     Ridicule on this board is music to my ears---I love it ---makes my day. You think I come on here to find people who agree with me? What a dumb ass you truly are.

     "That clearly makes me the bigger man"------if it makes you feel better-- fine you can think your the "bigger man"--- clearly you need a hug tonight

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 10:44pm

356. gotta go guys (are there any ladies here?)

     be like the willow...

     peace

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 10:45pm

357. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/22/2006 @ 10:22pm: You've talked shit since I got here about what a big man you are and how you so badly want to meet everyone face-to-face

     The funny thing is that these "tough" guys don't even understand what cowards they are. They think they are brave because they get into fist fights.

     But, they can't have a fist fight with the terrorists, so they are terrorized. "Save us from the evil tirrorists", they scream, as they go lunging back under the bed, cowering in abject fear, while simultaneously soiling themselves (sorry JR. I just couldn't resist.)

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 10:47pm

358. They think they are brave because they get into fist fights.

     Have not been in a "fist fight" in twenty years. Don't presume to know me or label me. But if you find a terrorist for me I would love to have a fist fight---now that would be some entertainment.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 10:50pm

359. Hey Tom,

     Nothing surprises me much anymore. WTF? If what's his face in the WH can invade and 'occupy" with impunity, the middle east, how much will a liberation of Canada cost? Not much. No army. A couple of Border Guards may pose a problem, but what the hell, send in the Minutemen.

     With respect to peeps fleeing north and south? Well, probably those seeking refuge can crash with all those hippie draft dodgers in BC. Good weed up there. As far as going south, well, desert living can be a little tough on the system, unless you know how to squeeze brine out of a saguaro. Somehow, I don't think our mexican brotherswill not readily accept "illegals".

     Peace to you brother.

     Posted by doumer at 08/22/2006 @ 10:58pm

360. Since we're discussing men in need of a hug (my lady is eyeballing me in that wondrous way of hers, so I gotta make this quick and then bail)...

     Would anyone else here call the following comments "insulting", if not "personal", per se? If someone said one of these things to your face, would you not be "insulted"?

     "What a bunch of crap." "You guys sitting around slapping each other on the back thinking that some how what you type has some sort of importance." "You aren't influencing anyone." "Just a mutual circle jerk society." "You take your nice little ideas to a board that is sponsored by one of the most liberal magazines in America. Here you can be around people whose politics are nothing but a clone. Here you can get a false sense of what the real world thinks." "Start visiting other web sites. Web sites where your point of view is in the minority. Maybe then you will understand that this place is on the fringe of the American political tapestry."

     Someone explain to me how any of those lines aren't insulting.

     Come here to find people who agree with you, Len? Hell, no, I don't think you think that. I think you come here to be rude to and ridicule people in internet anonymity. I think you like to shit on people, and that you like to do it here. No illusions on me, thanks.

     But you are indeed an asshole and an idiot, Lennie, and I don't imagine you're really welcome anywhere but with your wife and your "friends", let alone here. You've been invited to have polite discourse here, many many times, by many many posters, even me, and yet, you refuse.

     The sad thing is, you think that when you come here that we provide you the amusement...

     but it's the other way around, which clearly makes you the fool. Shall we take a poll and see who's being laughed at here?

     You are a joke to me, Len. A joke.

     Now, invite me to lunch so I can laugh at you some more.

     Oh, oh - I'll even call my lady over to watch you reply if it'll make you feel better.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 10:59pm

361. "New Dawn"---Maybe the reason Paine's claim of cancer hit me hard is that I am waiting on a doctor's diagnosis right now for that very thing - makes it hard to really hate on anyone but Liberty right this second...

     Just went back and checked out board 7 and 8 ---found the above post. I wish nothing but good news for you New Dawn, but if it's not the news you want to hear---you have enough fight in you and the doctor's know enough to beat it.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:00pm

362. Len -

     If it seems that I might be coming at you pretty hard because of that post of mine...

     it's not. It's because you are what you are.

     And you know what struck me just now? Not your kind words (which, as much as I'd like to, I cannot fault - thank you - I bit my tongue so hard it bled just now typing that)...

     What I found most interesting is that you commented on only page 9 of this board without reading anything before it, and dared talk about what an echo chamber this is.

     To be honest, I find it boring as all hell in here when everyone agrees.

     I just find it unfortunate when blankets are thrown around.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:04pm

363. Oh Len, I love your pansy referral to "fist fight". What in fuck is that? Guess you have been subject to more than a few Ass-whuppins. There will be many more for you morons. Count on it.

     Love,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/22/2006 @ 11:05pm

364. Did a sauna on the way back after the jog and heard on the radio a interesting connection that struct me as an almost too obvious I didn't get hit with previously-- 'the real reason the hsuB admin is fighting to do the wireless searches is the same for not wanting a paper trail on voting machines'--- OH DUH!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 11:07pm

365. OH shit-- not wireless, shit-- warrantless...

     Haahaha-- got to stop talking on the phone too...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 11:10pm

366. New Dawn---the problem seems to be that when people disagree with you, criticize your opinions, or questions your train of thought --you find it rude and insulting. You then think it is ok to cuss them out. I usually take the bait and return the cussing---this could go on forever. What a waist of time. How about this---When I criticize or disagree with your opinions --you criticize or disagree with mine. We then could get off the never ending cycle of hurling insults at each other.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:11pm

367. Len -

     That is just bullshit.

     The only posters here I recall having ever "cussed out" are you, Maasch, Liberty, and Barry25. And all with good reason, far beyond just "disagreeing" or being "criticized" or "challenged". I've been accused of this bullshit before, so nice try, but you lack originality.

     I love challenges to my preconcieved notions - thinking is a favorite hobby of mine.

     but I absolutely resort to the lowest common denominator of communication when you individuals shit on people, and throw around blanket statements full of hate, and can't be communicated with in any other way.

     Find posts of mine where I have made blanket condemnations of the entire right or all of Christianity or of any group. Good luck in your search.

     I spit on your attempt to place you and I on the same playing field. We don't even play the same sport, man.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:19pm

368. Bloppy----If you have a problem with the term "fist fight" take it up with Orwell2005---He is the one who first used it--not me---"But, they can't have a fist fight with the terrorists, so they are terrorized."

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:20pm

369. What a bunch of crap." "You guys sitting around slapping each other on the back thinking that some how what you type has some sort of importance." "You aren't influencing anyone." "Just a mutual circle jerk society." "You take your nice little ideas to a board that is sponsored by one of the most liberal magazines in America. Here you can be around people whose politics are nothing but a clone. Here you can get a false sense of what the real world thinks." "Start visiting other web sites. Web sites where your point of view is in the minority. Maybe then you will understand that this place is on the fringe of the American political tapestry."

     Where is the hate in the above statement?

     The statement was intended to be hard hitting and critical--not hateful---I believe I was successful. Not a single personal insult was included in that post.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:30pm

370. John McCain said a funny thing today, 1st, here is the exaggerated, satiric version:

     "Americans feel today because they were led to believe this [Iraq] could be some kind of day at the beach"

     & now, what John McCain actually said:

     "Man, George Bush should have been straight up, said, hey Americans lets invade Iraq, it's going to be a disaster."

     Posted by conshame at 08/22/2006 @ 11:31pm

371. Catching the second round of Jon Stewart. Good form.

     Think I'm starting to hydrate some. A tall Margarita helps. Heheheh.

     LoveLoki-- I notice when students attempt learning to draw but can't because they just project so much they can only draw in symbols-- mind overlays the image with what their thinking and thus can't actually brake down the abstract shapes, line, tones, texture or color. Instead everything gets simplified, distorted to a cartoon. I can point at the shadow and to them it doesn't exist! Incredible. I think heavy-duty perception studies very well may help explain the 'new con' blindness to external reality.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 11:31pm

372. Len, I would suggest in the strongest terms, that you go home, pet your dog, beat your wife, drown your offspring, and stay the fuck out of the future of this wonderful country. You simply don't figure into a positive outcome for the USA. You are stale and stupid. And, (forgive me) you are a bit of a punkass.

     The parallel universe calls.

     Love,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/22/2006 @ 11:33pm

373. not brake down-- break down...

     Almost there.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 11:35pm

374. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/22/2006 @ 11:30pm

     So, if I said (which I NEVER have):

     Everyone but the left wing of America (Right-wingers, Christians, evangelicals, Libertarians, and Republicans) are semi-retarded assholes without a complete brain amongst the entire sorry lot of them, handling both United States domestic and foreign policy with hamhanded inefficiency and an astonishing lack of foresight or planning for the equal and opposite reaction to their actions.

     Hard-hitting and critical, but not a single personal insult in the bunch.

     Right, Len?

     You can't even be serious.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:37pm

375. And while playing dumb wears well on you, I did not say your post was "hateful", I said it was insulting.

     The reference to your "blanket statements full of hate" was about every time you have spit the word "left" like I spit the word "fuck".

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:38pm

376. I give up - which one of you is the right winger?

     Posted by conshame at 08/22/2006 @ 11:38pm

377. Which one of you two?

     Posted by conshame at 08/22/2006 @ 11:38pm

378. Bloppy, Bloppy, Bloppy----I suggest that you crawl back under your rock, pet your dog or should I say significant other, beat your meat, and drown yourself---for you have never figured into the future of this country and never will--you are cyber trash and you will never have any relevance to anything in the real world. You are less than useless. You are a drag on the productive people of the world. Do us all a favor ---empty youself.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:39pm

379. Everyone but the left wing of America (Right-wingers, Christians, evangelicals, Libertarians, and Republicans) are semi-retarded assholes without a complete brain amongst the entire sorry lot of them, handling both United States domestic and foreign policy with hamhanded inefficiency and an astonishing lack of foresight or planning for the equal and opposite reaction to their actions.

     If you left out the "semi retarded assholes without a complete brain amongest the entire sorry lot" ---you would have a hard hitting and critical statement that was not hateful. My statement did not include such phrases.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:43pm

380. Feeling a little schizophrenic after the last page or so. Love, hate, love, hate,...ha.

     Another Magarita and I should be better to do some work and prep for tomorrow. Ah another day... Hope they keep on coming.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2006 @ 11:45pm

381. Bloppy's was better. And first.

     Originality - not Len's strong suit. But enough of that. Back on-topic:

     My Bay Area radio station was all abuzz about McCain's denouncing Bush's handling of Iraq.

     Two questions (at the risk of sounding Maskish - and where has that little bugger been today - hope he's okay):

     Does this make everyone forget how McCain is right/wrong on abortion/guns/all other things Republican wedge-issue?

     And does anyone else think this might just be a strictly political move (for a potential President) that falls right in line with much of the Republican establishment that is now abandoning Bush's failed Iraq policies?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:45pm

382. If you left out the "semi retarded assholes without a complete brain amongest the entire sorry lot" ---you would have a hard hitting and critical statement that was not hateful. My statement did not include such phrases.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/22/2006 @ 11:43pm

     See my 11:38.

     Enough of you now. You already killed my wood.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:45pm

383. In describing the current political administration, I would dare say that "semi retarded assholes without a complete brain amongest the entire sorry lot" is a hard hitting and critical statement that was not hateful in any way.

     Them's the facts, Jack! (in your best Bill Murray for the room's entertainment, please)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:47pm

384. I give up - which one of you is the right winger?

     Posted by CONSHAME 08/22/2006 @ 11:38pm

     What-hah?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:48pm

385. Bloppy -

     Len called us both "cyber-trash"!

     Should we start a club?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:49pm

386. Bushfools: "Catching the second round of Jon Stewart. Good form."

     What do you make of Reza Aslan and "No God but God"?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:50pm

387. Hey, my bad.

     Shoot me.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:53pm

388. The reference to your "blanket statements full of hate" was about every time you have spit the word "left" like I spit the word "fuck".

     But I don't spit the word "f-ck". And if my post sound critical it's because I don't like much of what I consider extreme liberal/progressive dogma. But I have said many times that neither the left or the right have all the answers to the major questions facing this country. In fact I think the left may generally be headed down the right road when it comes to health care in America---but when it comes to national security I think that the right has more of the answers. Expect my original post on subjects to be critical but not personally insulting---When I have used insults I have used them in retaliation----(example--bloopy above).

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/22/2006 @ 11:53pm

389. Frank -

     You unwittingly implied to the winger that he has the power to do that. That's the real bummer.

     Rounding them up is for animals and detainees, my friend.

     Good night.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:55pm

390. Len -

     I've told you before, and please don't play dense - you come into the room with a first post like you did today, and no one is going to be friendly with you. It's foolish to expect otherwise.

     My sincere thanks for the kind words earlier about that thing I don't want to think about.

     Good night.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/22/2006 @ 11:57pm

391. McCain criticized Dear Leader for not letting the country know about just how difficult our noble task in Iraq was.

     But, here's what Sen. McCain said on 3/23/03 [tinyurl.com]:

     But there's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators.

     The StraightTalk Express Rides Again.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/22/2006 @ 11:58pm

392. Len, do you work? Are you a productive member of society? Or do you spend altogether too much time as a parasite in places that don't even care what you have to say? Come on sissy-man. Tell us all.

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/23/2006 @ 12:55am

393. Len,

     "wow, len, you didn't brag about your money or your power or the augusta golf course "

     Really? Can you get me a tee time?

     JR,

     For some unknown reason, my sex life has been made an issue to which I have to admit , I am puzzled...maybe you all think I am getting more than my share, but I assure you, I am not...thanks for the thoughts, tho....

     Posted by john maasch at 08/23/2006 @ 01:20am

394. Oh goodness, Maaschy is up and alert. That is a good thing because "Lonesome Wanker Mosse" needs some ego stroking.

     What is it with you cutey-pie, extremist, summer-camp, weenie-holding, sleeping bag, love pooters? Kinda like that wank that "loved" Jon-Benet. You just insist upon being heard, even though nobody really wants to listen.

     It makes my skin crawl.

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/23/2006 @ 01:37am

395. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 11:50pm

     Sorry had to go prep a powerpoint presentation for today. It's going to be a long long day. Be back way late.

     But found this legit now if I hadn't already posted it:

     http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mt.+Bush&defid=0

     Later.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/23/2006 @ 07:59am

396. i am terribly curious about your imaginary pictures of us. will you share a few?

     Posted by LOVELOKI 08/22/2006 @ 9:29pm

     Sure thing, I'll give you one.

     Go to www.mulletjunky.com. At the top-center, within "top mullet pic fix archive" click on image 1.

     There's Len Mosse.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 09:34am

397. Bloppy -

     Len called us both "cyber-trash"!

     Should we start a club?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 11:49pm

     Guys.....could start a chain of trailer-based internet diners? Beer, fried meats of various kinds and LAN jacks, with NASCAR re-runs on a couple of old TVs. Ahhh, the ambience!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/23/2006 @ 09:40am

398. john b., just so you know, i think you are repulsive. you make my skin crawl. and it is my hope that all men like you and the one woman like you, ann coulter, drop dead immediately.

     Posted by LOVELOKI

     To my knowledge I don't beleive we have ever had an exchange on this board. Care to enlightenme to the source of your hate?

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 09:57am

399. hsubfools, i agree with your opinion of john. my abhorrence is based in his grotesque hubris in having strong opinions on how the creative process of women's bodies should be dealt with. couple that with his minimalization of the horrific torture that is occuring in our names by our gov.t and well.....

     i assume he is a totally self-swallowed bdsm freak who can't realize other people are not like him and do not get off on torture.

     Posted by LOVELOKI

     Well, I guess that explains your hatred of me.

     New Dawn, I know I said I was done, but since she attacked me on this, it will be my only mention of the topic.

     Love... I did NOT say anything with regard to whether abortion was right or wrong. I simply stated that the arguments were wrong. I tried to leave my opinion on the morality side out of it. If you were offended at what I actually wrote then I feel sorry for you.

     On the issue of torture. I do not believe that screwing around with someones mind is torture. I have the right to believe that. I also stated that I realize I am not likely in the majority on this opinion. In the future you may want to distinguish between physical and mental.

     Now if you still find me repulsive, then there is nothing I can do but wish you well and hope that you can open your mind to the fact that others will disagree with you from time to time.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 10:25am

400. War Death (est.)

     Year ___Vietnam US dead _______Year __Iraq US dead

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/22/2006 @ 7:38pm

     Since you are so enlightened... care to share how those "estimates" were derived?

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 10:38am

401. Republican or Democrat - "not a dimes worth of difference."

     http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid =4&pid=14

     Certified members (George H.W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, et al) the CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc. = ruling elite.

     http://www.augustreview.com

     Ignoring globalization is a perilous choice. Buy lots of "real value" coins.

     Ask yourself every day -- how much is the dollar worth today and what is it going to buy in the future, will it be like money in Africa, for example, "hyperinflation?"

     Posted by larryo at 08/23/2006 @ 10:43am

402. JOHNB,

     "I do not believe that screwing around with someones mind is torture."

     The public schools do this every day..there is no law against it...but there should be...

     Posted by john maasch at 08/23/2006 @ 11:30am

403. The public schools do this every day..there is no law against it...but there should be...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     But John, you forget, it is ok to brainwash children if it is being done with love, care and most importantly a liberal tilt.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 11:37am

404. Ha-ha.

     Oh, sure . . . anyone who takes a liberal view MUST have been brainwashed in school. There cannot be any other explanation - because someone with free will would ALWAYS lean conservative.

     How egotisitcal.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 11:53am

405. How egotisitcal.

     Posted by HMAN23

     Actually, I was not going for egotistical, I was trying for smart ass. Obviously I failed in that endeavor.

     I also did not say that anyone who is liberal must have been brainwashed... although... now that you mention it... ; )

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 12:04pm

406. Gee, the "liberal tilt" that I taught my son is to never accept dogma or absolutes from anyone, to explore, learn, and think for himself, to be generous whenever possible, and to care for others like his brothers and sisters.

     And you guys joke about it like that's a bad thing.

     Liberals have a better sense of humor, too, I see.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 12:10pm

407. hman, thanks for the photo of len. that really fits with the idea i had of him also!

     :)

     Posted by loveloki at 08/23/2006 @ 12:17pm

408. I was trying for smart ass...

     ...With necessarily stirring triumph ... but only judged by dumb-ass standards.

     Very classy: Making jokes about torture, tracing an arc of extremism between a droning sixth-form burned out instructor with one eye on retirement ... and a guy wielding a drill on live flesh or applying the electrodes to someone's testicles. Yup, easy to see simularity there.

     Then again, rightwingers have always had a confused relationship with The State that typifies their confused relations with everything else (like Truth, reason, other people especially mummy and da-da). They indulge in endless puppyshit posturing about statism infringing on freedom ... before making those relativist lurches toward full-throated tolerance or approval of torture, illegal searches, unitary executivism, and the like.

     Aaaaa, feel the relativism ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/23/2006 @ 12:23pm

409. SHOULD READ:

     I was trying for smart ass...

     ...With necessarily stirring triumph ... but only AS judged by dumb-ass standards.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/23/2006 @ 12:25pm

410. "Very classy: Making jokes about torture, tracing an arc of extremism between a droning sixth-form burned out instructor with one eye on retirement ... and a guy wielding a drill on live flesh or applying the electrodes to someone's testicles. Yup, easy to see simularity there. Posted by GLENN LEMON "

     And yet another individual who obviously lacks reading comprehension. Who tried to equate physical torture to mental? The answer is no one.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 12:33pm

411. "...With necessarily stirring triumph ... but only AS judged by dumb-ass standards. Posted by GLENN LEMON "

     Since you are doing the judging are you trying to say you have dumb-ass standards?

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 12:35pm

412. Liberals have a better sense of humor, too, I see.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     Well, some of you do.

     Off topic... I know you said you didn't like the attention, but I hope you are ok man.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 12:37pm

413. Who tried to equate physical torture to mental? The answer is no one.

     And who tried to deny the latter synergizes the former via a wholly artificial dichotomization?

     Since you are doing the judging are you trying to say you have dumb-ass standards?

     Fascinating view of mind revealed here: A mind is locked into one evaluative scheme at the exclusion of others and cannot alternatively parse the same text ... although somehow (!!!) we do it all the time: "The script sucked ass, but the costumes were fly".

     Some things to mull while I'm outa' here, exiting from this over long thread ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/23/2006 @ 12:45pm

414. Thanks, John B. Sincerely.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 12:50pm

415. And who tried to deny the latter synergizes the former via a wholly artificial dichotomization?

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/23/2006 @ 12:45am | ignore this person

     Please enlighten me. How does it synergize the former via a wholly artificial dichotomization?

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 1:00pm

416. New Dawn... quick question... who is this Glen Lemon? Is he making any sense? Is he capable of a debate?

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 1:02pm

417. And who tried to deny the latter synergizes the former via a wholly artificial dichotomization?

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/23/2006 @ 12:45am | ignore this person

     of the vast myriad of crimes of the current administration, the torture bothers me the most. people have died. a man who has been tortured by various countries said our force-feeding was the worst torture he'd ever experienced. we use force-feeding as torture on people who are not on hunger strikes. like glenn said, the mental and physical are synergetic. and the lines are blurred.

     people who condone this action whether it's out of psychosis or ignorance deserve to experience it firsthand.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/23/2006 @ 1:08pm

418. i'll give ya a hint john,

     it was your wholly artificial dichotomization. and you used it to deny the synergy.

     and torture is against our law and international law.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/23/2006 @ 1:13pm

419. i'll check back later. montana summers are short. i'm not going to waste a beautiful day trying to explain why torture is sick and fucking wrong to a psycho or a moron.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/23/2006 @ 1:14pm

420. we use force-feeding as torture on people who are not on hunger strikes. like glenn said, the mental and physical are synergetic. and the lines are blurred.

     Posted by LOVELOKI

     I am unaware of the use of force feeding on people that were not on a hunger strike. Could you provide me with a link so that I can educate myself on this? Thanks.

     I think it is rather obvious that physical toture is wrong, especially in the case of a resulting death. We agree on that aspect.

     However, I disagree that the lines are blurred between physical and mental. Perhaps I don't fully understand why you think this is the case and I would be open to hearing more.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 1:18pm

421. and torture is against our law and international law.

     Posted by LOVELOKI

     Torture is indeed against the law. But it is the ever changing definition of WHAT qualifies as torture that I have a problem with.

     Rather than giving me a hint... how about spelling it out for me???

     you say "it was your wholly artificial dichotomization. and you used it to deny the synergy."

     What artifical dichotomy are you talking about? Also, if you would, explain to me HOW you see the synergy. thanks.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 1:26pm

422. "i'll check back later. montana summers are short. i'm not going to waste a beautiful day trying to explain why torture is sick and fucking wrong to a psycho or a moron.

     Posted by LOVELOKI"

     I suppose I should also not waste my time with a complete bitch or a self-absorbed idiot like you.

     See, I can name call too. Did it accomplish anything? NO. And to be clear, I do not really think you are a bitch or a self-aborbed idiot as I do not know anything about you. If you wish to actually have a discussion, that would be great. If you wish to continue with the childish name calling, then I wish you well, but will ignore you in the future. The choice is yours.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 1:32pm

423. New Dawn... quick question... who is this Glen Lemon? Is he making any sense? Is he capable of a debate?

     Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 1:02pm

     Glenn is a pissed-off American (and with good reason). He often makes perfect sense, and is also capable of a debate.

     Same with Loki.

     But John, the reason they are upset with you (and note that I did not say predisposed to be upset with you) is because of the very arguments you have posted here - too much relativity for them, too much slippery (they might even say "slimy") parsing on subjects like torture and women's rights to their own bodies.

     That's just the impression I'm getting.

     I get along with you, John, (not to be confused with "agree" with you) because you've been polite and offered explanations for everything you've written without making blanket statements about the left, liberals, or Democrats as a whole.

     I certainly believe in individual a-holes, but have a hard time just whitewashing entire groups, and as an individual, I have yet to find the kind of fault with you that might make me want to "cuss you out" (as Len says I do with anyone who challenges or disagrees with me), even though you and I have pretty strongly disagreed with one another more than once.

     Glenn and Loki both mean well and are Americans who want what's best for our country. If they fight hard, it's because they're patriots, nothing more.

     I respect them, and you.

     Did that answer your question?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 1:52pm

424. New Dawn... yes, thanks.

     I guess I don't see it as being vague. Apparently I have to be extremely specific in my posts. I didn't see it as parsing.

     I didn't think I said anything as to whether a womans rights were greater/less/equal to that of an unborn. Nor did I condone physical torture. I merely stated that I think the definition of torture is vague and ever changing and that I don't agree that messing with someone mentally is torture. I thought I was clear on the fact that I realize others will not agree with that and that. But then they both appeared to take it that I condone all torture.

     I know we do not agree on the above and will respect your request to not re-hash the first disagreement, but if you would, correct me if it seemed to you as well that I somehow stated anything with regard to a woman and her body. (I will not argue the point further, but if I did, it was certainly unintentional)

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 2:16pm

425. newdawn: "I have come to the conclusion that you are a severely brain-washed moron. Since you obviously lack the ability to understand even the simplest of things, then I shall put you with the other idiots on the ignore list."

     the above is from JohnB. as you can see I did not have quite as sanguine an experience with this poster. and respect? zilch

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/23/2006 @ 2:19pm

426. John -

     I did not get that impression (about women's bodies) from our conversation, but I may not have followed the exchange between yourself and Loki as closely.

     My suggestion - ask her.

     Johannes -

     Given your rather short attitude with some posters yesterday (and please don't take this as anything more than my opinion, which won't buy a gallon of milk at the market), and the fact that I am not privy to what you may have posted that made John react to you in such a manner, it would be totally inappropriate for me to judge or answer for either of you.

     But I will say that I don't think that either you or John B. are "idiots", "brain-washed", or "morons".

     I hope that you can come to some middle ground and debate - I, for one, would find exchanges between the two of you intensely interesting.

     If not, ah, well - we can't all be pals. ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 2:28pm

427. John -

     I did not get that impression (about women's bodies) from our conversation, but I may not have followed the exchange between yourself and Loki as closely.

     My suggestion - ask her.

     New Dawn... that's my problem... I never had a conversation with her on the topic. She read our exchange and went off on me.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF ... we most certainly got off on the wrong foot. I respect New Dawns opinion on the quality of individuals that post here. I apologize for the comment you posted above and am willing to give it another go. Your call as to whether you accept the apology or not.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 2:41pm

428. John B. -

     I guessed you were goofing around, as was I. See what I meant earlier about trying to be witty with posts! It was clear to me you were joking, but my attempts at humor were lost.

     On the torture, I believe I see where you are coming at this from - drawing a line between acts that involve physical contact (like electrodes, dunking in water, etc.) and interrogation tactics where the detainee is not touched by the captor. However, I disagree that you can use such a bright-line rule in trying to define torture. I'll admit that yelling at a detainee or even threatening one with harm to himself or others (i.e. "if you do not talk we are going to slaughter your family") or vast number of other psychological means do not constitute torture. Now, it may be that some of these devices will result in unreliable confessions, or even invalid ones depending on local law, but that is another topic. Many of these means do not constitute torture.

     But, there are many examples of methods where no physical touching occurs, yet the result is physiological and there is a close nexus between the method and the result. One example would be sleep deprivation by blaring loud music or flashing strobe lights. No touching, but denying sleep in that manner would rightfully be viewed as torture in my mind. Same goes for the use of dogs. Even if the dog never bites the prisoner; allowing the dog to get ever so close to the genitals of a naked prisoner restrained will undoubtedly have some severe physiological effects, in addition to psychological ones. The prisoner does not know the intentions of the captor or whether that leash may slip ever so slightly. He likely may shit himself, have a severe mental attack or pass out. It's almost like holding a gun an inch from someone's temple - no touching, but is it torture? I'd say so. It's hard to make bright-line rules on what is and what is not torture. Perhaps it's like the Supreme Court (Potter Stewart?) said about pornography - you know it when you see it.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 2:51pm

429. Wow, Hman.

     Very well-put.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 2:54pm

430. Here in Harper's Magazine is a surprisingly frank interview with a 22 year former CIA veteran and incidentally the guy that headed the CIA's unit to get Bin Laden, when Bin Laden was first discovered by American Intelligence communities.

     http://harpers.org/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744.html

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/23/2006 @ 2:55pm

431. Hman... I agree... smart aleck remarks just don't come out as well when written. Too easy for someone else to take it the wrong/unintended way.

     I also agree that it is impossible to draw a clear line with torture. But the line at this point is way too vague and seems to be ever changing.

     I disagree that sleep deprivation is torture. Now I am certainly not a psycholigist/psychiatrist and will leave open the possibility that I could be wrong, but I just don't see how that can do anything other than make someone groggy and unable to think clearly.

     The dog and gun situations, I can again see how many think that is torture. Perhaps I am simply ignorant on how "permanent" the mental anguish could be. Or perhaps my ego leads me to believe that I am impervious to such mental techniques and thus think everyone should be. I just don't see those as torture.

     I do appreciate the well written explanation of where you are coming from and I do see it from your point of view. I think I may simply be frustrated at the constant changes to where the "line" is. An example would be the force-feeding of prisoners trying to starve themselves. If we let them starve themselves via a hunger strike, then we get accused of torture because we are starving them. If we force feed them to prevent this, then that is also torturing them.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 3:16pm

432. John B. -

     My last 2 cents:

     Yget groggy when you don't sleep for 24 hours. When it goes on longer, sleep deprivation is much more serious. I am too lazy to go Google the scientific references (maybe someone else will or prove me incorrect), but in my best medical terms, I think extended sleep deprivation does some very serious shit to your mind and body.

     Permanace has little to do with it. If it did you would have to carve out some examples of torture that I presume would fit even under your definition. Because, the body heals sometimes, even after you have been tortured by physical means.

     re: force feeding, I was not aware soem call that torture. My first reaction is that it is not. So I guess we agree on something.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 3:56pm

433. sorry for the terrible spelling, I am in a rush

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 3:56pm

434. IN OTHER NEWS:

     I see Lamont has pulled even with Loserman.

     Should we roll the tape to what some were saying here last week?

     hee-hee.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 3:58pm

435. IN OTHER NEWS:

     I see Lamont has pulled even with Loserman.

     Should we roll the tape to what some were saying here last week?

     hee-hee.

     Posted by HMAN23 08/23/2006 @ 3:58pm

     Yes, please. :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 4:04pm

436. http://harpers.org/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744.html

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/23/2006

     Great article. Thanks for posting the link. I strongly encourage everyone to read it.

     "Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do."

     The above quote from the article really hit home. While he goes on to explain why we do it, it remains the main problem we have to overcome. Otherwise we just look like hypocrits.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 4:08pm

437. You know - its mostly the right-wingers who think cut-and-pasting entire op-eds from right-wing pundits is "on topic" to an editorial piece written on a liberal blog.

     Liberty, I am interested in discussing the opinions of the author of the thread and those of any other poster who follows. If you want me to respond to Mr. Blankley's op-ed, I suggest you get him to post here. Posting portions of articles is fine for facts and support, but it's boring to play dueling editorial writers.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 4:14pm

438. I'll tell you why Bush should listen to his critics. We were right. Saddam did not have the capability to threaten the USA in any tangible way. Democracy would be next to impossible to establish in Iraq. Deposing Saddam would unleash a firestorm of sectarian tension.

     Tony Blankley is just another idological hack who couldn't predict the future if it were yesterday. Bush, if he is reponsible, has already stopped listening to such fools and is plotting a new course.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 08/23/2006 @ 4:16pm

439. LVL,

     I read your (albeit absurd) piece. Now perhaps you should read something a little more grounded in the reality of the situation. I posted a link to something of that nature at 2:55PM on this thread.

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/23/2006 @ 4:17pm

440. Since you are so enlightened... care to share how those "estimates" were derived?

     Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 10:38am | ignore this person

     From not so enlightened Google searches, prescript and math. I believe I explain this 2-3 months ago when I first did the calculation and blogged it. The numbers for the Vietnam occupation aren't estimates insofar as they're official. The Iraq numbers I tried to mimic from a simulation of a worse case scenario script-- obviously since that's where the situation in Iraq is going, (‘no' best case scenarios have succeeded consistently). One then extrapolates size of the country, ratio of similar circumstances, weaponry, tactics, number of the combatants, etc; all would go into the calculations. Aother variable was of course the politics. A worse case scenario is, of course, a leadership equivalent to a hsuB presidency. Has the earmarks for making the wrong decisions as the 'decider'. Thus the hsuB admin has to start the draft up front again, increase the backdoor route, or get the hell OUT ASAP. 2007 is the turning point ‘big time'. But like a frog in hot water, look at our casualty numbers to continue a creep up to an apogee-- that then blossoms into multi-fronts, an all out regional confrontation. I remember seeing the script illustrating this sim scenario back in the nineties and which stated the definitive reason the gov left Saddam in power, otherwise it just gets worse. DOD has got to have lots of sims showing this is exactly what would happen in the region without a Saddam-like figure there. No wonder the same tactics were tried to stabilize Iraq. Get rid of Saddam but keep the tactics, militias' heavy hand, prisons, torture, etc. Might have even worked if the US wasn't a democracy, separation of powers, free speech, freedom of the press... got caught doing part of what we told everyone we went in to stop. Just more hsuB BS. Do hope my numbers are wrong though-- be proven wrong. Or better yet, not wait and see. Have to learn something from Vietnam.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/23/2006 @ 4:30pm

441. http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyle/a/sleep_depriv.htm

     http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/torture_poll_040527.html

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation

     Hman, here are a few I found off a quick search. The second link is just a poll from 2004 that shows a majority do not think sleep deprivation is torture (not to say that makes it right as a poll today may show different results... but since the majority agreed with my stance on sleep deprivation, I of course posted it : )

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 4:30pm

442. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/23/2006 @ 4:20pm

     Nice selective cuts Liberty, but all is not lost. You left out the remainder of the article where the author discusses a few of the "visions."

     And nobody said that liberals speak in one voice. And neither do conservatives.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 4:35pm

443. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/23/2006

     Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I did not see it a few months ago as I am relatively new to the site.

     Seeing that the large estimates of deaths were a result of this escalating into a full regional confrontation makes more sense to me than if it was just Iraq as I had orignally thought you meant. I think everyone hopes that you are proven wrong with those numbers. I personally don't believe the numbers will ever get to that point, but only time will tell for certain. Again, thanks for the explanation.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 4:37pm

444. newdawn, very diplomatic and correct.

     JohnB, I am always ready to give and accept apologies and I accept yours.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/23/2006 @ 4:40pm

445. John B. -

     You asked the other day who "LL" is. He's the guy who blankets everyone with these kinds of statements:

     "Back to the actual topic of this thread which was Corn's diatribe against Bush for continuing the course in Iraq. Tony Blankley has written an excellent article which I find fairly accurate in showing the future if Bush listened to the left."

     His next post was a diatribe against "the left", progressives, and the Democrats as a whole, which, naturally, he opened with a paragraph of his own (the only one in his post) describing how "leftists" are so disillusioned.

     You may have him on your ignore list already - I wouldn't blame you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 4:45pm

446. Johanne -

     Thanks.

     You know I like you, Jo, and I would never blow smoke even in your general direction.

     (You're too smart and you'd call me on it)

     ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 4:48pm

447. OK, John - b/c torture is often defined by societal norms, I admit polling is somewhat relevant. So, maybe sleep deprivation was not the best example - but I think you got my drift anyway. if you must, substitute it with "make person go naked." I see that was largely viewed unacceptable. No physical touching there.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 4:50pm

448. JohnB, I am always ready to give and accept apologies and I accept yours.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF

     I appreciate that. We shall then begin anew.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 4:51pm

449. Objective reasoning Liberty? Would it be "objective reasoning" on my part if I simply pasted up an op-ed from Chomsky?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 4:52pm

450. OK, John - b/c torture is often defined by societal norms, I admit polling is somewhat relevant. So, maybe sleep deprivation was not the best example - but I think you got my drift anyway. if you must, substitute it with "make person go naked." I see that was largely viewed unacceptable. No physical touching there.

     Posted by HMAN23

     I think it illustrates how vague the definition of torture is and how it can easily change by each individuals perception. I think my main problem is that I see torture as something that causes pain... rather than humiliation/disorientation etc...

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 4:54pm

451. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/23/2006

     Yeah, I saw that post. I stopped reading his post the second I saw it was just a cut and paste rather than him articulating his personal views. That is the first of his that I have noticed, if he continues he will find his way on to the ignore list.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 4:57pm

452. LVL,

     I'll be happy to discuss Blankley's "vision" or lack thereof (given that I have already read it on your recomendation) as soon as you've read the article that I posted prior to your posting of Blankley.

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/23/2006 @ 4:58pm

453. if he continues he will find his way on to the ignore list.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 4:57pm

     But then you would miss out facinating details about The Rapture, among other beauties.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 5:05pm

454. just teasing LL.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 5:05pm

455. But then you would miss out facinating details about The Rapture, among other beauties.

     Posted by HMAN23

     Oh darn.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 5:10pm

456. But then you would miss out facinating details about The Rapture, among other beauties.

     Posted by HMAN23 08/23/2006 @ 5:05pm

     No big loss - I get all of my fiction at Barnes & Noble.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 5:23pm

457. If, and that is certainly a very big if, a more regional conflict breaks out by next year in the region, the US would be using primarily Air and Naval forces rather than ground troops.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1

     Assuming the same "if".... if Iran and Syria were to come into this war (openly that is) with their armed forces, then those numbers could unfortunately be met. Even if we use air and naval forces, the forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan would be at an even greater risk.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 5:37pm

458. Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 4:37pm

     I suppose we can't expect the media to tell us as they did during Vietman that our troops weren't in Laos, Cambodia,... , Kinda hard not to see our troops in Syria, Iran, Jordan,Lebanon, etc. while viewed on CNN. But then they could change their uniforms and the decals on the planes...(Ha)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/23/2006 @ 5:38pm

459. Not. It will get real messy.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/23/2006 @ 5:40pm

460. Ugly.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/23/2006 @ 5:40pm

461. Liberty and John B. -

     And of course, using bombs and missles from the air and sea would necessarily result in more civilian deaths.

     But who cares about those when we are discussing foreign policy!

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 5:43pm

462. And of course, using bombs and missles from the air and sea would necessarily result in more civilian deaths.

     But who cares about those when we are discussing foreign policy!

     Posted by HMAN23 08/23/2006 @ 5:43pm

     My exact thought when Liberty mentioned "the US would be using primarily Air and Naval forces rather than ground troops":

     Yes, let's by all means lob some more bombs into a country already full of bomb blasts. That'll work like a charm at winning hearts and minds and stemming the growth of terrorism.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 5:57pm

463. I think Liberty also fails to see that if we do indeed lob the bombs via air force and navy that the likely retalitory targets will be our troops in Iraq. Which in turn would escalate the number of deaths of our troops as well.

     HMAN... that was the point I was trying to make. Not trying to discount civilian deaths in Iran/Syria. I think you were being sarcastic, but since I am not sure, thought I would clarify.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 5:59pm

464. John - While my post was sent to you and LL, the point was for LL. I included you b/c you had initially responded.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 6:08pm

465. Yes, Hman and John B. -

     Remember, the two of you are fundamentally ignorant about all things military, Muslims, and the Middle East. No no no, I don't want to hear about your education or your own experiences.

     Liberty has spoken and he knows all, or at the very least, more than you two. You know how I know that?

     Because he said so.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 6:33pm

466. I know you're right, Frank, but I get this perverse pleasure out of repeatedly bashing my face against that brick wall...

     Go figure...

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 6:38pm

467. Liberty -

     Thanks for the compliment (I think).

     Maybe you misread the above comments, but I also mentioned lobbing bombs...

     "Yes, let's by all means lob some more bombs into a country already full of bomb blasts. That'll work like a charm at winning hearts and minds and stemming the growth of terrorism."

     I found your description of a campaign that would make "Shock and Awe" (already a barbaric way of describing that action) look like a "fireworks display" grossly insensitive and incognizant of the collateral damage such a thing would cause.

     And while you are correct in that I may see the prudence of appropriate military actions more than some of my more pacifist (NOT a slur) compatriots (co-Patriots?) here, I still do not agree with your charcterizations of them as ignorant, uninformed, or lacking in research abilities.

     They just have a different viewpoint than me and certainly than you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 6:44pm

468. Still waiting to see if john considers it torture.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 6:41pm

     Bashing my own face against a brick wall?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 6:44pm

469. Depends on their indoctrination, Frank.

     Do they think their going to Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 6:56pm

470. Liberty...

     Thanks for detailing your vast experience in reading websites. Now I will let you in a little known well kept secret.... No matter how many bombs we drop, the Iranians and Syrians will be able to strike back... If you need a real life example. Take a look at Israels bombing campaign in Lebanon. They hit it hard, yet Hezbollah was still able to fire rockets into Israel. The Iranians and Syrians are capable of doing the same to our troops in Iraq.

     New Dawn... now I see what you meant.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:01pm

471. I didn't characterize them as lacking the ability to research, I said they weren't doing the research. HM especially is good at research of legal issues and other domestic issues but it seems often the case that liberals lack any real knowledge about military issues of which they protest in great volumes.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/23/2006 @ 6:55pm

     You have zero idea what research anyone here does.

     And you again throw out that term "liberals", like it covers an entire group of people (which is bigotry, since you don't seem clear on the meaning of that word), implying that they, as a whole (or for the most part) all think alike and are ignorant about Muslims, the ME, and the military in general.

     And I hate to point this out to you, Liberty, not because I don't want to upset you, but because it's so patently obvious that having to point it out to someone physically pains me:

     The conservative Republicans in power have done a SHITTY job of understanding and implementing workable strategies regarding Muslims, the ME in general, and Iraq in particular.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:02pm

472. Why would you come here to try and educate the liberals you find so clueless (and whose opinions you don't believe matter anyway) instead of investing all of that time and effort into making your own party's representives pursue a smarter course of action?

     Inexplicable.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:05pm

473. Liberty...

     Thanks for detailing your vast experience in reading websites. Now I will let you in a little known well kept secret.... No matter how many bombs we drop, the Iranians and Syrians will be able to strike back... If you need a real life example. Take a look at Israels bombing campaign in Lebanon. They hit it hard, yet Hezbollah was still able to fire rockets into Israel. The Iranians and Syrians are capable of doing the same to our troops in Iraq.

     New Dawn... now I see what you meant.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 7:01pm

     Toldja. ;) Wait 'til you get him going on God.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:06pm

474. This whole torture discussion is cracking me up. All I suggested was rounding up all the wingnuts, putting them inside a rectangular, tall fence, topped off with concertina wire. A loudspeaker at each corner would suffice, blaring out the Al Franken show 24/7. Don't wanna hurt 'em none. Just educate 'em. Oh and no sleeping cots or toilets. Think this would be torture John.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 6:34pm

     No Frank. I don't think it is torture. That said, the detainees have cots and toilets (remember the ones they claim the guards keep using to flush their Korans??)

     Still waiting to see if john considers it torture.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 6:41pm

     Wonder where john B went? Guess the question was too tough.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 6:55pm

     So if at any time I am away from the site for 21 minutes, I must be afraid of your questions??

     How amusing. Sorry Frank, but there is no way I will be able to live up to your expectations.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:06pm

475. NEW DAWN, ithink JB is ignoring me. Can you ask him the question please?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 7:06pm

     Frank -

     John B. isn't Liberty or Rio or Todd or Barry25. Give the guy a little more benefit of the doubt.

     Don't have to agree with him, but I haven't seen him shirk a discussion yet.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:11pm

476. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 7:09pm

     BWAHahahaahAHAHahahahaahaaa

     I agree!

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:11pm

477. It was as I mentioned not about elevating myself but remarking on the lack of research done by many on the left before making comments like "lobbing bombs". Posted by LVLIBERTY1

     So liberty...

     1) you consider ME on the left?

     2) it does not take much understanding at all of military strategy to see the flaws in your line of thought with regards to the middle east. Syria would very likely enter a battle with us at the same time as Iran, we would then have Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq to deal with at the same time. If that occured, do you really think Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan will be able to stay on the sidelines? I doubt it. It would be perceived as an all out war on Islam and they would most assuredly NOT come into the war on our side. Your bigger shock and awe thoughts are simplistic and unrealistic.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:11pm

478. Thanks for the answer. But I would consider that torture. I'd rather have my fingernails ripped out than have to stand in an enclosed pen with no toilets or cots and have to listen to Al Franken full blast 24/7. Just shoot me.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     And again... there is the problem with the definition of torture. It is all relative to each individuals perception.

     And seriously... do you really think 21 minutes was adequate time to respond? I hate to think what you would have said if I had logged off and not returned until.... TOMORROW. :)

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:14pm

479. So liberty...

     1) you consider ME on the left?

     Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 7:11pm

     Didn't kowtow to Liberty immediately = bad guy = leftist.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:15pm

480. Toldja. ;) Wait 'til you get him going on God.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     That will likely end in his deletion.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:17pm

481. Didn't kowtow to Liberty immediately = bad guy = leftist.

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     So lets get this straight...

     1) Didn't kowtow to Liberty = bad guy= leftist

     2) Didn't kowtow to others = bad guy = righty

     I am so confused. Would it help if I just told people that I am pretty much a Libertarian? Or would that just create laughter?

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:19pm

482. Later, guys - bourbon calls.

     I'll come back in a rowdy mood later. ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:20pm

483. Oh, God, John - don't do that - that's Maasch's excuse, and he ain't too popular around heah either...

     Just keep being you, man. You handle yourself better than the "other" wingers.

     ;) (that was a poke-poke joke-joke)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 7:21pm

484. Frank... trust me, I have no intention of talking God with anyone on a political site.

     New Dawn... hope you enjoy the bourbon

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:27pm

485. John B. Last thought on torture. Why don't we all just go along with the definition offered via the Geneva Convention. The purpose of that action was to protect our own guys should they be captured. Granted this enemy could care less about the Geneva Convention but we don't have to get down in that gutter. We're suppose to be better than that.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

     Given the court has deemed they should be treated under the Geneva Convention, then that is how we have to proceed going forward. I disagree with the decision, but still think we should abide by it until such time that decision is overturned (if ever)

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:36pm

486. john B, Oh and next time don't take so long. i've got better things to do on this fine summer day than to sit here waiting for your answer. :-)

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     ass.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:37pm

487. You will.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     Nope. That is what the ignore button is for.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:38pm

488. 3. You can't possibly be suggesting that we would ever conduct a military campaign like the recent Israeli failure (which was not the military's fault as I have stated)? Your comments seem like the usual talking points that leftists put forth. From some of your earlier posts, I had presumed you a little more capable ...Liberty....

     Yeah, why in the world would I think we would fight the same way as the Israelis just did? Could it have anything to do with that is EXACTLY how we are currently fighting in Iraq? Or possibly because in the past we have fought other wars/conflicts in the same manner? (pretty much every conflict since Viet Nam?)

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:49pm

489. Later Frank. I am out as well. But don't fret Liberty, I will check back tomorrow.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 7:50pm

490. What else can Bush do? He can't admit that he made any mistakes and he has to keep pushing the propaganda that leaving Iraq would be a disaster. He says he wants to "win" but he's never told anyone what winning means. Does it mean killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children during his next two years in office? Does it mean transforming the entire Middle East to his definition of democracy? Does it mean that we keep sending troops, even if we have run out of active military now that he has called up involuntary Individual Ready Reserves? Stay the course?

     Well, he really means for all those who disagree with him to just shut up because he's the Decider and he doesn't have to answer to anyone. His words, "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

     Historians have a name for people like Bush: Dictator.

     Posted by richard38 at 08/23/2006 @ 7:57pm

491. Liberty has the balls to post:

     "Read Sun Tzu The Art of War and Strategy"

     And here I go, bourbon-fueled and irritated as all hell at just this part of your post - haven't even read the rest.

     I've been a martial artist for almost two decades - I place more faith in Sun Tzu's revelations than anything in your Bible, boy.

     Let me tell you something, dipshit - Sun Tzu was not a Christian.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 8:33pm

492. Posted by RICHARD38 08/23/2006 @ 7:57pm

     Not to mention the infallible, inerrant wisdom in proclaiming:

     "There oughtta be limits to freedom."

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 8:36pm

493. I was having a pleasant visit to the Nation website until Liberty showed up today... God, that guy pisses me off.

     To anyone who's claimed that I just "curse people out" when they challenge me and my preconcieved notions (and I won't name any names, you know who you are), let me just say that I would way rather "have a beer" with John B. than GW B, and believe me, John and I have our differences.

     (I don't even drink beer - it's all different shades of horse-piss to me - Crown Royal, please)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 8:44pm

494. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/23/2006 @ 7:41pm

     Posted by NEW DAWN 08/23/2006 @ 8:33pm

     Nor would Tzu have seen the current state of the current conflicts as anything but a shameless series of shameful missteps.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 8:45pm

495. Tzu might have even committed seppuku after that realization.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 8:46pm

496. Deep breaths, deep breaths, calm and order and reason. Whew. I can do this...

     I apologize to the entire board for my profanity to Liberty - actually, I can do this argument without it.

     Liberty - retort?

     I promise to be polite, just so you can't besmirch liberals as a whole on account of me.

     If you want to discuss the Iraq war in the context of Sun Tzu's teachings, I am more than game.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 9:12pm

497. 700 comments and counting -Corn has really touched a nerve!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2006 @ 9:14pm

498. Frank -

     RE: your

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 8:50pm

     See my: . . . My Bay Area radio station was all abuzz about McCain's denouncing Bush's handling of Iraq.

     Two questions (at the risk of sounding Maskish - and where has that little bugger been today - hope he's okay):

     Does this make everyone forget how McCain is right/wrong on abortion/guns/all other things Republican wedge-issue?

     And does anyone else think this might just be a strictly political move (for a potential President) that falls right in line with much of the Republican establishment that is now abandoning Bush's failed Iraq policies?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 08/22/2006 @ 11:45

     I want your boy to come home soon and you to be too busy being with him to bother coming here to tilt at windmills and preach to the choir that know when you're just plain right.

     (But I want you to come back and say hi, anyway)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 9:18pm

499. New Dawn... hope you enjoy the bourbon

     Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 7:27pm

     I did, and your next one's on me.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 9:20pm

500. How about some discussion of alternate strategies concerning Iraq other than just "cut and run" or "stay the course"? What do you think of allowing a balkanization of Iraq to occur while keeping troops in Kurdish territory so that Iran could not just gobble up Shiite southern Iraq? Iraq was originally put together by the British with no consideration to the ethnic backgrounds of its people. Why not allow for three separate countries (and at the same time revenue sharing of oil profits)---Do this and also keep Iran from expanding into southern Iraq. Please do not misunderstand my proposal----I still have hope that the current government of Iraq can stand up to the insurgency and prevent a civil war from breaking out. I propose the above when the Generals on the ground say that Civil War has completely broken out and there is no hope for success----I know that most of you already feel that way---but the Commanders on the ground do not.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 9:35pm

501. A marine is a marine forever and cares nothing for others remarks. They live to serve and serve to live for God and Country, and commander-in-chief.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/23/2006 @ 6:56pm

     LL,

     (I just can't call the guy "Liberty" anymore - he doesn't understand the most basic definition of the word)

     LL, you just reduced American Marine servicemen and women to mindless automatons who fight for Dear Leader and your concept of God no matter what they think as individual humans...

     (Incidentally, against someone else's God)

     Wait, no... Per LL, U.S. Marines (and military, by reasoned extension) not only fight, but live to serve - every breath they take is to submit to the will of LL's concept of God and their President, right or wrong.

     Listen, most everything I read from you, LL, strikes me as coming from a well-meaning (I really do believe you mean well) elderly fellow, who preaches somewhere in California, and comes to the Nation website to purge his daily anger at those who disagree with him or his concept of God in real life.

     Unfortunately, it also seems to me (and really, what the hell do I know?) that LL would rather come here, to the Nation's website, and try to be sly and subtle about his slams, in internet anonymity, so he can fool himself into not feeling so guilty about treating people like dirt and labeling them like canned foods.

     ==============================

     LL, I digressed - my point is that you cannot be taken seriously in a real-world political discussion when you relegate our soldiers to such a position of inhuman obedience - they are human beings, your sons (and FrankGrits') included, and they seem (from every soldier's account that I have ever read of the conflict in Iraq)... conflicted. They also seem to understand the cost of human devastation (not to menton material devastation) better than you, a man who claims to follow the Prince of Peace.

     How do you fail to see the dichotomy of your statements and your claimed stance on life as we know it?

     And, as I challenged you (and Len Mosse) earlier, why bother venting here?

     LL, if you've got problems with the way the country is being run, why would you come here and rail against the very people you ridicule about not being in power instead of doing something, anything, to hold those who are in power accountable???

     And further, how do you fail to see that you are powerless to avoid making a political statement here without basing it fundamentally upon the tenets of your God?

     You are a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad man.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 10:11pm

502. How about some discussion of alternate strategies concerning Iraq other than just "cut and run" or "stay the course"? What do you think of allowing a balkanization of Iraq to occur while keeping troops in Kurdish territory so that Iran could not just gobble up Shiite southern Iraq? Iraq was originally put together by the British with no consideration to the ethnic backgrounds of its people. Why not allow for three separate countries (and at the same time revenue sharing of oil profits)---Do this and also keep Iran from expanding into southern Iraq. Please do not misunderstand my proposal----I still have hope that the current government of Iraq can stand up to the insurgency and prevent a civil war from breaking out. I propose the above when the Generals on the ground say that Civil War has completely broken out and there is no hope for success----I know that most of you already feel that way---but the Commanders on the ground do not.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 9:35pm |

     Len -

     I am exhausted from digesting LL this evening, but believe it or not, I think your proposal has merit and bears further discussion.

     Wish I had the stamina to take you up on it this evening (politely and thoughtfully, even), but I don't.

     I strongly disagree with your contention that generals on the ground aren't opposed to the current handling of the situation in Iraq, and have read as much. Will look up where upon request, but could you be kind enough to look it up for me? I'd appreciate it.

     I also think Murrtha is a patriot and a hero and that his plan had merits.

     Can we discuss this in a civil manner, or should I ready my arsenal of f-bombs, and you can prep your wife for me?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 10:22pm

503. Murtha.

     What a retarded (bourbon) typo.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 10:22pm

504. I strongly disagree with your contention that generals on the ground aren't opposed to the current handling of the situation in Iraq, and have read as much. Will look up where upon request, but could you be kind enough to look it up for me? I'd appreciate it.

     The most recent testimony by the Commanders on the ground in Iraq before Congress were troubling---however--they did not say that things were beyond hope---nor did they say that the nation had completely broken down into Civil War. More recent reports have the violence in Baghdad dimenishing after the military crackdown by the Iraqi government and the U.S.. This information was gleamed from the C-Span broadcast of their testimony and the more recent information I heard on the radio today---(not Fox News).

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 10:39pm

505. Posted by JOHN B 08/23/2006 @ 7:36pm

     (I'll whisper this so some of my more-liberal friends don't hate me, like when I said I was pro-death-penalty - still didn't mean to make you hate me, BlueTexan!)

     John B., have you ever heard of or read about Richard Marcinko (one of my American heroes)?

     I doubt Demo Dickie interrogated by the spirit or letter of Geneva when he interrogated, but we wouldn't be America without him.

     By the by, some of you wingers go search him out, then come back here and call me an "appeaser" or "pacifist" or "soft on terrorism".

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 10:43pm

506. Murtha's plan has some merit---but I worry that it is only a disguise or pretense for completely pulling out. A redeployment of troops to the north is purposed by Peter Beinhart editor of the New Republic. While I disagree with him on many issues, he recently came out and said that the democratic party needs to be more strident in their support of the Nations Security---he was criticized on this site for doing so.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 10:45pm

507. "however--they did not say that things were beyond hope---nor did they say that the nation had completely broken down into Civil War..."

     Granted, and with this I have no dispute.

     But it sure looks like it, to anyone reading news accounts that actually originate in the region, comparing them with U.S. reports, and then separating the wheat from the chaff. Iraq is not a happy place (nor am I saying that you ever claimed it was - far from it).

     But "tomorrow" does not suddenly look like a sunshiny day because of a recent, temporary uptick in control, nor a recent, temporary downtick in violence (which has been on the upswing recently - July was the bloodiest month in the country, if I recall correctly), nor has any "tomorrow" for the last several years been a particularly happy day (barring the elections and every other good thing that gets done there by our soldiers - schools, hospitals, limited infrastructure).

     But, Len, really, do you hear the statements about "diminishing violence" and then fail to recall "The insurgency is in its last throes?" How can you be so willingly dea--

     No, no, Deep breaths.

     Len, I would love to cross my fingers and say "Tomorrow, it'll get better tomorrow...", too. But that isn't very realistic after a four-year occupation with the situation as it stands today.

     Do we agree? If so, let's keep it moving.

     If not, okay. Go.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 10:57pm

508. Posted by hsuBfools at 08/23/2006 @ 10:58pm

509. Ahhh, "liberty" the tax cheat "preacher", Maasch, (the Bush brown-nose, (yes Maaschy, we are referring to your need to do a little "sniffin"), and finally, (drum-roll) failed and utterly stupid "Mossy".

     If you clowns are the "shock troops" for the Idiot Emperor, I simply have to bet that some fuckwad, convenience store in Crawford will have a new owner in the short term.

     Shit fellers, watcha gonna do now?

     Fall is almost here.

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/23/2006 @ 10:59pm

510. Murtha's plan has some merit---but I worry that it is only a disguise or pretense for completely pulling out. A redeployment of troops to the north is purposed by Peter Beinhart editor of the New Republic. While I disagree with him on many issues, he recently came out and said that the democratic party needs to be more strident in their support of the Nations Security---he was criticized on this site for doing so.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 10:45pm

     Before I can remotely buy into anything beyond this sentence, explain this sentence:

     "Murtha's plan has some merit---but I worry that it is only a disguise or pretense for completely pulling out."

     "Disguise or pretense" on the part of John Murtha? To what end, Len?

     What do you believe a decorated war hero's (and war hawk, up until this war) devious subterfuge to pull U.S. troops out of the direct line of fire is intended to accomplish, Len, besides saving time, treasure and American blood?

     What is the purpose of Murtha's "disguise or pretense", or, to put it another way, guile and misdirection?

     What does John Murtha get out of it that you find so devious?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 11:02pm

511. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 10:58pm

     Let me just say this:

     A

     And this:

     men

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/23/2006 @ 11:03pm

512. Bloppy---sounds like one of my terds when it hits the bowl water----wait ---wait-----ahhhhhhhhhhhhh----I was right ---Bloppy is one of my terds when it hits the bowl water---hey --why do you have that corn stuck between your teeth?

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:08pm

513. While I believe on face value that Mr. Murtha has honestly presented a plan with good intentions, I also believe that there are stronger forces within the democrat party that want complete and immediate withdrawl. I am concerned that Mr. Murtha's plan would only be used as a temporary step in achieving their ultimate purpose. Also as stated above I far more support Peter Beinharts plan---(of course --all of this after the current government is given every opportunity to be successful---and in answer to one of your earlier questions I do not believe that they have been given sufficient time to meet their objectives).

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:16pm

514. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/23/2006 @ 6:21pm

     See this is why I LL is not on my ignore list. There just is not a single topic for which LL is not a self-professed expert. Whether it's macroeconomics, constitutional law, military strategy, foreign relations, the sciences, religion, or politics. And it's not so much that LL usually has a comment on every subject. True, I like to voice an opinion on most things (although there are some issues I stay away from simply because I admit a lack of knowledge). But you can ALWAYS be sure that no matter the subject LL will not only tell us "liberals" (that means you too John B. - you see, a "liberal" in LL's book is anyone who takes a counter position ) how brilliant he is, but he will also let us know in the most condescending manner what a bunch of simpletons we are. I am shocked that LL does not have a senior position in Bush's cabinet with his mastery of all subjects!

     However, all the cut-and-pastes and information seemingly at his fingertips plus the tremendous amount of time he spends here, and I wager on other blogs (how he manages to find the time with about four different businesses he claims to run I do not know) only leads me to believe even stronger that he is paid to post here.

     To the subject at hand LL, your response about how "any campaign in Iran and probably Syria would make the so-called 'Shock and Awe of Iraq 2003' seem like a small town 4th of July fireworks display" actually makes my point about the likelihood of higher civilian casualties. Thank you.

     John B. - the fact that you are willing to take on LL gives you credibility in my book. We will likely disagree on certain things, but if there are more conservatives out there like you, at least there is hope.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 11:16pm

515. Yea Frank---give me some time---"terd"----urban slang for "turd"-----either way---you probably get the idea.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:19pm

516. Frank----You have changed the subject----the original question was weather the current commanders on the ground have said that they cannot complete their mission given the present circumstances. You have changed the subject to; " First if enough troops weren't committed, why not? Whose fault was it and why weren't they held accountable for the unnesesary loss of life to our troops? Claiming that mistakes were made simply is not good enough. Where's the accountability?".

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:26pm

517. Sorry Frank for any delays I might be causing you--but you see I am actually on three different boards right now while composing an e-mail to my daughter. If I happen to get things confused would you please forgive me---love you honey-----whoops.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:30pm

518. lens got the hots for you frank

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 11:44pm

519. you did tell loki you were the best looking guy on the blog

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 11:48pm

520. Why has no-one been held accountable for not providing adequate troop levels to protect our troops and innocent Iraqi's? Why do you think that not enough troops were sent to win the war?

     Military experts disagree over the assertion that inadeuate troop levels were used in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There has always been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking on such subjects---even during World War II. The invasion of Iraq actually went quite well, it has been the occupation that has given us problems. A larger troop presence may have actually exacerbated the situation that we find ourselves in.

     What does that person mean to you? How much do you love them? How would you feel if that young man or woman with so much life to live had to go to the hell we call Iraq and give their life? For what?

     I pray every night for the safe return of your son and every else's son and daughter. It breaks my heart everytime I hear of a fatality or injury. I hope these fatalities are not in vain. I hope that through their efforts their will be a fundamental change in the middle east. I hope that by the sacrifices our young people are now making we may stave off a larger and more violent confligration. I do not have a son or daughter in Iraq---therefore I cannont tell you "I know how you feel"---therefore I will make no such claim. But know this, I would feel no different if my son or daughter were in Iraq.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:50pm

521. If the absolute truth be told Frank--no matter how firmly and honestly felt-it is pure conjecture on both are parts.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2006 @ 11:55pm

522. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:50pm

     which military experts len?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 11:55pm

523. Why wasn't the occupation planned for?

     War is not an exact science. Plans sometimes don't work---new plans have to be made. Soldiers have to improvise. The Normandy Invasion is now seen as a great success---but in actuality things did not go as planned. Does that mean that plans were not made? Obviously not---It was up to the Commanders on the ground to adjust and reach their ultimate objectives. We have been in the process of adjusting. The new Iraqi government, who is just now getting their feet on the ground, is also adjusting. In general Frank--War is a terrible and unpredictable thing. To think that a War will always go smoothly and according to plan is foolish.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2006 @ 12:07am

524. Will C----A quick but very important expert---General Franks.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2006 @ 12:08am

525. plans sometimes don't work

     "no plan" almost never works

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:09am

526. Will C----A quick but very important expert---General Franks.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/24/2006 @ 12:08am

     you mean the guy who flubbed it?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:10am

527. What problems? ---How about more targets for the insurgency---how about a larger footprint in Iraq that may have invited even more resentment.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2006 @ 12:11am

528. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:50pm

     Students learning to draw sometimes aren't allowed to erase their mistakes as every time they look at the drawing they learn... Erasing the mistake, students feel more assured that it's ok to continue drawing the same way and not change.

     I believe that's why a lot of people are looking a Vietnam in relation to Iraq.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2006 @ 12:11am

529. i thonk when you flub it... you lose your "expert" status

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:12am

530. you mean the guy who flubbed it?

     No ---the guy who planned and carried out a very successful invasion---the guy who determined what troop level was necessary for success.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2006 @ 12:12am

531. What problems? ---How about more targets for the insurgency---how about a larger footprint in Iraq that may have invited even more resentment.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/24/2006 @ 12:11am

     hey, it's a problem now that it flubbed. Probably would have been the thing to do before the flubbing

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:13am

532. No ---the guy who planned and carried out a very successful invasion---the guy who determined what troop level was necessary for success.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/24/2006 @ 12:12am

     well.. we did invade. yes sir ree bob

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:15am

533. so I guess you saythe invasion was a success.

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:15am

534. it was so successful we may never leave

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:16am

535. Posted by BLOPPY 08/23/2006 @ 10:59pm

     Bloppy makes me laugh, in a raunchy, good-humored liberal way.

     (that's a good thing)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:16am

536. just so we can drink in the continuing success

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:17am

537. SORRY---not trying to evade any more of your questions ---but wife says come to bed---I have an early day tomorrow----must set pins for a golf tournament at 7:00 a.m. Plus wife saying come to bed sounds very very interesting. Good night

     prayers will be said for all in Iraq.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2006 @ 12:17am

538. bathe in it

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:18am

539. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:08pm

     "terds"

     Oh my, but that is the most gloriously funny gem of the day!

     Oh my, my tummy!

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:19am

540. roll around in it while doing jello shots

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:19am

541. so dawn I hear you have some bourbon?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:20am

542. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:16pm

     How long?

     6 years? 8 years?

     Or only the 2 necessary to remove Bush and begin to repair some of his damage?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:22am

543. She'll need it to deal with Dubya's mess.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2006 @ 12:19am

     becuse chimpy would never leave this sort of thing to future presidents

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:22am

544. does bush ever tell the truth?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:22am

545. nite fellas

     4:30 comes right after 4:29

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:27am

546. Len, Why do you call the democratic party the democrat party. Don't you know that that's what Joe McCarthy used to do?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person

     Yea Frank---give me some time---"terd"----urban slang for "turd"-----either way---you probably get the idea.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:19pm | ignore this person

     Frank --

     "Democrat party" is "street slang" for "Democratic Party".

     Silly man, didn't you know that?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:28am

547. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2006 @ 12:26am

     The cool thing is that using the chimp precedent...

     The next president "inherited" the mess from the chimp and will not be responsible for anything

     (it's all chimpy's fault… he he he he)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 12:30am

548. [FrankGrits], you have changed the subject----the original question was weather the current commanders on the ground have said that they cannot complete their mission given the present circumstances.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:26pm

     I haven't changed that subject, and still reject your contention that they can and that they all claim the same.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:30am

549. Sorry Frank for any delays I might be causing you--but you see I am actually on three different boards right now while composing an e-mail to my daughter. If I happen to get things confused would you please forgive me---love you honey-----whoops.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/23/2006 @ 11:30pm

     That was genuinely funny.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:32am

550. Mossy, How quaint, setting "pins" at 7 AM. And what's with the "wife" stuff? We all know better.

     Kisses,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/24/2006 @ 12:39am

551. sources high up in the military chain of command are suggesting that 450,000 troops would be needed to secure iraq.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/24/2006 @ 12:42am

552. What problems? ---How about more targets for the insurgency---how about a larger footprint in Iraq that may have invited even more resentment.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/24/2006 @ 12:11am

     Len, this statement is the height of naivete and I'm frankly surprised to see you type it. Sincerely.

     I am no conspiracy theorist, not do I believe Bush wants to "rule" the world, per se (Cheney does, though), but surely you've read PNAC, and are familiar with the numerous "enduring bases" that began being built almost immediately after the invasion. A large footprint in Iraq (and subsequently the Middle East) for decades was the intention from invasion day, and well before.

     Again, at the risk of offending some of my more-liberal friends, I can even see the merits in that, given the current state of world affairs.

     I just don't like being lied to about it.

     And even knowing that interesting trivia-bit does nothing to deny the equal and opposite reactions to our actions in the region - we (Franks) could (and should) have anticipated both the possibility of flowers being shoved in our servicemen's gun barrels, or bullets aimed at American helmets from distant rooftops, especially since the plan to invade Iraq had been bubbling for some time - plenty of time to get the recipe right before lighting the stove (and a back-up recipe in case the first boiled over and got ruined wouldn't have hurt).

     Frank is telling you, Len, that THAT demands accountability, that gross neglect in planning and exercising forethought.

     But that was then, this is now.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:45am

553. No ---the guy who planned and carried out a very successful invasion---the guy who determined what troop level was necessary for success.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/24/2006 @ 12:12am

     Wasn't the "smaller, faster" force Rumsfeld's plan?

     Genuinely asking here...

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:46am

554. Maybe ND will share his bourbon

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2006 @ 12:18am

     Pay me.

     I am a dirty capitalist.

     hee hee hee snort

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:48am

555. Hey Dawn,

     Nice to meet you. Sorry about Maaschy, and Mossy, and Liberty, (the three horsemen of the stupidocolypse) One thing I can tell you about these nitwits, is that the all have shrines devoted to the "Boy King" and they have a secret ritual where members don too-tight underwear and chant his name backwards, while clutching their mini- johnsons. Hsub, Hsub, Hsub, annnh, Hsub, Hsub, Hsub, annnhhhh!

     Thought you ought to know

     Best regards,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/24/2006 @ 12:48am

556. Bloppy -

     You may not know me, but I know you.

     Been a fan of yours since some time (a year?) ago, when I joined the boards (to out LoatheLiberty) just in time to catch you ripping Len Mosse a nasty new blooming rose.

     I laughed then, I laugh now.

     You are a classic, like drive-by Lenny Bruce. You're terrible and awful and wrong, and yet somehow, so often, so right.

     Best regards back atcha,

     ND

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:54am

557. Len -

     Now, don't get mad - I did say he was only right "sometimes". ;)

     (psst - most of the time, Bloppy)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 12:55am

558. ND , See you around,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/24/2006 @ 01:02am

559. hman,

     this site is for you. it is an example of how force-feeding can be used as torture. this site explains how china does it. do you think there is a possibility our current administration is encouraging this in addition to all of the other forms of torture they encourage and condone? i do.

     http://www.faluninfo.net/displayAnArticle.asp?ID=6837

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:09am

560. john,

     i know i'm late in responding to you but like i said, montana summers are short.

     you were right. i am a bitch. and i have no problem with that.

     my opinion of you has not changed.

     i have nothing more to discuss with you.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:14am

561. oh and hman, i did read an account somewhere of a prisoner who said the united states tortured him with force feeding among other things. if i find it again, i'll pass it on to you.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:15am

562. Loki -

     Another take on the force-feeding. Our right-wing posters will scream "The Guardian!", but they scream at a lot of stuff, so that's okay.

     I'm just passing along an article I read:

     Scandal of force-fed prisoners

     Hunger strikers are tied down and fed through nasal tubes, admits Guantánamo Bay doctor

     David Rose Sunday January 8, 2006 The Observer

     New details have emerged of how the growing number of prisoners on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay are being tied down and force-fed through tubes pushed down their nasal passages into their stomachs to keep them alive.

     They routinely experience bleeding and nausea, according to a sworn statement by the camp's chief doctor, seen by The Observer.

     'Experience teaches us' that such symptoms must be expected 'whenever nasogastric tubes are used,' says the affidavit of Captain John S Edmondson, commander of Guantánamo's hospital.

     The procedure - now standard practice at Guantánamo - 'requires that a foreign body be inserted into the body and, ideally, remain in it.' But staff always use a lubricant, and 'a nasogastric tube is never inserted and moved up and down. It is inserted down into the stomach slowly and directly, and it would be impossible to insert the wrong end of the tube.' Medical personnel do not insert nasogastric tubes in a manner 'intentionally designed to inflict pain.'

     It is painful, Edmonson admits. Although 'non-narcotic pain relievers such as ibuprofen are usually sufficient, sometimes stronger drugs,' including opiates such as morphine, have had to be administered.

     Thick, 4.8mm diameter tubes tried previously to allow quicker feeding, so permitting guards to keep prisoners in their cells for more hours each day, have been abandoned, the affidavit says. The new 3mm tubes are 'soft and flexible'.

     The London solicitors Allen and Overy, who represent some of the hunger strikers, have lodged a court action to be heard next week in California, where Edmondson is registered to practise. They are asking for an order that the state medical ethics board investigate him for 'unprofessional conduct' for agreeing to the force-feeding.

     Edmonson's affidavit, in response to a lawsuit on behalf of detainees on hunger strike since last August, was obtained last week by The Observer, as a Guantánamo spokesman confirmed that the number of hunger strikers has almost doubled since Christmas, to 81 of the 550 detainees. Many have been held since the camp opened four years ago this month, although they not been charged with any crime, nor been allowed to see any evidence justifying their detention.

     This and other Guantánamo lawsuits now face extinction. Last week, President Bush signed into law a measure removing detainees' right to file habeas corpus petitions in the US federal courts. On Friday, the administration asked the Supreme Court to make this retroactive, so nullifying about 220 cases in which prisoners have contested the basis of their detention and the legality of pending trials by military commission.

     Although some prisoners have had to be tied down while being force-fed, 'only one patient' has had to be immobilised with a six-point restraint, and 'only one' passed out. 'In less than 10 cases have trained medical personnel had to use four-point restraint in order to achieve insertion.' Edmondson claims the actual feeding is voluntary. During Ramadan, tube-feeding takes place before dawn.

     Article 5 of the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration, which US doctors are legally bound to observe through their membership of the American Medical Association, states that doctors must not undertake force-feeding under any circumstances. Dr David Nicholl, a consultant neurologist at Queen Elizabeth's hospital in Birmingham, is co-ordinating opposition to the Guantánamo doctors' actions from the international medical community. 'If I were to do what Edmondson describes in his statement, I would be referred to the General Medical Council and charged with assault,' he said.

     Yesterday the new German Chancellor Angela Merkel became the latest leader to condemn the United States for practices at the prison. In a magazine interview days before her first visit as premier to the US, Merkel said Washington should close Guantánamo and find other ways of dealing with terror suspects.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 01:21am

563. thanks newdawn for the info.

     in the account i read months ago, the man said they used bigger tubes the second time and he watched a friend or relative lose consciousness. blood was gushing when they removed the tubes. this was just one man's account. and i don't know if he was a trustworthy source or not. but i do know our current administration is an untrustworthy source. so i am suspicious.

     if i find the article, i'll pass it on to you too. i may be a little hazy on the details. but i don't think so.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:31am

564. Obliged, ma'am.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 01:34am

565. newdawn and hman, here is an article about the same guy. i still can't find the exact article i read. it had pictures of him and some of his life story. but this article is pretty close to the one i read.

     http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022006J.shtml

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:37am

566. maybe this is the one. it's bbc. make sure you check out the full interview if you get time.

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4769604.stm

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:41am

567. a bit from the bbc interview:

     "You must understand that the real problem here is not the horrible conditions - the lousy food, no reading materials, bad medical care, being in isolation.

     The real problem is being here without reason, without hope, without a hearing. I am an innocent person who has done nothing wrong and I have had no opportunity to show that. That is the real problem."

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:43am

568. I remember reading that!

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 01:44am

569. and here is some more info. this one is pretty sickening

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-feeding

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:47am

570. "You must understand that the real problem here is not the horrible conditions - the lousy food, no reading materials, bad medical care, being in isolation. "

     This part sounds like any jail in the nation.

     But this part

     "The real problem is being here without reason, without hope, without a hearing. I am an innocent person who has done nothing wrong and I have had no opportunity to show that. That is the real problem."

     is indeed the real problem.

     Hey, Bush administration - if he's a terrorist who murdered Americans - charge him fairly, try him fairly, convict him fairly, and let's fry his ass fairly.

     Or we could detain him indefinitely without charges...

     Which is really the American way, wingers?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 01:48am

571. g'nite, newdawn.

     Posted by loveloki at 08/24/2006 @ 01:54am

572. Night.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 01:56am

573. WOW, 18 pages. Nothing gained. Is that a new record?

     I could not read all of it, of course. New Dawn, good luck. Tom Paine, incredible common sense about approaching mortality. (pun intended)

     ---

     I also want to say something about those of you who think we should be civil towards the wingers who post here.

     A year ago I sent my only son off to fight in a war that neither of us beleived in. He wasn't gung ho to go kill Muslims. But he is patriotic and I consider myself to be as well. Shortly after we hugged him and through tears, wished him well and told him to come back to us in one piece. Then I turn on the tv and see Karl Rove, Bush's brain, tell an audience that democrats were unpatriotic and unamerican because they didn't support Bush's war. Well Bush's silence on the matter and the continuous employment of Rove spoke volumns to me about what we were dealing with. Civility? I have all I can do to keep from jumping through this computer and strangling the wingnuts when they keep apologizing for this embarrassment of an administration. And that's all I have to say about that.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/23/2006 @ 8:58pm

     civility has it's place. The apologists call large swaths of people traitors, collaborators, weak etc just because we think this war, and the whole GWOT, is being run like crap. The war was a mistake, wrong place wrong time, not enough soldiers on the ground (Rummy scrapped plans to insert more divisions early on even though "the commanders on the ground" asked for them), almost zero understanding of political, religious and cultural paradigms of the region, troops trained to fight on the battlefield running prisons and doing civil affairs work. Saying this does not make me a traitor. W is still in a fantasy world. That does not make me a traitor.

     Once they call us traitors, a capital crime, they lose all sense of decorum and deserve to be called idiots, sycophants or whatever else one can come up with. I like "scared little evangelicaltax cheat". It fits the man, why not call him that? W made fun of the hunt for wmd's. Does he deserve respect for that? Fck NO!!he deserves to be called an idiot and an embarrasment to the USofA. He has been found to have broken many laws, and these frightened little men say it is we that are wrong. BS.

     So I say, keep floggin' em. They deserve it.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2006 @ 09:55am

574. LUVDESPOTS: Spongs church tried to peg him as a heretic and failed. Even if it is true, that puts him in fine company. Galileo, Luther, etc etc etc.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2006 @ 09:58am

575. All,

     I think it's time to face two simple truths. The redneck south and southwest parts of the country with it's fascist Christian faith and disdain for reality controls the U.S. government and henceforth the nation. Until politicians of other ideas outside of rightwing lunacy begin to win seats in the Congress from those areas of the country previously mentioned (most notably in the Senate) the Bush misery way of life via foreign policy and domestic policy will continue. But lets face another fact beyond that. America must believe in this rightwing lunatic foreign and domestic policy because they have voted for the GOP in Presidential and Congressional elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004. If Americans are dumb enough to vote for these people despite the failures of the GOP then I say for 2006 and 2008: BRING ON THE PAIN..............

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/24/2006 @ 10:05am

576. "The days of looking the other way while despotic regimes trample human rights, rob their nations' wealth, and then excuse their failings by feeding their people a steady diet of anti-Western hatred are over. "- Dick Cheney

     Really?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2006 @ 10:23am

577. "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

     "In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Nov. 7, 2003

     "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

     "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003

     "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003

     "My answer is bring 'em on." --President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003

     What is Franks catch phrase? Round em up!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2006 @ 10:33am

578. john,

     i know i'm late in responding to you but like i said, montana summers are short.

     you were right. i am a bitch. and i have no problem with that.

     my opinion of you has not changed.

     i have nothing more to discuss with you.

     Posted by LOVELOKI

     New Dawn... no love from loveloki... Oh well... can't win em all.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 10:43am

579. LOVELOKI -

     Good info on force feeding. Enough to make me change my intial reaction. I guess I was only thinking of its use in situations involving medical needs. Probably a dumb assumption on my part.

     Regards.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2006 @ 11:27am

580. Tom Paine, what's this bullshit on the meaning of life? who died and left you to philosophize? D R I V E L.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/22/2006 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person

     Johannesrolf..............interesting that you turned this board into a moral discussion on using foul language and then decided to use some yourself. Just to clarify, as I feel no real need to defend my use of language.

     My attempt to relate how in touch Maasch is with the electorate of the United States to touching himself was an attempt at subsophmoric humor with a little sarcasm thrown in for good measure. Poking fun at someone on this site who continually makes little sense isn't a crime. I have been posting here for quite some time, and I have yet to see a logical argument that swayed any of the real apologists here. While Maasch isnt the most vile or offensive creature here, his poor spelling and lack of cohesive thought makes him an easy target. His posts are callous and hippocritical much of the time also, so I have called him out on it several times, albeit with little success in getting him to THINK. That being said, I enjoy Maasch's posts to a certain degree.......it is obvious he is somewhat educated, (he claims to have two degrees) and he does make valid points at times.

     My question is this Johan..........Why cant I have some fun with him. Why cant I curse and poke fun at the righties on this site..........they make broad generalizations about how stupid and out of touch we are.........and curse also at times. If I have to change my usual tone of dialogue to connect and make points with these hampsters, then I will. You succeeded in wasting about two pages of this thread with your nonsense about keeping it clean. If you want clean debate, go to a site that is moderated to your liking. However, I for one love the fact that The Nation allows us to discuss, debate, and yes.........even vent when appropriate, and if I choose to holler a resounding Fuck You to a hippocritical winger here and there, then so be it.

     Posted by jpolston at 08/24/2006 @ 11:40am

581. civility has it's place

     not only does civility have its place, it is the sine qua non of reasoned discourse. those who heap abuse on others are not accomplishing ANYTHING, except wallowing in anger. if you want to emulate creeps like Barry25 and his ilk, go right ahead, but don't pretend that this is acceptable.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 11:43am

582. Polston, the use of the word bullshit is not the issue.I have been clear about what I object to. that I am not always able to live up to my ideals, does not mean I have to wallow in the filth that seems to have become the norm around here. unlike some I am not a sophomore mentally. as for telling me to go elsewhere if I don't like it, that is YOUR stalinist mindset, and I have heard that many times before, usually from right wing ideologues. so you may continue to splash about in the cesspool of your creation, but I will not stop calling you, plural, on it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 11:50am

583. Good info on force feeding. Enough to make me change my intial reaction. I guess I was only thinking of its use in situations involving medical needs. Probably a dumb assumption on my part.

     Regards.

     Posted by HMAN23

     HMAN...

     Now obviously if the doctors are jerking the feeding tube up and down to inflict pain it would be considered torture.

     But what about force feeding someone who is trying to kill themselves?...if a prisoner was starving himself, would you force feed him (the same way a doctor would a patient) or would you let him starve himself to the point of death?

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 11:53am

584. Johan

     Interesting reaction...........I was not stating that you should go elsewhere, I was saying it was you option to do so if you feel the speech here has gotten to raunchy for your liking. I rather enjoy most of your posts, but if you object to the sarcasm and content here, you are free to ingnore it or skip right past it. I was rather shocked to see anyone here attack the freedom of speech.........I personally dont agree with much of the rhetoric on this site, and the Rese/Plunger cut and paste's arent to my liking, but I dont have the gumption to tell them to not post here, or to attempt to tell them what they should or shouldnt say.

     Posted by jpolston at 08/24/2006 @ 12:17pm

585. I got plenny of gumption. it is my option to challenge posters from either side to show some maturity.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 12:30pm

586. Polston:".I was not stating that you should go elsewhere, I was saying it was you option to do so if you feel the speech here has gotten to raunchy for your liking."

     hypocritical double talk.

     I'll translate: if you don't like america you have the option of moving to France

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 12:51pm

587. "My answer is bring 'em on." --President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003

     Posted by CRABWALK 08/24/2006 @ 10:33am

     Very interesting charge from the Maximum Leader ...

     ... Since even the most mousse- and cologne-saturated pedicured French metrosexual panzy shares Bush's stunning combat record in 'Nam back when the Maximum Leader was of prime fighting age and Asia was haunted by the ominous marxian "spectre": Namely, Bush and the aforedescribed, contemptible panzy share none-nada-zippo-zilch combat record.

     Yes, bring them on ... from the servents' quarters to the front lines, quickly please since The Masters get impatient when orders are not followed ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/24/2006 @ 1:04pm

588. Oh, you cynics and naysayers fail to appreciate W is not some pawn upon whom history operates; he is a maker of history, the creater of his own reality.

     You people in the reality-based community either lack the will or the imagination to make-up the reality you desire. W is not hindered by such weakness. Saddam was making WMDs. He did support Al Qaeda. The Iraqis do want to have democracy. The terrorists hate us for our freedom.

     W's administration is inaugurating a new American Dream. Unlike the old one, this one can be had by all immediately not by the few only after decades of hard work. To obtain the new American Dream, one just needs to stand by W and ascend into Fantasyland!

     Pppptththththp.

     Posted by cynic at 08/24/2006 @ 1:24pm

589. I am not always able to live up to my ideals, does not mean I have to wallow in the filth that seems to have become the norm around here.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/24/2006 @ 11:50am |

     "Heap abuse on others?" "Wallow in filth"? "Splash about in the cesspool of creation"?

     That's a tad extreme, as far as I'm concerned, but then, I wasn't the one talking about sleeping with other posters' wives like your "friend Maasch". To me, THAT is truly offensive "filth".

     The rest is just curse words - I stopped being shocked (or even titillated) by those somewhere around high school. I use them now when they're appropriate as is my right as a free-speaking (damn that free spech - ain't it a bitch?) American adult, and as is often necessitated by certain individuals who deserve no better.

     And I happen to appreciate sophomoric humor, hell, humor in most any form, really.

     Beats hate.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 1:44pm

590. Polston:".I was not stating that you should go elsewhere, I was saying it was you option to do so if you feel the speech here has gotten to raunchy for your liking."

     hypocritical double talk.

     I'll translate: if you don't like america you have the option of moving to France

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/24/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

     Hypocritical double talk...........how's that. You do have the option of hitting ignore or moving on and not reading. If you had your way apparently my dialogue would be censored. Then my thoughts wouldnt be heard, and the freedom to express myself on this site is hindered. Based on what I've seen since posting began here.........The Nation is on my side Johan.

     What's interesting is that our posts are on the same page most of the time. Why are you so worked up about attempting to limit speech all of the sudden. Why are you running to the defense of Maasch or any other nonsensical righty on this site. I'm tired of attempting to make logical arguments with righties........there is no logic that I see in their "new vision" of what the world should be. If I feel like belittling them or telling them to shut the fuck up, I have that right. Who are you to tell me how I should interact with anyone else. Are you the voice of logical thought for this site...........are your posts any more intelligent than many of the others I read here............the answer is yes and no. Understand that I am with you on trying to further an intelligent and thoughtful discourse on this site. However, if I choose to insinuate that Maasch pleasures himself in a moment of my own frustration over his ridiculous posts, isnt that my right?

     Posted by jpolston at 08/24/2006 @ 1:46pm

591. But what about force feeding someone who is trying to kill themselves?...if a prisoner was starving himself, would you force feed him (the same way a doctor would a patient) or would you let him starve himself to the point of death?

     Posted by JOHN B 08/24/2006 @ 11:53am

     Knew this question was coming...

     At the risk of sounding completely barbaric, if he's a terrorist convicted of killing Americans and he wants to starve himself to death, let him. No, wait, not convicted, not even charged...

     As to the "force-feed him as a doctor would a patient"...

     Again, Article 5 of the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration, which US doctors are legally bound to observe through their membership of the American Medical Association, states that doctors must not undertake force-feeding under any circumstances.

     Someone please correct me if am using irrelevant or outdated information.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 1:48pm

592. I will try to make my thoughts more eloquent in the future for you though Johan..........I wont type the first legitimate thought I have any more. First, I'll type my original thoughts...........then I'll hit preview so I can re-read my post and decide whether it is the kind of content that you might find intellectually stimulating. Only after a couple of careful moments of deliberation will I hit submit.........once I'm certain it has passed the Johannesrolf school of etiquette test. LOL

     Posted by jpolston at 08/24/2006 @ 1:54pm

593. Knew this question was coming...

     New Dawn...

     I personally agree with letting them starve if they choose to, however, there would need to be a verification that it is there choice. Either by the Red Cross, UN, Human rights watch, Amnesty Intl. or someone else along those lines. Otherwise they could starve themselves and then tell the media they were forced to go without food.

     As for the force feeding medical issue, correct me if I am wrong, but if a person is injured to the point that they cannot eat by normal means... aren't they fed by the same method... i.e. tube down nose? (NOTE: I do not know the answer and I am legitimately asking for help with the answer)

     Or does the hospital have to get consent from a relative before they are able to do this? Maybe that is the difference?

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 2:07pm

594. John -

     I agree on monitoring by the Red Cross (who, incidentally, has been refused access to detainees, if I understand correctly).

     And I do not class a person injured to the point of an inability to eat as being "force-fed". Certainly, they are not willing and cognizant enough to approve such a measure, but you can rest assured that the detainees starving themselves as a means of protest are absolutely not willingly accepting such treatment, either, and are, in fact, against it.

     I think there's a profound ethical difference between the two scenarios.

     Can anyone comment on IV and tube-feeding permissions - do they have to come from a relative or the like?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:15pm

595. "If you had your way apparently my dialogue would be censored."

     this is a lie. when I ask you to stop an idiotic thing I am not advocating, that you be prevented from doing so.

     "Why are you running to the defense of Maasch or any other nonsensical righty on this site."

     this also false. I am not defending anyone, I just think to childish peepee and kaka rhetoric have no place in the discussion of adults. you have been playing loose and fast with your accusations of me.

     "The Nation is on my side Johan."

     no they are not. "Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks."

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 2:15pm

596. Apologies for some sloppy grammar in my above post.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:15pm

597. Polston, sarcasm is not your strong suit.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 2:16pm

598. I've never seen anybody but Johanne say "pee-pee" or "kaka" on this site.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:16pm

599. Dawn, I was lowering myself to the tone of some of the posts I object to. that was the level of discourse here recently.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 2:19pm

600. "I agree on monitoring by the Red Cross (who, incidentally, has been refused access to detainees, if I understand correctly). "

     New Dawn... not positive on that either, but I think the only group allowed to see the detainees is the Red Cross. All others are denied access. I think (again not positive) that the issue brought up by the Red Cross is that they haven't been allowed to see the detainees without "supervision". Also not sure if the Geneva Convention covers the with/without supervision part.

     I agree the detainees certainly wanted no part of the force feeding, but absent the third party verification of their wishes, I can understand why the force feeding occured. They didn't want to be accused later of starving the detainees.

     That said, it took me all of three seconds to come up with the third party verification idea... which does again make you wonder about a lack of planning. How hard can it really be?

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 2:23pm

601. Jo -

     I think you're making much of little. Ignore the posts you don't like - you know you aren't going to change anyone here, or force them to "elevate" their level of discourse to yours.

     And I can't help but feel you might be including me in that whole "wallowing in filth" thing, so maybe I'm taking your suggestions that folks censor themselves a little personally. While you and I both know I'm no stranger to profanity or a colorful metaphor, I certainly wouldn't class my words as "wallowing in filth".

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:24pm

602. pee-pee

     KAKA

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 2:24pm

603. That said, it took me all of three seconds to come up with the third party verification idea... which does again make you wonder about a lack of planning. How hard can it really be?

     Posted by JOHN B 08/24/2006 @ 2:23pm

     Lack of planning - this adminsitration's strong suit, and a common complaint (at least recently) from almost all sides of the political spectrum.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:25pm

604. Posted by JOHN B 08/24/2006 @ 2:24pm

     Rabble-rouser.

     ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:26pm

605. John B. -

     Re: force feeding, I largely agree with your position. I would not advocate force feeding - subject to some sort of independent check to make sure mental illness, etc. is not at play. I am not comfortable with the decision being made by a corrections officer or anyone else in a position adverse to the prisoner. If the person is judged to be of sound mind and there are no other overriding factors influencing the prisoner, I say it is his choice and she should be allowed to starve himself to death. But on the other hand, what happens if a wrongfully imprisoned person goes this route? Probably a huge lawsuit, so I can see where officials would rather err on the side of keeping the person alive.

     It's a dicey issue. I am not sure I have all the answers (even in my own head).

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2006 @ 2:27pm

606. Dawn, And I can't help but feel you might be including me in that whole "wallowing in filth" thing,

     might? you're accusing me on the basis of might? again I was very specific as to what I object to, despite a concerted effort of yours and others to shout me down.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 2:32pm

607. Johanne -

     No one has tried to "shout you down", and I don't appreciate being characterized as doing so.

     I also didn't "accuse" you of anything - I said I "couldn't help but feel" that you might be including me, since I curse like a stop-lossed sailor at times. You seem to be interpreting that sort of thing as "filthy" and "playing the cesspool". I don't.

     You seem to me to be being quite reactionary and really protesting too much, and also seem to be lashing out, even at your friends, and I don't understand why. I've never seen you complain like you've been doing recently, even to the numerous right-wingers here who are far more profane than anything I've ever written.

     Your defensiveness speaks volumes about you, but not so much about me. Please hold the projecting down to a minimum (a request, not an order, which you aren't required to follow any more than anyone here is required to follow your idea of decency).

     If I'm not your friend, I stand corrected. I won't respond to you again if it pisses you off.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:40pm

608. But on the other hand, what happens if a wrongfully imprisoned person goes this route? Probably a huge lawsuit, so I can see where officials would rather err on the side of keeping the person alive.

     It's a dicey issue. I am not sure I have all the answers (even in my own head).

     Posted by HMAN23 08/24/2006 @ 2:27pm

     Which is why determining whether they were wrongly imprisoned would be a good first step, yes?

     Bring on the trials!

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:42pm

609. But on the other hand, what happens if a wrongfully imprisoned person goes this route? Probably a huge lawsuit, so I can see where officials would rather err on the side of keeping the person alive.

     It's a dicey issue. I am not sure I have all the answers (even in my own head).

     Posted by HMAN23

     I think the third party verification would help allieviate the "liability" to an extent. Because then if a mentally healthy individual chose the route, then it was done by choice.

     Again, I agree that it is a difficult decision.... and I most certainly do not have the answers either. Just putting out thoughts to provoke discussion in the hopes that maybe a solution can be found.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 2:49pm

610. Dawn, I'm not pissed. and you keep trying to make this about you. it is not. this was originally my beef with Orwell. we have since moved on. I suggest you do the same.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 2:52pm

611. Which is why determining whether they were wrongly imprisoned would be a good first step, yes?

     Bring on the trials!

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     I thought the court decided they were to be treated as prisoners of war now? That means they are there for the duration... unless the government/military come to believe they are actually innocent and release them.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 2:52pm

612. Dawn, I'm not pissed. and you keep trying to make this about you. it is not. this was originally my beef with Orwell. we have since moved on. I suggest you do the same.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/24/2006 @ 2:52pm

     Fair enough, but as a last pick at the scab - it wasn't a big leap to think you might be including me, due to my propensity for profanity.

     We'll call it water under the bridge, and I want to apologize in advance for possibly offending you in the future - that's never my intent, and you know that. I just ain't ready to give up my quiver of f-bomb arrows quite yet. I do promise never to say "pee-pee" or "kaka", though. ;) (John - don't you dare)

     And Jo, what's your take on what John, Hman, and I have been discussing re: force-feeding?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:56pm

613. I thought the court decided they were to be treated as prisoners of war now? That means they are there for the duration... unless the government/military come to believe they are actually innocent and release them.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/24/2006 @ 2:52pm

     Link, please?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:56pm

614. Does a P.O.W. decision seem to be a convenient excuse to continue to detain people taken into custody under dubious circumstances?

     For instance, the administration claimed that everyone detained was arrested on a battlefield, which is simply not true... If I ran a market, and a neighbor told soldiers I was a bad guy and I wasn't, and I was detained anyway, is it right for me to remain detained, even as a "P.O.W.", for nothing?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 2:59pm

615. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR200606 2900928.html

     New Dawn... the court decision that stated detainees must be treated under Geneva Conventions.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 3:22pm

616. Does a P.O.W. decision seem to be a convenient excuse to continue to detain people taken into custody under dubious circumstances?

     For instance, the administration claimed that everyone detained was arrested on a battlefield, which is simply not true... If I ran a market, and a neighbor told soldiers I was a bad guy and I wasn't, and I was detained anyway, is it right for me to remain detained, even as a "P.O.W.", for nothing?

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     To answer the first questions... I do not think it was "convenient" to the administration as it eliminated their ability to have the military tribunals. I think the administration would have certainly prefered the court to rule in their favor.

     As for the second question. The answer is quite obviously no. Which is why I believe so many have been released.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 3:24pm

617. Who is spamming the forums? Page 12-18 correspond to at least one party on my ignore list, I have no idea whom. Page 12 has about 5 posts showing. According to the count, there are 853 posts. How many of these are from angry "conservatives" spamming the place with their outrage at criticism of Dear Leader?

     Posted by ZERO 08/24/2006

     I think it is all relative to the number of people on your ignore list.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 3:38pm

618. Zero -

     Am I on your iggy list?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 3:47pm

619. John -

     "I do not think it was "convenient" to the administration as it eliminated their ability to have the military tribunals. I think the administration would have certainly prefered the court to rule in their favor."

     I'm not so sure about "rulings in their favor"... Think they'd be the minority... and also, there have been more "keepers" than those released, and I doubt the merits of the cases of many who remain detained. With the administration actively working to revoke or revise any need (or law) to determine if they are actually guilty of anything, I'm still troubled, and we may never know if they ever were guilty of anything besides being captured.

     And wingers, don't bother trying to claim I think they're all innocent - far from it.

     Out to lunch now. Pleasure chatting with you today, John.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 3:52pm

620. NewDawn... I would imagine there are certainly some innocent in there still. Just as there are in the prison system. I would hope that they would weed out as many as possible, but no matter what their system... it will not be perfect.

     good chatting with you as always, enjoy your lunch.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 4:02pm

621. Dawn, I haven't given it much thought as I have not been following this argument. in the larger sense I think the Guantanamo prison is an abomination, and a shameful blot on the US. even without the prison, the american "ownership" of the base is is an unwelcome reminder of american imperialism, and should be returned to Cuba. I feel the same about some places in Morocco still under spanish rule, and even St Pierre and Miquelon.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 4:17pm

622. That's it.

     Click.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 4:47pm

623. Too taxing, LL, and you and I are never going to teach each other anything.

     I hereby quit you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 4:57pm

624. Oh my GOD.

     pun intended.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 5:11pm

625. two cubed = the square root of 64

     whew... had to get back to reality.

     Posted by John B at 08/24/2006 @ 5:13pm

626. New Dawn, that's the first time I've ever seen anyone do the "you're ignored" thing after a well written, heartfelt, politely phrased post. Lots of people trash LL because his values are completely outside of what they understand. Based on your posts, I expected more of you.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 08/24/2006 @ 5:39pm

627. Mypara -

     I did not once ridicule, vilify, or condemn LL's admittedly well-written, heartfelt, and politely-phrased post. Hard as it is to believe, he and I have actually had several such heartfelt and well-written exchanges in the past, and I believe that LL would agree.

     My recent posts were not intended to offend and I sincerely hope that LL knows this. God knows my posts that are intended to offend are easily recognizable.

     However, I did say that I find it "too taxing" to continue to debate someone with whom I will never agree on the basis of their motivations for their actions and attitudes.

     While I find it unfortunate that I have disappointed you, Mypara, or made you think less of me, I am not here to please anyone. You are a man whom I sincerely respect and find interesting, but my decision regarding LL cannot be helped. It is what it is.

     As I said, I do not believe that LL and I have anything to teach one another anymore.

     And given, Mypara, that you have seen me nearly lose my mind debating LL repeatedly in the past (God knows I've tried), it surprises me that you would expect me to continue banging my face against this particular brick wall.

     And LL -

     I did ask the questions because I wanted answers, and respected your answer as outlined above to Mypara, but still felt that you fell back on God (which I expected), and that you also offered, yet again, far too many rationales with which I so vehemently disagree that I am not willing to frustrate both of us and the board any longer in trying to make you see things differently.

     I should have clarified that, and I even feel that "click" was rude. For that, I apologize.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 6:06pm

628. By the way, even "click" wasn't literal - my iggy list contains only Rese and Plunger, because really - who has that kind of time or imagination?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 6:08pm

629. Thanks for the respect, and as far as what you just said goes, it's mutual.

     But as I stated when I very first came here, and have several times since, my biggest bone with you and some others on these boards isn't God - it's the use of the terms "left", "liberals", and "Democrats" as a broad-brushed generalization.

     If you've picked up anything from me over the last year, I'd like to think it's that those generalizations are just that. Just because I, or anyone else, is any of thise things, doesn't make me, or them, a traitor, unworthy to lead, unAmerican, or a fool.

     Take care.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 6:18pm

630. So ends another dispute conducted among gentlemen. Find that on some other blog.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 08/24/2006 @ 6:29pm

631. Mypara -

     If ever you call me a gentleman again, I will surely do something ungentlemanly.

     ;)

     G'night, all.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 6:37pm

632. thanks liberty.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 7:24pm

633. Hate to break up the circle jerk here, but dont break your arms patting each other on the back. While it is fine to "agree to disagree", it doesnt change the fact that there is still much disagreement.

     I could take a page out of your playbook Johan, and start treating the righties on this site with more respect.........but I'm not certain that's whats best for the country right now. Republicans have been winning the war of words for the last several years, and I'm starting to believe it's because the left doesnt get fired up enough about the lies and spin. I'm in the process of changing my approach toward Bush apologists.........I'm going to call a spade a spade. If you lie and decieve, I will call you a liar.........and I might even tell you to go fuck yourself. It is time for the left to get angry as hell, and attempt to take this country back from those who are holding her hostage. Civility has a time and a place, and GWB and the neocon brigade have no concept of what it means to treat others like they would want to be treated.

     I can make no further apologies for the righties on this site.........why sit back and treat someone with civility when they are sitting at home watching "segregated survivor" and secretely rooting for the white team to win.

     Posted by jpolston at 08/24/2006 @ 8:44pm

634. Polston -

     I wouldn't call it a circle jerk (and would point out that Len Mosse called it the same thing the other day when theose on the left seemed to be agreeing too much for his tastes...), but I see your point.

     I think I explained myself quite succintly in my 6:06 and my 6:18.

     I am indeed mad as hell, but will not get anywhere "taking it to" the right-wing posters on the Nation's boards. They will not be convinced of our "truths" anymore than we will be convinced of theirs. Time to go back to solely writing and visiting congressmen and women in person.

     (On the very off-chance that they will even listen if our views (meaning the majority of Americans) will even be heard if they are more worried about their political careers than what their constituents think.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 8:57pm

635. And JPolsten - I reached the point where I realized that

     "Republicans have been winning the war of words for the last several years, and I'm starting to believe it's because the left doesnt get fired up enough about the lies and spin. I'm in the process of changing my approach toward Bush apologists.........I'm going to call a spade a spade. If you lie and decieve, I will call you a liar.........and I might even tell you to go fuck yourself"...

     a year ago when I came here.

     And let's see now where it's gotten me with the right-wing posters on this board...

     Nowhere.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 8:59pm

636. Sorry about spelling your name wrong - typing fast.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/24/2006 @ 8:59pm

637. Polston,"why sit back and treat someone with civility when they are sitting at home watching "segregated survivor" and secretely rooting for the white team to win."

     this is a pretty absurd post. how do you know what anyone is watching or thinking.

     it's actually quite simple, treat them as you wish to be treated. no matter who they are. don't lower yourself to someone else's base level. as I said before I don't claim to always being able to live up to my ideals.

     you can be uncompromising without resorting to juvenile obscene riffs.

     since I have been posting here, Bloppy has come around flinging excrement in his inimitable way, actually quite amusing when it isn't aimed at you. he never pretended to do anything but that. but I will not stand by and have the entire tone of the discussion on that level.

     I have been absolutely evenhanded in my criticisms, and there are some who have nothing but this kind of thing to offer and they wind up on the ignore.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 9:00pm

638. Dawn, for me it's not about convincing the other fellow, and changing him or her. no, it's about making your case for the rest of the audience. there was a time here when the discussion was on a very high level, with many facts and much analysis. I'm sure it will be so again, these things go round in circles, which is what I have repeatedly told others who despaired. by all means call a spade a spade, but let's keep the obscenities out of it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 9:06pm

639. That's a shame ND, I actually thought you asked the questions because you legitimately wanted an answer.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2006 @ 5:13pm

     Well, LL I'm not gonna be quite as civil as ND and Johanne. Yeah, you replied to the posited queries...and your answers are same old..same old. A little tip here LL. Most of your longer posts have unerringly started with some form of high falutin attribute to enhance your integrity and standing. Such as:(not direct quotes)

     As a former defense contractor and engineer....CEO etc...

     As a proud Marine...or whatever branch you served in...

     As a member of the GOP Central Committee....?

     Since age 5-6, knew you would "serve" your country...? You can't be serious! Age 5? Little rambo illusions perhaps?

     Ministry serving food baskets in Las Vegas and elsewhere....?

     Insurance salesman?

     Owner of some defunct factory in the Phillipines?

     Many many more....and the clincher is...

     "I also frankly did not expect to survive my time in the military. I had no reservations given that belief either. It was enough to have the opportunity to serve my country as my forefathers had for 200 years"

     You are pathetic LL. Cry me a river. You are a fraud and a disgrace to anyone who cares a smidgen about humanity.

     The best for last perhaps: "I have a calling from God to be a Watchman as was spoken of to the prophet Jeremiah (that doesn't mean I somehow think I am another Jeremiah)."

     That, in and of itself speaks volumes about you.

     You regularly post personally glorifying bits of useless information in hopes of making yourself more credible as a bulwark for the misdeeds of your party. You are sorely losing in that endeavor.

     That bit about your "black" sons..a paramedic and a grapghic designer. What's with the need to identify them as "black"? Again, a ploy to gain some "liberal" vestige of acceptance? NOT. Millions of graduates enter the workforce each year and each is as special as the next. More power to all of them. Yet, you reinforce the fact that they received their drive to succeed from the marines? From your preaching the bible to them? Get off your stallion LL. You have no divine affinity...you are skewed beyond all recognition as a contributing member of society...your rants of self righteousness are not being received with the acceptance you so need to acquire.

     Is this a personal attack? Perhaps. I don't need to smell shit when I see it's shit. Carry on Watchman! You need a very serious dose of the reality pill.

     Posted by doumer at 08/24/2006 @ 9:14pm

640. Doumer, hard hitting, and my sentiments exactly.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2006 @ 9:18pm

641. Liberty, What is the BS with "Scripture" juxtaposed with creepy, anti-humanity militarism? I would guess that you have found some "creative" angle for a write off. Lovely, my little friend...you get a fucking tax break in exchange for someones life.

     Sickening

     Fall awaits,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/24/2006 @ 11:07pm

642. Posted by DOUMER 08/24/2006 @ 9:14pm

     Luvvy said he was an engineer? He doesn't have a degree in engineering.

     he might have a brio setup next to his desk...

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 11:30pm

643. Let us keep the tone as civil as the House of Lords. Our example this evening is one Lord Sandwich addressing one of the unsung heroes of democracy, John Wilkes. An oldie, but a true classic.

     Sandwich: "Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox."

     Wilkes: "That will depend, my lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/24/2006 @ 11:52pm

644. Given circumstances, civility is for fools. (But I enjoyed your post)

     mikolo

     Posted by bloppy at 08/24/2006 @ 11:56pm

645. free speech is free speech folks

     anything else is hamsterland

     Posted by Will C. at 08/25/2006 @ 12:01am

646. Not that I expect a rational answer, but I would love to hear how your attitude is going to win the hearts and minds of moderates and conservatives so you can potentially achieve your goals?

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2006 @ 9:39pm

     We could try dropping bombs and invading their towns and villages, loosing the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings and other "militias" to exert control. We will fail to secure the electric plants and water purification facilities. We will implement a civil code that releases our side from any legal responsibility and then send in 15,000 mercenaries. We will call it The War of Northern Aggression, or maybe Operation American Freedom. Then we will cut and run, because we is librools, and we lack a coherent ideology.

     Got what you expected, right?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/25/2006 @ 12:28am

647. Hi Crabwalk, sounds like a "winning strategy" to me. I suspect that Liberty is mulling it over also, and trying to figure out how he can make the human misery pay him some sort of perverse "rebate".

     Liberty is scarcely better than an unthinking maggot, dining on the contents of the lower strata in your household garbage can.

     Oh well, We are what we eat.

     regards,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 08/25/2006 @ 12:46am

648. Here's a question for a new con: does a corporation have equivalent rights to an individual? Do you favor going to war to save the constitution of our people or of corporations? Who is benefiting from the occupation in Iraq, our people or corporations (MIC)? Which is more important-- personal life or corporate profit? Can a corporation go to war and be killed? Can a corporation die of DU? So why do we allow corporations to petition, lobby the people's congress? Who really benefits when we use up a bunch of equipment, fascilities, weapons, bombs, and then have to buy tons more for a place we didn't have to go, got lied into-- and continue to stay? While bodies pile up in grave after grave, who's profiting? Certainly it's not the dead, dying, maimed or surviving friends and relatives. When corporations buy our government, it's not our nation we're dying for. Patriotism ceases being an issue. The occupation in Iraq should be a symbol of why we must take our government back from the corporations-- stop being their tool, fodder, fuel, food, and eventual excrement. Either we must go back to denying any corporation rights similar to an individual or be owned by them and be used at their will for profit.

     Apologies if these aren't the best prose, but it's been a long day.

     Now I force myself to sleep.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2006 @ 03:03am

649. Bush is a liar and his idiotic answers to questions leads me to believe this is a ploy for a pullout of troops in Iraq so he can move them to Iran. He and his family have already made millions off Iraqi oil and now they want to control the oil resources in Iran.The terrorist card is getting old and I believe the 2006 elections, if not fixed will hopefully provide the American people an outlet to rescind the Patriot Act and impeach all members of the current administration.

     Posted by Pats at 08/25/2006 @ 07:58am

650. Got some Zzzzz's.

     PS. hsuB admin are corporate fluffers. Since hsuB ain't any good at that either needs your help to join on in-- says you're either wit'em or agin'em.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2006 @ 09:14am

651. I have to plead ignorance, what is with "hsuB". What does that mean?

     Unfortunately corporations are granted status in the constitution, but they are also granted immunity in too many areas. There needs to be accountability. We should start with new laws that hold CEO's, COO's, board members and stock holders responsible for the actions of the corp. Radical concept, responsibility.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/25/2006 @ 10:45am

652. Google Results 1 - 10 of 196 for Corporate Personhood versus Democracy (0.30 seconds)

     Corporate Personhood versus Democracy, by William Meyers:

     http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_ thread/thread/8799a08253466796/ 4644690610d4d561%234644690610d4d561

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2006 @ 12:03pm

653. "Stay the course"...That's about all this administration can say without admitting the invasion a complete failure. All the Dems and even some Repubs, along with the American people want from this administration is a plan for Iraq. That's all..Anyone who has been part of program management knows, that a "plan is not a plan without a schedule." Schedule being the time frame to start pulling out of Iraq..This is not unpatriotic..Iraq is in such a disarray that we can't pull out now anyway... What super power that topples another country from false intelligence and now over 3 years of occupancy, that country is in far worse condition before this super power invaded it ?....This is a complete failure, nothing less, nothing more...Incompetence at the highest level of this country and the American people should feel embarrassed. Plain and simple people..."Mission Accomplished" showed just how much this admistration didn't have a clue...."Here's your sign". You've heard of that verse haven't you ? Take a look at an another example right here at home...Katrina !!! Another failure of this administration.....Read the 9/11 commisioner's report people...9/11 should have never happened...Your government has failed you..

     Posted by djmarch at 08/25/2006 @ 12:46pm

654. Posted by DJMARCH 08/25/2006 @ 12:46am

     It may be because it's not the people of the US that the hsuB admin is serving-- that it is still in office and not considered a great failure, but the opposite, Some are making record profits; one should surmize that to those that the government is a great success. The problem then becomes how do they (corporate) convince us (the common citizenry) that that's a good thing and want to participate in our own distruction for their corporate profits... Neat trick if you can get just enough ignorant or sick greedy people as a buffer. One could say that they're fluffer buffers!!+!!+!!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2006 @ 2:22pm

655. I have to plead ignorance, what is with "hsuB". What does that mean?

     Posted by CRABWALK 08/25/2006 @ 10:45am

     A purposefully backwards and way way below par president...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2006 @ 8:48pm

656. And now for a little bit of good news-----

     WASHINGTON (AFP) - Violence in Baghdad has dropped by 40 percent since US and Iraqi troops entered select neighborhoods to clear out cells of Shiite and Sunni extremists, a US brigade commander said.

     Colonel Robert Scurlock said 29 murders had been committed in the Amiriya area of western Baghdad the month leading up to the operation, making it one of the city's most violent.

     But since his troops went in on August 13, only three murders have been reported, he said.

     "In the month of July in Baghdad, there were 52 violent actions a day," he said. "And the two weeks since we began the operations, the attacks have dropped down 41 percent."

     Scurlock commands the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, which is responsible for western Baghdad, a 300-square-kilometer (116-sq-mi) area with a population of nearly 1.3 million people.

     He said about 3,500 US troops were operating in western Baghdad alongside 5,000 Iraqi troops, roughly double the number of troops there before the operation began in early August.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2006 @ 9:55pm

657. Len,

     Looking at the monthly/daily totals, you tell me if there's any kind of a pattern. Looks rather chaotic. Most you can do now and again is hope there's less killed than the month before. But then it stops happening and goes the other way. One thing is for certain, prior to 2005, only 1300 Iraqi military/police had been killed, since then 3934, 12,000 civilians. Before the month is even up, 151 Iraqi military/police, 644 civilians. That's already more police/military killed than June and there's still 6 more shity days to go. It's down for now-- that's good. But...

     http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

     UPDATED: 2006-08-25 02:58:58 MST

     By AP

     BAGHDAD -- A series of attacks across Iraq killed more than a dozen people, including three U.S. soldiers, authorities said yesterday.

     The killings came despite assurances from U.S. officials that progress was being made to improve security in the capital.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2006 @ 11:05pm

658. Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/25/2006 @ 9:55pm

     lets' see... twice as many troops... less violence...

     retard, the other night you were saying that more troops creates a larger footprint and causes more resentment plus it makes more targets for the insurgency?

     boy you're dumb

     Posted by Will C. at 08/25/2006 @ 11:13pm

659. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/25/2006 @ 11:05pm

     can this be? fewer troops and more violence erupts?

     len, are you catching any of this?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/25/2006 @ 11:15pm

660. However, speaking of number of dead-- look at this graph of our troop fatalities:

     http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

     If one studies the over all ups and downs, a pattern emerges and one notices a slight leveling out of the curve and duration, but not necessarily a decease as there's a pattern of ups and downs that are consistent, i.e.:

     1. first 3 months, 58 average (March-May'03) high 2. next 4 months, 36 (June-Sept'03) low 3. next 4 months, 53 (Oct-Jan'04) high 4. next 5 months, 62 (Feb-June'04) higher 5. next 5 months, 61 (July-Oct'04) same 6 next 5 months, 81 (Nov-March'05) high 7. next 6 months, 66 (April-Sept'05) low 8. next 6 months, 66 (Oct-March'06) same 9. next 6 months, 55 (April-Sept'06) low

     Since the pattern has been getting more consistent and ‘if' command does not change their tactics too radically, (which is the opposite of what they should be doing), Oct-Nov looks like a spike, but shouldn't be as high as the one during Nov-March'05. Hopefully, they redeploy our troops to the borders or keep them held back just for support-- if only for the November vote to keep the number of fatalities down. It'd be smart, but then it's the hsuB admin…

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2006 @ 02:31am

661. Sorry, formatted:

     1. first 3 months, 58 average (March-May'03) high

     2. next 4 months, 36 (June-Sept'03) low

     3. next 4 months, 53 (Oct-Jan'04) high

     4. next 5 months, 62 (Feb-June'04) higher

     5. next 5 months, 61 (July-Oct'04) same

     6. next 5 months, 81 (Nov-March'05) high

     7. next 6 months, 66 (April-Sept'05) low

     8. next 6 months, 66 (Oct-March'06) same

     9. next 6 months, 55 (April-Sept'06) low

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2006 @ 08:59am

662. this is good, Fools, but the biggest price in life and death is paid by the Iraqis. and they will continue to pay long after the americans are gone.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2006 @ 1:56pm

663. JR,

     Yes, of course you are correct, DU, scares, trauma, hatreds... I just started peicing this together but I have another scheduled engagement I have to attend to-- this is what I have so far:

     Average Death Rate in Iraq

     Period_________Date______ US military ___Iraqi military___civilians

     first 3 months, (March-May'03)___58_________?????_______1850*

     next 4 months, (June-Sept'03)___36_________?????________178

     next 4 months, (Oct-Jan'04)_____53_________?????_________85

     next 5 months, (Feb-June'04)____62_________?????________229

     next 5 months, (July-Oct'04)_____61_________?????________442

     &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

     next 6 months, (April-Sept'05)-___66__________262_______?????

     next 6 months, (Oct-March'06)____66__________187_______?????

     next 6 months, (April-Sept'06)____55__________169_______?????

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2006 @ 3:21pm

664. Rawwwwwk. Dumbya wants a cracker. 9/11. Stay the course. Hard work. Awwwwwwk. Whee-hew

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2006 @ 6:25pm

665. I'm 'not' doing quarterly stats because that's an artificially imposed pattern rather than looking at the actual results. Look at the graph stated earlier and you can see a pattern that's getting less chaotic and longer in duration. All my numbers are correct (sans percentage points) per the info I'm looking at:

     http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

     http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

     http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

     The first question then becomes-- is the pattern self imposed and adjustable or is it strictly external and at least predictable? The other question is one that answers whether a civil war is growing, limited or decreasing-- if our casualty numbers are coming down while the Iraqis increase incrementally that says it's growing and our troops are at least trying to stay out of the way and should leave. If everyone's number of dead were coming down-- that would be great, one could say even hopeful. Unfortunately, the numbers are looking the opposite...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2006 @ 9:36pm

666. ...and to see the monetary costs of the war that never ends.... Cost of war

     for a look at the month by month US casualties: War

     and lets not forget the 40,000+ Iraqi civilians dead since "Iraqi Freedom" started. guess they're "really free" now Dead

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2006 @ 9:38pm

667. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/26/2006 @ 9:38pm

     You'd think with all the unregistered weapons floating around Iraq...it would be a much safer place.

     (Another piece of hamster dogma bites the dust)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/26/2006 @ 9:56pm

668. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/26/2006 @ 9:36pm

     The US has begun flying its troops and supplies around in modified C-130's whenever possible as a means of cutting down on American casualties.

     This probably accounts for a decent part of any drop in US casualty figures in despite of the increased violence in Iraq

     Posted by Will C. at 08/26/2006 @ 10:13pm

669. scratch in

     Posted by Will C. at 08/26/2006 @ 10:14pm